Sentences in which each of the coordinated noun phrases has its own determiner are in principle eligible for the two analyses in (376). In (376a) it is assumed that backward conjunction reduction has taken place, which results in the coordinated antecedent reading, that is, the reading where the relative clause is interpreted as a modifier of both adjuncts. In (376b), no conjunction reduction is assumed, and in this structure the relative clause modifies only the second conjunct, which results in the non-coordinated antecedent reading. For convenience, the scope of the relative clause is indicated by boldface.

Assuming conjunction reduction is necessary to account for the availability of the coordinated antecedent reading, since restrictive relative clauses are part of the NP-domain and hence do not take the determiner in their scope; it is therefore not possible to construct a structure in which the two conjuncts are both in the scope of the relative clause without also including at least the second determiner. Although we will see in Section 3.3.2.4.2, sub II, that the conjunction reduction analysis is not without its problems, we will provisionally adopt it since it will enable us to highlight certain problems related to the adjunction site of relative clauses.

Non-restrictive relative clauses differ markedly from the restrictive ones, in that it is never necessary to appeal to conjunction reduction in order to account for the coordinated antecedent reading; we could simply assume the structures in (377). In (377a) the relative clause modifies the two conjuncts, which is possible given that non-restrictive relative clauses do take the determiner in their scope. In (377b), on the other hand, the relative clause only modifies the second conjunct. The scope of the relative clause is again indicated by boldface.