is the phrase "Leading To" a coordinating conjunction? [closed]

I read that it is a rule of thumb to use a comma before any coordinating conjunctions that link two independent clauses (I have issues with knowing when to add a comma).

for example, I have the sentence:

...If the government refused to invest any money in the arts, there would be much more leftover from public service fundings, leading to improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare.

There is a comma before the leading to, does that mean leading to is a coordinating conjunction?

Solution 1:

If the government refused to invest any money in the arts, there would be much more leftover from public service fundings, [leading to improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare].

No: "leading to" is not a conjunction, and the clause "leading to improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare" is not an independent one. It is introduced by "leading", which is a participle not a tensed verb-form, so the clause must be a dependent one.

The clause is functioning as an adjunct with a resultative interpretation. We understand that improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare would be the result of there being much more leftover from public service fundings.

The comma marks the boundary between the adjunct and what precedes it, serving to indicate that it does not combine with the latter to form a constituent.

Solution 2:

No, leading to is not a conjunction.

Warning: Grammar terms vary . . .

Leading can be characterized as a reduction of which would lead:

If the government refused to invest any money in the arts, there would be much more leftover from public service fundings, which would lead to improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare.

Which would lead to improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare is an example of what grammarian and English professor Richard Nordquist calls a sentence relative clause (ThoughtCo — Relative Clause Definition and Examples in English).

The sentence relative clause refers not to the noun in front of it but to the whole proposition: There would be much more leftover from public service fundings, and this (much more leftover from public service fundings) would lead to improvements in education.

Your sentence relative clause has then been “reduced” in the manner that relative clauses are: by removing the relative pronoun (which) and changing the verb to a participle:

If the government refused to invest any money in the arts, there would be much more leftover from public service fundings, leading to improvements in education, healthcare, and welfare.

Knowing that this a relative clause, you can further the understand the use of the comma by looking into the difference between the relative pronouns which and that and nonessential and essential clauses.