Cover not available

In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 30, Frankfurt
Edited by Ingo Feldhausen, Martin Elsig, Imme Kuchenbrandt and Mareike Neuhaus
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15] 2019
► pp. 93–112

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
Point of view on causal clauses

The case of French parce que and puisque

 | Harvard University
Published online: 9 October 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.15.05cha
Abstract
This paper uses the case study of French clauses introduced by parce que ‘because’ and puisque ‘since’ to argue that causal clauses are intrinsically perspectival: the causal relation that they express is established by a causal judge. Perspectival effects in causal clauses indicate that the referential possibilities of this judge depend on the structural level of attachment of causal clauses, which can modify Verb Phrases, Evidential Phrases or Speech Act Phrases. This supports the hypothesis that the causal judge is syntactically represented as a silent argument of the causal subordinator that must be bound within its clause. The presence of this judge argument explains why logophoric elements can appear in causal clauses.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Three types of causal clauses
    • 2.1Distinguishing between eventive and evidential causal clauses
    • 2.2Distinguishing between evidential and speech act causal clauses
  • 3.Perspectival effects in causal clauses
    • 3.1Perspective in parce que-clauses
    • 3.2Perspective in puisque-clauses
    • 3.3Analysis
  • 4.Causal clauses in attitude contexts
    • 4.1Embedded parce que-clauses
    • 4.2Embedded puisque-clauses
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (32)
References
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De De Se. Ph.D. Dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Valentine Hacquard. 2013. “Epistemics and Attitudes”. Semantics and Pragmatics 6 (8): 1–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antomo, Mailin. 2009. “Interpreting Embedded Verb Second. Causal modifiers in German”. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVII: 27–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2017. “Exempt Anaphors and Logophoricity in French”. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12. Selected papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Campinas, Brazil, ed. by Ruth E. V. Lopes, Juanito Ornelas de Avelar, and Sonia M. L. Cyrino, 15–28. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Perspectives in Causal Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory: 1–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. to appear. “French Causal puisque-clauses in the light of (not)-at-issueness.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory – Selected papers from the 47th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL47), Newark, Delaware. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Charnavel, Isabelle, and Dominique Sportiche. 2016. “Anaphor Binding – What French Inanimate Anaphors Show.” Linguistic Inquiry 47 (1): 35–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, George N.. 1975. “The Logophoric Pronoun in Ewe: Its Role in Discourse”. Journal of West African Languages 10: 141–177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culy, Christopher. 1994. “Aspects of Logophoric Marking”. Linguistics 32: 1055–1094. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley, and Robert Hamilton. 1998. “Epithets as Antilogophoric Pronouns”. Linguistic Inquiry 29 (4): 685–693. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1983. “Puisque: essai de description polyphonique”. Revue romane 24: 166–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quecha. Ph.D. Dissertation: Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groupe Lambda-1. 1975. “Car, parce que, puisque”. Revue Romane 10: 248–280.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. “Conditional Clauses: External and Internal Syntax”. Mind and Language 18 (4): 317–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Virginia Hill. 2013. “The Syntacticization of Discourse”. In Syntax and its Limits, ed. by Raffaella R. Folli, Christina Sevdali, and Robert Truswell, 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James, and C.-S. Luther Liu. 2001. “Logophoricity, Attitudes, and Ziji at the Interface”. Long-Distance Reflexives 33: 141–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnston, Michael James Robert. 1994. The Syntax and Semantics of Adverbial Adjuncts. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1989. “Pronouns, Logical Variables and Logophoricity in Abe”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 555–589.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2014. “Embedding Illocutionary Acts”. In Recursion: Complexity in Cognition, ed. by Tom Roeper, and Margaret Speas, 59–87. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David K.. 1973. “Causation”. Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah E.. 2010. Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech acts. PhD Dissertation: Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oshima, David Y.. 2007. “Motion Deixis, Indexicality, and Presupposition”. In Proceedings of SALT 16: 172–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rutherford, William. 1970. “Some Observations concerning Subordinate Clauses in English”. Language 46: 97–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1990. “En et y: deux clitiques pronominaux antilogophoriques”. Langages 97: 51–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 1991. “Causal and Purposive Clauses”. In Semantik –Semantics. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung – An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. by Armin von Stechow, and Dieter Wunderlich, 623–631. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. “Aspects of Logophoricity”. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–79.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheffler, Tatjana. 2008. Semantic operators in different dimensions. PhD Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret, and Carol L. Tenny. 2003. “Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles”. In Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and Semantics, ed. by Anna Maria Di Sciullo, 315–344. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2004. “Evidentiality, Logophoricity and the Syntactic Representation of Pragmatic Features”. Lingua 114: 255–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. “Judge Dependence, Epistemic Modals, and Predicates of Personal Taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1976. “Reflexives and Subjunctives in Icelandic”. Sixth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society: 225–239.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue