Cover not available

In:Micro- and Macro-variation of Causal Clauses: Synchronic and Diachronic Insights
Edited by Łukasz Jędrzejowski and Constanze Fleczoreck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 231] 2023
► pp. 167–183

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 6
Expressing non-volitional causality in English

 | Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
 | Saarland University, Germany
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.231.06hoe
Abstract
English because is assumed to be polysemous in that it can be used to mark causal relations in all domains. The current study examines this claim and explores the suitability of because to mark non-volitional content relations. In a parallel corpus study, we investigate how causal relations translated into Dutch using doordat (prototypically marking non-volitional causal relations), omdat (marking content relations), and want (marking epistemic and speech act relations) were originally expressed in English. The results show that while omdat and want are indeed typically translations of because in English, non-volitional doordat is not. A qualitative analysis reveals that non-volitional causality is more often expressed in English in a single discourse unit or using a connective restricted to the content domain. These findings have important consequences for the presumed domain generality of English because and call for a reconsideration of English translation recommendations for doordat.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method: parallel corpus study
    • 2.1Corpus data
    • 2.2Annotating the English source text equivalents of doordat
    • 2.3Annotation procedure
    • 2.4Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Quantitative analysis: because as source text equivalent of doordat, omdat, and want
    • 3.2Qualitative analysis: source text equivalents of doordat
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Alicke, Mark D. 1992. Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3): 368–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneloes R., Mak, Willem M. & Sanders, Ted J. M. 2013. Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(9): 1394–1413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Lynn & Marcu, Daniel. 2001. Discourse tagging reference manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545 54: 1–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, Zufferey, Sandrine, Meyer, Thomas & Popescu-Belis, Andrei. 2011. How comparable are parallel corpora? Measuring the distribution of general vocabulary and connectives. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora: Comparable Corpora and the Web, Pierre Zweigenbaum, Reinhard Rapp & Serge Sharoff (eds), 78–86. Stroudsburg PA: ACL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine. 2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency: Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers [Pragmatics & Beyond Series New Series 286]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine, Abuczki, Ágnes, Burkšaitienė, Nijolė, Furkó, Péter, Nedoluzhko, Anna, Rackevičienė, Sigita, Valūnaitė Oleškevičienė, Giedrė & Zikánová, Šárka. 2019. Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics 142: 139–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2000. Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints. Journal of Pragmatics 32(6): 687–707. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Pander Maat, Henk. 2003. A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. LOT Occasional Series 1: 175–199.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Hoek, Jet & Scholman, Merel C. J. 2017. On temporality in discourse annotation: Theoretical and practical considerations. Dialogue & Discourse 8(2): 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasebe, Yoichiro. 2015. Design and implementation of an online corpus of presentation transcripts of TED talks. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 24: 174–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet, Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted J. M. 2018. Segmenting discourse: Incorporating interpretation into segmentation? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(2): 357–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Using the cognitive approach to coherence relations for discourse annotation. Dialogue & Discourse 10(2): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet, Zufferey, Sandrine, Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted J. M. 2017. Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 121: 113–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel G. B. & Keil, Frank C. 2014. Causal inference and the hierarchical structure of experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(6): 2223–2241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Tenth Machine Translation Summit (MT Summit X), 79–86. Phuket, Thailand.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lagnado, David A. & Channon, Shelley. 2008. Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition 108(3): 754–770. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leppihalme, Ritva. 1997. Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions [Topics in Translation 10]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia & Degand, Liesbeth. 2017. Just because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives. Dialogue & Discourse 8(1): 132–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Fang, Sanders, Ted J. M. & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2016. On the subjectivity of Mandarin reason connectives: Robust profiles or genre-sensitivity. In Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 33], Ninke Strukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds), 15–50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8(3): 243–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk & Degand, Liesbeth. 2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3): 211–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk & Sanders, Ted J. M. 2000. Domains of use or subjectivity? The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives [Topics in English Linguistics 33], Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 57–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective: Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French [Utrecht Studies in Languageand Communication 17]. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rehbein, Ines, Scholman, Merel C. J. & Demberg, Vera. 2016. Annotating discourse relations in spoken language: A comparison of the PDTB and CCR frameworks. In Proceedings of the 10th international Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 23–28. Portoroz, Slovenia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Rooij, J. 1982. ‘Omdat’ en ‘doordat’ in het Nederlands. Nieuwe Taalgids 75(4): 329–342.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Toulouse, France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Spooren, Wilbert P. M. S. 2015. Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics 53(1): 53–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M., Spooren, Wilbert P. M. S. & Noordman, Leo G. M. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1): 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santana Covarrubias, Andrea. 2019. Is porque more like because or like omdat: An exploration of causality and subjectivity in Spanish backward causal connectives. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Stukker, Ninke, Sanders, Ted J. M. & Verhagen, Arie. 2008. Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 40(7): 1296–1322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54]. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dale. 2020. Van Dale NL-EN dictionary. <[URL]> (30 October 2020).
Webber, Bonnie, Prasad, Rashmi, Lee, Alan & Joshi, Aravind. 2019. The Penn Discourse Treebank 3.0 Annotation Manual. <[URL]> (4 September 2022).
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue