Causation and Reasoning Constructions

| University of Tsukuba, Japan
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027202468 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027262714 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
 
Causation and reasoning are different but related types of relationships. Both causal relations and reasoning processes may be expressed with one and the same connective word in some languages: English speakers use because and Japanese speakers use kara. How then are causation and reasoning processes related to and different from each other? How do we construe and encode them? How is because different from other conjunctions with similar meanings?
To account for these and related empirical questions, this book presents an integrated analysis in accordance with the original principles of Construction Grammar. In particular, the book shows that the analysis proposed is compatible with our general knowledge about causation and reasoning and that it is valid for English and Japanese. The proposed analysis is also comprehensively applicable to a variety of related phenomena, ranging from the just because X doesn’t mean Y construction to the innovative and less known because X construction.
[Constructional Approaches to Language, 25]  2019.  xi, 196 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–8
Chapter 2. Previous studies: From gestalt to construction
9–38
List of abbreviations
Chapter 3. Constructions of causation and reasoning
39–70
Chapter 4. Focalizations of because- and since-clauses
71–86
Chapter 5. causal Construction and reasoning Construction in Japanese
87–108
Chapter 6. Constructions of metalinguistic reasons
109–129
Chapter 7. Analogy in construction grammar: The case of just because of X doesn’t mean Y
131–145
Chapter 8. Innovative use of because
147–172
Chapter 9. Conclusion
173–182
References
183–191
Construction Index
Subject index
“In summary, Kanetani’s monograph is a valuable contribution to the grammatical expression of causal relations and reasoning processes in English. At the same time, it is a fine contribution to the Construction Grammar literature, showing the potential of this theoretical framework to account for both ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ linguistic phenomena.”
References

References

Akaso, Noriyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi
(2011) On the categorial status of Japanese relative clauses. English Linguistics 28(1), 91–106.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian
(1984) Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(1), 1–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bender, Emily and Andreas Kathol
(2001) Constructional effects of just becausedoesn’t Insert Benveniste between Bender and Biber mean …. BLS 27, 13–25.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile
(1971) Problems in general linguistics [trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek]. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane and Robyn Carston
(1999) The pragmatics of and-conjunctions: The non-narrative case. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11 [online] (accessed on August 20 2018) <http://​www​.phon​.ucl​.ac​.uk​/publications​/WPL​/99papers​/blakemore​_carston​.pdf.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. and Juliette Blevins
(2009) Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In James P. Blevins and Juliette Blevins (Eds.) Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp.1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(ed.) (2010) Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. and Ivan Sag
(eds.) (2012) Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI publishing.Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel
(2016) Language change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. In Lauren Squires (Ed.) English in computer-mediated communication: Variation, representation, and change (pp.149–178). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L.
(1971) The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1977) Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, Ann L.
(1978) Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bullock, Merry, Rochel Gelman, and Renée Baillargeon
(1982) The development of causal reasoning. In William J. Friedman (Ed.) The developmental psychology of time (pp.209–254). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cambridge International Dictionary of English (1995) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
(2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions?. In Ilse Depraetere and Raphael Salkie (Eds.) Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp.115–152). Berlin: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallance
(1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.) Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp.35–53). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
(1984) How people use adverbial clauses. BLS 10, 437–449.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
(1986) Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 4th edition (2003) Glasgow: HarparCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
Carey, Stan
(2013) “Because” has become a preposition, because grammar. A blog post to Sentence First on November 13 2013 (accessed on December 15 2016) <http://​stancarey​.wordpress​.com​/2013​/11​/13/Google Scholar
Croft, William
(2001) Radical construction grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William and Allen Cruse
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, Alan D.
(2011) Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics [3rd edition]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara
(1998) Conditionals and prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser
(2000) Constructions with if, since, and because: Causality, Epistemic stance and clause order. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortman (Eds.) Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.111–142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions 3 works by Davies between Dancygier and Diewald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
(2004-) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at https://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/bnc/.Google Scholar
(2008-) The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at https://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/.Google Scholar
(2013) Corpus of global web-based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). Available online at https://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/glowbe/.Google Scholar
Diewald, Garbriele
(2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2), 365–390.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E.
(1970) Root and structure-preserving transformation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
(1985) Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fielding, Helen
(1996) Bridget Jones’s diary. London: Picador.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
(1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. BLS 1, 123–131.Google Scholar
(1982) Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hnashin.Google Scholar
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
(1988) The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. BLS 14, 35–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Berkeley construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffman and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.111–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Beryl T. Atokins
(1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors. In Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay (Eds.) Frame, fields, and contrast: New essays in lexical organization (pp.31–59). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay
(1993) Construction grammar coursebook. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary C. O’Coonor
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3), 501–538.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, John H.
(1971) First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the development of?,. Human Development 14(4), 272–278.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
(1993) Grammar in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Seiko Y.
(1993) The use and learning of clause-linkage: Case studies in Japanese and English conditionals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar spproach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5), 219–224 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Devin Casenhiser
(2006) English constructions. In Bas Aarts and April McMahon (Eds.) The handbook of English linguistics (pp.343–355). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–567.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M.
(1976) Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52(2), 382-397.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
(2002) Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and structure of CP. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2, 117–180.Google Scholar
(2003) Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the left periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 34(4), 640–649.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35, 157–192.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane and Tabea Ihsane
(1999) Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 3(1), 117–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
(1985) Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haliday, Michael A. K.
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part II. Journal of Linguistics 3(2), 199–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
(1985) An introduction to functional grammar. London: E. Arnold.Google Scholar
Harada, Shin-ichi
(1976) Honorics. In Masayoshi Shibatani (Ed.) Syntax and semantics, volume 5: Japanese generative grammar (pp.499–561). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hart, Herbert and Anthony Honoré
(1959) Causation in the law. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko
(1996) A study of Japanese clause linkage: The connective te in Japanese. Stanford/Tokyo: CSLI & Kurosio.Google Scholar
(2015) Japanese: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
(1995) The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (Eds.) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms - adverbial participles, gerunds (pp.1–55), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Higashiizumi, Yuko
(2006) From a subordinate clause to an independent clause: A history of English because-clause and Japanese kara-clause. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishing.Google Scholar
(2015) Periphery of utterances and (inter)subjectification in modern Japanese: A case study of competing causal conjunctions and connective particle. In Andrew D. M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale, and Richard Waltereit (Eds.) New directions in grammaticalization research (pp.135–155) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
(2005) From causality to concessivity: The story of just because . Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 85–99.Google Scholar
(2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hirose, Yukio
(1991) On a certain nominal use of because-clauses: Just because because-clauses can substitute for that-clauses does not mean that this is always possible. English Linguistics 8(1), 16–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992)  Because no metagengo teki kinoo nitsuite [On a metalinguistic function of because]. Eigo onseigaku to Eigo kyooiku [English phonetics and English education], 81–85, Kairyudo, Tokyo.Google Scholar
(1998) Koobun kan no keishoo kankei: Because-setsu shugo koobun no koobun bunpooteki bunseki [Inheritance relations among constructions: A construction grammar analysis of the because-clause subject construction]. Eigo Seinen [The Rising Generation], 144(9), 511–514.Google Scholar
(1999) Bunpoo no kihon Tan’i toshiteno koobun: koobun bunpoo no kangaekata (Constructions as basic grammatical units: A construction grammar perspective),” Tsukuba Daigaku “Tozai Gengo Bunka no Ruikeiron” Tokubetsu Purojekuto Kenkyuu Hookokusho [Report of the special research project for the typological investigation of languages and cultures of the east and west] 1998-II, 591–610, University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
(2000) Public and private self as two aspects of the speaker: A contrastive study of Japanese and English,” Journal of Pragmatics 32(11), 1623–1656.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) An overview of the three-tier model of language use. English Linguistics 32(1), 150–138.Google Scholar
Hirose, Yukio and Yoko Hasegawa
(2010) Nihongo kara mita Nihonjin: Shutaisei no gengogaku [Japanese people as seen from the Japanese language: The linguistics of subjectivity), Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Thomas and Graeme Trousdale
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. and Sandra A. Thompson
(1973) On the applicability of root transformation. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4), 465–497.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott
(2003) Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
(1969) A presuppostional analysis of only and even . CLS 5, 98–107.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ikarashi, Keita
(2013) The performative clause I tell you, interpersonal relationship, and informational superiority. Tsukuba English Studies 32, 111–126.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Takashi
(1995)  Node to kara: Genin/riyuu o arawasu setsuzoku hyoogen [ Node and kara: connective expressions of cause/reason]. In Tatsuo Miyajima and Yoshio Nitta (Eds.) Nihongo ruigi hyoogen no bunpoo, Ge-kan: Fukubun/renbun hen [ Grammar of Japanese synonymous expressions , volume 2: Complex sentences and compound sentences] (pp. 506-513). Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
(1949) A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part V. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jordan, Rita R.
(1989) An experimental comparison of the understanding and use of speaker-addressee personal pronouns in autistic children. British Journal of Disorders of Communication 24(2), 169-179.Google Scholar
Kanbayashi, Yoji
(1989) Riyuu o arawasu setsuzokushi saikoo [Reconsideration of conjunctions of reason],” Bungei Gengo Kenkyuu Gengo Hen [Studies in Literature and Linguistics [Linguistics]] 16, 45–55.Google Scholar
Kanetani, Masaru
(2005a) “Because/since no shootenka nitsuite [On focalization of because/since] JELS 22, 21–30.Google Scholar
(2005b) Relations among constructions with because: With special reference to metalinguistic uses of because . Tsukuba English Studies 24, 31–50Google Scholar
(2005c) Gen’in/riyuu o arawasu setsuzokushi no bunpoo: Koobun bunpoo teki apuroochi [Grammar of conjunctions of cause/reason: A construction grammar approach]. Eigo Gohoo Bunpoo Kenkyuu [Studies of English Grammar and Usage] 12, 80–94.Google Scholar
(2006a) Metagengotekini riyuu o arawasu koobun to sono keishoo kankei [Constructions of metalinguistic reason and their inheritance links]. JELS 23, 60–69.Google Scholar
(2006b) Inheritance links as the central role in understanding constructions: A case of constructions of metalinguistic reasons. Poster presented at the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar held at University of Tokyo on September 1-3.Google Scholar
(2006c) Constructions of causation and reasoning. Tsukuba English Studies 25, 19–40.Google Scholar
(2007a)  Because constructions in English and kara constructions in Japanese: From a contrastive construction grammar perspective. Tsukuba English Studies 26, 35–52.Google Scholar
(2007b) Focalizations of because and since: since-clauses can be focalized by certain focusing adverbs, especially since there is no reason to ban it. English Linguistics 24(2), 341–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Causation and reasoning: A construction grammar approach to conjunctions of reason. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
(2009) Metalinguistic reason constructions revisited. Tsukuba English Studies 27, 27–44.Google Scholar
(2011) Analogy in construction grammar: The case of just because of X doesn’t mean Y . Tsukuba English Studies 29, 77–94Google Scholar
(2012) Another look at the metalinguistic because-clause construction. Tsukuba English Studies 31, 1–18.Google Scholar
(2015) On the new usage of because . Studies in Language and Literature [Language] 68, 63–80.Google Scholar
(2018) The because X construction: Not constructionalized yet?. JELS 35, 245–251.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1), 1–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenkyusha shin waei chu jiten [Kenkyusha’s new college Japanese-English dictionary] 5th edition (2002) Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Koffka, Kurt
(1935) Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Konno, Hiroaki
(2005) On the relation between formal markedness and functional specialization: A descriptive analysis of peripheral phenomena in English and Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
(2012)  I-ochi: Katachi to imi no intaafeisu no kanten kara [The Japanese adjectival conjugational ending drop construction: From a syntax-semantix interface perspective]. Gengo Kenkyu [Journal of Linguistic Society of Japan] 141, 5–31.Google Scholar
(2015) The grammatical significance of private expression and its implications for the three-tier model of language use. English Linguistics 32(1), 139–155.Google Scholar
Koujien [Koujien Japanese dictionary], 5th edition (2004) Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Kyogoku, Koichi
(1986) Setsuzokujoshi kara to node no shiteki koosatsu: Shoogakko kokugo kyookasho o taishoo toshite [A historical consideration of the conjunctive particles kara and node: With special reference to Japanese textbooks at elementary schools] Kokugo to Kokubungaku [Japanese Language and Japanese Literature] 63(6), 55–67.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
(1972) Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3), 269–320.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
(1971)  If’s, but’s and and’s: About conjunctions. In Charles J. Filmore and D. T. Langendoen (Eds.) Studies in linguistic semantics, 114–149. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
(1988) There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. BLS 14, 319–339.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
(1974) Semantics. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
(1977) Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maki, Hideki, Lizanne Kaiser and Masao Ochi
(1999) Embedded topicalization in English and Japanese. Lingua 109(1), 1–14.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
(2009) Pragmatics of performative honorifics in subordinate clauses. In Ken Turner and Bruce Fraser (Eds.) Language in life, and a life in language: Jacob Mey, a festschrift (pp.289–298). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsuyama, Tetsuya
(2001) Subject-because construction and the extended projection principle. English Linguistics 18(2), 329–355.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, Gretchen
(2012) Because reasons. A blog post to All Things Linguistic on July 4, 2012 (accessed on December 15 2016) <http://​allthingslinguistic​.com​/post​/26522214342​/because​-reasons.Google Scholar
(2013) Where “because noun” probably came from. A blog post to All Things Linguistic on November 26 2013 (accessed on December 15 2016) <http://​allthingslinguistic​.com​/post​/67507311833​/where​-because​-noun​-probably​-came​-from.Google Scholar
(2014) Why the new “because” isn’t a preposition (but is actually cooler). A blog post to All Things Linguistic on January 4, 2014 (accessed on December 15 2016) <http://​allthingslinguistic​.com​/post​/72252671648​/why​-the​-new​-because​-isnt​-a​-preposition​-but​-is.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Michaelis, Laura A.
(2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1), 1–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried (Eds.) Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.45–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Masaru
(1952)  Kara to node wa doo chigauka [How is kara different from node] Kokugo to Kokubungaku [Japanese Linguistics and Japanese Literature] 29(2), 30–41.Google Scholar
(1988) Saisetsu, kara to node wa doo chigauka: Tio Sanbun shi eno hanhihan o fumaete (How is kara different from node, revisited: With a counter-criticism to Tio Sanbin),” Nihongogaku [Japanese Linguistics] 7(12), 67–83.Google Scholar
Nakau, Minoru
(1994) Ninchi imiron no genri [Principles of cognitive semantics]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE]
(2013) Autism in under 19s: support and management: NICE guidelines [CG170]. https://​www​.nice​.org​.uk​/guidance​/cg170.
Ohori, Toshio
(1991) Bunpoo koozoo no ruishoosei: “Katachi” no gengogaku e [Iconicity of grammatical structure: Toward linguistics of “form”]. Nihon Kigoo Gakkai (ed.) Katachi to imeji no kigooron [Semiotics of form and image] (pp.95–108). Tokyo: Tokai University Press.Google Scholar
(1992)  The bike is near the house/??The house is near the bike: Ninchi zushiki to koobun [The bike is near the house/??The house is near the bike: Cognitive schemata and constructions]. Gekkan Gengo [Monthly Language] 21(7), 82–85.Google Scholar
(1995) Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese phraseology. In Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra Thompson (Eds.) Essays in semantics and pragmatics: In honor of Charles J. Fillmore (pp.200–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(1997) Framing effects in Japanese non-final clauses: Toward an optimal grammar-pragmatics interface. BLS 23, 471–480.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osawa, Mai
(2009) A unified approach to pragmatically licensed constructions in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola
(2004) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried (Eds.) Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola, and Mirjam Fried
(2005) The cognitive grounding of construction grammar. In Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried (Eds.) Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 6th edition (2000) Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
(2009) Towards an alternative relevance-theoretic approach to interjections. International Review of Pragmatics 1(1), 182–206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. and Liesbeth Degand
(2001) Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 211–245.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk L. W. and Ted Sanders
(2000) Domains of use or subjectivity? The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann (Eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.57–82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik
(1904) A grammar of Late Modern English, Part I. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Prince, Gerald
(1982) Narratology: The form and functioning of narrative. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
(1996) Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. In Boguraev Branimir (Ed.) Lexical semantics: The problem of polysemy (pp.133–162). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K.
(2014) Because Syntax. A blog post to Language Log on January 15, 2014 (accessed on December 15 2016) <http://​languagelog​.ldc​.upenn​.edu​/nll​/?p​=9494Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
(1972) A grammar of contemporary English, London: Longman.Google Scholar
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew
(1981) Transformational syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
(1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17(3), 501–557.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert
(1970) On declarative sentences. In Roderic A. Jacons and Peter S. Rosenbaum (Eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar (pp.222–272). Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
(1973) Slifting. In Maurice Gross, Morris Halle and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (Eds.) The formal analysis of natural languages: Proceedings of the First International Conference (pp.133–169). The Hague: Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, William E.
(1970) Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language 46(1), 97–115.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saito, Mamoru
(1989) Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark R. Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure (pp.182–200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, José Sanders, and Eve E. Sweetser
(2009) Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In Ted Sanders and Eve E. Sweetser (Eds.) Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.19–60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnoebelen, Tyler
(2014) Innovating because innovation. A blog post to Corpus Linguistics, on January 15, 2014. (accessed on December 15 2016) <https://​corplinguistics​.wordpress​.com​/2014​/01​/15​/innovating​-because​-innovation/.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence and Toshiko Waida
(1988) English connectives. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Shizawa, Takashi
(2011) Form, meaning, and discourse: The semantics and pragmatics of conditional constructions in English and Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
(2015) The rhetorical effect of locative inversion constructions from the perspective of the three-tier model of language use. English Linguistics 32(1), 156–176.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
(2003) A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg (Eds.) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, Shigeyasu
(2004)  It is because… no bunpu to gohoo [The distribution and usage of it is because…]. Eigo Gohoo Bunpoo Kenkyuu [Studies of English Grammar and Usage] 11, 174–179.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael
(2005) Practical English usage 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriette
(1998) Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 347–385.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
(1978a) Subordination and coordination. In Joseph H. Greenbarg (Ed.) Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax (pp.489–513). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1978b) Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H. Greenbarg (Ed.) Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax (pp.626–649). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
The Standard Finnish-English English-Finnish Dictionary (1991) London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac
(1991) A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott and Bernd Heine (Eds.) Approaches to grammaticaliztion, Vol. 2 (pp.313–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tio, Sanbun
(1988)  Kara to node [Kara and node]. Nihongogaku [Japanese Linguistics] 7, 63–77.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi
(2015) Embedded wa-phrases, predication, and judgment theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(1), 267–305.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard König
(1991) The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (Eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1 (pp.189–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Graeme Trousdale
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert L.
(1993) A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Anthony J. Sanford, Joy P. Aked and Linda M. Moxey
(1997) Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23, 88–101.Google Scholar
Uno, Ryoko
(2009) Detecting and sharing perspectives using causals in Japanese. Tokyo: Hituzi Sybo Publishing.Google Scholar
Wada, Naoaki
(2001) Interpreting English tenses: A compositional approach. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Wessman, Kukka-Maaria
(2017) Rating the acceptability of non-standard language: How Finnish language users rate variants of the verbless koska X ‘because X’ internet meme construction?. Poster presented at the 14th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference.Google Scholar
Wickboldt, June M.
(1997) The semantics of since. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
(1981) On the notion of “lexically-related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2), 245–274.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

OKADA, SADAYUKI
2020. Category-free complement selection in causal adjunct phrases. English Language and Linguistics  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018053678 | Marc record