Studies in several languages find that causal connectives differ from one another in their prototypical meaning and use, which provides insight into language users’ cognitive categorization of causal relations in discourse. Subjectivity plays a vital role in this process. Using an integrated subjectivity approach, this study aims to give a comprehensive picture of the semantic-pragmatic distinctions between Mandarin reason connectives jìrán ‘since’, yīnwèi and yóuyú ‘because’. The data come from spontaneous conversation, microblog, and newspaper discourse, while most previous studies have focused only on written data. The results show that, despite the contextual differences in discourse from each corpus, the connectives display distinctive and robust profiles. Jìrán is subjective. It prototypically expresses speech act and epistemic causalities featuring speech act and judgment in the consequent. Speaker SoC (subject of consciousness) is actively involved yet remains implicit in the utterances. Yóuyú, by contrast, is objective. It typically expresses volitional and non-volitional content causalities featuring the consequent of physical act and fact, which are usually independent of SoCs. Yīnwèi is neutral in general, with a slight preference to volitional content and epistemic relations, to the consequent of fact, and to speaker SoC. Only one interaction with discourse style is found: in relations introduced by yīnwèi, the linguistic realization of the SoC varies across corpora: significantly more implicit yet few explicit cases in microblogs, yet the opposite is true in conversations. The specific profile of yīnwèi, depending on the ordering of the antecedent and the consequent, is robust across corpora. Furthermore, the relative importance of the associated subjectivity features is determined. In conclusion, the study contributes to our understanding of causal coherence and extends the empirical database that supports the claims of a cognitive account of causal coherence relations.
1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benveniste, Émile
1971Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.
Biq, Yung-O.
1988From focus in proposition to focus in speech situation: cai and jiu in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16(1). 72–108.
Biq, Yung-O.
1995Chinese causal sequencing and yīnwèi in conversation and press reportage. In Bilmes, Leela & Liang, Anita C. & Ostapirat, Weera (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session on discourse in southeast Asian languages. 47–60. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephan C.
1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, Wallace
1982Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, vol. 61, 35–53. Norwood: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
Chafe, Wallace
1984Integration and involvement in spoken and written language. In Borbe, Tasso (ed.), Semiotics unfolding: Proceedings of the second Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Vienna, July 1979, 1095–1102. Berlin: Mouton.
Degand, Liesbeth, & Pander Maat, Henk
2003A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In Verhagen, Arie & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Usage-based approaches to Dutch: Lexicon, grammar, discourse, 175–199. Utrecht: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
De Smet, Hendrik & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2006Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3). 365–392.
1995Clause combination in Chinese. Leiden: E.J.Brill.
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline
2005The development of Dutch connectives: Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Utrecht: LOT.
Ferrara, Kathleen & Brunner, Hans & Whittemore, Greg
1991Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication 8(1). 8–34.
Field, Andy
2011Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock ’n’ roll). Los Angels: SAGE Publications.
Finegan, Edward
1987On the linguistic forms of prestige: Snobs and slobs using English. In Boardman, Phillip C. (ed.), The legacy of language: A tribute to Charlton Laird, 146–161. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Fung, Pascale & Huang, Shudong & Graff, David
2005LDC2005S15/T32. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-12-3) (Web Download.)
2013–2015GALE Phase 3–4 Chinese Broadcast Conversation Transcripts LDC2013T08; 2014T28; 2015T09. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-12-1) (Web Download.)
Günthner, Susanne
1993 “… weil─man kann es ja wissentschaftlich untersuchen” ─Diskurspragmatische Aspekte der Wortstellung in WEIL-Sätzen [“… because –you can investigate it scientifically” –Discourse-pragmatic aspects of word order in WEIL sentences]. Linguistische Berichte [Linguistic Reports] 1431. 37–55.
Guo, Jimao
2008 “Yīnwèi suoyi” ju he “jìrán nàme” ju de chayi [A contrastive analysis between sentences with yīnwèi and jìrán
]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Language Learning] 2008(3). 22–29.
Herring, Susan C.
2011Computer-mediated conversation, Part II: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet 8(2). ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-10-20).
Hole, Daniel P.
2004Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and theory behind cái, jiù, dōu and yĕ. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Huang, Yan
2006Speech acts. In Brown, Keith. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 656–665. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Huang, Wenlong
1998 “Jiran p, jiu q” ju zhiyi [Questions on “Jiran p, jiu q” construction]. Guizhou Shifan Daxue Xuebao (Shehui Kexue Ban) [Journal of Guizhou Normal University (Social Sciences)] 1998(4). 87–91.
Jin, Lixin & Du, Jiajun
2014 “Jiu” yu “cai” zhuguanliang duibi yanjiu [
Jiu and cai: A contrastive study of subjective quantity]. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences] 13(2). 140–153.
Kay, Paul
1977Language evolution and speech style. In Blount, Ben G. & Sanches, Mary (eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language change, 21–33. New York: Academic Press.
Keller, Rudi
1995The epistemic weil. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knott, Alistair, & Sanders, Ted
1998The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics 30(2). 135–175.
Langacker, Ronald
1985Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983, 109–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2016On the subjectivity of Mandarin reason connectives: Robust profiles or genre-sensitivity? In Stukker, Ninke & Spooren, Wilbert & Steen, Gerard (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 15–50. Berlin: De Gruyter Mounton.
Li, Jinxia
2011 Lun “yóuyú” yu “yīnwèi” de chayi [On the differences between yóuyú and yīnwèi
]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese Teaching in the World] 25(4). 490–496.
Li, Jinxia & Liu, Yun
2004 “Yóuyú” yu “jìrán” de zhuguanxing chayi [The differences of yóuyú and jìrán in subjectivity]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 2004(2). 123–128.
Liu, Chuqun
2002 “Yīnwèi” he “yóuyú” chayi chutan [A preliminary study on the difference between yīnwèi and yóuyú
]. Journal of Anhui Institute of Education 20(1). 89–92.
Liu, Yuehua & Pan, Wenyu & Gu, Wei
2001Shiyong xiandai Hanyu yufa (Zengding ben) [A practical grammar of modern Chinese (Expanded edition)]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Lǚ, Shuxiang
(ed.)1999Xiandai Hanyu babai ci (Zengding ben) [Eight hundred words of modern Chinese (Expanded edition)]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Lyons, John
1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John
1982Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, Robert J. & Klein, Wolfgang (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Pander Maat, Henk, & Degand, Liesbeth
2001Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 211–245.
Pander Maat, Henk & Sanders, Ted
2000Domains of use or subjectivity? The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 57–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pander Maat, Henk & Sanders, Ted
2001Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 247–273.
Sanders, Ted
1997Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 24(1). 119–147.
Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert P. M. & Noordman, Leo G. M.
1992Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35.
Sanders, Ted & Sanders, José & Sweetser, Eve
2009Causality, cognition and communication: a mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In Sanders, Ted & Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition, 19–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert
2009Causal categories in discourse: Converging evidence from language use. In Sanders, Ted & Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition, 205–246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert
2013Exceptions to rules: A qualitative analysis of backward causal connectives in Dutch naturalistic discourse. Text & Talk 33(3). 377–398.
Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert
2015Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics 53(1). 53–92.
Sanders, Ted & Sweetser, Eve
(eds.)2009Causal categories in discourse and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Searle, John R.
1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shen, Jiaxuan
2003 Fuju san yu “xing, zhi, yan” [Complex sentences in three conceptual domains: Acting, knowing, and uttering]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 2003(3). 195–204.
Song, Zuoyan & Tao, Hongyin
2009A unified account of causal clause sequences in Mandarin Chinese and its implications. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 33(1). 69–102.
2010Subjectivity and causality: A corpus study of spoken language. In Rice, Sally & Newman, John (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research, 241–255. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Stukker, Ninke & Sanders, Ted & Verhagen, Arie
2008Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 40(7). 1296–1322.
Sweetser, Eve
1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tagliamonte, Sali & Baayen, Harald
2012Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178.
1989On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1995Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2010(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–74. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Van Dijk, Teun A.
1979Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3(5). 447–456.
Voiskounsky, Alexander E.
1997Telelogue conversations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2(4). ( ) (Accessed 2016-02-26.)
Walker, Kevin & Caruso, Christopher & Maeda, Kazuaki & DiPersio, Denise & Strassel, Stephanie
2013–2015GALE Phase 3–4 Chinese Broadcast Conversation Speech LDC2013S04; 2014S09; 2015S06. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-11-30) (DVD/Web Download.)
Wang, Chun-hui
2015 Tianjianju zhong de “na/name” [
Na/name in conditional sentences]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Language Learning] 2015(2). 41–48.
Wang, Yufang
2002The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking in Mandarin Chinese discourse. Text & Talk 22(1). 141–172.
Wu, Zhibiao
1995Mandarin Chinese News Text LDC95T13. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-10-06) (Web Download.)
Xing, Fuyi
2001Hanyu fuju yanjiu [A study of Chinese complex sentences]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Xing, Fuyi
2002 “Yóuyú” de yuyi pianxiang bian [On the semantic preference of the pattern introduced by yóuyú
]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinesee Language] 2002(4). 337–342.
(2016) Da shuju beijingxia BCC yuliaoku de yanzhi [The construction of the BCC Corpus in the age of Big Data]. Yuliaoku Yuyanxue [Corpus Linguistics] 3(1), 93–109.
Young, Linda W. L.
1994Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2016 Cong yuti shijiao kan “yīnwèi” “yóuyú” de chayixing [On the differences between yīnwèi and yóuyú from medium perspective]. Dangdai Xiucixue [Contemporary Rherotic] 2016(1). 62–71.
Zhong, Xiaoyong & Zhang, Lin
2013 “Jìrán” ju he “yīnwèi” ju zhuguanxing chayi tan [On the subjectivity differences between sentence jìrán and sentence yīnwèi
]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Language Learning] 2013(4). 35–40.
Zufferey, Sandrine
2012 “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 44(2). 138–153.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Xiao, Hongling, Fang Li, Ted J. M. Sanders & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren
2021.
Suǒyǐ ‘so’, they are different: an integrated subjectivity account of Mandarin RESULT connectives in conversation, microblog and newspaper discourse. Linguistics 59:4 ► pp. 1103 ff.
Xiao, Hongling, Roeland W. N. M. van Hout, Ted J. M. Sanders & Wilbert P. M. S. Spooren
2021. A cognitive account of subjectivity put to the test: using an insertion task to investigate Mandarin result connectives. Cognitive Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 671 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2024. 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.