Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2021) ► pp.167–212

How subjective are Mandarin reason connectives?

A corpus study of spontaneous conversation, microblog and newspaper discourse

| Xiamen University | Radboud University Nijmegen
| Beijing International Studies University
| Utrecht University
| Radboud University Nijmegen
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.
Keywords: subjectivity, Mandarin reason connective, multi-style discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Connective and subjectivity
    • 1.2Connective and discourse styles
    • 1.3Research questions
  • 2.An integrated approach to subjectivity
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpus and data collection
    • 3.2Model of analysis
      • 3.2.1Causality domain
      • 3.2.2Propositional attitude of the consequent
      • 3.2.3Identity of SoC
      • 3.2.4Linguistic realization of SoC
    • 3.3Coding strategy for ambiguous cases
    • 3.4Procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Domain
    • 4.2Propositional attitude of the consequent
    • 4.3Identity of SoC
    • 4.4Linguistic realization of SoC
    • 4.5Forward-linking and backward-linking yīnwèi
    • 4.6The relative importance of subjectivity features
  • 5.Summary of results and discussion
    • 5.1Research questions one and two
    • 5.2Research question three
    • 5.3Research question four
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 16 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00080.xia
References (75)
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Biq, Yung-O. 1988. From focus in proposition to focus in speech situation: cai and jiu in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16(1). 72–108.Google Scholar
1995. Chinese 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.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephan C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration 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.Google Scholar
. 1984. Integration 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.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, & Pander Maat, Henk. 2003. A 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.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3). 365–392.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1980. Pragmatique linguistique: II. Essai d’application: Mais─les allusions à l’énonciation─délocutifs, performatifs, discours indirect [Application test: BUT –allusions to the utterance –talkative, performative, indirect speech]. In Parret, Herman (ed.), Le langage en context: Etudes philosophiques et linguistiques de pragmatique [Language in context: Philosophical and linguistic studies of pragmatics], 487–575. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eifring, Halvor. 1995. Clause combination in Chinese. Leiden: E.J.Brill.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2005. The development of Dutch connectives: Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen & Brunner, Hans & Whittemore, Greg. 1991. Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication 8(1). 8–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, Andy. 2011. Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock ’n’ roll). Los Angels: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1987. On 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.Google Scholar
Fung, Pascale & Huang, Shudong & Graff, David. 2005. LDC2005S15/T32. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-12-3) (Web Download.)
Glenn, Meghan & Lee, Haejoong & Strassel, Stephanie & Maeda, Kazuaki. 2013–2015. GALE 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2011. Computer-mediated conversation, Part II: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet 8(2). ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-10-20).
Hole, Daniel P. 2004. Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and theory behind cái, jiù, dōu and yĕ. London: RoutledgeCurzon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2006. Speech acts. In Brown, Keith. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 656–665. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1977. Language evolution and speech style. In Blount, Ben G. & Sanches, Mary (eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language change, 21–33. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1995. The epistemic weil. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knott, Alistair, & Sanders, Ted. 1998. The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics 30(2). 135–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1985. Observations 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berckley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Fang & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted. 2013. Subjectivity and result marking in Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse 4(1). 74–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Fang & Sanders, Ted & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2016. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Liu, Yuehua & Pan, Wenyu & Gu, Wei. 2001. Shiyong xiandai Hanyu yufa (Zengding ben) [A practical grammar of modern Chinese (Expanded edition)]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Lǚ, Shuxiang (ed.) 1999. Xiandai Hanyu babai ci (Zengding ben) [Eight hundred words of modern Chinese (Expanded edition)]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1982. Deixis 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.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk, & Degand, Liesbeth. 2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 211–245.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk & Sanders, Ted. 2000. Domains 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3). 247–273.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted. 1997. Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 24(1). 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert P. M. & Noordman, Leo G. M. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted & Sanders, José & Sweetser, Eve. 2009. Causality, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert. 2009. Causal 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Exceptions to rules: A qualitative analysis of backward causal connectives in Dutch naturalistic discourse. Text & Talk 33(3). 377–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted & Sweetser, Eve (eds.). 2009. Causal categories in discourse and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Song, Zuoyan & Tao, Hongyin. 2009. A 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.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert & Sanders, Ted & Huiskes, Mike & Degand, Liesbeth. 2010. Subjectivity 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.Google Scholar
Stukker, Ninke & Sanders, Ted & 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Baayen, Harald. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred Philipp & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3(5). 447–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voiskounsky, Alexander E. 1997. Telelogue conversations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2(4). ( DOI logo) (Accessed 2016-02-26.)Google Scholar
Walker, Kevin & Caruso, Christopher & Maeda, Kazuaki & DiPersio, Denise & Strassel, Stephanie. 2013–2015. GALE Phase 3–4 Chinese Broadcast Conversation Speech LDC​2013S04; 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.Google Scholar
Wang, Yufang. 2002. The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking in Mandarin Chinese discourse. Text & Talk 22(1). 141–172.Google Scholar
Wu, Zhibiao. 1995. Mandarin Chinese News Text LDC95T13. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-10-06) (Web Download.)
Xing, Fuyi. 2001. Hanyu fuju yanjiu [A study of Chinese complex sentences]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Xun, Endong, Rao, Gaoqi, Xiao, Xiaoyue & Zang, Jiaojiao. (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.Google Scholar
Young, Linda W. L. 1994. Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2011. Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Zongsa & Yao, Shuangyun. 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine. 2012. “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 44(2). 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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. DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.