Cover not available
Part of
Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 131–150

Chapter 5
Causal relations between discourse and grammar

Because in spoken French and Dutch

 | University of Louvain
The chapter presents a cross-linguistic study of the subordinating conjunctions parce que in French and omdat in Dutch (both corresponding to English because) at the interface between discourse and grammar. It is argued that causal subordinate conjunctions do not always mark a causal relation at the discourse level, because they do not always link two independent utterances or speech-acts. Such subordinating conjunctions, however, can gain discourse status, when they are used paratactically; as may be witnessed from accompanying discourse behavior such as co-occurring discourse markers, filled pauses, declination reset, etc. Thus, the aim of this study is to gain deeper insight into the discursive consequences of the grammatical options of coordination and subordination.
Keywords: subordination, Dutch, French, causality, discourse markers, grammar, discourse, corpus analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Causal connectives, subjectivity and discourse
  • 3.Parce que in grammar and discourse
    • 3.1Microsyntactic and macrosyntactic parce que
    • 3.2Conjunctive and DM parce que in discourse
      • 3.2.1Parce que: Prosodic patterns
      • 3.2.2Parce que: Disfluencies and production phenomena
      • 3.2.3Parce que and co-referential chains
      • 3.2.4Parce que and turn management
    • 3.3Parce que: Preliminary conclusion
  • 4.V2-omdat in (spontaneous) spoken Dutch
    • 4.1The syntactic status of V2-omdat
    • 4.2The semantic status of V2-omdat
    • 4.3The discourse status of V2-omdat
    • 4.4Preliminary conclusion on omdat
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.05deg
References (57)
References
Ariel, Mira. 2009. “Discourse, Grammar, Discourse.” Discourse Studies 11 (1): 5–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2008. “Subordination and Coordination in Syntax, Semantics and Discourse: Evidence from the Study of Connectives.” In “Subordination” versus “Coordination” in Sentence and Text: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, and Wiebke Ramm, 59–85. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneloes R., Willem M. Mak, and Ted J. M. Sanders. 2013. “Causal Connectives in Discourse Processing: How Differences in Subjectivity Are Reflected in Eye Movements.” Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (9): 1394–1413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine, Liesbeth Degand, and Gaëtanelle Gilquin. 2017. “The Clustering of Discourse Markers and Filled Pauses: A Corpus-Based French-English Study of (Dis)Fluency.” Languages in Contrast 17 (1): 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford, Cambridge: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie. 2002. “Le fonctionnement de parce que en français parlé : Étude quantitative sur corpus.” In Romanistische Korpuslinguistik, Korpora und gesprochene Sprache, ed. by Claus D. Pusch, and Wolfgang Raible, 349–376. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Les conjonctions de subordination: Mots grammaticaux ou mots de discours? Le cas de parce que.” Revue de semantique et pragmatique 15–16: 51–67.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Toward a Global Approach to Discourse Uses of Conjunctions in Spoken French.” Language Sciences 58: 79–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 1998. “Het ideationele gebruik van want en omdat: een geval van vrije variatie.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 3: 309–326.Google Scholar
. 2014. “‘So very fast very fast then’ Discourse Markers at Left and Right Periphery in Spoken French.” In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 151–178. Studies in Pragmatics, Volume 12. Leiden, Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Omdat ik heb tot half één tentamen. Over nevenschikkend omdat in context.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 21 (3): 419–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Benjamin Fagard. 2012. “Competing Connectives in the Causal Domain: French car and parce que.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2): 154–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Laurence Martin, and Anne-Catherine Simon. 2014. “LOCAS-F : Un corpus oral multigenres annoté.” In CMLF 2014 – 4ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 2613–2626. Berlin: EDP Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Henk Pander Maat. 2003. “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.” In Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch, ed. by Arie Verhagen, and Jeroen Maarten van de Weijer, 175–199. Utrecht: Lot.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne-Catherine Simon. 2009. “On Identifying Basic Discourse Units in Speech: Theoretical and Empirical Issues.” Discours 4 [online: [URL]] DOI logo
Degand, Liesbeth, and Geertje van Bergen. 2018. “Discourse Markers as Turn-Transition Devices: Evidence from Speech and Instant Messaging.” Discourse Processes 55 (1): 47–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2017. Parentheticals in Spoken English. The Syntax-Prosody Relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Katja Hetterle. 2011. “Causal Clauses: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of their Structure, Meaning and Use.” In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, ed. by Peter Siemund, 23–54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2003. “Discourse and Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 2, 47–87. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language: Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. “Discourse Particles, Turn-Taking, and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface.” Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 8: 111–137.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1994. “Dialogic Aspects of Talk and Writing: Because on the Interactive-Edited Continuum.” Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 14: 531–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1997. “Coherence Cues Mapping during Comprehension.” In Processing Interclausal Relationships. Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text, ed. by Jean Costermans, and Michel Fayol, 3–21. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Groupe lambda-L. 1975. “Car, parce que, puisque.” Revue Romane 10: 248–280.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. 2nd ed. Groningen, Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff, Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Hansson, Petra. 1999. “Prosodic Correlates of Discourse Markers in Dialogue.” In ETRW on Dialogue and Prosody, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. [online: [URL].]
Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2001. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1995. “The Epistemic Weil.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, and Karin Harbusch. 2016. “Verb-Second Word Order after German Weil ‘Because’: Psycholinguistic Theory from Corpus-Linguistic Data.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “A competitive mechanism selecting verb-second versus verb-final word order in causative and argumentative clauses of spoken Dutch: A corpus-linguistic study.” Language Sciences 69: 30–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Persoon, Ingrid, Ted Sanders, Hugo Quené, and Arie Verhagen. 2010. “Een coördinerende omdat-constructie in gesproken Nederlands? – Tekstlinguïstische en prosodische aspecten.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 15 (3): 259–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pit, Mirna. 2007. “Cross-Linguistic Analyses of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French.” Languages in Contrast 7: 53–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raso, Tommaso. 2014. “Prosodic Constraints for Discourse Markers.” In Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies, ed. by Tommaso Raso, and Heliana Mello, 411–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, and Wilbert Spooren. 2007. “Discourse and Text Structure.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuykens, 916–943. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. “The Cognition of Discourse Coherence.” In Discourse, of Course, ed. by Jan Renkema, 197–212. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Exceptions to Rules: A Qualitative Analysis of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch Naturalistic Discourse.” Text and Talk 33 (3): 377–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “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
Scheffler, Tatjana. 2005. “Syntax and Semantics of Causal denn in German.” In Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam: 215–220.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. “Discourse Markers.” Lingua 107 (3–4): 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Anne Catherine, and Liesbeth Degand. 2007. “Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et profils prosodiques: Le cas de car et de parce que.” French language studies 17 (3): 323–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Anne Catherine, and George Christodoulides. 2016. “Frontières prosodiques perçues : corrélats acoustiques et indices syntaxiques.” Langue française 191 (3): 83–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, Bert Cornillie, Dagmar Divjak, and Karel van den Eynde. 2005. “Degrees of Clause Integration: From Endotactic to Exotactic Subordination in Dutch.” Linguistics 43 (3): 471–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert, Ted Sanders, Mike Huiskes, and Liesbeth Degand. 2010. “Subjectivity and Causality: A Corpus Study of Spoken Language.” In Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, ed. by Sally Rice, and John Newman, 241–255. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stede, Manfred. 2016. Handbuch Textannotation: Potsdammer Kommentarkorpus 2.0. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2005. “Basic Discourse Acts: Towards a Psychological Theory of Discourse Segmentation.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, ed. by Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, and Sandra Pena Cervel, 283–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, and Ted Sanders. 2012. “Subjectivity and Prototype Structure in Causal Connectives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2006. “Spontaneous and Non-Spontaneous Turn-Taking.” Pragmatics 16 (2/3): 329–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eerten, Laura. 2007. “Over het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 3: 194–215.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2011. “Grammaticalization and Discourse.” In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, ed. by Bernd Heine, and Heike Narrog. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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 (3)

Cited by three other publications

Juillet, Melissa, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Montébran, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux, G. Merminod & G. Philippe
2024. L’emploi de parce que micro-syntaxique en français L2 : une étude interactionnelle et multimodale. SHS Web of Conferences 191 ► pp. 01008 ff. DOI logo
Klumm, Matthias, Anita Fetzer & Evelien Keizer
2023. Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Klumm, Matthias
2022. The Signaling of Continuative and Contrastive Discourse Relations in English Argumentative Discourse: Corpus-Based and Experimental Perspectives. Discours :30 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 october 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.