Cover not available
Article In:
The Speech Act(ion) of Commenting in Social Media and Beyond
Edited by Robert Külpmann and Rita Finkbeiner
[Pragmatics & Cognition 31:2] 2024
► pp. 318–338

Cause and comment

Two functions of non-finite causal constructions

ORCID logo | Freie Universität Berlin
In this paper, I investigate the functional dimension of non-finite causal constructions, exemplified using the English because X constructions. The analysis identifies two functions of these constructions: expressing causality and commenting. Primarily, non-finite causal constructions express cause or reason. Secondarily, however, speakers can also use these constructions to offer a comment about the expressed cause or reason. These two functions represent two poles on a functional continuum. While some non-finite causal constructions only express causal meaning and some serve predominantly as comments, they usually combine both functions.
Keywords: non-finite causal constructions, cause, reason, commenting, speech action, social media, Twitter, because X
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data
  • 3.Causal meaning
  • 4.Pseudo-causal meaning
  • 5.Commenting function
  • 6.Functional continuum of NFC constructions
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (50)
References
Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words (2nd edn.). Edited by James O. Urmson & Marina Sbisà. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Laura. 2012. Because reasons. linguistlaura. [URL]. (16 August, 2022).
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society (13). 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2018. Because science! Notes on a variable conjunction. In Elena Seoane, Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Ignacio Palacios-Martínez (eds.), Subordination in English, 43–60. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2014. Overt and hidden complexity: Two types of complexity and their implications. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50(2). 127–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Hidden complexity: The neglected side of complexity and its implications. Linguistics Vanguard 1(1). 177–187. DOI logoGoogle 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, 149–178. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Situating Twitter discourse in relation to spoken and written texts: A lectometric analysis. Eine lektometrische Analyse. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 87(2). 250–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruns, Axel & Hallvard Moe. 2014. Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt & Cornelius Puschmann (eds.), Twitter and society, 15–28. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Burger, Harald & Martin Luginbühl. 2014. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. In Mediensprache. Eine Einführung in Sprache und Kommunikationsformen der Massenmedien (4th edn.), 173–200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Susan Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, Jacob. 2015. Systematic patterning in phonologically-motivated orthographic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(2). 161–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6(4). 427–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garber, Megan. 2013. English has a new preposition, because Internet. The Atlantic. [URL]. (16 August, 2022).
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 3: Speech acts), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Casey Rebecca. 2023. Some varieties of illocutionary pluralism. In Laura Caponetto & Paolo Labinaz (eds.), Sbisà on speech as action, 121–141. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4). 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanetani, Masaru. 2015. On the new usage of because . Studies in Language and Literature 681. 63–79.Google Scholar
. 2019. Causation and reasoning constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. Sprache der Nähe — Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. In Olaf Deutschmann, Hans Flasche, Bernhard König, Margot Kruse, Walter Pabst & Wolf-Dieter Stempel (eds.), Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 15–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konvička, Martin. 2019. De verborgen complexiteit van want/omdat X. Internationale Neerlandistiek 57(2). 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Category membership and category potential: The case of vague because. Lexis. Journal in English lexicology (22). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. Because reasons. Non-finite causal constructions in English, German, Dutch, and Czech. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin PhD dissertation.
Konvička, Martin & Kristin Stöcker. 2020. Because X in Dutch, English, and German. Corpus. GitHub. [URL]. (18 February, 2022).
. 2022. (Non-)ellipses in Dutch, English, and German: The case of because X . Nederlandse Taalkunde 27(3). 333–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landert, Daniela & Andreas H. Jucker. 2011. Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries. Journal of Pragmatics 43(5). 1422–1434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maat, Henk Pander & Ted Sanders. 1995. Nederlandse causale connectieven en het onderscheid tussen inhoudelijke en epistemische coherentie-relaties. Leuvense Bijdragen. Leuven Contribution in Linguistics and Philology 841. 349–374.Google Scholar
. 2000. Domains of use or subjectivity? The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast, 57–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marwick, Alice E. & danah boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1). 114–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, Gretchen. 2014. Where “because noun” probably came from. All things linguistic. [URL]. (16 August, 2022).
McGregor, William B. 2013. There are existential constructions and existential constructions: Presumption-invoking existentials in English. Folia Linguistica 47(1). 139–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okada, Sadayuki. 2021. Category-free complement selection in causal adjunct phrases. English Language and Linguistics 25(4). 719–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pit, Mirna, Henk Pander Maat & Ted Sanders. 1997. ‘Doordat’, ‘omdat’ en ‘want’. Perspectieven op hun gebruik. Taalbeheersing 19(3). 238–251.Google Scholar
Posner, Roland. 1972. Theorie des Kommentierens: Eine Grundlagenstudie zur Semantik und Pragmatik. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.). 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rehn, Anneliise. 2015. Because meaning: Language change through iconicity in internet speak. BA thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Romano, Aja. 2013. We’re all using language differently now, because Internet culture. Daily Dot. [URL]. (17 August, 2022).
Schneider-Mizony, Odile. 2021. Kommentar als Anschlusskommunikation, Informationserweiterung, oder didaktische Intention? In Anne-Françoise Ehrhard-Macris & Gilbert Magnus (eds.), Text und Kommentieren im Deutschen, 17–30. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Schnoebelen, Tyler. 2014. Innovating because innovation. Corpus Linguistics. [URL]. (22 February, 2022).
Sommerer, Lotte. 2023. If that’s what she said, then that’s what she said: A usage-based, constructional analysis of pleonastic conditionals in English. Corpus Pragmatics (7). 345–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 251. 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking the coordinate-subordinate dichotomy: Interpersonal grammar and the analysis of adverbial clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, Neal. 2013. Because as a Preposition. Quick and Dirty Tips. [URL]. (16 August, 2022).