Cover not available
Article published In:
Spanish in Context
Vol. 16:1 (2019) ► pp.51–76

Subjectivity in Spanish causal connectives

Differentiating porque, ya que and debido a que

| Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
Recent literature has focused on specifying the nature of causal relations. Although the identification of whether connectives prototypically convey objective or subjective relations has been carried out for languages such as French, Dutch and English, the same has not occurred in the case of Spanish. The present study examines frequently used connectives and lexical cue phrases in terms of domain, propositional attitude, and presence of a Subject of Consciousness (SoC) in order to determine the degrees of subjectivity conveyed by the connectives. The findings show that debido a (que) is a highly specific connective used in objective causal relations about facts which do not involve SoC. On the contrary, the connectives porque and ya que present similar flexibility that result in both being used to convey subjective and objective causal relations. This study supports the assumption of subjectivity being a cognitive mechanism that shows across different languages.
Keywords: coherence relations, propositional attitude, subject of consciousness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Subjectivity and objectivity in the use of connectives
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpus and sampling method
    • 3.2Manual analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Results of the analysis of domain
    • 4.2Results of the analysis of propositional attitude
    • 4.3Results of the analysis of subject of consciousness
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 27 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00026.car
References (57)
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belova, Olga, Ian King, and Martyna Sliwa. 2008. “Introduction: Polyphony and organization studies: Mikhail Bakhtin and beyond.” Organization Studies 29 (4): 493–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canestrelli, Anneloes, Willem M. Mak and Ted Sanders. 2013. “Causal Connectives in Discourse Processing: How Differences in Subjectivity are Reflected in Eye Movements.” Language and Cognitive processes 91: 1394–1413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cassany, Daniel. 1996. La cocina de la escritura. Barcelona: Anagrama.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Max. 1985. Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie. 2004. “Les conjonctions de subordination: mots de grammaire ou mots du discours? Le cas de parce que.” Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 15–16: 51–67.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 1996. “Causation in Dutch and French: Interpersonal Aspects.” In Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice ed. by Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran, and David G. Butt, 207–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 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 and Henk Pander Maat. 2003. “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.” LOT Occasional Series 11:175–199.Google Scholar
Fuentes, Catalina. 2009. Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 1997. “Two Decades of Structure Building.” Discourse Processes 23(3): 265–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goethals, Patrick. 2002. Las conjunciones causales explicativas españolas “como”, “ya que”, “pues” y “porque”: un studio semiótico-lingüístico. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko. 2014. Japanese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2001. “Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-mention in Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes 401: 207–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines.” Language Teaching 411: 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez, Romualdo and Fernando Moncada. 2017. “El resumen de artículos de investigación científica: variación disciplinar a nivel local y global.” Spanish in Context 141: 273–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibáñez, Romualdo, Fernando Moncada and Andrea Santana. 2015. “Variación disciplinar en el discurso académico de la Biología y del Derecho: un estudio a partir de las relaciones de coherencia.” Onomazein 321: 101–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics 11: 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Extreme Subjectification: English Tense and Modals.” In Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günther Radden ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 3–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia and Liesbeth Degand. 2017. “Just Because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives.” Dialogues and Discourse 8 (1): 132–150.Google Scholar
Li, Fang. 2014. Subjectivity in Mandarin Chinese. The Meaning and Use of Causal Connectives in Written Discourse. PhD dissertation. Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Li, Fang, Ted Sanders and Jaqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2016. “On the Subjectivity of Mandarin Reason Connectives: Robust Profiles or Genre-sensitivity?” In Genre in Language, Discourse and Cognition ed. by Ninke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren, and Gerard Steen, 15–50. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Livnat, Zohar. 2010. “Impersonality and Grammatical Metaphors in Scientific Discourse.” The Rhetorical Perspective 411: 103–119.Google Scholar
Lopes, Ana. 2009. “Justification: A Coherence Relation.” Pragmatics 19 (2): 241–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William and Sandra Thompson. 1988. “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text 8 (3): 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martí-Sánchez, Manuel. 2008. Los marcadores en español L/E: conectores discursivos y operadores pragmáticos. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
McHugh, Mary. 2012. “Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic.” Biochemia Medica 22 (3): 276–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz-Torres, Juan Ramón. 2007. “Underlying Epistemological Conceptions in Journalism.” Journalism Studies 8(2): 224–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okamura, Akiko and Philip Shaw. 2014. “Development of Academic Journal Abstracts in Relation to the Demands of Stakeholders”. In Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change ed. by Marina Bondi, and Rosa Lorés-Sanz, 287–318. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk and Ted Sanders. 2001. “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in Use.” Cognitive linguistics 121: 247–273.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk and Liesbeth Degand. 2001. “Scaling Causal Relations and Connectives in Terms of Speaker Involvement.” Cognitive Linguistics 12 (3): 211–245.Google Scholar
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Cross-linguistic Analyses of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French.” Languages in contrast 71: 53–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CREA) [online]. Corpus de Referencia del español actual. <[URL]> [Accessed June, 2017]
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 and Morton Ann Gernsbacher. 2004. “Accessibility in Text and Discourse Processing.” Discourse Processes 371:79–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, and Henk Pander Maat. 2006. “Cohesion and coherence.” In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics ed. by K. Brown, Vol. 21, 591–59. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, and Wilbert Spooren. 2007. “Discourse and text structure.” In The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics ed. by D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens, 916–943. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted and Wilbert Spooren. 2009. “Causal Categories in Discourse – Converging Evidence from Language Use.” In Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition ed. by Ted Sanders, and Eve Sweetser, 205–246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted and Ninke Stukker. 2012. “Causal Connectives in Discourse: A Cross-linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 44(2): 131–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman. 1993. “Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation.” Cognitive Linguistics 41: 93–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santana-Covarrubias, Andrea, Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen, Wilbert Spooren and Ted Sanders. 2017. “Causality and subjectivity in Spanish connectives.” Discours 201: 3–37.Google Scholar
Samraj, Betty. 2008. “A Discourse Analysis of Master’s Theses across Disciplines with a Focus on Introductions.” Journal of English for Specific Purposes 71: 55–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Anne and Liesbeth Degand. 2007. “Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et profils prosodiques: le cas de car iet de parce que . [Causality connectors, speaker involvement and prosodic profiles: the case of ‘car iet’ and ‘parce que’].” French Language Studies 17 (3): 323–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert and Ted Sanders. 2008. “The Acquisition Order of Coherence Relations: On Cognitive Complexity in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 2003–2026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, Ted Sanders and Arie Verhagen. 2008. “Causality in Verbs and in Discourse Connectives. Converging Evidence of Cross-level Parallels in Dutch Linguistic Categorizations.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 1296–1322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 2010. “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjetification: A reassessment.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Topics in English Linguistics ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Ted Sanders. 2015. “Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts.” Discourse Processes, 52(1): 47–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, Fernando. 2005. Pregúntele al Ensayista. [Ask the essay writer]. Bogotá: Kimpres.Google Scholar
Wahl-Jorgansen, Karin. 2012. Subjectivity and story-telling in journalism: Examining expressions of affect, judgement and appreciation in Pullitzer Prize-winning stories. Journalism Studies 14(3): 305–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zorraquino, Martín and Lázaro Portolés. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Gramática descriptive de la lengua español, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 4051–4214. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine and Bruno Cartoni. 2014. “A Multifactorial Analysis of Explication in Translation.” Target 26 (3): 361–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine and Pascal Gygax. 2017. “Processing Connectives with a Complex Form-function Mapping in L2. The case of French ‘En Effet’.” Frontiers in Psychology 81: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, Willem Mak, Sara Verbrugge and Ted Sanders. 2017. “Usage and Processing of the French Causal Connectives ‘car’ and ‘parce que’.” Journal of French Language Studies 31: 1–28.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Santana Covarrubias, Andrea, Romualdo Ibáñez Orellana, Fernando Moncada Nahuelquín & Juan Zamora Osorio
2021. Causal connective expressions in textbooks written in Spanish: A comparative study of four primary school subjects. Journal of Pragmatics 182 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.