1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Studies in several languages find that causal connectives differ from one another in their prototypical , 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 connectives ‘since’ and ‘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. is subjective. It prototypically expresses and causalities featuring and in the consequent. (subject of consciousness) is actively involved yet remains in the utterances. , by contrast, is objective. It typically expresses and causalities featuring the consequent of and which are usually independent of SoCs. is neutral in general, with a slight preference to and relations, to the consequent of , and to Only one interaction with discourse style is found: in relations introduced by the linguistic realization of the SoC varies across corpora: significantly more yet few cases in microblogs, yet the opposite is true in conversations. The specific profile of , 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00080.xia
2020-12-16
2021-05-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benveniste, Émile
    1971Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biq, Yung-O.
    1988 From focus in proposition to focus in speech situation: cai and jiu in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics16(1). 72–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Brown, Penelope , & Levinson, Stephan C.
    1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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.6, 35–53. Norwood: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. De Smet, Hendrik & Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2006 Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics17(3). 365–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.1075/lis.3.06pra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.3.06pra [Google Scholar]
  11. Eifring, Halvor
    1995Clause combination in Chinese. Leiden: E.J.Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline
    2005The development of Dutch connectives: Change and acquisition as windows on form-function relations. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferrara, Kathleen & Brunner, Hans & Whittemore, Greg
    1991 Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication8(1). 8–34. 10.1177/0741088391008001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088391008001002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Field, Andy
    2011Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock ’n’ roll). Los Angels: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Fung, Pascale & Huang, Shudong & Graff, David
    2005LDC2005S15/T32. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium (https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/) (Accessed2015-12-3) (Web Download.)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Glenn, Meghan & Lee, Haejoong & Strassel, Stephanie & Maeda, Kazuaki
    2013–2015GALE Phase 3–4 Chinese Broadcast Conversation Transcripts LDC2013T08; 2014T28; 2015T09. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. (https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/) (Accessed2015-​12-1) (Web Download.)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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] 143. 37–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 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.
  20. Herring, Susan C.
    2011 Computer-mediated conversation, Part II: Introduction and overview. [email protected]8(2). (https://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/Herring) (Accessed2015-10-20).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hole, Daniel P.
    2004Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and theory behind cái, jiù, dōu and yĕ. London: RoutledgeCurzon. 10.4324/9780203565193
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203565193 [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, Yan
    2006 Speech acts. In Brown, Keith . (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 656–665. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00308‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00308-4 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑107450‑0.50008‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-107450-0.50008-5 [Google Scholar]
  26. Keller, Rudi
    1995 The epistemic weil. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.002 [Google Scholar]
  27. Knott, Alistair , & Sanders, Ted
    1998 The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics30(2). 135–175. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00023‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00023-X [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. 10.1075/tsl.6.07lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan [Google Scholar]
  29. 1990 Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1(1). 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levshina, Natalia
    2015How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
    1989Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berckley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, Fang & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted
    2013 Subjectivity and result marking in Mandarin. Chinese Language and Discourse4(1). 74–119. 10.1075/cld.4.1.03li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.4.1.03li [Google Scholar]
  33. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. Liu, Chuqun
    2002 “Yīnwèi” he “yóuyú” chayi chutan [A preliminary study on the difference between yīnwèi and yóuyú ]. Journal of Anhui Institute of Education20(1). 89–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 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.
  38. Lǚ, Shuxiang
    (ed.) 1999 Xiandai Hanyu babai ci (Zengding ben) [Eight hundred words of modern Chinese (Expanded edition)]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
  39. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Pander Maat, Henk , & Degand, Liesbeth
    2001 Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics12(3). 211–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. 10.1515/9783110219043.1.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.1.57 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2001 Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics12(3). 247–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sanders, Ted
    1997 Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes24(1). 119–147. 10.1080/01638539709545009
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545009 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert P. M. & Noordman, Leo G. M.
    1992 Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes15(1). 1–35. 10.1080/01638539209544800
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1515/9783110224429.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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. 10.1515/9783110224429.205
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.205 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2013 Exceptions to rules: A qualitative analysis of backward causal connectives in Dutch naturalistic discourse. Text & Talk33(3). 377–398. 10.1515/text‑2013‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015 Causality and subjectivity in discourse: The meaning and use of causal connectives in spontaneous conversation, chat interactions and written text. Linguistics53(1). 53–92. 10.1515/ling‑2014‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0034 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sanders, Ted & Sweetser, Eve
    (eds.) 2009Causal categories in discourse and cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429 [Google Scholar]
  51. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  52. 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.
  53. 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]
  54. 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]
  55. 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 Pragmatics40(7). 1296–1322. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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 Change24(2). 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  58. 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. 10.1075/cilt.24.09clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.09clo [Google Scholar]
  59. 1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65(1). 31–55. 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1995 Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  61. 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. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1979 Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics3(5). 447–456. 10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  63. Voiskounsky, Alexander E.
    1997 Telelogue conversations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2(4). (doi:  10.1111/j.1083‑6101.1997.tb00194.x) (Accessed2016-02-26.)
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00194.x [Google Scholar]
  64. Walker, Kevin & Caruso, Christopher & Maeda, Kazuaki & DiPersio, Denise & Strassel, Stephanie
    2013–2015GALE Phase 3–4 Chinese Broadcast Conversation Speech LDC​2013S04; 2014S09; 2015S06. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. (https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/) (Accessed2015-11-30) (DVD/Web Download.)
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wang, Chun-hui
    2015 Tianjianju zhong de “na/name” [ Na/name in conditional sentences]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Language Learning] 2015(2). 41–48.
  66. Wang, Yufang
    2002 The preferred information sequences of adverbial linking in Mandarin Chinese discourse. Text & Talk22(1). 141–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Wu, Zhibiao
    1995Mandarin Chinese News Text LDC95T13. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. (https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/) (Accessed2015-10-06) (Web Download.)
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Xing, Fuyi
    2001 Hanyu fuju yanjiu [A study of Chinese complex sentences]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. Young, Linda W. L.
    1994Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519901 [Google Scholar]
  72. Yus, Francisco
    2011Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.213
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.213 [Google Scholar]
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. Zufferey, Sandrine
    2012 “Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics44(2). 138–153. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00080.xia
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00080.xia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Mandarin reason connective; multi-style discourse; subjectivity
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error