Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1571-0718
  • E-ISSN: 1571-0726
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 is a highly specific connective used in objective causal relations about facts which do not involve SoC. On the contrary, the connectives and 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1984Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 10.5749/j.ctt22727z1
    https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Belova, Olga, Ian King, and Martyna Sliwa
    2008 “Introduction: Polyphony and organization studies: Mikhail Bakhtin and beyond.” Organization Studies29 (4): 493–500. 10.1177/0170840608088696
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608088696 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 processes9: 1394–1413. 10.1080/01690965.2012.685885
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cassany, Daniel
    1996La cocina de la escritura. Barcelona: Anagrama.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cresswell, Max
    1985Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie
    2004 “Les conjonctions de subordination: mots de grammaire ou mots du discours? Le cas de parce que.” Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique15–16: 51–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Degand, Liesbeth
    1996 “Causation in Dutch and French: Interpersonal Aspects.” InFunctional Descriptions: Theory in Practiceed. byRuqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran, and David G. Butt, 207–235. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.121.08deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.121.08deg [Google Scholar]
  8. Degand, Liesbeth and Benjamin Fagard
    2012 “Competing Connectives in the Causal Domain: French ‘car’ and ‘parce que’.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (2): 154–168. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  9. Degand, Liesbeth and Henk Pander Maat
    2003 “A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.” LOT Occasional Series1:175–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuentes, Catalina
    2009Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann
    1997 “Two Decades of Structure Building.” Discourse Processes23(3): 265–304. 10.1080/01638539709544994
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544994 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goethals, Patrick
    2002Las conjunciones causales explicativas españolas “como”, “ya que”, “pues” y “porque”: un studio semiótico-lingüístico. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hasegawa, Yoko
    2014Japanese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hyland, Ken
    2001 “Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-mention in Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes40: 207–226. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(00)00012‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2008 “Genre and Academic Writing in the Disciplines.” Language Teaching41: 543–562. 10.1017/S0261444808005235
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ibáñez, Romualdo and Fernando Moncada
    2017 “El resumen de artículos de investigación científica: variación disciplinar a nivel local y global.” Spanish in Context14: 273–308. 10.1075/sic.14.2.06iba
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.14.2.06iba [Google Scholar]
  18. 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.” Onomazein32: 101–131. 10.7764/onomazein.32.6
    https://doi.org/10.7764/onomazein.32.6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, Ronald
    1990 “Subjectification.” Cognitive Linguistics1: 5–38. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2003 “Extreme Subjectification: English Tense and Modals.” InMotivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günther Raddened. byHubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 3–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.05lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.05lan [Google Scholar]
  21. Levshina, Natalia and Liesbeth Degand
    2017 “Just Because: In search of objective criteria of subjectivity expressed by causal connectives.” Dialogues and Discourse8 (1): 132–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, Fang
    2014 Subjectivity in Mandarin Chinese. The Meaning and Use of Causal Connectives in Written Discourse. PhD dissertation. Utrecht University. Utrecht: LOT.
  23. Li, Fang, Ted Sanders and Jaqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2016 “On the Subjectivity of Mandarin Reason Connectives: Robust Profiles or Genre-sensitivity?” InGenre in Language, Discourse and Cognitioned. byNinke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren, and Gerard Steen, 15–50. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Livnat, Zohar
    2010 “Impersonality and Grammatical Metaphors in Scientific Discourse.” The Rhetorical Perspective41: 103–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lopes, Ana
    2009 “Justification: A Coherence Relation.” Pragmatics19 (2): 241–252. 10.1075/prag.19.2.05lop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19.2.05lop [Google Scholar]
  26. Mann, William and Sandra Thompson
    1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.” Text8 (3): 243–281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  27. Martí-Sánchez, Manuel
    2008Los marcadores en español L/E: conectores discursivos y operadores pragmáticos. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McHugh, Mary
    2012 “Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic.” Biochemia Medica22 (3): 276–282. 10.11613/BM.2012.031
    https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 [Google Scholar]
  29. Muñoz-Torres, Juan Ramón
    2007 “Underlying Epistemological Conceptions in Journalism.” Journalism Studies8(2): 224–47. 10.1080/14616700601148838
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700601148838 [Google Scholar]
  30. Okamura, Akiko and Philip Shaw
    2014 “Development of Academic Journal Abstracts in Relation to the Demands of Stakeholders”. InAbstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Changeed. byMarina Bondi, and Rosa Lorés-Sanz, 287–318. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pander Maat, Henk and Ted Sanders
    2001 “Subjectivity in Causal Connectives: An Empirical Study of Language in Use.” Cognitive linguistics12: 247–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pander Maat, Henk and Liesbeth Degand
    2001 “Scaling Causal Relations and Connectives in Terms of Speaker Involvement.” Cognitive Linguistics12 (3): 211–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pit, Mirna
    2003How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2007 “Cross-linguistic Analyses of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French.” Languages in contrast7: 53–82. 10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.1.04pit [Google Scholar]
  35. Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CREA)
    Real Academia Española: Banco de datos (CREA) [online]. Corpus de Referencia del español actual. www.rae.es [AccessedJune, 2017]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. Sanders, Ted and Morton Ann Gernsbacher
    2004 “Accessibility in Text and Discourse Processing.” Discourse Processes37:79–89. 10.1207/s15326950dp3702_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3702_1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sanders, Ted, and Henk Pander Maat
    2006 “Cohesion and coherence.” InEncyclopedia of language and linguisticsed. byK. Brown, Vol.2, 591–59. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00497‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00497-1 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sanders, Ted, and Wilbert Spooren
    2007 “Discourse and text structure.” InThe Oxford handbook of cognitive linguisticsed. byD. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens, 916–943. Oxford: Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sanders, Ted and Wilbert Spooren
    2009 “Causal Categories in Discourse – Converging Evidence from Language Use.” InCausal Categories in Discourse and Cognitioned. byTed Sanders, and Eve Sweetser, 205–246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.205
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.205 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sanders, Ted and Ninke Stukker
    2012 “Causal Connectives in Discourse: A Cross-linguistic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics44(2): 131–137. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sanders, Ted, Wilbert Spooren, and Leo Noordman
    1993 “Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation.” Cognitive Linguistics4: 93–133. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93 [Google Scholar]
  43. Santana-Covarrubias, Andrea, Dorien Nieuwenhuijsen, Wilbert Spooren and Ted Sanders
    2017 “Causality and subjectivity in Spanish connectives.” Discours20: 3–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Samraj, Betty
    2008 “A Discourse Analysis of Master’s Theses across Disciplines with a Focus on Introductions.” Journal of English for Specific Purposes7: 55–67. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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 Studies17 (3): 323–341. 10.1017/S095926950700302X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095926950700302X [Google Scholar]
  46. Spooren, Wilbert and Ted Sanders
    2008 “The Acquisition Order of Coherence Relations: On Cognitive Complexity in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics40: 2003–2026. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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 Pragmatics40: 1296–1322. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  48. Swales, John
    1990Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 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]
  50. Traugott, Elizabeth
    2010 “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjetification: A reassessment.” InSubjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Topics in English Linguisticsed. byKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237 [Google Scholar]
  52. Vásquez, Fernando
    2005Pregúntele al Ensayista. [Ask the essay writer]. Bogotá: Kimpres.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wahl-Jorgansen, Karin
    2012 Subjectivity and story-telling in journalism: Examining expressions of affect, judgement and appreciation in Pullitzer Prize-winning stories. Journalism Studies14(3): 305–320. 10.1080/1461670X.2012.713738
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.713738 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zorraquino, Martín and Lázaro Portolés
    1999 Los marcadores del discurso. InGramática descriptive de la lengua español, ed. byIgnacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 4051–4214. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Zufferey, Sandrine and Bruno Cartoni
    2014 “A Multifactorial Analysis of Explication in Translation.” Target26 (3): 361–384. 10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.3.02zuf [Google Scholar]
  56. Zufferey, Sandrine and Pascal Gygax
    2017 “Processing Connectives with a Complex Form-function Mapping in L2. The case of French ‘En Effet’.” Frontiers in Psychology8: 1–11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01198
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01198 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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 Studies3: 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coherence relations; propositional attitude; subject of consciousness
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