1. Ninke Stukker and Ted Sanders Universiteit Utrecht
Subjectivity in causal connectives: similarities and differences between Dutch and German
Ninke Stukker and Ted Sanders
Universiteit Utrecht

2. Meaning and use of causal connectives: Cross-linguistic unity …?
OBJ……………SUBJ
Content causality: real world
Non-volitional: physical
Volitional: intentional
Epistemic: speaker’s knowledge of P causes conclusion in Q
Speech act: P represents the cause of the speech act in Q
Outline:
Cross-linguistic perspective on CC
Cognitive categorization hypothesis on CC
Pilot corpus analysis of:
Dus/ ?Also – Daarom/ ?Deshalb – Daardoor/ ?Dadurch

3. Meaning and use of causal connectives: Cross-linguistic unity …?
Dutch
French
German FW BW
OBJ
NVC
daardoor
doordat
?de ce fait
Parce que
?Dadurchdaher VC
daarom
omdat
?c’est pourquoi ?
?deshalb
weil
SUBJ EP
dus
Want,
aangezien
donc
car, puisque
?also
denn
(Cf. Pit, 2003; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pander Maat & Sanders, 1995; 2000; Frohning, 2007, Stukker, Sanders & Verhagen, 2008; Sanders, 2005)

4. What unity & diversity must we expect?
Findings from linguistic typology:
Grammatical patterns are essentially language-specific;
BUT variation is constrained by:
-function
-processing
-synchronic intra-linguistic variation
-diachronic development
-cognitive structure

5. Causal connectives & cognition
Research Project Causality and subjectivity as cognitive principles of discourse representation: Converging evidence from language use (Sanders, 2005: NWO vici project)
The linguistic project: evidence from language use
“Connectives provide a window on human cognition”, BUT usage patterns vary across:
…modalities
…genres
…languages

6. Causal connectives & cognition
Categorization function
Lexical category ≈ conceptual category (cf. Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995; Geeraerts, 1997)
Categorization hypothesis:
When selecting one of the causal connectives available in a language, the language user assigns the causal coherence relation expressed to a specific conceptual type of causality
Categorization in Dutch CC: subjectivity

7. Categorization in Dutch: subjectivity
Subjectivity: the degree of speaker responsibility expressed in the causal relation (Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000; cf. Langacker, 1990; Traugott, 1989)
Various dimensions of subjectivity. By way of illustration:
Domains of use (Sweetser, 1990; relation to subjectivity by Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pit,2003)
OBJ……………SUBJ
Content causality: real world
Non-volitional: physical
Volitional: intentional
Epistemic: speaker’s knowledge of P causes conclusion in Q
Speech act: P represents the cause of the speech act in Q

8. Why a cross-linguistic perspective?
Aims:
-Generalization over languages
-Filter out language specific factors
Current state of affairs:
-Similarities
-Differences
…but what do they look like exactly?
Where do they come from?
In this talk exploration of:
-Cognitive perspective on cross-ling ‘unity’
-Empirical data
…Work in progress…!

9. Subjectivity cline = Conceptual space?
‘Cognitive typology’ (e.g. Heine, 1997; Croft, 2001; Kemmer, 2003)
Aim: identify cognitive structure as basis for universals
Method: relate conceptual map with semantic map
Hypothesis
Categories of subjectivity = conceptual space that cross-linguistically constrains meaning and use of causal connectives
Cognitively plausible
Scalar concept (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pit, 2003)

10. Semantic map of daardoor, daarom and dus (news reports)
SUBJ………....OBJ
Epist. X x -
C-vol
C-nvol
SUBJ…………………………OBJ
Epist.
Content
volition
Content non-vol
Dus X x -
Daarom
Daardoor

11. Contrastive Corpus analysis Dutch-German
Dutch CC
German CC equivalent according to Vandale groot woordenboek NE-DU, 2002 (freq in PCC)
Dus
Also (18)
Demnach (0)
Folglich (1)
Daarom
Darum (2)
Deshalb (23)
Deswegen (1)
Daardoor
Dadurch (3)
Daher (3)
Demzufolge (0)

12. Contrastive corpus analysis Dutch-German
Dus, daarom, daardoor vs. Also, deshalb, dadurch
Subjectivity: domains of use
Method of analysis: paraphrase test (Sanders, 1997)
Domain:
Paraphrase:
Content non-volitional
P leads to the following situation: Q
Content volitional
P leads to the following intentional act: Q
Epistemic
P leads to the following conclusion: Q

13. Contrastive corpus analysis Dutch-German
Analytical perspectives:
-Onomasiological: naming
-Semasiological: meaning (cf. Geeraerts, 1997)
Corpora:
-pilot D-Coi, commentaries and opinion pieces
( wds; Oostdijk, 2006)
-Potsdam Commentary Corpus ( wds; Stede, 2004)
Statistical analysis: typical and less typical patterns established with contrast analysis (Van den Bergh, 1989)

14. Semantic map of dus, daarom and daardoor (opinion pieces)
SUBJ………....OBJ
Epist. x -
C-vol X
C-nvol
SUBJ…………………………OBJ
Epist.
Content
volition
Content non-vol
Dus X -
Daarom x
Daardoor

15. Semantic map of also, deshalb and dadurch (Commentaries)
SUBJ………....OBJ
Epist. x -
C-vol X
C-nvol
SUBJ…………………………OBJ
Epist.
Content
volition
Content non-vol
Also X -
Deshalb x
Dadurch

16. Unity and diversity in Dutch and German: semasiological perspective
SUBJ…………………………OBJ
Epist.
Content
volition
Content non-vol
Dus X -
Daarom x
Daardoor
SUBJ…………………………OBJ
Epist.
Content
volition
Content non-vol
Also X -
Deshalb x
Dadurch
Unity
-Daarom/ deshalb have general function
-Dus / also strongly specialize in SUBJ Epistemic
-Daardoor / dadurch strongly specialize in OBJ Non-volitional
Diversity
-Frequency Also, dadurch < dus, daardoor
-Deshalb is more subjective than daarom

17. Unity and diversity in Dutch and German: onomasiological perspective
Dus
Daarom
Daardoor
SUBJ………....OBJ
Epist. x -
C-vol X
C-nvol
Also
Deshalb
Dadurch
SUBJ………....OBJ
Epist. x -
C-vol X
C-nvol
Unity
-Content volitional expressed with daarom / deshalb
-No specific ‘name’ for subjective causality
Diversity
-Dutch has a specific ‘name’ for non-vol caus; Geman doesn’t

18. Discussion (If our small samples may be generalized)
Cognitive perspective:
Conceptual space/ semantic map
Usage-based methodology:
Frequency of use, distribution from onomas/semas perspective
specify ‘unity and diversity’ between Dutch-German…
BUT many questions remain…

19. Further research
Impact of communicative context? (Intra-language variation)
Subdistinctions of subjectivity (volitionality, but also: accessibility, attention –Frohning, 2007)
Meaning differences between typically and non-typically marked causal contexts (Stukker, Sanders & Verhagen, 2008)
More languages
More dimensions of subjectivity
Impact of communicative context? Distribution in persuasive newspaper text varies from descriptive genre. We need to analyze German news reports

20. THANK YOU!
Acknowledgement
This study was enabled by The Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research, NWO, through NWO Vici-grant , awarded to Ted Sanders.

21. References
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP.
Degand, L., Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In A. Verhagen & J. van de Weijer, eds., Usage based approaches to Dutch, Utrecht, LOT:
Frohning, D. (2007). Kausalmarker zwischen Pragmatik und Kognition. Korpusbasierte Analysen zur Variation im Deutschen. Tuebingen: Niemeyer.
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38.
Kemmer, S. (2003). Human cognition and the elaboration of events: Some universal conceptual categories. In: M. Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure 2, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
Oostdijk, N. (2006). A reference corpus of written Dutch: corpus design. Dutch language corpus initiative: Technical report D-COI
Pit, M. (2003). How to express yourself with a causal connective? Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Dissertation Utrecht University. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Pander Maat, H., Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12:
Pander Maat, H., Sanders, T. (1995). Nederlandse causale connectieven en het onderscheid tussen inhoudelijke en epistemische relaties (“Dutch causal connectives and the distinction between content and epistemic relations”). Leuvense Bijdragen 3:
Pander Maat, H., Sanders, T. (2000). Domains of use or subjectivity: The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In: E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter:
Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In: M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec, L. Vieu (eds.) Proceedings/actes SEM-05 First international symposium on the exploration and modeling of meaning,
Stede, M. (2004). The Potsdam Commentary Corpus. Proceedings of the ACL workshop on discourse annotation, Barcelona, July 25-26, 2004.
Stukker, N. (2005). Causality marking across levels of language structure. A cognitive semantic analysis of causal verbs and causal connectives in Dutch. Dissertation Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT.
Stukker, N., Sanders, T., Verhagen A. (2008). Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives. Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 40:
Sweetser, E.E. (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J.R. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traugott, E.C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57:
Van den Bergh, H. (1989). Examens geëxamineerd. Den Haag: SVO.