UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Semantic analysis of Because Powell, Mava Jo 1973

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 P69_4.pdf [ 3.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101506.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101506-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101506-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101506-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101506-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101506-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101506-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101506-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101506.ris

Full Text

cl A SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF BECAUSE  by  MAVA JO POWELL B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  t h e Department of Linguistics  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u n e , 1973  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the  L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e  and  study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  be granted by  the Head of my  I t i s understood t h a t copying or  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be written  permission.  Department of  Department or  Linguistics  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada  publication  allowed without  my  i ABSTRACT Introduction This semantic analysis of because contains a general study of i t s p o t e n t i a l as the focus of a sentence, and a s p e c i f i c study of i t s causative and non-causative meaning.  In Chapter I, I discuss previous l i n g u i s t i c  research on because and because-clauses.  One conclusion that seems clear  from the data i s that because can be the central point of attention i n a sentence.  I investigate this prominence i n Chapter I I .  I begin by re-  defining the term "focus," synthesising c r i t e r i a from other d e f i n i t i o n s . The r e d e f i n i t i o n denotes phonological and syntactic rules which speakers apply to emphasize certain parts of a sentence.  Then I demonstrate  that  these rules apply to because, thereby establishing that because can he focussed. In Chapter I I I , I turn to a more r e s t r i c t e d problem.  I in-  vestigate the semantic features of because which are common to reasonand causal-explanations. I propose that, i n i t s underlying form, because has the feature CtcauseD.  Sentences i n which because appears with the  features C^causeH do not contain the l e x i c a l items "cause" or "reason." I also describe two conditioned variants of because. feature C+causeU, occurs with the noun or verb cause.  One, having the The other, having  the feature C-causeD, occurs with the noun reason. The results of this study confirm evidence accumulating from other l i n g u i s t i c investigations that grammatical words are semantically f u l l , and that they can be described by t h e o r e t i c a l terminology appropriate to non-grammatical words.  A number of recent publications have appeared  ii on the semantic description of complementation structures, coordinating conjunctions, and determiners.  There i s comparatively  publication on subordinating conjunctions.  l i t t l e recent  Even less information i s  available on l e x i c a l items which have been c l a s s i f i e d both as subordinating conjunctions and as reason adverbials. Within t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the word because i s an e s p e c i a l l y important member.  From the point of view of l i n g u i s t i c s , i t i s s i g n i f i -  cant as one of the few subordinatores which can occur as a one-word utterance.  I investigate the implications o f t h i s status under the  t h e o r e t i c a l term "focus."  Furthermore, although no one has claimed that  "because i s semantically empty, no one has agreed upon i t s precise meaning, nor has anyone studied the word i n depth. Because i s also s i g n i f i c a n t from the point of view of l i n g u i s t i c philosophy.  The problem of defining reason- and causal-explanations has  a long scholarly h i s t o r y .  The results of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n demonstrate  that "because i s a c r u c i a l word for t h i s problem.  I show that when because  occurs i n a sentence either with the l e x i c a l items "reason" or "cause," "because assimilates i n sense to these items. the sense of because i s conditioned.  Thus, i n these environments,  But when because occurs i n sentences  which do not contain those l e x i c a l items, because can be synonymously paraphrased e i t h e r by "reason" or by "cause."  Therefore, because i s a  word whose meaning i s common both to reason- and causal-explanations.  iii TABLE  OF CONTENTS  Chapter  Page INTRODUCTION  I  DISCUSSION OF SCHOLARSHIP ON THE WORD BECAUSE AND ON BECAUSE-CLAUSES  II  1  INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BECAUSE AND THE TERM 'FOCUS'  III  i  23  A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAUSAL AND NON-CAUSAL FEATURES OF BECAUSE  51  LITERATURE CITED  72  CHAPTER I DISCUSSION OF SCHOLARSHIP ON THE WORD BECAUSE AND ON BECAUSE-CLAUSES  In t h i s chapter, I w i l l discuss previous l i n g u i s t i c scholarship on the word "because and on hec_ause-clauses.  Since the purpose o f an  investigation i n e v i t a b l y affects the questions which a r i s e , I w i l l distinguish between authors whose aim i s studying modern English as a natural language, and those whose interest i s developing a t h e o r e t i c a l language.  The f i r s t investigators define because within English as a  linguistic  system; l i n g u i s t i c  theoreticians, t r y i n g to formulate a  t h e o r e t i c a l language, use because as an empirical test o f a p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l model. This discussion centers around four questions.  F i r s t , can because  belong to two functional classes, that o f adverb and of conjunction? Second, can some because-clauses occur as the subject of a sentence, while others modify predicates?  Third, can one explain how because-  clauses are different from other reason adverbials i n imperative sentences, i n some declarative sentences, and i n sentences containing questions and negations?  Fourth, can one determine whether because-clauses  notions cause or reason?  denote the  Questions one, two, and three are e s s e n t i a l l y  problems i n syntax; question four i s a semantic issue. Discussions of question one, two, and four occur i n the works of Otto Jespersen, whose grammars describe English as a natural  2 language." " 1  J e s p e r s e n formulates, q u e s t i o n one as a p r o b l e m i n f u n c t i o n a l  classification. definition clusive .  A l t h o u g h he d e s c r i b e s two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l  o f because and b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s  w i t h i n each s y s t e m i s i n c o n -  I n h i s c a t e g o r i c a l system, t h e a n a l y t i c a l  the s e l e c t i o n a l c r i t e r i o n  systems, t h e  u n i t i s t h e word, and  f o r each c l a s s i s s e m a n t i c .  c a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a f o r because a r e s y n t a c t i c .  But t h e c l a s s i f i -  Moreover, i t i s n o t c l e a r  i n t o w h i c h s u b - c l a s s J e s p e r s e n p l a c e s because. In A Modern E n g l i s h Grammar and E s s e n t i a l s o f E n g l i s h Grammar, because i s a member o f a c l a s s named p a r t i c l e .  This c l a s s contains t h e  s u b - c l a s s e s a d v e r b , p r e p o s i t i o n , c o o r d i n a t i n g and s u b o r d i n a t i n g conjunction.  I n A Modern E n g l i s h Grammar, J e s p e r s e n  c l a s s i f i e s because as a 2  member o f t h e s u b - c l a s s adverb s i n c e i t has a c l a u s e as i t s o b j e c t .  On  the o t h e r hand, i n E s s e n t i a l s o f E n g l i s h Grammar, he c l a s s i f i e s because as a s u b o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s i n c e i t s f u n c t i o n i s t o connect a c l a u s e 3 w i t h a main s e n t e n c e .  Elsewhere,  J e s p e r s e n s t a t e s t h a t adverbs can be  c l a s s i f i e d as p r e p o s i t i o n s o r as c o n j u n c t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r s y n t a c t i c function.  When an adverb governs a noun, i t i s c l a s s i f i e d as a p r e p o s i t i o n .  But when an adverb governs a c l a u s e , i t i s c l a s s i f i e d as a c o n j u n c t i o n . J e s p e r s e n f o r m u l a t e s t h e second q u e s t i o n , whether  because-clauses  O t t o J e s p e r s e n , A Modern E n g l i s h Grammar on H i s t o r i c a l P r i n c i p l e s (Copenhagen: E i j n a r Munksgaard, 19^0) and E s s e n t i a l s o f E n g l i s h Grammar ( U n i v e r s i t y : U n i v . o f Alabama, 196k). 2 J e s p e r s e n , M. E. G., V, 15. J e s p e r s e n , E s s e n t i a l s , p. 6 9 . k J e s p e r s e n , M...E. G. , V, 2.  3 can be subjects of sentences as well as being clauses which modify predicates, as a problem i n rank assignment.  His second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l  system, the system o f ranks, i s l o g i c a l l y d i s t i n c t from the categorical c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l words.  Consequently, a word's categorical  and i t s rank assignment do not correspond one to one. The a n a l y t i c a l unit for the ranking system i s not only the word, but also i s groups o f words. Rank, then, i s determined by words i n combination.  In t h i s system,  because-clauses are described as t e r t i a r i e s and as primaries.  In  Essentials o f English Grammar and i n A Modern English Grammar, Jespersen c l a s s i f i e s because-clauses as t e r t i a r i e s . ^ examples support this c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  Lengthy sets of i l l u s t r a t i v e  None of these sentences contain  the words reason or cause, and none i s predicate nominal i n form. In a discussion of the nature of subordination, however, Jespersen states that because-clauses may also function as primaries: "What i s r e a l l y a clause t e r t i a r y with because i s made p r a c t i c a l l y a clause primary (nearly = 'the fact that') as the subject or predicate of the sentence."^ A sentence supporting t h i s statement i s , "The r e a l reason why I am out of place here i s because I l i k e men."  The difference between t h i s sentence,  i n which because ranks as a clause primary, and those sentences i n which because ranks as clause t e r t i a r y , i s the predicate nominal structure (reason . . . i s . . . because . . .) o f the quoted example. For Jespersen, question four i s a problem i n assigning a class  Jespersen, E s s e n t i a l s , p. 370; M. E. G., V, 3hh. Jespersen, M. E. G., V, 391.  h name to because.  The significance of a class name i s that i t includes  the semantic meanings of i t s p a r t i c l e members. between texts.  There i s a discrepancy  In Essentials o f English Grammar, "Cause" i s the name of  the c l a u s a l t e r t i a r y class t o which because belongs.  But i n A Modern  English Grammar, the class name i s "Cause, Reason and Motive."  Referring  to members o f the l a t t e r c l a s s , Jespersen remarks that each p a r t i c l e member expresses "a relationship between two statements i n which one statement i s closely dependent  on the other as showing i t s necessary cause •7  or the necessary motive for i t . "  Moreover, Jespersen unequivocally  accepts the view that because belongs to t h i s semantic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n — he does- not even cite a supportive example.  He merely l i s t s because, adds  a colon, and leaves blank the place where an i l l u s t r a t i v e sentence should 8 occur.  Though he cites sentences for a l l p a r t i c l e members other than  because, he does not specify the p a r t i c l e s that denote each of the notions cause, reason, or motive.  And even though Jespersen subcategorizes the  p a r t i c l e s which belong to "Cause, Reason, Motive" into coordinators and subordinators according to semantic c r i t e r i a , because i s ambiguously assigned. The difference between these subcategories i s one of the degree of semantic dependence between the t e r t i a r y clause and the main sentence. Jespersen remarks that when the causal t e r t i a r y occurs a f t e r the main statement, the statement o f cause "tends to be less intimately connected 7  Jespersen, M. E. G., V, 3 8 7 .  Q  Jespersen, M. E. G., V, 390.  5 „Q  w i t h t h e main f a c t and t h u s t o he c o o r d i n a t e d r a t h e r t h a n s u b o r d i n a t e d . He c l a s s i f i e s t h e r e f o r e , s o , and f o r as c o o r d i n a t o r s ; t h a t , a s , s i n c e , f o r , and "because as s u b o r d i n a t o r s .  But i n t h e case o f f o r , t h e degree  of  semantic dependence must "be c o n s t a n t , s i n c e 'for can o c c u r o n l y a f t e r a main sentence.  F o r , then, s h o u l d "belong t o t h e s u b - c l a s s s u b o r d i n a t o r .  And  b e c a u s e , w h i c h o c c u r s e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r a main s e n t e n c e , must be cross-classified.  T h e r e f o r e , s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n based upon semantic  criteria  does not e s t a b l i s h a meaning f o r because. There i s e v i d e n c e , however, f o r a c a u s a l and n o n - c a u s a l p r e t a t i o n o f because.  A sentence c o n t a i n i n g because appears  e x p l a n a t i o n o f cause and e f f e c t .  inter-  i n an  Furthermore, e a r l i e r i n the t e x t ,  J e s p e r s e n s t a t e s t h a t cause i s not i n d i c a t e d i n t h e s e n t e n c e , "I'm s a y i n g t h a t I e v e r l i k e d O d e l l v e r y much, because I don't. ""^ s e c t i o n , he s a y s : "a p r e p o s i t i o n t h a t i s 'by reason'.""'""'"  In another  regimen i s a t t h e b a s e o f because and  The a l t e r n a t i v e s seeming most l i k e l y t o J e s p e r s e n ,  t h e n , a r e c a u s a l and n o n - c a u s a l . o f r e a s o n may be  not  In non-causal environments, the n o t i o n  expressed.  To c o n c l u d e , J e s p e r s e n ' s grammars d e s c r i b e because as adverb conjunction. primaries.  and  Some b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s f u n c t i o n as t e r t i a r i e s ; o t h e r s as Those w h i c h a r e p r i m a r i e s can o c c u r i n a p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l  form w i t h t h e noun r e a s o n .  There i s e v i d e n c e f o r a c a u s a l and  J e s p e r s e n , M. E. G. , V, 3 +. QL  J e s p e r s e n , M. E. G.,  V,  391.  J e s p e r s e n , M. E. G.,  V,  393.  non-causal  6 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f b e c a u s e , b u t no c r i t e r i a e x i s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g when each o f t h e s e p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s a p p l y . A l t h o u g h A l i c e D a v i s o n i s a l s o p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f E n g l i s h as a n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e , h e r s t u d y i s r e s t r i c t e d t o  12 c a u s a l adverbs. of t h i s c l a s s .  She d e s c r i b e s s i n c e , a s , b e c a u s e , i f , and so_as members W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f i f , each o f t h e s e members i s i n c l u d e d  i n Jespersen's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  A l t h o u g h she does n o t p r o v i d e a d e f i n i -  t i o n f o r t h e c l a s s , she assumes t h a t t h e r e i s some d e f i n i t i o n o f cause which w i l l a p p l y t o t h e members.  Presumably, t h e d e f i n i t i o n must be  s e m a n t i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d and v e r y g e n e r a l . A l i c e D a v i s o n examines q u e s t i o n t h r e e .  Comparing t h e b e h a v i o u r  of because w i t h o t h e r c a u s a l a d v e r b i a l s , she observes t h a t because behaves i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f o t h e r c a u s a l a d v e r b i a l s  13 i n sentences w h i c h have a p a r t i c u l a r l y d e f i n e d i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e .  She  makes t h r e e o b s e r v a t i o n s . F i r s t , she m i s t a k e n l y suggests t h a t a l t h o u g h s i n c e , s o , and as_ o f t e n s u b s t i t u t e f o r b e c a u s e , b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s a r e ung r a m m a t i c a l i f a main c l a u s e i s a q u e s t i o n , r e q u e s t o r command.  They a r e  a l s o ungrammatical i f t h e main c l a u s e c o n t a i n s an o v e r t p e r f o r m a t i v e verb Ik  or  a d e c l a r a t i v e verb.  She concludes t h a t t h e semantic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f  12 A l i c e D a v i s o n , " C a u s a l Adverbs and P e r f o r m a t i v e V e r b s , " Papers From t h e S i x t h R e g i o n a l M e e t i n g o f t h e Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y ( A p r i l ,  19TO), pp. 190-201. 13  A. D a v i s o n , p. 191. ik  A. D a v i s o n , p. 191. An i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e marker i s an a b s t r a c t verb w i t h a f i r s t p e r s o n s u b j e c t and a second p e r s o n o b j e c t . A v e r b used p e r f o r m a t i v e l y i s one o c c u r r i n g i n a speech a c t w h i c h i s a l s o an a c t o f d o i n g . The speech a c t i s b o t h t h e statement and performance o f an a c t i o n . F o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f p e r f o r m a t i v e v e r b s , see f o o t n o t e 29 below.  7 because must be marked so that i t cannot occur i n a sentence which contains a verb used performatively."^ Her second observation i s that, whereas because-clauses can be t o p i c a l i z e d , negated and asserted, since- and 'if-clauses cannot.  Since I  w i l l discuss the r e l a t i o n s h i p between because and the terms " t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , " "negation," and "assertion" at some length i n Chapter I I , I mention them only b r i e f l y here to acknowledge and give coherence to her investigation. She also observes a difference in. "range of meaning" between becauseclauses and other causal adverbial  clauses.  She does not define "range  of meaning," but she may intend the term i n two possible senses.  The f i r s t  may include the term " f a c t i v e " as i t applies to because-clauses.  She  uses " f a c t i v e " i n the following way: An item i s inserted into a frame of the type "counterfactual conditional."  I f an acceptable sentence results from the s u b s t i t u t i o n ,  i t s complement i s asserted to be true, and i s c a l l e d non-factive.  If  substitution i s unacceptable, the complement i s presupposed, and i s c a l l e d factive.  Because-clauses substitute unacceptably; therefore, according to  t h i s t e s t , the because-clauses are presupposed; hence, f a c t i v e .  Her  sentence (28a) w i l l i l l u s t r a t e t h i s conclusion and my next point. One problem with her application of t h i s t e s t i s that the term  15 I q u a l i f y t h i s conlusion i n Chapter I I , pp.  l6 Her exposition of t h i s point i s d i f f i c u l t to follow. I w i l l quote i t here, i n case I have misunderstood her. "Morgan's test f o r presupposed truth i s the combination of counterfactual subjunctive with the item i n question, the r e s u l t being both contradictory and ungrammatical i f the item requires i t s complement to be presupposed to be true." A. Davison, p. 193.  8' "complement" i s u n d e f i n e d .  C o n s i d e r h e r sentence frame  (28a) 17  Because he's h e r e ,  I c a n / c o u l d see  him.  *he were h e r e , *he had heen h e r e , *had he heen h e r e , We might a r r i v e a t a d e f i n i t i o n o f "complement" by p r o c e s s o f e l i m i n a t i o n . The t e r m "complement" must r e f e r t o t h e f i r s t c l a u s e , s i n c e she says t h a t second c l a u s e s need not he f a c t i v e .  T h e r e f o r e , "complement" must r e f e r  e i t h e r t o a l l t h e i t e m s o f t h e f i r s t c l a u s e , e x c l u d i n g because, o r t o some of t h o s e i t e m s .  I f we  a c c e p t t h e f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e n "he's h e r e " i s t h e  complement and i s presupposed.  We must r e j e c t t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c e i t  is- p o s s i b l e t o negate t h e element " h e r e . "  By h e r d e f i n i t i o n , a p r e -  s u p p o s i t i o n i s c o n s t a n t under n e g a t i o n . " ^ C o n s i d e r i n g t h e second a l t e r n a t i v e , "complement" must r e f e r e i t h e r t o t h e pronoun "he," t o t h e v e r b — w h i c h i s t h e paradigm i t s e l f — o r , t o "here."  We can e l i m i n a t e " h e r e " on t h e grounds w h i c h I s t a t e d i n t h e  p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h , and t h e v e r b , on t h e grounds t h a t i t i s t h e t e s t paradigm.  The pronoun remains.  I t i s n e i t h e r a c c u r a t e nor u s e f u l t o  say t h a t t h e s u b j e c t pronoun o f a b e c a u s e - c l a u s e i s presupposed.  In  Chapter I I , I w i l l r e t u r n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between because and t h e t e r m "factive." A second sense o f "range o f meaning" might i n c l u d e t h e n o t i o n o f v o l i t i o n a l i t y . . A l i c e D a v i s o n s t a t e s t h a t " v o l i t i o n " seems t o be i n c l u d e d  A. D a v i s o n , p.  194.  A. D a v i s o n , pp. 193-194.  9 i n the meaning of because, but not i n the meaning o f other causal adverbs. She s t a t e s , with regard to v o l i t i o n a l i t y , that verbs have been subcategorized on the basis of the presence or absence of v o l i t i o n .  But she  also states that causal adverbs are not r e s t r i c t e d by the kinds of verbs they can modify.  Thus, i t i s impossible  to determine just how the term  " v o l i t i o n a l i t y " can apply to because. In conclusion, while A l i c e Davison's research centers on question f i v e — a comparison i n syntactic behaviour among members of the class.of causal a d v e r b s — i t  also has implications for question one.  I f i t can be  demonstrated that because i s s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from other members with which i t has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y c l a s s i f i e d , then we must e i t h e r r e c l a s s i f y i t , or re-evaluate  the data.  I have said that some l i n g u i s t s who include because-clauses i n t h e i r investigations are p r i m a r i l y interested i n theory construction.  In  his t e x t , I r r e g u l a r i t y i n Syntax, George Lakoff i s concerned with ex19 panding the "scope of metatheory on the basis of empirical evidence." Within t h i s text because-clauses serve as empirical tests for three t h e o r e t i c a l proposals. entry.  The f i r s t i s a proposal  for a form of l e x i c a l  He states that i t would be t h e o r e t i c a l l y economical i f words,  George Lakoff, I r r e g u l a r i t y i n Syntax (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1 9 7 0 ) , p p . 3 - 4 . I n t h i s book, Lakoff states that he had assumed when he wrote the text that Chomsky's l e x i c a l base hypothesis was correct. This hypothesis i s that l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n i s pre-transformat i o n a l . Working from t h i s assumption toward a d e f i n i t i o n of the notion "exception to a transformational r u l e , " Lakoff had to postulate hypothet i c a l l e x i c a l items. Since 1 9 6 5 , he has revised his t h e o r e t i c a l framework. Lexical, i n s e r t i o n remains an empirical problem i n t h e o r e t i c a l linguistics.  10  s e m a n t i c a l l y r e l a t e d b u t s y n t a c t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t , c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d into a s i n g l e l e x i c a l entry.  To d e s c r i b e t h e semantic synonomy o f t h e s e  words-, he p o s t u l a t e s a c l a s s o f t h e o r e t i c a l terms c a l l e d " h y p o t h e t i c a l l e x i c a l items." R e g a r d i n g b e c a u s e , he proposes a h y p o t h e t i c a l v e r b form *=cLEAD TO o r RESULT I I C ^ " as a p o s s i b l e deep s t r u c t u r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g ambiguous s e n t e n c e : " ( F - 3 9 ) her."  I don't b e a t my w i f e because I l i k e  He assumes t h e f o l l o w i n g . c l e f t s e n t e n c e forms as deep s t r u c t u r a l  s o u r c e s from w h i c h two p o s s i b l e r e a d i n g s may d e r i v e : (F-H0)  I t i s be cause I l i k e h e r t h a t I don't b e a t my w i f e .  (F-i+l)  I t i s not because  I l i k e h e r t h a t • I b e a t my w i f e .  Phrase s t r u c t u r a l t r e e s (H) and ( i ) c o r r e s p o n d t o (H)  (F-HO)  and ( F - U l ) :  I t i s because I l i k e h e r t h a t I don't b e a t my w i f e . S  I l i k e my w i f e  +V +ADJ -<LEAD TO o r RESULT I N > because  it I b e a t my w i f e  11 (i)  It i s not because I l i k e her that I beat my  I l i k e my  wife,  wife +ADJ <liEAD TO or RESULT IN>because  neg it I beat my  wife  Notice that Lakoff does not associate because with the semantic notion of cause.  In f a c t , he has another hypothetical l e x i c a l  item  21 CAUSATIVE which represents the notion of direct and i n d i r e c t  causation.  The semantic generalization <^LEAD TO or RESULT I N > f o l l o w s from Lakoff's assumption that a transformation, trees (H) and  FLIP, operates on the phrase structure  ( i ) y i e l d i n g the following derived sentences: "My  liking  22 for my wife doesn't lead to my beating  her."  Although he does not specify the rules which apply to these nominalized  forms, i t should be possible to derive from them the following  phrase structures: 20 Lakoff, I. S., p. 169 and pp. 204-205. Notice that he negates the entire sentence i n deep structure, i f , i n the surface structure form, not precedes because. I propose a different analysis on pp. Z9-3C  21 See p.  Lakoff, I. S. , p. hi.  22 Lakoff, 126.  I. S., p. 205.  FLIP interchanges  subjects and objects,  12 (A) corresponds to (H)  NP  VP  it  I l i k e my wife  (B) corresponds to ( i )  it  I l i k e my wife  Lakoff's t h i r d proposal f o r metatheory, represented i n the phrase structure labeled (A) and (B) on the preceding page, i s the feature notation for because. (fADj).  Notice that because has the properties (+V)  and  This i s an example of his general hypothesis that adjectives and  Lakoff, I. S., pp. 202-203. The negative element has been accidentally omitted from the tree i n the text on p. 203.  13 verbs a r e members o f a s i n g l e l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y , and t h a t adverbs d e r i v e 2k  from a d j e c t i v a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s h a v i n g p r e d i c a t e complements. We can s e e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i n f o r m u l a t i n g a t h e o r e t i c a l l a n g u a g e , L a k o f f i n d i r e c t l y p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r q u e s t i o n s one, two, t h r e e and four.  With r e g a r d t o i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , because b e l o n g s t o a common v e r b -  adjective category.  The deep s t r u c t u r a l form from w h i c h L a k o f f proposes  t o d e r i v e a s e n t e n c e c o n t a i n i n g a b e c a u s e - c l a u s e i s one i n w h i c h t h e c l a u s e s e r v e s as t h e s u b j e c t .  T r a n s l a t i n g t h i s d e r i v a t i o n i n t o Otto Jespersen's  t e r m i n o l o g y , t h e " p r i m a r y " form would be c o n s i d e r e d b a s i c , r a t h e r t h a n the " t e r t i a r y " . cause.  F o r L a k o f f , b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s do n o t e x p r e s s t h e n o t i o n o f  And, l i k e A l i c e D a v i s o n , he r a i s e s t h e problem o f how n e g a t i v e  and q u e s t i o n o p e r a t o r s a p p l y t o sentences c o n t a i n i n g b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s . I n " C o n t e x t u a l C o n s t r a i n t s on Reason A d v e r b i a l s , " J a c k D a v i s o n m a i n t a i n s t h a t sentence grammars i n a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n c e r t a i n g r a m m a t i c a l phenomena, and f a i l t o account f o r t h e a b i l i t y o f speakers t o use and understand c e r t a i n l o c u t i o n s .  25  J . Davison proposes, t h e r e f o r e , a  F o r h i s arguments s u p p o r t i n g t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , see I . S. , pp. and pp. 157-159. The argument c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f adverbs from a d j e c t i v e s i s b a s e d upon t h e s i n g l e case o f manner a d v e r b s . He a p p a r e n t l y extends t h e argument t o a l l a d v e r b i a l s t r u c t u r e s . F o r a more d e t a i l e d account o f t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f s y n t a c t i c c a t e g o r i e s j see James D. McCawley, "Where Do Noun Phrases Come From," i n Readings i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar, ed. R o d e r i c k A. Jacobs and P e t e r S. Rosenbaum ( M a s s a c h u s e t t s : Ginn and Co., 1970), pp. 169-171; and a r e v i s e d v e r s i o n o f t h e same paper i n S e m a n t i c s : An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y . R e a d e r i n P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s and P s y c h o l o g y , ed. Danny A. S t e i n b e r g and Leon A. J a k o b o v i t s (London: Cambridge U n i v . P r e s s , 1971), pp."220-222.  115-1^7  J a c k D a v i s o n , " C o n t e x t u a l C o n s t r a i n t s on Reason A d v e r b i a l s , " L i n g u i s t i c s , (1973), To Appear.  lU contextual approach to l i n g u i s t i c analysis, and uses  reason-adverbials—  s p e c i f i c a l l y , examples o f sentences containing because-clauses—to demonstrate that the only way to represent  some ambiguities  i n meaning i s  to include contextual constraints i n grammars. Before he gives evidence f o r contextual analysis, J . Davison rejects previous proposals  for the constituent structure of because-clauses.  He contends that these clauses are not causal constructions; nor are they related to the causal adverbials which A l i c e Davison analyses.  With  regard to the proposal that because-clauses are causal i n meaning. J . Davison objects: " . . . we use because i n making explanations  for which  we need reasons, and although causes may be offered as reasons, not a l l  26 reasons are causes."  In countering A l i c e Davison's proposals, he points  out that because i s unlike the set o f adverbials containing since, i f , as, and others, i n that they do not have head noun counterparts.  The  underlying semantic structure of because-clauses i s more l i k e that of manner, place, and purpose adverbials, a l l of which have head noun counterparts  ^ J . Davison proposes a deep s t r u c t u r a l form for because-clauses  which i s l i k e Lakoff's i n that the adverbial element i s represented  as a  26 J . Davison, L i n g u i s t i c s , To Appear. 27  J . Davison, L i n g u i s t i c s , To Appear. A weak d e f i n i t i o n of the term "head noun counterpart" i s : a sentence which i s a head noun counterpart o f another sentence i s one i n which a prepositional phrase can synonymously replace an adverb. In the following pair of sentences from J. Davison, a weak d e f i n i t i o n would hold: "28a) He cut the bread i n a manner we t o l d him to. (28b) He cut the bread as we t o l d him to." Other subsitution pairs.are when: at the time, where: at the place, t o : f o r the purpose, and because: the reason that.  15 higher sentence. a cleft-sentence.  J . D a v i s o n , however, does not d e r i v e t h e c l a u s e from I n t h e u n d e r l y i n g forms ( 4 6 ) and ( 4 7 ) o f t h e ambiguous  s e n t e n c e : " ( 4 3 ) He b r o k e t h e handle because i t was t h e o n l y way t o get i n , " REASON i s a head-noun,, and a p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l s t r u c t u r e i s t h e h i g h e s t -i  verb p h r a s e .  28  (46)  John b r o k e the handle  S  3  — c o n j — S^  John i n t e n d e d to destroy the evidence  It(breaking the handle) was t h e o n l y • way t o get i n .  (47)  Reason  John b r o k e the handle  John i n t e n d e d no one get i n  I t ( t h e handle) was t h e o n l y way t o get i n .  These t r e s s i n c l u d e c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n . J . D a v i s o n , L i n g u i s t i c s , To Appear.  16 N o t i c e t h a t i n (h6) and (hj), J . D a v i s o n i n c l u d e s an Q-marker w h i c h i s a t t a c h e d t o S^.  underlying  He s t a t e s t h a t j u s t as i t i s p o s s i b l e  t o negate s p e c i f i c elements o f a sentence c o n t a i n i n g an a d v e r b i a l , i t i s also p o s s i b l e t o question only the a d v e r b i a l phrase. argument f o r d i s c o u r s e  And, as p a r t o f h i s  a n a l y s i s , J . D a v i s o n s t a t e s t h a t t h e Q-marker a l l o w s  f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o p y i n g i n t o a grammar m a t e r i a l w h i c h a s p e a k e r r e t r i e v e s from a d i s c o u r s e . a question.  Sometimes s p e a k e r s t o p i c a l i z e one element o f  One can a s k , f o r example, "Why  was i t THIEVES who b r o k e i n t o  t h e house?" and a n o t h e r can answer, "Because we have no v a n d a l s i n t h e area."  The r e p l y c o u l d be r e p r e s e n t e d  i n deep s t r u c t u r e under t h e VP-node,  and t h e q u e s t i o n t o w h i c h t h e r e p l y responds c o u l d be t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y  29 i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e Q-marker p o s i t i o n . Other c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i s e s s e n t i a l f o r  disambiguating  sentences can a l s o be a n a l y z e d w i t h a deep s t r u c t u r a l form c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o (h6) and ( 4 7 ) .  I n sentence (k), "Bobby s t a r t e d c r y i n g because he wanted  i n , " J . D a v i s o n s t a t e s t h a t one must know whether t h e s p e a k e r b e l i e v e d t h a t c r y i n g would i n d u c e someone t o l e t him i n , o r whether t h e s p e a k e r knew t h a t someone was p u r p o s e l y clusion.  e x c l u d i n g h i m , and c r i e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e ex-  J . D a v i s o n c o n c l u d e s t h a t , s i n c e one must know a s p e a k e r ' s  motive o r i n t e n t i o n b e f o r e  one can u n d e r s t a n d what sentence (h) means, 30  m o t i v e and i n t e n t i o n must be i n c l u d e d i n g r a m m a t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s . F i n a l l y , he s t a t e s t h a t i t i s a l s o e s s e n t i a l t o be a b l e t o represent  t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e between s e n t e n c e s w h i c h  29 30  See my.pp./e-'7 f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n J . D a v i s o n , L i n g u i s t i c s , To  Appear.  o f t h e Q-marker.  IT a r e r e p o r t s and t h o s e w h i c h a r e e x p l a n a t i o n s . I n r e p o r t i n g an e v e n t , he s a y s , one u s u a l l y e x p r e s s e s t h e i d e a s o f o t h e r s ; b u t , i n g i v i n g an e x p l a n a t i o n , one u s u a l l y e x p r e s s e s one's own i d e a s .  And, a l t h o u g h he does  not i n v e s t i g a t e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n d e p t h , J . D a v i s o n e x p l a i n s t h a t 31 b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s seem t o be i n t e r m e d i a t e between t h e two f o r c e s . Whereas t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s was a means o f arguing f o r c o n t e x t u a l grammatical a n a l y s i s , J . Davison's study a l s o p r o v i d e s evidence f o r q u e s t i o n f o u r .  According t o h i s analysis,  c l a u s e s a r e e x p l a n a t i o n s which e x p r e s s r e a s o n s .  because-  He does n o t i n v e s t i g a t e  whether t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e e x c l u d e d from, i n cluded i n , o r are o v e r l a p p i n g w i t h e x p l a n a t i o n s which are reasons. I n "Some O b s e r v a t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g S u b o r d i n a t e Clauses i n E n g l i s h , " W i l l i a m E. R u t h e r f o r d defends and r e v i s e s Ross' p e r f o r m a t i v e s e n t e n c e 32 analysis.  I n f o r m a t i o n from s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s p r o v i d e s t h e l i n g u i s t i c  evidence f o r these t h e o r e t i c a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s .  Much o f t h e s t r e n g t h o f h i s  p r o p o s a l comes from an a n a l y s i s o f sentences c o n t a i n i n g b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s . I n 1972, M i c h a e l Kac p u b l i s h e d h i s r e a c t i o n s t o R u t h e r f o r d ' s c l a i m s . Kac c e n t e r s h i s counterarguments analysis.  upon b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s and t h e p e r f o r m a t i v e  He o f f e r s an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n w h i c h he c l a i m s c a n  F o r c e a s c r i p t i o n which has i t s s o u r c e i n speaker i n t e n t i o n s , as i n (k), seems t o me t o be d i f f e r e n t from f o r c e w h i c h d e r i v e s from t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t y p e s , o f sentences i n t o r e p o r t s and e x p l a n a t i o n s . I. would agree t h a t b o t h t y p e s seem t o be. somehow c o n t e x t u a l ; b u t t h e former seems " s i t u a t i o n a l , " whereas, t h e l a t t e r seems s t r i c t l y " l i n g u i s t i c . " J . D a v i s o n , L i n g u i s t i c s , To Appear.  32 W i l l i a m E. R u t h e r f o r d , "Some O b s e r v a t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g Subo r d i n a t e C l a u s e s i n E n g l i s h , " Language k6 (1970), 97-115; John Robert R o s s , "On D e c l a r a t i v e S e n t e n c e s , " Readings i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar, ed. R o d e r i c k A. Jacobs and P e t e r S. Rosenbaum ( M a s s a c h u s e t t s : Gihn and Company), pp. 222-272.  18 d e s c r i b e t h e same sentences as R u t h e r f o r d ' s a n a l y s i s w i t h o u t R u t h e r f o r d ' s conceptual inadequacies.  I w i l l compare t h e two a n a l y s e s .  R u t h e r f o r d b e g i n s by c i t i n g s y n t a c t i c e v i d e n c e t h a t  because-  c l a u s e s d i f f e r : some o f t h e s e c l a u s e s r e f e r t o a v e r b i n t h e s u r f a c e main c l a u s e ; o t h e r s do n o t .  I n t h e s e n t e n c e , "(l8) J e n n y . i s n ' t h e r e , because  I don't see h e r , " i t i s apparent t h a t t h e s p e a k e r i s g i v i n g a r e a s o n f o r 33 making t h e s t a t e m e n t , r a t h e r t h a n a r e a s o n f o r Jenny's absence.  The  p r o b l e m f o r R u t h e r f o r d i s i n r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g form o f a c l a u s e w h i c h i s a d v e r b i a l , b u t w h i c h does n o t r e s t r i c t t h e s u r f a c e main verb.  He a c c e p t s a . m o d i f i e d form o f Ross' d e c l a r a t i v e sentence  analysis.  I f one h y p o t h e s i z e d an u n d e r l y i n g main v e r b o f " s a y i n g " i n sentence (l8), t h e n one might a l s o p o s t u l a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g p h r a s e  structure:  S  Jenny i s n ' t h e r e  because I don't see h e r  A r u l e c a l l e d p e r f o r m a t i v e d e l e t i o n would a p p l y t o t h i s u n d e r l y i n g f o r m ,  R u t h e r f o r d , p. 100.  19 and sentence  (18) would r e s u l t  Kac's disagreement  •3k  with Rutherford over ( l 8 )  does not center upon  Rutherford's o r i g i n a l problem concerning the scope of the becatise-clause. Kac takes issue with an inference about the t h e o r e t i c a l form of the underl y i n g structure.  He states that Rutherford and Ross assume that trans-  35 formations preserve meaning.  Kac r e p l i e s to t h i s assumption by saying  that i f transformations, such as performative deletion, preserve meaning, the following two sentences should mean the same: "(6) Jenny i s n ' t here even though she i s , " and, "(7)  I say to you that  Jenny i s n ' t here even  36 though she i s . " sentence (7)  He points out that they are d i f f e r e n t i n meaning:  i s only contradictory; but, sentence  (6) can be read either  as contradictory, or as an instance of a speaker's understanding that he i s "admitting that he i s saying something which i s contrary to what he  37 knows to be t r u e . " Instead of representing Kac's sentence  (6) with an underlying form  3k Rutherford does not give a phrase structure f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sentence. Since Kac selects (18) as the point of departure for his r e actions, I have constructed one on the basis of others i n the text.  35  There are r e p l i e s to Kac's contentions. I omit them because they involve issues i n t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s , rather than problems s p e c i f i c to because-clauses. Se Bruce Fraser and Stephen R. Anderson's evaluations of Ross' arguments f o r a performative hypothesis. Bruce Fraser, "An Examination of The Performative Analysis," Indiana University Club mimeograph (October, 1971); Stephen R. Anderson, "On the L i n g u i s t i c Status of the Performative-Constative D i s t i n c t i o n , " Indiana University Club mimeograph (October, 1971).  36  Michael B. Kac, "Clauses of Saying and the Interpretation of because. Language, k8 (1972), 627. '  3 7  Kac, p.  627.  20 c o n t a i n i n g a main verb o f s a y i n g w h i c h has not undergone p e r f o r m a t i v e , d e l e t i o n — a s R u t h e r f o r d p r o b a b l y w o u l d have d o n e — K a c proposes two  theo-  r e t i c a l terms w h i c h can d e s c r i b e the d i f f e r e n c e between sentences  (-6)  and-(7).  Intra-  The terms a r e " i n t r a d i s c u r s a r y " and " e x t r a d i s c u r s a r y . "  d i s c u r s a r y c l a u s e s , as i n ( 6 ) ,  determine t h e t r u t h c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e  sentence w h i c h c o n t a i n s them i n s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e . E x t r a d i s c u r s a r y c l a u s e s as i n , "05) I t e l l y o u , Jenny i s n ' t h e r e ! " do not determine t h e t r u t h  38 c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e sentence.  Kac argues t h a t i f t r u t h v a l u e i s p a r t o f  t h e meaning o f a s e n t e n c e , and i f t h e r e i s a r u l e " p e r f o r m a t i v e d e l e t i o n " w h i c h can d e l e t e p a r t o f a sentence w h i c h has t r u t h v a l u e , t h e n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s cannot be meaning p r e s e r v i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , Kac i n a m i s l e a d i n g way.  contends t h a t Ross uses the t e r m " p e r f o r m a t i v e "  Ross t a k e s t h e t e r m from t h e w r i t i n g s o f J . L.  39 Austin.  A c c o r d i n g t o A u s t i n , p e r f o r m a t i v e s have no t r u t h v a l u e , but have  o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h d e t e r m i n e a p p r o p r i a t e usage.  A c c o r d i n g t o Kac's  t e r m i n o l o g y , o n l y e x t r a d i s c u r s a r y c l a u s e s can be d e l e t e d s i n c e , by d e f i n i t i o n , they do not determine t h e t r u t h o f a sentence i n w h i c h t h e y appear.  R o s s , t h e n , i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y uses A u s t i n ' s t e r m when he  claims  t h a t t h e r e can be a p e r f o r m a t i v e d e l e t i o n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . Kac s t a t e s , " i t i s a l s o w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t p e r f o r m a t i v e must be i n t r a d i s c u r s o r y — s i n c e p e r f o r m a t i v e sentences at a l l , and. thus d i f f e r , f r o m p r o p o s i t i o n s - . " ^ 3 8  Kac, p.  have no t r u t h v a l u e s  E i t h e r t h e r e i s an e r r o r i n  627.  J . L. A u s t i n , How University Press, 1962) 3 9  ^° Kac. p.  clauses  628.  To Do Things W i t h Words (New  York:  Oxford  21 the t e x t , o r Kac has  contradicted himself.  no t r u t h v a l u e , t h e n , by h i s own  I f p e r f o r m a t i v e c l a u s e s have  d e f i n i t i o n , t h e y must be e x t r a d i s c u r s o r y .  Kac's o t h e r main disagreement i s over a p o i n t which R u t h e r f o r d d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e .  In c h a s t i s i n g R u t h e r f o r d and Ross, Kac  know f o r sure about such sentences  ...  s a y s , " A l l we  i s the r e a s o n a d v e r b i a l cannot  be i n t e r p r e t e d as g i v i n g a cause f o r what i s r e p o r t e d i n the f i r s t  con-  kl junct.'."  But R u t h e r f o r d d i d not make t h a t c l a i m .  He  only maintains  that  h i s r e v i s e d p e r f o r m a t i v e a n a l y s i s can p r o v i d e a u n i f o r m d e s c r i p t i o n o f what might appear t o be two d e s c r i b e how,  distinct  forms o f because.  He does not  o r even whether t h e y might d i f f e r i n semantic  features.  So Kac's p r o p o s a l f o r a f e a t u r e a n a l y s i s o f because i s a suggestion f o r i t s l e x i c a l representation. senses  Kac  c l a i m s t h a t t h e r e are  o f because which are r e l a t e d i n a s y s t e m a t i c way.  two  Both c o n t a i n t h e  sense o f C*ConnectionH, but -only the i n t r a d i s c u r s a r y r e a d i n g can have t h e  1+2 f e a t u r e C+Connection, -/-Cause!]. a non-causal  He m a i n t a i n s , t h e r e f o r e , that, t h e r e i s  as w e l l as a c a u s a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f because.  t h a t f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h o u l d c e n t e r upon these two The  disagreement between R u t h e r f o r d and Kac  t h e o r e t i c a l , language. t o q u e s t i o n s two because-clauses  suggests  feature specifications.  is essentially  over  N e v e r t h e l e s s , the data s p e c i f i c t o because r e l a t e  and f o u r .  R u t h e r f o r d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the ways t h a t  modify v e r b s , and Kac  c a u s a l meanings .of the word. Kac , p.  He  631.  Kac, p. 629 and p.  630.  i s concerned w i t h t h e c a u s a l and  non-  22  Although l i n g u i s t s have disagreed over the s p e c i f i c  grammatical  category to which "because belongs, no one has suggested that i t i s a non-grammatical  word.  But evidence from Jespersen that because may  be  of primary rank—thus placing i t i n subject p o s i t i o n — a n d the effects of applying negation and question transformations to because either require that i t s underlying form be c l e f t , or that i t be reformulated to derive from a head noun.  The effect of a l l these data i s i n t u i t i v e l y to connect  because with positions of prominence i n a sentence. investigate t h i s prominence under the term "focus."  In Chapter I I , I w i l l  CHAPTER I I INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BECAUSE AND  THE TERM 'FOCUS'  W h i l e r e a d i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s o f "because-clauses, i t became apparent t h a t t h e word b e c a u s e , i t s e l f , c o u l d be q u e s t i o n e d , n e g a t e d , and stressed." " 1  P r e l i m i n a r y o b s e r v a t i o n s l e d me t o a t e n t a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t b e c a u s e , c o n s i d e r e d a p a r t from i t s c l a u s e , and s u b j e c t e d t o c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c and p h o n o l o g i c a l rules-, c o u l d be a p r i n c i p l e message-bearing u n i t i n a s e n tence.  The s e a r c h f o r a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h i s semantic prominence l e d me t o  the term "focus."  And, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , t o a c u r r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l  over, t h e meaning o f t h e term.  dispute  Semantic t h e o r e t i c i a n s d i s a g r e e upon t h e  u n i t w h i c h can be f o c u s s e d , and upon t h e l e v e l o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t w h i c h "focus"' may be d e f i n e d . A c c o r d i n g t o Chomsky's s t a n d a r d t h e o r y , t h e focus o f a s e n t e n c e is- l o c a t e d i n t h e p r e d i c a t e o f t h e dominant p r o p o s i t i o n o f deep s t r u c t u r e . He s a y s , r e g a r d i n g sentence 3 8 : "(a) (b)  i s i t John who w r i t e s  poetry?  i t i s n ' t JOHN who w r i t e s  poetry"  t h a t i t s u n d e r l y i n g deep s t r u c t u r e might be "something l i k e Cthe one  who  w r i t e s p o e t r y ! is-. John," and t h a t t h e p r e d i c a t e .of t h e dominant p r o p o s i t i o n o f deep s t r u c t u r e , and t h e s t r e s s e d element i n t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e , i s  Sentences w h i c h . o c c u r as e v i d e n c e f o r . my arguments i n Chapter I I and I I I were not s p e c i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d . I c o l l e c t e d , some o f them from t h e news media, b o o k s , and d i c t i o n a r i e s . I e l i c i t e d o t h e r s d u r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s .  2h  the f o c a l u n i t .  2  I n a r e v i s e d d i s c u s s i o n o f " f o c u s , " he s t a t e s  •focus i s t h e phrase c o n t a i n i n g t h e i n t o n a t i o n c e n t e r  . . .."  that,"the He f u r t h e r  s t i p u l a t e s t h a t t h e focus must "be composed o f f u l l l e x i c a l i t e m s , and, e x p l i c a t i n g t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n , he m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e s y l l a b l e  containing  the i n t o n a t i o n c e n t e r cannot s e r v e as f o c u s when i t i s p a r t o f a l a r g e r l e x i c a l item.  Thus, i n t h e s e n t e n c e , " D i d y o u c a l l h i m UP," t h e UP cannot  s e r v e as f o c u s , b u t o n l y t h e sequence o f " c a l l h i m up."  He c o n c l u d e s t h a t  k  t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n on t h e d e f i n i t i o n i s o b v i o u s .  He a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t  i t i s e s p e c i a l l y when c o n t r a s t i v e and e x p r e s s i v e  s t r e s s o c c u r s on a u n i t  t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " f o c u s " becomes complex: " . . .  phrases t h a t con-  t a i n t h e i n t o n a t i o n c e n t e r may be i n t e r p r e t e d as focus o f u t t e r a n c e , t h e c o n d i t i o n s perhaps b e i n g somewhat d i f f e r e n t and more r e s t r i c i t v e when t h e intonation center involves expressive  o r c o n t r a s t i v e s t r e s s . . .."  W a l l a c e Chafe adds t h e n o t i o n "new" i n f o r m a t i o n t o a proposed d e f i n i t i o n o f "focus."  He s a y s , " I s h a l l t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t new i s a  s p e c i f i c a t i o n w h i c h may be added, not t o a whole verb o r noun, b u t t o a p a r t i c u l a r semantic u n i t w i t h i n a verb o r noun."  Items i d e n t i f i e d as  "new" i n f o r m a t i o n a r e t h o s e w h i c h r e c e i v e s t r o n g e s t  s t r e s s and h i g h e s t  Noam Chomsky, "Deep S t r u c t u r e , S u r f a c e S t r u c t u r e , and Semantic I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , " i n Semantics: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Reader i n P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s and P s y c h o l o g y , ed. Danny D. S t e i n b e r g and Leon A. J a k o b o v i t s (Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s ,1971)., P- 199.  3 Chomsky, p. 200. ^ Chomsky, p. 206. I d i s a g r e e t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n i s o b v i o u s . I f , f o r i n s t a n c e , Chomsky had chosen t h e s e n t e n c e , " D i d you. b r i n g i t UP?.", i t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t t h e sequence " b r i n g i t up," i s f o c u s s e d . 5  Chomsky, p. 205.  25 p i t c h i n the sentence.^ "new"  I n sentences where a c o n t r a s t i v e u n i t i s a l s o  i n f o r m a t i o n , Chafe says t h a t t h e "new"  semantic u n i t w i t h i n i t has  heen s e l e c t e d by t h e speaker from v a r i o u s i m p l i e d a l t e r n a t i v e s .  Although  he does not e l a b o r a t e on t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , i t seems t h a t i n t h i s  explanation,  t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the terms "new"  and " c o n t r a s t i v e " o v e r l a p .  f o o t n o t e , he amends t h i s by a d d i n g a n o t h e r t e r m ,  Later, i n a  "focus."  P e r h a p s , t h e n , c o n s t r a s t i v e s e n t e n c e s s h o u l d not be t h o u g h t t o c o n t a i n t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n "new" at a l l , but r a t h e r some o t h e r s p e c i f i c a t i o n w h i c h might be l a b e l e d " f o c u s " . I n t h a t c a s e , "new" and " f o c u s " would be i n complementary d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e former o c c u r r i n g o n l y i n n o n c o n t r a s t i v e sentences, the l a t t e r only i n c o n t r a s t i v e ones. For M. A. K. H a l l i d a y , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n focus o f a s e n t e n c e i s l o c a t e d i n the t o n i c s t r e s s p a t t e r n . p r e s e n t e d as "new"  information.  One  "New"  component i n t h i s c o n t o u r i s  information, broadly defined, i s g  not d e r i v a b l e from p r e c e d i n g  discourse.  Though a l l o f t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s  d i f f e r i n d e t a i l , d i s c u s s i o n s o f " f o c u s " i n Chomsky, C h a f e , and H a l l i d a y i n c l u d e an i l l - d e f i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t r e s s p a t t e r n and t h e o f new  notion  information. I t i s w i t h t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t George L a k o f f d i s a g r e e s .  s a y s , i n t h e sentence,. "The  He  TALL g i r l l e f t , " t h a t p r i m a r y s t r e s s on TALL  does- not i n d i c a t e f o c u s , i f t h e t e r m " f o c u s " i s a l s o t o i n c l u d e t h e  con-  ^ W a l l a c e L.. C h a f e , Meaning and t h e S t r u c t u r e o f Language CChicago: U n i v . o f Chicago P r e s s , 1970), p. 212. 7  C h a f e , p.  22U.  o M. A. K. H a l l i d a y , "Notes on T r a n s i t i v i t y and Theme," J . L i n g u i s t i c s 3 (196?), 202-210.  26 cept o f new i n f o r m a t i o n .  He m a i n t a i n s , on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h a t what i s new  information (or, asserted.information) i s , t h a t t h e g i r l who was presupposed t o have l e f t i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h t h e g i r l who was p r e supposed t o he t a l l . The semantic c o n t e n t o f focus i s an a s s e r t i o n o f c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y . I n t h i s v e r y t y p i c a l example o f f o c u s , t h e l e x i c a l semantic c o n t e n t o f t h e s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e c o n s t i t u e n t h e a r i n g main s t r e s s has n o t h i n g whatever t o do w i t h t h e semantic c o n t e n t o f t h e focus. L a k o f f ' s main p o i n t i s t h a t " f o c u s " cannot be d e f i n e d i n terms o f s u r f a c e structure constituents. Lacking^an  F o r him, d e r i v e d s t r u c t u r e s a r e a l s o c r u c i a l .  i n t e r p r e t e d d e f i n i t i o n o f " f o c u s , " a g e n e r a l one,  c o n f o r m i n g t o o r d i n a r y usage, can d e s c r i b e t h e f u n c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between s e n t e n c e s .  When l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y i n c l u d e s a l a r g e r number o f  r u l e s , we may e v e n t u a l l y agree upon a d e f i n i t i o n .  U n t i l t h e n , I propose  t h a t we use t h e t e r m t o d e s c r i b e c e n t r a l points- o f a t t e n t i o n i n a message.  I f , as s p e a k e r s , we want t o c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r u n i t  i n a message, we may use a number o f d i f f e r e n t s y n t a c t i c o r p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s f o r that, purpose.  To name o n l y a few, we may s t r e s s t h e u n i t ,  pre-  pose i t , ask a s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o i t , deny i t , c l a i m t h a t i t i s t r u e , o r assume t h a t i t i s t r u e .  The e f f e c t o f any one o f t h e s e  rules-, o r o f s e v e r a l a p p l i e d c o n c u r r e n t l y , i s t o a l e r t a l i s t e n e r t o a s p e c i f i c unit within a discourse. D e f i n e d g e n e r a l l y , as a f u n c t i o n a l t e r m , a f o c u s s e d u n i t may be" an i n d i v i d u a l l e x i c a l i t e m (.despite t h e o r e t i c a l e q u i v o c a t i o n s o f Chomsky),  George L a k o f f , "On G e n e r a t i v e S e m a n t i c s , " i n S e m a n t i c s , ed. S t e i n b e r g and J a k o b o v i t s (Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1 9 7 1 ) , P- 2 6 l .  27 or  i t may be a c o n j u n c t i o n o f a s s e r t i o n s , as i n L a k o f f s s e n t e n c e ,  "The TALL g i r l l e f t . " " ^ focussed.  D i s c o u r s e c o n t e x t determines t h e i t e m w h i c h i s  I f , f o r example, no m e n t i o n had p r e v i o u s l y been made o f any-  one's l e a v i n g , o r o f any t a l l g i r l , t h e n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e n t e n c e would be r e g a r d e d as- new i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e speaker w o u l d be f o c u s s i n g TALL. I f , on t h e o t h e r hand, two c o n v e r s a n t s knew t h a t one o f two g i r l s  left,  and one s p e a k e r s t a t e d t h a t i t was t h e TALL one who went, t h e n L a k o f f ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f c o - r e f e r e n t i a l i t y would be a p p r o p r i a t e . t h e r e f o r e , i s f u n c t i o n a l l y dependent  The t e r m " f o c u s , "  upon d i s c o u r s e .  In t h e f o l l o w i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n , I w i l l use t h e t e r m " f o c u s " t o a p p l y t o any u n i t (i)  i f i t can be negated as an i n d i v i d u a l element o f a s e n t e n c e ;  (ii) (iii)  i f i t can b e a r p r i m a r y s t r e s s ; i f , when embedded i n a sentence c o n t a i n i n g a f a c t i v e o r non-  f a c t i v e v e r b , i t i s the s o l e object o f the p r e d i c a t e i n the m a t r i x sentence; (iv) to  i f i t o c c u r s u n p r e d i c t a b l y i n a sentence w h i c h i s a r e p l y  a question. I w i l l now  demonstrate t h a t t h e word because can be f o c u s s e d .  I  w i l l b e g i n by d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t i t can be n e g a t e d . In  Chapter I , I b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d L a k o f f ' s p r o p o s a l f o r t h e  d e r i v a t i o n .of an ambiguous sentence c o n t a i n i n g a r e a s o n a d v e r b i a l and a n e g a t i v e element.  The s e n t e n c e , "C'F-39). I don't,.- b e a t my w i f e because I  l i k e h e r , " can be u n d e r s t o o d as- r e p r e s e n t i n g e i t h e r o f two p a r a p h r a s e s .  See my d i s c u s s i o n on p. Z6-  28 L e t us assume t h a t a speaker o f t h e p a r a p h r a s e s (F-l+O) and ( F - i i l ) emphasizes t h e n e g a t i v e element i n b o t h : (F_-U0)  It  i s because I l i k e h e r t h a t I DON'T b e a t my w i f e .  (F-lll)  It  i s NOT because I l i k e h e r t h a t I b e a t my w i f e .  1 1  W i t h t h e s e r e a d i n g s i n m i n d , l e t us examine, i n each c a s e , t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s 12 the speaker concedes.  I n (F-l+O) t h e s p e a k e r a d m i t s :  (a)  I l i k e my w i f e .  (b)  I d o n ' t b e a t my w i f e . 13  (c)  There i s a r e a s o n f o r my not b e a t i n g my w i f e .  (d)  The r e a s o n i s t h a t I l i k e my w i f e .  I n ( F - l + l ) , the speaker a d m i t s : (a)  I may l i k e my w i f e . *  (b)  I beat my w i f e .  (c)  There i s a r e a s o n f o r b e a t i n g my w i f e .  (d)  The r e a s o n i s not t h a t I l i k e my w i f e .  1  1  N o t i c e t h a t i n b o t h p a r a p h r a s e s , t h e (c) and (d) p r o p o s i t i o n s admit t h a t there i s _ a reason.  But i n L a k o f f ' s phrase s t r u c t u r e  n e g a t i v e element i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e topmost S . ^ 1  1  1  L a k o f f , I.  ( F - U l ) ( B ) , the  Such placement i m p l i e s  S . , p. 169. -  12 . Throughout t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e r e , a r e p r o p o s i t i o n s , c o n t a i n e d i n . t h e sentences w h i c h I do not l i s t . I have t r i e d t o i n c l u d e a l l o f t h o s e relevant to a discussion of because. 13 I use t h e word r e a s o n as a. p a r a p h r a s e o f because o n l y as an expediency i n t h i s chapter. I w i l l be more p r e c i s e as t o i t s meaning i n Chapter I I I . . lh  I use may i n t h e sense t h a t t h e speaker does not commit h i m s e l f to admission or d e n i a l . See the phrase s t r u c t u r e on my p. (2.-  29 t h a t t h e word because i s negated.  F o r t h i s t o be t h e c a s e , t h o u g h , b o t h  (c) p r o p o s i t i o n s must r e a d , "There i s . n o r e a s o n  I n f a c t , as t h e  (d) p r o p o s i t i o n s show, t h e speaker d e n i e s a s p e c i f i c r e a s o n . deny t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a s o n .  He does not  Even though h o t precedes because i n t h e s u r -  face s t r u c t u r e , be cause'.'is- o u t s i d e t h e scope o f n e g a t i o n . I w i l l show t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o negate t h e word because so t h a t the  ( c) p r o p o s i t i o n s - w i l l deny t h a t any e x p l a n a t i o n whatsoever can e x i s t :  between (a) and (b) p r o p o s i t i o n s .  There a r e t h r e e ways.  F i r s t , because  i s g i v e n r e i n f o r c e d s t r e s s and i s embedded i n a c l e f t sentence s t r u c t u r e . As an example, l e t us r e t a i n sentence (F-39) and s e l e c t paraphrase as i t s i n t e n d e d  meaning.  L e t us a p p l y main s t r e s s t o b e c a u s e , and t h e n  g i v e i t r e i n f o r c e d s t r e s s by p r o l o n g i n g  i t s articulation.  so t h a t i t s i n t o n a t i o n c o n t o u r corresponds t o  U t t e r t h e word. .  bi (F-4l)  (F-4l)  kn:z  I t i s not BECAUSE I l i k e h e r t h a t I b e a t my w i f e .  This  sentence has t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s : (a)  I may l i k e my w i f e .  (b)  I b e a t my w i f e .  (c)  There i s no c o n n e c t i o n  between whether I may l i k e h e r and  my b e a t i n g h e r . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e speaker d e n i e s t h e c o n j u n c t i o n between p r o p o s i t i o n s (a) and  (b) b y p r o p o s i t i o n C c ) . A second way o f n e g a t i n g  only.^  the'word b e c a u s e , i s b y . p h o n o l o g i c a l  Consider t h e f o l l o w i n g dialogue  i n which negation  means  o f because occurs-  K i p a r s k y and K i p a r s k y d e s c r i b e t h e p r o c e s s o f p h o n o l o g i c a l p r o minence as a means o f p r e s u p p o s i t i o n d e n i a l . I speak h e r e o f t h a t same process- as i m p l i c a t i o n d e n i a l . " F a c t , " i n S e m a n t i c s , ed. S t e i n b e r g and J a k o b o v i t s (Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1971) p. 351.  30 without  embedding i n a c l e f t form.  Read t h e f o l l o w i n g sentence w i t h  t h e r e i n f o r c e d p h o n o l o g i c a l c o n t o u r t h a t I d e s c r i b e d above. (la)  Speaker 1:  You do not l o v e me because you are l e a v i n g .  (lb)  Speaker 2:  ' I'm. l e a v i n g not BECAUSE I don't l o v e  you.  17  L e t us examine t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s o f sentence ( l a ) : (a)  You are l e a v i n g .  (b)  There i s a r e a s o n f o r y o u r l e a v i n g .  (c)  The  r e a s o n i s t h a t you  don't l o v e  me.  Speaker 2 r e p l i e s ( l b ) w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s : (a)  I am l e a v i n g .  (b)  There i s no r e a s o n . my  (c)  (Or, There i s no c o n n e c t i o n  g o i n g and my not l o v i n g  I don't l o v e  between  you.)  you.  Thus p r o p o s i t i o n (b) o f sentence ( l b ) negates p r o p o s i t i o n (b) o f ( l a ) . The t h i r d way  o f n e g a t i n g because i s seldom u s e d i n o r d i n a r y  d i s c o u r s e , but i t appears i n l o g i c . sentence ( F - 3 9 ) , one  can say:  I n o r d e r t o negate t h e e n t i r e  " I t i s not t h e case t h a t I don't b e a t  w i f e because I l o v e h e r . "  In t h i s sentence, the negative  e n t i r e embedded s e n t e n c e .  Hence, i f one were t o use L a k o f f ' s  framework, the n e g a t i v e  my  governs t h e analytical  o f t h i s sentence must be a t t a c h e d t o t h e topmost  S. We have.seen t h a t because can be n e g a t e d ; t h u s , i t meets c r i t e r i o n (i).  I f because can be f o c u s s e d , i t must a l s o b e a r p r i m a r y s t r e s s .  A  A l l o f t h e s e n e g a t i o n s o v e r l o a d my r e c e p t i v e a b i l i t y . I include t h e sentence because I h e a r d i t . I would n e v e r say i t — e v e n i f I wasn't l e a v i n g because I d i d n ' t l o v e h e r .  31 f u n c t i o n o f p r i m a r y s t r e s s i s emphasis o f one element i n a s e n t e n c e . Jones s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e are two k i n d s ,of p h o n o l o g i c a l  emphasis.  The f i r s t  l8 i s emphasis f o r c o n t r a s t .  I w i l l now show t h a t because r e c e i v e s  primary  s t r e s s , a c h i e v i n g emphasis f o r c o n t r a s t . There i s a fundamental d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f u n c t i o n o f main 19 s t r e s s f o r c o n t r a s t on a form word and on because.  When a s p e a k e r  s t r e s s e s a f o r m w o r d , he may be c o n t r a s t i n g : (a) t h e word s t r e s s e d and another word i n i t s semantic f i e l d , and,  (b) t h e word s t r e s s e d and i t s antonym,  (c) t h e word s t r e s s e d and i t s n e g a t i o n .  Notice that i n a l l o f these  c a s e s , t h e p o s s i b l e c o n t r a s t i s between words.  I w i l l i l l u s t r a t e each o f  these three p o s s i b i l i t i e s w i t h corresponding readings  o f an ambiguous  sentence i n w h i c h the form word c l e a n b e a r s p r i m a r y s t r e s s . following  Consider the  dialogue:  (2a)  Speaker 1: Mary c l e a n e d t h e room.  (2b)  Speaker 2:  No, Mary d i d n ' t CLEAN the room.  On an (a) r e a d i n g , Speaker 2 might be i n d i c a t i n g t o Speaker 1 t h a t Mary o n l y t i d i e d t h e room.  The word c l e a n b e l o n g s t o a s e t o f words d e s c r i b i n g  d i f f e r e n t aspects o f the general act o f c l e a n i n g . (or,  Each word i n t h e  set  i n t h e s e m a n t i c f i e l d , t o use o t h e r t e r m i n o l o g y ) d i f f e r s from o t h e r  s e t members i n t h e p r e c i s e a s p e c t o f c l e a n i n g each may d e s c r i b e .  Thus,  t h e f u n c t i o n o f p r i m a r y s t r e s s i n (2b) might be t o s i g n a l t h a t Speaker 1  18 D a n i e l J o n e s , An O u t l i n e o f E n g l i s h P h o n e t i c s , 9th e d . (Cambridge: W. H e f f e r and Sons L t d . , 196U), pp.- 278-279. 19 I u s e "form word" t o mean, r o u g h l y t h o s e words- w h i c h have been c l a s s i f i e d as nouns, v e r b s , a d j e c t i v e s , . and adverbs by t r a d i t i o n a l grammarians. I might a l s o e x t e n d t h e d e f i n i t i o n t o some p r e p o s i t i o n s , b u t t h e p o i n t here i s not p r e c i s e d e l i n e a t i o n o f t h e members w h i c h b e l o n g t o a form c l a s s , b u t r a t h e r t h e e x c l u s i o n o f because as one o f i t s members.  32 s h o u l d have chosen more c a r e f u l l y among t h e f i e l d .  Perhaps he s h o u l d  have s u b s t i t u t e d t i d i e d , s t r a i g h t e n e d , o r d u s t e d . On r e a d i n g  ( b ) , main s t r e s s on c l e a n i n (2b) might be t o c o n t r a s t  c l e a n w i t h d i r t y , i t s antonym.  Whereas Speaker 1 thought t h a t Mary  cleaned  t h e room, Speaker 2 assures h i m t h a t Mary r e a l l y j u s t g o t i t d i r t i e r . on ( c ) r e a d i n g , we might i n v e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n .  And,  Imagine t h a t t h e  o n l y p e r s o n who c o u l d have murdered X was t h e one who c l e a n e d X's room. I n ( 2 a ) , Speaker 1 accuses Mary. t o e x o n e r a t e Mary.  Speaker 2 r e p l i e s w i t h (.2b) i n an attempt  N o t , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h e main s t r e s s on c l e a n , i s  used t o s t a t e t h a t though Mary.might have been i n t h e room, she d i d n o t clean i t . I s a i d t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f u n c t i o n o f main s t r e s s on a form word such as c l e a n , and on a non-form word, because. T u r n i n g now t o because: t h e r e i s no antonym f o r because.  Although there  i s n e g a t i o n o f b e c a u s e , i t does n o t o c c u r w i t h p r i m a r y s t r e s s . occurs w i t h r e i n f o r c e d s t r e s s .  I t only  I t i s p o s s i b l e , however, f o r because t o  b e a r p r i m a r y s t r e s s and i t i s p o s s i b l e t o say t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n o f p r i m a r y s t r e s s on because i s c o n t r a s t i v e .  But t h e c o n t r a s t i s among p r o p o s i t i o n s  and n o t , as i n t h e case o f form w o r d s , among words. These c o n t r a s t i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e t h e s e t o f p o s s i b l e  conclusions  o f a s e n t e n c e w h i c h a l s o c o n t a i n s p r o p o s i t i o n s s t a t i n g a major and minor •premise.  I n l o g i c , o f c o u r s e , o n l y one c o n c l u s i o n i s p o s s i b l e , i f c o r r e c t  f o r m a l p r o c e d u r e s have been f o l l o w e d .  W i t h i n o r d i n a r y d i s c o u r s e , however,  i t i s common t h a t two speakers- w i l l accept t h e same major and minor premises, but w i l l reach a d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n .  Both speakers a c c e p t t h e  p o s s i b i l i t y o f a c o n c l u s i o n , b u t t h e y d i f f e r as t o w h i c h c o n l u s i o n i s v a l i d .  33 I n t h e f o l l o w i n g examples, t h e s e n t e n c e o f Speaker 1 c o n t a i n s p r o p o s i t i o n which states a c o n c l u s i o n .  a  Speaker 2 r e p l i e s w i t h a s e n t e n c e  c o n t a i n i n g because w h i c h i s g i v e n p r i m a r y s t r e s s .  The f u n c t i o n o f t h e  s t r e s s i s t o i n v a l i d a t e the s p e c i f i c p r o p o s i t i o n which i s a conclusion drawn by Speaker 1.  The word b e a r i n g main s t r e s s i s n o t used t o deny t h a t  a c o n c l u s i o n . i s p o s s i b l e , as i n t h e case o f r e i n f o r c e d s t r e s s . " (,3a)  Speaker 1:  I f y o u l o v e d me y o u wouldn't  leave.  (3b)  Speaker 2:  I am l e a v i n g BECAUSE I l o v e y o u .  Here a r e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s o f ( 3 a ) : (a)  P e o p l e do n o t l e a v e t h e ones t h e y l o v e .  (b)  You a r e l e a v i n g me.  (c)  T h e r e f o r e , y o u don't l o v e me.  And, here a r e t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s o f ( 3 b ) : (a)  P e o p l e do not l e a v e t h e ones t h e y l o v e .  (b)  I am l e a v i n g y o u .  (c)  Therefore,  I love you.  Sentence (3a) c o n t a i n s t h e same (a) and (b) p r o p o s i t i o n s as sentence ( 3 b ) . The  (c) p r o p o s i t i o n s , which s t a t e t h e corclusion, d i f f e r .  The word i f ,  used i n sentence (3a) i s r h e t o r i c a l , r a t h e r t h a n l i t e r a l , and b e c a u s e , w i t h p r i m a r y s t r e s s , a l l o w s s p e a k e r s t o r e t a i n t h e form, o f an argument w h i l e 20 selecting d i f f e r e n t conclusive propositions.  A l t h o u g h I d e s c r i b e t h i s procedure, by p r o p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , a u t h o r s o f f i c t i o n have used, p s e u d o ^ l o g i c a l . s e n t e n c e s f o r comic e f f e c t . • One, who valued, privacy- above, f r i e n d s h i p . , r e p l i e d ' t o a d i n n e r ' i n v i t a t i o n , s a y i n g , "Because y o u have asked me, t h e r e f o r e I cannot come." The humour l i e s i n c o n j o i n i n g two c o n c l u s i v e p r o p o s i t i o n s .  3k  I n a n o t h e r d i a l o g u e i n w h i c h because r e c e i v e s p r i m a r y s t r e s s , t h e same phenomenon o c c u r s : {ka)  Speaker 1:  You can r e l a x now because she's gone.  (1+b)  Speaker 2:  I'm t e n s e BECAUSE she's gone.  The p r o p o s i t i o n s  f o r (Ua) a r e :  (a)  Her p r e s e n c e makes you t e n s e .  (b)  She i s gone.  (c)  Therefore,  y o u can r e l a x .  The p r o p o s i t i o n s f o r (kb) a r e : (a)  Her p r e s e n c e makes me  (b)  She i s gone.  (c)  Therefore,  Once a g a i n , propositions d i f f e r .  tense.  I can not r e l a x .  (a) and (b) p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e i d e n t i c a l , b u t .(c) Therefore,  main s t r e s s on because c o n t r a s t s propo-  s i t i o n s , and n o t words. Jones s t a t e s t h a t a n o t h e r k i n d o f emphasis, s i g n a l l e d by p r i m a r y  21 s t r e s s , i s emphasis f o r i n t e n s i t y .  W h i l e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between  emphasis f o r c o n t r a s t and emphasis f o r i n t e n s i t y i s a n a l y t i c a l l y  valuable,  I do not t h i n k t h a t i n t e n s i t y e v e r o c c u r s w i t h o u t i m p l i e d c o n t r a s t .  Never-  t h e l e s s , t h e s e terms a r e p r e c i s e enough f o r t h e purpose o f showing t h e d i f f e r e n c e between word i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and p r o p o s i t i o n a l i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n . Jones says t h a t . i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o a p p l y i n t e n s i t y emphasiso n l y t o c e r t a i n words w^hich,express measurable q u a l i t i e s .  He c i t e s -  examples o f adverbs w h i c h i n c l u d e very-, e x t r e m e l y , and r a t h e r , and 21  J o n e s , O u t l i n e o f E n g l i s h P h o n e t i c s , p. 298.  35 combines them w i t h  the  adjectives  good, h o t ,  adverbs i n t e n s i f y the meaning.of the e x a m p l e , one  restrict  the  s t r e s s e d as- i n v e r y J u s t as  the  case of hot.  adds t h a t  that  The  for this  a n a l y s i s - o f i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n t o where t h e  the  i n his Of  discussion, adjective is  HOT. function of  primary  a d v e r b i a l m o d i f i c a t i o n o f f o r m words i s d i f f e r e n t a d v e r b i a l m o d i f i c a t i o n of because.  p o s s i b i l i t i e s which are adverb, very,  t o p r i m a r y s t r e s s on  c l e a n , as  and  a v a i l a b l e to the  p r i m a r y s t r e s s on h o t  i n our  s e m a n t i c f i e l d , warm o r t e p i d .  speaker i n might be  earlier discussion.  t e n s i f i c a t i o n a p p l i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o hot its  He  Notice  r e c e i v e primary s t r e s s , but  from p r i m a r y stress- combined w i t h consider  adjectives.  i n primary stress f o r contrast, the  s t r e s s combined w i t h  us  long.  word i s used t o i n t e n s i f y the meaning o f another word.  c o u r s e , e i t h e r word can I will  and  Or,  Let the  similar  That i s , i n -  r a t h e r t h a n t o a n o t h e r member i n  perhaps the  s t r e s s might s e r v e t o i n t e n s i f y the meaning o f hot  a d v e r b and as  primary  contrasted  with i t s  antonym, c o l d . Neither  of these a l t e r n a t i v e s i s p o s s i b l e f o r because.  no  c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b a s e d upon word a n a l y s i s w h i c h b e c a u s e can  is  p o s s i b l e , h o w e v e r , f o r b e c a u s e t o r e c e i v e p r i m a r y s t r e s s and  There i s  satisfy.  It  adverbial  22 modification.  That w h i c h i s b e i n g m o d i f i e d ,  of possible propositions.  In the  i s a s e l e c t one  f o l l o w i n g examples, i t i s the  among a  set  specific  S i d n e y G r e e n b a u m , i n S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h A d v e r b i a l Usage., d e s c r i b e s how; c e r t a i n a d v e r b s c a n focus^ an.item-. None o f h i s s e n t e n c e s , h o w e v e r , c o n t a i n t h e c o - o c c u r r e n t phenomena o f a d v e r b i a l m o d i f i c a t i o n a n d m a i n s t r e s s on one i t e m . S i d n e y Greenbaum, S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h A d v e r b i a l Usage (.London: Longmans , G r e e n a n d Co. , L t d . , 1 9 6 9 ) , p• 119. :  36 r e a s o n f o l l o w i n g t h e word because w h i c h i s b e i n g i n t e n s i f i e d . s h o u l d be r e a d w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t o n a t i o n c o n t o u r :  Because  »  b i kxiz (5)  I am an a d d i c t o n l y BECAUSE I h a d a d e p r i v e d c h i l d h o o d .  (.5) c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s :  Sentence  (a)  I am an a d d i c t .  (b)  There i s a r e a s o n .  (c)  There i s a s p e c i f i c r e a s o n .  (d)  The reason i s t h a t I had a d e p r i v e d c h i l d h o o d .  (Or, t h e r e i s one r e a s o n o n l y . )  Thus, t h e adverb o n l y r e f e r s t o t h e s p e c i f i c r e a s o n w h i c h t h e s p e a k e r has chosen from among a l l p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s . S i m i l a r l y , i n a sentence i n w h i c h t h e b e c a u s e - c l a u s e i s embedded i n a c l e f t form, an adverb precedes b e c a u s e , and because b e a r s p r i m a r y s t r e s s , t h e scope o f t h e adverb i s t h e s p e c i f i c r e a s o n w h i c h t h e s p e a k e r has s e l e c t e d from a number o f p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s . (6)  I t was p a r t i c u l a r l y BECAUSE I wanted t o e a t t h a t I s t o l e .  The p r o p o s i t i o n s o f (6) a r e : (a)  I stole.  (b)  There i s a r e a s o n why I s t o l e .  (c)  There i s one r e a s o n i n p a r t i c u l a r .  (d)  The r e a s o n i s t h a t I.wanted t o e a t .  Because a l s o c a r r i e s - p r i m a r y . s t r e s s when i t o c c u r s as a one-word sentence.  An a n a l y s i s o f t h e f u n c t i o n .of p r i m a r y s t r e s s i n t h e s e sentences  is d i f f i c u l t .  The d i f f i c u l t y - , I admit,.. does-not l i e i n t h e o b v i o u s f a c t  t h a t t h e r e i s n o . o t h e r element i n t h e s e n t e n c e w h i c h can r e c e i v e main s t r e s s assignment.  The f u n c t i o n ,of main s t r e s s as a s i g n a l o f d e l e t i o n  37 of an u n d e r l y i n g s e n t e n c e t o t h a t .of a one-word s u r f a c e f o r m i s a l s o c l e a r enough.  The c o m p l e x i t y l i e s i n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e meaning o f t h e emotive  23 f o r c e w h i c h i s a l s o conveyed t h r o u g h t h e main s t r e s s . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r d i a l o g u e s , "because o c c u r s as a one-word sentence h e a r i n g p r i m a r y s t r e s s .  A f t e r each d i a l o g u e I r e c o n s t r u c t two  p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f because.  These i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i l l be appro-  x i m a t i o n s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n Speaker 2 wants Speaker 1 t o i n f e r from t h e terse reply.  N o t i c e t h a t i n each c a s e , Speaker 2 does not want t h e  conversation t o continue. (7a)  M o t h e r , Speaker 1:  Why d i d you l i e t o me about b r e a k i n g  t h a t vase? (7b)  C h i l d , Speaker 2:  Interpretation:  (7b, l )  Because!  You a l r e a d y know t h a t I l i e d because I was a f r a i d  you would p u n i s h me. (7b, 2)  I don't want t o t e l l y o u why I l i e d .  (8a)  Husband, Speaker 1:  (8b)  W i f e , Speaker 2:  Interpretation:  Why a r e y o u so i r r i t a b l e a l l t h e t i m e ?  Because!.  (8b, l )  You know v e r y w e l l why I am i r r i t a b l e , you make  (8b, 2)  I don't, i n t e n d t o t e l l y o u because y o u s h o u l d know  me t h a t way.  w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o ask.  23 ' By- "emotive f o r c e " I r e f e r .to.Buhler's- d i s t i n c t i o n .between phonology and p h o n o s t y l i s t i . e s . . See N.S. T r u b e t s k o y , P r i n c i p l e s o f Phonology trans-. C h r i s t i a n e A. M. B a l t a x e ( B e r k e l e y : U n i v . o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1969/, pp. -lh-25. See a l s o F r a n t i s e k Danes,. "Sentence I n t o n a t i o n from a F u n c t i o n a l P o i n t o f View," Word l6 (i960), 35; 52-53.  38 (9a)  W i f e , Speaker 1:  (9h)  Husband, Speaker 2:  Interpretation:  Why  a r e you l a t e a g a i n ? Because!  (9b, l )  You know p e r f e c t l y w e l l why.  I was a t t h e  (9b, 2)  I don't i n t e n d t o t e l l y o u , Hag.  pub a g a i n .  (lOa)  W i f e , Speaker 1:  Why haven't you t o l d me what t h e d o c t o r  s a i d t o you? (10b)  Husband, Speaker 2:  Interpretation:  (10b,  s a i d he would say.  l)  Because!  I haven't t o l d y o u because he t o l d me what y o u  And t h a t makes me  (10b,  2)  furious.  I don't want y o u t o know what he s a i d .  One g e n e r a l i z a t i o n about t h e s e m a n t i c i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by t h e emotive s t r e s s i n d i a l o g u e s (7)  (10) i s t h a t Speaker 2 uses Because.'  i n an attempt t o t e r m i n a t e t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . asks a q u e s t i o n b e g i n n i n g w i t h "Why r e p l i e s w i t h "Because!" for  . . .."  I n each c a s e , Speaker 1 I n each c a s e , Speaker 2  In r e c o n s t r u c t i n g p o s s i b l e u n d e r l y i n g f u l l sentences  b e c a u s e , emotive s t r e s s on t h e a b b r e v i a t e d form seems t o be a s i g n a l  t h a t Speaker 2 does not want t o t a l k f u r t h e r on t h e s u b j e c t .  In i n t e r -  p r e t a t i o n 1, Speaker 2 r e f u s e s t o answer because Speaker l ' s q u e s t i o n i s r e a l l y a pseudo-question. the  answer.  the  answer.  Speaker 2 knows t h a t Speaker 1 a l r e a d y knows  I n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 2, Speaker 2 may not want Speaker 1 t o know  I have demonstrated t h a t because can b e a r p r i m a r y s t r e s s .  I have  a l s o i n d i r e c t l y p r o v i d e d a p a r t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n t o one q u e s t i o n w h i c h came  39 t o A l i c e Davison's  attention.  I n Chapter  I , I said that several central  q u e s t i o n s appear i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e on b e c a u s e . t h e b e h a v i o u r o f because-clau'ses v e r b i a l s i n imperative sentences.  One o f t h e s e asked how  was u n l i k e t h a t o f o t h e r r e a s o n adI t u r n now t o t h a t p r o b l e m , and  a p p l y d a t a on because and p r i m a r y s t r e s s as an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r one o f A. Davison's  unacceptable  sentences.  She observes t h a t s i n c e and as_ can o c c u r i n a c l a u s e w h i c h p r e cedes t h e main c l a u s e c o n t a i n i n g an o v e r t i m p e r a t i v e . example, she n o t i c e s t h a t because w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e  "(7)  But, i n the following grammatically.  [AS  J Since  )  y o u ' r e an e x p e r t on a n t i q u e paper c l i p s ,  I Because ] ( come and see my c o l l e c t i o n . [ y o u must l o o k a t my c o l l e c t i o n . She concludes  from t h i s and o t h e r examples, t h a t because s h o u l d be marked  i n t h e l e x i c o n so t h a t i t does n o t o c c u r w i t h o v e r t p e r f o r m a t i v e v e r b s . But n o t i c e t h a t i t i s grammatical  t o s a y , ( l l ) You must l o o k a t my  c o l l e c t i o n because you're an e x p e r t on a n t i q u e paper c l i p s .  I t would  seem t h a t t h e u n g r a m m a t i c a l r e a d i n g o c c u r s o n l y when t h e b e c a u s e - c l a u s e is  preposed. One o f t h e e f f e c t s o f p r e p o s i n g a c l a u s e i s t o g i v e i t prominence  within a discourse.  I f we assume t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g form o f a sentence  c o n t a i n i n g because i s one .in w h i c h t h e main c l a u s e p r e c e d e s t h e b e c a u s e c l a u s e , t h e n whenever a bec_ause_-clause  occurs a t the beginning o f a  s e n t e n c e , i t o c c u p i e s a p l a c e o f s p e c i a l prominence.  A. D a v i s o n ,  Moreover, when t h e  " C a u s a l Adverbs and P e r f o r m a t i v e V e r b s , " p. 191.  p r e p o s e d c l a u s e b e g i n s w i t h a word w h i c h can b e a r p r i m a r y s t r e s s , t h e l i s t e n e r i s a l e r t t o the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h i s word, i n p a r t i c u l a r , be an e s s e n t i a l message c o n v e y i n g  may  unit.  I have a l r e a d y demonstrated t h a t because can be s t r e s s e d .  Recall  t h a t i n sentences c o n t a i n i n g an i m p e r a t i v e as t h e main v e r b , t h e f o r c e o f the command r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e i m p e r a t i v e v e r b r e c e i v e main s t r e s s .  An  e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s when t h e y precede imperatives i s r u l e c o n f l i c t :  i n these sentences,  a n t i c i p a t e t h e word w h i c h w i l l r e c e i v e p r i m a r y  t h e l i s t e n e r cannot  s t r e s s assignment.  a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f s i n c e , and a s , i n t h e same p o s i t i o n , can be  The  explained  by t h e i r i n a b i l i t y , t o accept main s t r e s s . A. D a v i s o n ' s sentence (7) becomes more a c c e p t a b l e when p l a c e d i n  25 a discourse.  I have shown t h a t one  f u n c t i o n of primary  s t r e s s on  because i s t o i n v a l i d a t e the c o n c l u s i o n o f a p r e c e d i n g sentence i n a dialogue.  Consider the f o l l o w i n g :  (12a)  Speaker 1:  Thank goodness,' I don't have t o l o o k at  any more paper c l i p c o l l e c t i o n s because I am  already  an acknowledged e x p e r t . (12b)  Speaker 2: a t my  Now  Because you are an e x p e r t , you must l o o k  collection.  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o r e a d (l2b)  w i t h primary  t a i n an o v e r t i m p e r a t i v e form f o r t h e v e r b . does not b e a r p r i m a r y  stress.  s t r e s s on because and r e But t h e v e r b , i n t h i s  The main c l a u s e would p r o b a b l y  case,  be  u t t e r e d w i t h d e l i b e r a t e e n u n c i a t i o n o f each word, and w i t h monotonous  A. D a v i s o n ,  " C a u s a l Adverbs and P e r f o r m a t i v e V e r b s , " p.  191.  ill i n t o n a t i o n r i s i n g s l i g h t l y on t h e word my. The p r o p o s i t i o n s o f (l2a) a r e : (a)  A p e r s o n who i s an e x p e r t on a s u b j e c t need n o t l o o k a t every s i n g l e  collection.  (b)  I am an e x p e r t on t h e s u b j e c t o f a n t i q u e paper c l i p s .  (c)  T h e r e f o r e , I need n o t l o o k a t another  collection.  The p r o p o s i t i o n s o f (12b) a r e : (a)  A p e r s o n who i s an e x p e r t on a s u b j e c t need n o t l o o k at e v e r y s i n g l e  collection.  (b)  You a r e an e x p e r t on t h e s u b j e c t o f a n t i q u e paper c l i p s .  (c)  T h e r e f o r e , y o u must l o o k a t my c o l l e c t i o n .  Thus, as my e a r l i e r a n a l y s i s p r e d i c t s , t h e (c) p r o p o s i t i o n o f (l2b) denies t h e (c) p r o p o s i t i o n o f (l2a). Other sentences w h i c h A. D a v i s o n f i n d s u n a c c e p t a b l e — t h o s e where because-clauses  precede  a main c l a u s e w h i c h i s a q u e s t i o n , a r e q u e s t , o r  an o v e r t p e r f o r m a t i v e — become more a c c e p t a b l e when t h e b e c a u s e - c l a u s e i s u n d e r s t o o d as r e f e r r i n g t o an u n d e r l y i n g v e r b o f s a y i n g . reader t o W i l l i a m  I refer the  R u t h e r f o r d ' s a r t i c l e f o r an account o f t h e s e  2 6  phenomena. We have seen t h a t because can be negated and can r e c e i v e p r i m a r y stress.  I w i l l now i n v e s t i g a t e whether because meets c o n d i t i o n ( i i i ) .  There i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e terms "new" and " a s s e r t , " and between  ^ W. R u t h e r f o r d , "Some O b s e r v a t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g Clauses i n E n g l i s h , " pp. 99-107.  i  i  Subordinate  42 "old"  and "presuppose."  defined.  But t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p has not be c o n c l u s i v e l y  So f a r , no one has c l a i m e d t h a t presupposed i n f o r m a t i o n i s new.  But i t may be p o s s i b l e t o argue t h a t o l d i n f o r m a t i o n i s a s s e r t e d . the c o r r e l a t i o n , new:assert  So,  :: o l d : p r e s u p p o s e , cannot be f o r m u l a t e d  until  27 l i n g u i s t s agree upon d e f i n i t i o n s .  The importance o f t h e s e terms f o r  a d e f i n i t i o n o f " f o c u s " i s t h a t a s s e r t i o n s and assumptions a r e p o t e n t i a l p o i n t s o f a t t e n t i o n i n . d i s c o u r s e — a r g u m e n t s occur over t r u t h c l a i m s . One semantic t e s t w h i c h opposes t h e terms " a s s e r t " and  "pre-  suppose" may show t h a t because can be a s s e r t e d as w e l l as presupposed.  28 I w i l l embed because c l a u s e s i n t o f a c t i v e and n o n - f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e s . .1 w i l l use t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s i n t h i s p r o c e d u r e .  A main sentence  i s e i t h e r one w h i c h c o n t a i n s t h e word, " i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t , " o r , "It i s l i k e l y that."  The main s e n t e n c e , " I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t "  c o n t a i n s a p r e d i c a t e word, " s i g n i f i c a n t , " w h i c h has t h e semantic of f a c t i v i t y .  property  The main s e n t e n c e , " i t i s l i k e l y t h a t " c o n t a i n s a p r e -  d i c a t e w o r d , " l i k e l y , " w h i c h has t h e semantic p r o p e r t y o f n o n - f a c t i v i t y . The complement i s an embedded sentence w h i c h c o n t a i n s t h r e e c o n s t i t u e n t s . These t h r e e complement c o n s t i t u e n t s a r e ( r a i n ) (because) ( f l o o d ) .  I f the  F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t meanings o f t h e t e r m " p r e s u p p o s i t i o n , " see R i c h a r d G a r n e r , " ' P r e s u p p o s i t i o n ' i n P h i l o s o p h y and Linguistios,," i n S t u d i e s i n L i n g u i s t i c S e m a n t i c s , ed. C h a r l e s J . F i l l m o r e and D. Terence Langendoen (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r d and W i n s t o n , 1971),  pp. 23-42. 28  I use t h e terms' as d e f i n e d i n " F a c t . " An i t e m w h i c h i s p r e supposed by a s p e a k e r i s f a c t i v e . That w h i c h ' i s a s s e r t e d i n a sentence i s n o n - f a c t i v e . W h i l e I a c c e p t t h e semantic d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s e t e r m s , I do n o t a c c e p t t h a t t h e f a c t i v i t y s t a t u s o f a main p r e d i c a t e word determines t h e f a c t i v i t y s t a t u s o f t h e e n t i r e embedded complement. K i p a r s k y and K i p a r s k y , pp. 348-34-9.  h3 word because can be f o c u s s e d , t h e n c o n s t i t u e n t (because) must be  capable  o f b e i n g t h e scope o f the n o n - f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e w o r d , " l i k e l y , " and,  the  n o n - f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word, " s i g n i f i c a n t . " I w i l l show t h a t t h e n o n - f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word, " l i k e l y , " the f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word, " s i g n i f i c a n t , " determine the f a c t i v i t y  and status  o f e i t h e r an e n t i r e embedded complement, o r , o n l y p a r t o f an embedded complement.  The  scope o f t h e p r e d i c a t e w i t h i n the complement i s always  d e t e r m i n e d by main s t r e s s , and.may be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f preposlng  and main s t r e s s .  F o r t h e word because t o s a t i s f y c o n d i t i o n  ( i i i ) , i t must be i n s i d e t h e scope o f a f a c t i v e and n o n - f a c t i v e word i n some main s t r e s s  readings.  L e t us. examine p a i r s o f sentences w h i c h c o n t a i n t h e  constituent  s e n t e n c e , " i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t , " and an embedded complement. c o n s t i t u e n t sentence c o n t a i n s a f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word. (13 is  predicate  The  I n sentences  ' ; b, b'; c, c'; d, d ' ) , the o r d e r o f t h e complement c o n s t i t u e n t s ( f l o o d ) (because) ( r a i n ) .  (because) ( r a i n ) .  I n sentences (lk,  lk  1  ) the order i s (flood)  Sentences (13 a, b, c, d) and sentence (lk)  q u e s t i o n s w h i c h r e q u i r e a response c o n t a i n i n g a c o r r e s p o n d i n g  are stress  29 pattern. (13a)  I s i t SIGNIFICANT o r not SIGNIFICANT t h a t t h e  river  f l o o d e d because i t r a i n e d ?  Thus, I c l a i m t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o q u e s t i o n an i t e m w h i c h i s a c o n s t i t u e n t i n t h e complement o f a f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word. T h i s need not c o u n t e r a commonly s t a t e d p r o p e r t y o f p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s — t h a t t h e y are c o n s t a n t under q u e s t i o n i n g . One s i m p l y must d i s t i n g u i s h t h e l e v e l o f a b s t r a c t i o n which i s being subjected to questioning. It i s theoretically p o s s i b l e t o d e f i n e a l e v e l s u f f i c i e n t l y a b s t r a c t such t h a t a n y t h i n g w h i c h can be s a i d can a l s o be q u e s t i o n e d .  kk  (13a') it  I t i s SIGNIFICANT t h a t t h e r i v e r f l o o d e d because  rained. I n t h i s r e a d i n g , t h e i n q u i r e r asks whether t h e e n t i r e event  w h i c h i s d e s c r i b e d as t h e complement  i s significant.  t h e e n t i r e event i s , i n d e e d , s i g n i f i c a n t , c o n f e r s  The response t h a t  f a c t i v i t y s t a t u s on a l l  c o n s t i t u e n t s o f t h e complement. (l3b)  I s i t s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e CREEK f l o o d e d because i t  rained? (13b*)  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e RIVER f l o o d e d because i t  rained. I n t h i s r e a d i n g , t h e i n q u i r e r asks whether i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t o n l y t h e c r e e k f l o o d e d , and t h e response i s t h a t i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the r i v e r flooded. (13c) it  Thus, o n l y c o n s t i t u e n t  (flood) i s factive.  I s i t s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r i v e r OVERFLOWED because  rained? (l3c ) T  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r i v e r FLOODED because i t  rained. I n t h i s r e a d i n g t h e i n q u i r e r asks whether i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h e r i v e r o n l y o v e r f l o w e d because i t r a i n e d . s i g n i f i c a n t that i t flooded. (13d)  that  The r e s p o n s e i s t h a t i t i s  Thus, c o n s t i t u e n t ( r a i n ) i s f a c t i v e .  I s i t s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r i v e r f l o o d e d BECAUSE i t  rained? (13d')  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r i v e r f l o o d e d BECAUSE i t  rained. I n t h i s r e a d i n g t h e i n q u i r e r i s n ' t s u r e whether r a i n caused t h e river t o flood.  The answer i s t h a t i t d i d . Thus c o n s t i t u e n t  (because)  *5 . is  _ .. 30 factive. {lk)  I s i t s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t BECAUSE i t r a i n e d t h e r i v e r  flooded? (lV)  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t BECAUSE i t r a i n e d t h e r i v e r  flooded. I n t h i s p a i r , t h e o r d e r o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s i s r e v e r s e d , making i t more l i k e l y t h a t c o n s t i t u e n t (because) w i l l r e c e i v e main s t r e s s .  It  h a s . t h e same r e a d i n g as t h e p a i r ( l 3 a ) and ( l 3 a ' ) . We can make t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from t h e p r e c e d i n g p a i r s of sentences.  When t h e p r e d i c a t e word i s s t r e s s e d , t h e e n t i r e  complement i s w i t h i n i t s range and i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e f a e t i v i t y o f t h e complement.  When a word i n s i d e t h e complement  status  i s stressed, only  i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o n s t i t u e n t i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e f a c t i v i t y s t a t u s o f the p r e d i c a t e word i n t h e main s e n t e n c e .  I n (13*, a , b , c, d) and (lk)  and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r i m e d p a i r s , any one o f t h e t h r e e  constituents  o f t h e complement may be f a c t i v e . I f t h e word because i s t o meet c o n d i t i o n ( i i i ) , i t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t h a t i t be i n s i d e t h e scope o f a f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word. a l s o be i n s i d e t h e scope o f a n o n - f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word.  I t must  In the f o l l o w i n g  p a i r s o f sentences c o n t a i n i n g a main sentence i n w h i c h a n o n - f a c t i v e p r e d i c a t e word, " l i k e l y , " and a complement o c c u r s , I w i l l show t h a t i t  The main s t r e s s on because s i g n a l s t h e q u e s t i o n e r ' s d e s i r e f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r c o n c l u s i o n i m p l i c i t i n t h e complement. See my pp. 3/ -3^ f o r an a n a l y s i s o f t h e f u n c t i o n o f main s t r e s s on because.  h6 is possible f o rconstituent  (because), and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e word  to be w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e n o n - f a c t i v e (l5a) it  predicate  because  word.  I s i t LIKELY o r u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e r i v e r  flooded  because  rained? (l5a')  I t i s LIKELY, t h a t t h e r i v e r  The i n q u i r e r w o n d e r s  whether t h e e n t i r e event which i s described  i n t h e complement i s l i k e l y . indeed, l i k e l y . (15b)  flooded because i t r a i n e d .  The r e s p o n s e i s t h a t t h e e n t i r e e v e n t i s ,  Thus, t h e e n t i r e complement i s n o n - f a c t i v e . Is i tl i k e l y  (15b')  t h a t t h e CREEK f l o o d e d b e c a u s e i t r a i n e d ?  I t i slikely  t h a t t h e RIVER f l o o d e d b e c a u s e i t r a i n e d .  The i n q u i r e r a s k s w h e t h e r i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t flooded.  The r e s p o n s e i s t h a t i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t  which flooded.  Thus, o n l y  (15c)  constituent  Is i t likely  that only t h e creek  t h a t i t was t h e r i v e r  (river) i s non-factive.  t h a t t h e r i v e r OVERFLOWED b e c a u s e i t  rained? (l5c )  I ti slikely  1  t h a t t h e r i v e r FLOODED b e c a u s e i t r a i n e d .  The i n q u i r e r a s k s w h e t h e r i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t overflowed because i tr a i n e d . that i tflooded. (I5d)  will  (rain) i s factive.  t h a t t h e r i v e r f l o o d e d BECAUSE i t r a i n e d ?  (I5d')  I ti slikely  In t h i s  reading  that the river  the inquirer isn't  cause t h e r i v e r t o f l o o d .  constituent  only  The r e s p o n s e i s t h a t i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t  Thus, c o n s t i t u e n t  Is i t likely  that the river  f l o o d e d BECAUSE i t r a i n e d . sure whether a d d i t i o n a l  The answer i s t h a t  i td i d flood.  rain Thus,  (because) i s n o n - f a c t i v e .  (l6) (16')  Is i tl i k e l y I ti slikely  t h a t BECAUSE i t r a i n e d t h e r i v e r t h a t BECAUSE i t r a i n e d t h e r i v e r  flooded? flooded.  hi In t h i s p a i r , the thus,  i t i s more l i k e l y  stress.  Its reading We  any This  satisfies  i s the  e v e n t as b e i n g  Before  likely  can  decide  predictable to describe  or s i g n i f i c a n t . w i t h i n the  We  r e f i n e d s e n s e as  can  O r d i n a r i l y , we  u n i t w i l l be The  an  event i s  that  non-factive (iii).  use  (iv), I  the word  have t r o u b l e i n  T h a t same o r d i n a r y n o t i o n o c c u r s  degree o f p r o b a b i l i t y .  questioned.  see, t h e r e f o r e ,  w h e t h e r b e c a u s e meets c r i t e r i o n  a term i n information theory.  p r e d i c t what a l i n g u i s t i c  that  that  e i t h e r accept or r e j e c t  scope o f a  s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h we  or knowing what t o expect.  answers  a l s o be  Thus, t h e w o r d b e c a u s e meets c o n d i t i o n we  and  or s i g n i f i c a n t , or accept or r e j e c t part  must d e f i n e t t h e t e r m " p r e d i c t a b l e . "  high  complement can  a p p r a i s i n g r e s p o n s e may  ( b e c a u s e ) c a n be  p r e d i c a t e word.  1  Whenever a s p e a k e r c l a i m s  likely  main  (15a ).  pairs of questions  stressed i n the  reversed,  (because) w i l l r e c e i v e  ( l 5 a ) and  from the preceding  o r s i g n i f i c a n t , an  complement c o n s t i t u e n t s i s  constituent  same as  common s e n s e .  constituent  of the  that the  e n t i r e e v e n t as b e i n g  of the the  see  w o r d w h i c h can be  likely the  can  order  unguessing  i n a more  I f i t i s possible  to  i n a c o n t e x t , t h e n t h a t u n i t has  more p r o b a b l e a u n i t i s , t h e  a  lower i s  31 its  message-bearing  content.  In information theory,  the  precise c a l c u l a t i o n of the  amount  message a u n i t c a r r i e s , depends upon t h e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the  " p r o b a b i l i t y " and  Lyons p o i n t s  "functional load."  As  out, the  terms  functional  F o r an i n t r o d u c t o r y a c c o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h e o r y a n d i t s p l a c e w i t h i n t h e o r e t i c a l l i n g u i s t i c s , s e e J o h n L y o n s , An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o T h e o r e t i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s ( L o n d o n : C a m b r i d g e U n i v . P r e s s , 1968), p p .  81-91.  of  48 l o a d o f a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r a s t "between e x p r e s s i o n e l e m e n t s i s d e t e r m i n e d  32  "by a number o f v a r i a b l e s .  He c a u t i o n s :  Since i t i s impossible ( i n the present state o f l i n g u i s t i c research at least) t o i d e n t i f y a l l the semantically-relevant factors i n the external situations i n which p a r t i c u l a r utterances occur, i t i s also impossible t o calculate the probability, and t h e r e f o r e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n - c o n t e n t , o f any p a r t o f them. But  h e a l s o s t a t e s t h a t we c a n make g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s  i f we c o n s i d e r t h e s t r u c t u r e o f s e n t e n c e s situations  i n which actual utterances  Accordingly, I w i l l sentences  about  probability,  i n abstraction from t h e  occur.  d e f i n e " p r o b a b i l i t y " w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o two  which comprise a d i a l o g u e .  Jack Davison p o i n t s out t h a t because  34 answers t h e q u e s t i o n s why, what i s t h e r e a s o n , I will  argue t h a t because i s a p r e d i c t a b l e r e p l y t o these  grounds t h a t b e c a u s e , why, r e a s o n , d i c a t i v e sentences. acceptable not  and what i s t h e cause.  I will  questions  and cause can appear t o g e t h e r  2  3  3  i ni n -  a l s o argue t h a t although because i s an  r e p l y t o how, i t i s n o t a p r e d i c t a b l e r e s p o n s e s i n c e how does  c o l l o c a t e w i t h b e c a u s e , r e a s o n , why o r c a u s e i n i n d i c a t i v e  3  on t h e  sentences.  35  Lyons, pp. 82-83. Lyons, p.  97-  34 J?:oDayison,  L a n g u a g e , To A p p e a r .  35 N o t i c e t h a t I d e f i n e t h e terms " p r e d i c t a b l e " and " u n p r e d i c t a b l e " as d i c h o t o m o u s f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s o n l y . F o r an u t t e r a n c e t o be m e a n i n g f u l i n s p e e c h s i t u a t i o n s , some c h o i c e i s e s s e n t i a l . A completely p r e d i c t a b l e q u e s t i o n w o u l d n o t be a s k e d , s i n c e i t w o u l d be m e a n i n g l e s s . Therefore, t h e t e r m " p r e d i c t a b l e , " when u s e d o u t s i d e t h e c o n t e x t o f t h i s p a p e r , s h o u l d have a r e l a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n .  kg To t h e q u e s t i o n s "Why  are y o u g o i n g ? " , o r , "For what r e a s o n are  y o u g o i n g , " an a c c e p t a b l e r e p l y might be: (17)  I am g o i n g because I am  (18)  The r e a s o n why  tired.  I am g o i n g i s because I am  tired.  In answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n , "What i s t h e cause o f t h e f l o o d ? " , one might reply: (19)  The  cause o f t h e f l o o d i s t h a t i t thawed r a p i d l y ,  and  a l s o because t h e d i k e s were weak. (20)  The  cause o f t h e f l o o d i s t h e same as why  the r i v e r  36 overflowed. In why  (18),  (19),  and  (20),  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o c o l l o c a t e because and  i n answer toa-aquestion c o n t a i n i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s why,  or what cause.  what r e a s o n ,  I c o n c l u d e t h a t because i s a p r e d i c t a b l e r e p l y i n t h e s e  dialogues. In  c o n t r a s t , I w i l l show t h a t a l t h o u g h because i s an a c c e p t a b l e  r e p l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n how, sentence. sentences  t h e two do not c o l l o c a t e i n an i n d i c a t i v e  I w i l l i n s e r t how (l8), (19)  (21) (22)  K  and  and because i n  (20).  T h e reason how  I am g o i n g i s because I am  tired.  *The cause o f t h e f l o o d i s t h a t i t thawed r a p i d l y a l s o how  (23)  i n t o t h e p o s i t i o n s o f why  t h e d i k e s were weak.  *The cause o f t h e f l o o d i s t h e same as how river  and  the  overflowed.  T h i s r e p l y was e l i c i t e d from a r e l a t i v e l y uneducated farmer. I t i s u n a c c e p t a b l e f o r me and f o r some o t h e r speakers whose e d u c a t i o n i s a t u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l . But when I asked f i v e i n f o r m a n t s whose e d u c a t i o n i s a t h i g h s c h o o l l e v e l , t h e y r e p l i e d t h a t t h e sentence was a c c e p t a b l e f o r them.  50 How does not i n s e r t a c c e p t a b l y . b e c a u s e , r e a s o n , and cause.  T h e r e f o r e , how does not c o l l o c a t e w i t h  To demonstrate t h a t because meets c o n d i t i o n  ( i v ) , I w i l l show t h a t , a l t h o u g h because does n o t c o l l o c a t e w i t h how i n i n d i c a t i v e s e n t e n c e s , because o c c u r s as an a c c e p t a b l e r e p l y t o a q u e s t i o n b e g i n n i n g w i t h how. {2k) (2k ) 1  I p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g d i a l o g u e s as e v i d e n c e .  How d i d y o u remember t h e meaning o f t h a t word? I knew because I j u s t l o o k e d i t up i n t h e d i c t i o n a r y the  o t h e r day.  (25)  How can y o u t a l k such nonsense?  (25')  Oh, because I am o n l y j o k i n g .  (26) (26')  How come y o u don't v i s i t us anymore? I don't come because I l i v e so f a r away now.  A u s t i n p o i n t s out t h a t i t i s "odd" t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n  how  w i t h b e c a u s e , b u t t h a t i t i s a l s o " d a n g e r o u s l y d e f i n i t e " when an answer  37 b e g i n s w i t h because.  I t h i n k t h e oddness and d e f i n i t e n e s s can be  e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y .  S i n c e we do not group how  and  because i n i n d i c a t i v e s e n t e n c e s , we do n o t e x p e c t them t o o c c u r i n q u e s t i o n - a n s w e r d i a l o g u e s i n t h e way t h a t we e x p e c t because t o o c c u r w i t h why, r e a s o n and cause.  Summarizing:  because meets c o n d i t i o n ( i v ) s i n c e  38 i t appears u n p r e d i c t a b l y i n an answer t o a q u e s t i o n .  Thus, I c o n c l u d e  t h a t because can be f o c u s s e d .  37  J . L. A u s t i n , P h i l o s o p h i c a l Papers ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s ,  1961), pp. 1+9-53.  38  One c o u l d say t h a t because i s more u n p r e d i c t a b l e as a response t o how t h a n t o why on t h e grounds t h a t how has more l e x i c a l r e a d i n g s t h a n why. I f one e x c l u d e s s i t u a t i o n a l and c o n t e x t u a l dues , t h e n I would a c c e p t a c o r r e l a t i o n between l e x i c a l a m b i g u i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y .  CHAPTER I I I  A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAUSAL AND NON-CAUSAL FEATURES OF BECAUSE  I n t h i s c h a p t e r , I w i l l a n a l y s e t h e meaning o f t h e word because as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e l e x i c a l items  "cause" and " r e a s o n . "  o f because c o n t a i n a number o f a l t e r n a t i v e p r o p o s a l s definition. lexicon: may  E a r l i e r studies  f o r i t s semantic  I f because i s u n d e r l y i n g , t h e r e may be two forms i n t h e  one i s c a u s a l ; t h e o t h e r i s n o n - c a u s a l .  be o n l y one w h i c h has t h e meaning o f r e a s o n .  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , there I f because i s d e s c r i b e d  as a d e r i v e d f o r m , t h e n i t s u n d e r l y i n g source may be a head noun REASON, o r a verb o r noun form w i t h t h e meaning o f cause. These a l t e r n a t i v e l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s e s p a r a l l e l a c o n t r o v e r s y e x i s t i n g i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f causeand r e a s o n - e x p l a n a t i o n s .  The q u e s t i o n s are s i m i l a r .  o f r e a s o n - and c a u s a l - e x p l a n a t i o n s superordinate? jointly?  inclusive?  Are t h e  definitions  I f they a r e , which i s  Or, are t h e y so d i s s i m i l a r t h a t we must d e f i n e them d i s -  Or, are they c o n t i n g e n t o r o v e r l a p p i n g i n ways t h a t we do not  yet understand?  1  The most r e c e n t l y - c o m p i l e d b i b l i o g r a p h y o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h i s q u e s t i o n i s Robert McGowan and Myron Gochnauer, "A B i b l i o g r a p h y o f the P h i l o s o p h y o f A c t i o n , " i n A g e n t , A c t i o n , and Reason, ed. R o b e r t B i n k l e y , R i c h a r d Bronaugh, and A u s o n i o Marras ( T o r o n t o : Univ. o f Toronto P r e s s , 1971), pp. 167-199. An a r t i c l e w h i c h c o n t a i n s an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r reasons and causes i n p h i l o s o p h y i s R u t h M a c k l i n , " E x p l a n a t i o n and A c t i o n : Recent I s s u e s and C o n t r o v e r s i e s , " Synthase 20 (1969), 388-U15.  52 Whenever a s o l u t i o n t o a p r o b l e m i s p e r s i s t e n t l y u n s a t i s f y i n g , i t can be u s e f u l t o s y n t h e s i s e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s from p r e v i o u s I w i l l f o l l o w t h a t procedure i n t h i s chapter.  proposals.  Consequently, I w i l l  argue  t h a t t h e r e i s one u n d e r l y i n g l e x i c a l i t e m "because" w h i c h has b o t h c a u s a l and n o n - c a u s a l f e a t u r e s .  Two authors have h i n t e d a t t h i s approach.  Kac  a d v i s e s t h o s e who i n t e n d t o p u r s u e a l e x i c a l a n a l y s i s o f because t o concentrate  on whether because has b o t h n o n - c a u s a l and c a u s a l f e a t u r e s .  Joseph M a r g o l i s , w r i t i n g from t h e p o i n t o f view o f l i n g u i s t i c  philosophy,  says: I t appears . . . t h a t what we c a l l a c t i o n s form a l o g i c a l l y mixed c a t e g o r y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h i c h e x p l a n a t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n t s o r t s o v e r l a p and i n t e r s e c t t o some e x t e n t : t h e l o g i c o f j u s t i f i c a t o r y reasons . . . appears t o be s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e l o g i c o f t h e reasons an agent has i n a c t i n g as he does, and t h e l o g i c o f t h e l a t t e r appears t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e l o g i c of the causal explanation o f h i s a c t i o n . The p r o m i s i n g k e y seems, t h e r e f o r e , t o l i e more w i t h t h e p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t and d i f f e r e n c e among these a l t e r n a t i v e s than w i t h t h e prospects o f subsuming one under t h e o t h e r . The word b e c a u s e , t h e n , i s a p r o m i s i n g  candidate.  I t i s controversial  w i t h r e g a r d t o reasons and c a u s e s , a n d , i f we a t t e n d t o Kac's i n t u i t i o n t h a t i t may be c a u s a l and n o n - c a u s a l i n meaning, we may d i s c o v e r t h a t because i s a l s o t h e " p o i n t o f c o n t a c t " between t h e " l o g i c ^ o f and t h e " l o g i c " o f c a u s e s " w h i c h M a r g o l i s  reasons"  describes.  E v i d e n c e from n a i v e n a t i v e speakers does n o t encourage t h i s speculation.  Whenever I have a s k e d n a i v e i n f o r m a n t s  t o provide a d e f i -  n i t i o n o f bec_ause_, t h e y have r e p l i e d , " I t means t o cause something," o r ,  Joseph. M a r g o l i s , " E x p l a n a t i o n by Reasons and by Causes," The J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o p h y , 67 (1970), p. 195.  53 "it's  t h e cause o f something."  u n q u a l i f i e d d a t a , we  I f we  must a c c e p t speaker i n t u i t i o n s  must c o n c l u d e w i t h a c a u s a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  as  But  t h e r e a r e m i t i g a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h l e a d speakers t o assume, unquest i o n i n g l y , t h a t because means, i n some sense or o t h e r , t o cause. t h e word c o n t a i n s  First,  "cause" i n i t s form, and a t one t i m e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f  E n g l i s h , because meant "by t h e cause o f " o r "by t h e cause t h a t , " t h e word cause i s c o n t a i n e d  i n b e c a u s e , so one  Second,  i s tempted t o e x p l a i n  because i n terms o f i t , s i n c e t h e meaning o f cause seems more  transparent  t h a n the meaning o f because. J.  L. A u s t i n p o i n t s out t h a t we  o f t e n use a s i m p l e  action, like  3 s h o v i n g a s t o n e , as a model i n terms o f w h i c h we He s t a t e s t h a t " c a u s i n g " was of performing simple man  actions.  p r o b a b l y a n o t i o n t a k e n from the And,  We  experience  a c a u s e , e i t h e r he o r a s p i r i t  L a t e r on i n h i s t o r y , when events w h i c h are  a c t i o n s have been i n c l u d e d i n our c o n c e p t u a l t h e y are caused.  events.  Austin extrapolates, since p r i m i t i v e  p r o b a b l y assumed t h a t every event had  must have caused i t .  e x p l a i n other  w o r l d , we  s t i l l maintain  are bound by an o r i g i n a l e x p l a n a t o r y  model.  says : When, l a t e r , events w h i c h are not a c t i o n s are r e a l i z e d t o be s u c h , we s t i l l say t h e y must be 'caused', and t h e word snares us: we are s t r u g g l i n g toi ascribe t o i t a new, anthropomorp h i c meaning, y e t c o n s t a n t l y , i n s e a r c h i n g f o r i t s a n a l y s i s , we u n e a r t h and i n c o r p o r a t e t h e l i n e a m e n t s o f t h e a n c i e n t model.  J.  L. A u s t i n , P h i l o s o p h i c a l P a p e r s , p.  150.  J.  L. A u s t i n , P h i l o s o p h i c a l P a p e r s , p.  150.  not that  Austin  5H  T h e r e f o r e , we s h o u l d be aware t h a t s p e a k e r i n t u i t i o n s may need m o d i f i cation. L e t us examine l i n g u i s t s  1  c l a i m s — c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e t o those o f  n a i v e i n f o r m a n t s ' — t h a t because i s n o n - c a u s a l i n sense.  Rutherford claims  t h a t i n "Jenny i s n ' t h e r e , because I don't see h e r , " t h e b e c a u s e - c l a u s e r e f e r s t o t h e speaker's r e a s o n f o r making t h e s t a t e m e n t .  This sentence  i s u n a c c e p t a b l e t o me, and t o many o t h e r s I have c o n s u l t e d .  So l e t us  t a k e one w h i c h i s u n i f o r m l y a c c e p t a b l e , and w h i c h he a l s o c l a i m s i s a "reason": Diego."^  "He's n o t coming t o c l a s s , because he j u s t c a l l e d from San R u t h e r f o r d ' s a n a l y s i s o f t h i s sentence i s t h a t t h e because-  c l a u s e e x p l a i n s t h e speaker's r e a s o n f o r making t h e s t a t e m e n t . not an i n d i s p u t a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n :  This i s  one c o u l d contend t h a t t h e t e l e p h o n e  c a l l caused t h e speaker t o make t h e s t a t e m e n t . While R u t h e r f o r d ' s , a d v e r s a r y , K a c , d i s a g r e e s o v e r t h e o r e t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y , Kac concurs t h a t i n sentences o f t h e form S^ because S^, where because does n o t r e f e r t o a v e r b i n sense.^  , because i s n o n - c a u s a l i n  Kac s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n t r u t h c o n d i t i o n s between  sentences w h i c h have an e x t r a d i s c u r s a r y " I s a y t o y o u " s u p e r o r d i n a t e c l a u s e , and one w h i c h has an i n t r a d i s c u r s a r y c l a u s e . d i s c u r s a r y c l a u s e s cannot be d e l e t e d . t h e f o l l o w i n g examples.  He says t h a t  intra-  He s u p p o r t s t h i s c o n t e n t i o n w i t h  I n h i s sentence ( 9 ) , i f t h e s a y - c l a u s e i s i n t r a -  ^ R u t h e r f o r d , "Some O b s e r v a t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g S u b o r d i n a t e Clauses i n E n g l i s h , " p. 97 and p. 1 0 U . ^ Kac, "Clauses o f S a y i n g and t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 6 f because," p. 6 3 1 .  55 d i s c u r s a r y , t h e n t h e t r u t h o f t h e sentence does not depend on t h e t r u t h of t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t J u l i u s Caesar i s i n t h i s room: J u l i u s Caesar i s i n t h i s room."  " I say t o y o u t h a t  He s t a t e s , "To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t r u t h  c o n d i t i o n s can be a s s i g n e d a t a l l t o a s e n t e n c e l i k e  (9), t h e y would have  7 t o i n d i c a t e t h a t such a s e n t e n c e i s , i f a c t u a l l y u t t e r e d , v a c u o u s l y t r u e . " He c o n t r a s t s sentence (9) w i t h sentence (10), w h i c h he m a i n t a i n s g  i s mt vacuously true: f  " J u l i u s Caesar i s i n t h i s room."  c o n d i t i o n s do a f f e c t b o t h s e n t e n c e s .  Pragmatic t r u t h  Anyone l i s t e n i n g t o u t t e r a n c e s  c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o e i t h e r (9) o r (10), would be u n c o n v i n c e d u n l e s s he c o u l d see J u l i u s Caesar o r be o t h e r w i s e c o n v i n c e d o f h i s p r e s e n c e .  Therefore,  t h e r e i s n o t h i n g vacuous about t h e c o n d i t i o n s upon w h i c h I would judge the  t r u t h o r f a l s i t y o f (.9) o r (10).  F u r t h e r m o r e , i t seems as p l a u s i b l e  t o m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e presence o f J u l i u s Caesar c o u l d cause t h e s p e a k e r t o make t h e remark, as i t would be t o m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f J u l i u s Caesar was t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e s p e a k e r ' s making t h e  remark.  The r e l e v a n c e o f t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n t o b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s i s t h a t Kac hopes t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n t r u t h c o n d i t i o n s between t h e s e n t e n c e s "(2)  I say t o you t h a t Jenny i s n ' t here because  I don't see h e r , " and, "(3)  Jenny i s n ' t h e r e , because I don't see h e r . "  I f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s are meaning-preserving, then the t r u t h c o n d i t i o n s o f (2) and (3) must be t h e same.  Kac, p.  628.  Kac, p.  628.  Kac, p. 626 and p.  As I have i n d i c a t e d above, t h e y a r e t h e same,  628.  56 p r a g m a t i c a l l y , f o r me.  The p r o b l e m i s n o t , i t seems, i n b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d ,  b u t i s i n e f f o r t s t o i n c o r p o r a t e d a t a from language use i n t o t h e o r e t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o f sentences.  And, f o r t h i s t h e s i s , t h e i s s u e i s whether  i t can be argued c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t a form,  because  , must be i n t e r -  p r e t e d as e i t h e r c a u s a l o r n o n - c a u s a l . C o n s i d e r J . Davison's s e t o f counterexamples t o t h e c a u s a t i v e hypothesis.  He s t a t e s t h a t i n s e n t e n c e s (6a) and ,(6b), t h e meaning o f  because cannot be c a u s a l : it.  (6b)  "(6a)  The dog r a n away because Mary d i s l i k e d  Mary caused t h e dog t o r u n away because she d i s l i k e d i t . "  He  s a y s , r e g a r d i n g t h e s e two s e n t e n c e s , "We expect t h a t Mary has performed some a c t o r a c t i o n s t h a t have r e s u l t e d i n , b u t n o t c a u s e d , t h e dog's away.""'"^  running  One c o u l d m a i n t a i n t h a t she d i d do something caused by h e r d i s -  l i k e , but that t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s a c t i o n i s deleted i n t h e sentence. Perhaps she b e a t t h e dog, because she d i s l i k e d i t ; the b e a t i n g w h i c h caused t h e dog t o r u n away. a v a r i a t i o n o f The House That J a c k B u i l t . a problem i n t h e i n d i v i d u a t i o n o f a c t i o n s .  thus, d i s l i k e  Humourously  When c o n s i d e r e d  caused  viewed, i t i s seriously, i t i s  I f we, s u b s t i t u t e a noun w i t h  t h e f e a t u r e C+humanH f o r "dog" i n s e n t e n c e (6), we do n o t f e e l t h a t a c a u s a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s odd: "Mary caused h e r daughter t o r u n away because she d i s l i k e d h e r . "  The d i f f e r e n c e i n a c c e p t a b i l i t y seems t o be  t h a t a daughter c o u l d p e r c e i v e t h e d i s l i k e i n a way t h a t a dog c o u l d n o t . Therefore,  no a c t i o n by t h e mother need o c c u r f o r h e r d i s l i k e t o cause  t h e daughter t o r u n away.  J . Davison, "Contextual t o appear.  C o n s t r a i n t s on Reason A d v e r b i a l s , "  57 The most p e r s u a s i v e case f o r J . Davison's sentences t o he unders t o o d n o n - c a u s a l l y o c c u r s i n d i r e c t l y i n F. Bowers' a r t i c l e , "On t h e S t r u c t u r e o f Apparent C a u s a t i v e - A f f e c t i v e s i n E n g l i s h . "~  L1  Bowers argues  12 t h a t "a.cause does not f i n d e x p r e s s i o n i n a p r e p o s i t i o n a l o b j e c t . "  He  maintains t h a t simple a f f e c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s which c o n t a i n mental s t a t e semantic forms., i n c l u d i n g t h o s e e n d i n g i n - e d , such as a v e r s e t o , i n t o l e r a n t o f , a f r a i d o f , angry a t , a s t o n i s h e d a t , concerned w i t h , and d e l i g h t e d a t , are not v e r b s i n p a s s i v e form.  Rather, they are r e l a t i v e a d j e c t i v e s r e -  q u i r i n g a p r e p o s i t i o n a l o b j e c t w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e semantic o b j e c t o f t h e f e e l i n g , and not t h e cause.  I f we a l s o c o n s i d e r e d d i s l i k e o f as a  r e l a t i v e a d j e c t i v e , t h e n we would have t o say t h a t i n J . Davison's sentence ( 6 a ) ,  t h e dog was t h e semantic o b j e c t o f Mary's d i s l i k e .  This  need not p r e c l u d e our c o n t e n d i n g , however, t h a t Mary was, from t h e p o i n t o f view o f t h e dog, t h e cause o f i t s r u n n i n g away. Bowers c i t e s o t h e r examples o f s e n t e n c e s c o n t a i n i n g because i n construction w i t h a simple a f f e c t i v e verb. sentences a r e not c a u s a l .  He c l a i m s t h a t t h e s e  He says t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e , "John was  angry  because B i l l b u r s t i n w i t h o u t k n o c k i n g , " i s n o n - c a u s a l , f o r i t a c t u a l l y means, "John was angry a t B i l l ' s b u r s t i n g i n w i t h o u t k n o c k i n g . "  And,  13 Bowers m a i n t a i n s , causes are not e x p r e s s e d by p r e p o s i t i o n a l o b j e c t s .  F. Bowers, "On t h e S t r u c t u r e o f Apparent C a u s a t i v e - A f f e c t i v e s i n E n g l i s h , " P r o g r e s s R e p o r t , mimeo. (Vancouver: U n i v . o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971), pp. 1-28.  12 F. Bowers, p.  17.  F. Bowers, p.  17•  58 But i t c o u l d be argued t h a t another o b j e c t has been d e l e t e d . sentence c o u l d be p a r a p h r a s e d , "John was i n without knocking."  Or, a l e s s  angry at B i l l because  awkward sentence would be,  angry at B i l l because he b u r s t i n w i t h o u t k n o c k i n g . " have been t h e o b j e c t o f John's  anger, B i l l  namely, b u r s t i n w i t h o u t k n o c k i n g .  The  One  Bill  burst  "John  was  Whereas B i l l  may  d i d something t o deserve i t ;  c o u l d argue, t h e n , t h a t  Bill's  b u r s t i n g i n caused John t o be angry at B i l l . A second n o n - c a u s a l example which Bowers c i t e s i s : i r r i t a t e d because he was does not mean, "He was  hungry."  Bowers m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h i s  i r r i t a t e d at b e i n g hungry.""^  t o be angry a t  hungry."  was  sentence  I would agree, but  counter once a g a i n t h a t another o b j e c t has been d e l e t e d ; angry a t something because he was  "He  t h u s , "He  was  T h e r e f o r e , hunger caused  him  something.  A r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n t o the q u e s t i o n whether because, i n sentences o f t h e form, is  t h a t one nor  in  because  S^, need be e i t h e r  c a u s a l or n o n - c a u s a l ,  can argue c o g e n t l y f o r b o t h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o n l y i f n e i t h e r  c o n t a i n s the l e x i c a l items "cause" o r " r e a s o n . "  I conclude t h a t  t h i s sentence" form, because has t h e semantic f e a t u r e C+cause3.  one cannot m a i n t a i n t h i s  However,  c o n c l u s i o n u n e q u i v o c a l l y f o r because i n sentences  h a v i n g a p r e d i c a t e nominal form.  F o r i n s t a n c e , when because  o c c u r s i n the  p r e d i c a t e o f sentences whose s u b j e c t i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e noun r e a s o n , the  meaning o f because  a g a i n , sentence  (l8)  seems t o be determined by the noun.  from Chapter I I :  F. Bowers, p.  18.  "The  reason why  Examine, once  I am g o i n g i s  59 because I am t i r e d . "  Or, J . Davison's sentence (34c), "The  r e a s o n he  l e f t vas because we t o l d him t o go." and, O t t o J e s p e r s e n ' s s e n t e n c e , "The r e a l r e a s o n why  I am out o f p l a c e here i s because I l i k e men.""'"''  I n a l l o f t h e s e sentences w h i c h c o n t a i n a p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l form, "reason . . . because," t h e word because does not seem t o be c a u s a l i n meaning. propose t h a t i t f u n c t i o n s as a p r o - f o r m t o t h e noun, and a s s i m i l a t e s i n sense t o i t .  I n t h i s environment because has t h e f e a t u r e C-causeH.  I  p r e s e n t my e v i d e n c e h e r e . C o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g p o s s i b l e c o l l o c a t i o n s o f because and reason: (a)  The r e a s o n t h a t  (b)  The r e a s o n why  . . . i s because . . .  (c)  The r e a s o n why  . . . i s that  (d)  The r e a s o n i s because . . .  (e)  The r e a s o n i s because . . . and because . . .  (f)  The r e a s o n i s t h a t  (g)  The r e a s o n why  (h)  The r e a s o n t h a t  (i)  The r e a s o n why  (J)  The r e a s o n . . .  Three sequences  . . . i s because . . .  . . .  . ..  . . . i s because . . . and t h a t . . . . . is- . . . . . . was not t h a t i s why  . . . but because  . . .  are unacceptable:  (k)  *The r e a s o n because . . .  (1)  *The r e a s o n i s why  (m)  *The r e a s o n i s t h a t . . . and why  . . . . . .  J . D a v i s o n , t o appear; O t t o J e s p e r s e n , Modern E n g l i s h Grammar, V,  391.  I  6o The f i r s t e v i d e n c e w h i c h s u p p o r t s my p r o p o s a l t h a t because i s a p r o - f o r m i s t h a t i n a l l i n s t a n c e s where r e a s o n o c c u r s w i t h b e c a u s e ,  one  can e i t h e r s u b s t i t u t e t h a t f o r because a f t e r t h e v e r b , o r a l t e r n a t e t h a t w i t h because i n a compound p r e d i c a t e . l o s s o f sense.  Moreover, t h e r e appears t o be  no  One might o b j e c t t h a t t h e r e a s o n why t h a t can s u b s t i t u t e  f o r b e c a u s e , i s t h a t t h a t a l s o has t h e f e a t u r e C+reasonH.  T h i s argument  h o l d s o n l y f o r sentences where r e a s o n i s f o l l o w e d by an embedded r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , and because o r t h a t o c c u r s i n t h e p r e d i c a t e . F o r example i n sentences (27)-(30), b o t h because and t h a t  may  o c c u r i n t h e same p o s i t i o n , o r , i n sentences (27')-(30 ), b o t h may  be  T  deleted: (27)  The r e a s o n why  (27')  I am g o i n g i s ] ^ * ^ I am ID ecause _) The reason why I am g o i n g i s I am t i r e d .  (28)  The reason why we r e t u r n e d  (28')  The r e a s o n why we r e t u r n e d was we were b r o k e .  (29)  Ct h a t 7 The reason he l e f t was \. > we t o l d him t o go, ^because J  (29')  The reason he l e f t was we t o l d him t o go.  (30)  The r e a l r e a s o n why ;ason wny I like  (30')  1 8  was  that because  tired.  we were b r o k e .  J  (that I am out o f p l a c e h e r e i s f 1 am out o r p±ace nere ~~ I DSC St US  6  I am out o f p l a c e here i s I l i k e  men.  men.  The r e a l r e a s o n why  I conclude t h a t i n sentences (27)-(30), because and t h a t are s e m a n t i c a l l y r e d u n d a n t — n e i t h e r represents  features other than those already r e -  p r e s e n t e d by t h e noun r e a s o n , s i n c e b o t h because and t h a t can be N o t i c e , t o t h e c o n t r a r y , t h a t i n sentences o f t h e form — w h e r e because o c c u r s w i t h o u t t h e noun "reason"—-because d e l e t e d , n o r can t h a t be s u b s t i t u t e d :  deleted. because  cannot be  61 (31)  I am g o i n g because I am t i r e d .  (32)  * I , :.am g o i n g I am t i r e d .  (33)  * I an g o i n g t h a t I am t i r e d .  To r e t a i n s e n s e , because must o c c u r i n sentence word appears because.  (3l),  s i n c e no o t h e r  i n t h e sentence which r e p r e s e n t s t h e semantic c o n t e n t o f  T h a t , u n l i k e b e c a u s e , r e q u i r e s a r e f e r e n t i a l noun i n a l l en-  vironments . A d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g my c l a i m t h a t because i s a p r o form o f " r e a s o n " i s t h a t because cannot i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w r e a s o n .  The  e x p l a n a t i o n I o f f e r f o r t h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t h e sequence " r e a s o n because" a l s o e x p l a i n s t h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f sequences such a s , " T h e K  man he . . .," and "*The g i r l she . . .." • That i s , we do n o t r e p e a t i n immediate s u c c e s s i o n , words which c o n t a i n t h e same e s s e n t i a l l6 information.  semantic  3£  I n t h e sequence " man he," t h e f e a t u r e s C+human, -finale3  a r e e x p r e s s e d i n i t i a l l y by "man."  S i m i l a r l y , i n " g i r l she," t h e f e a t u r e s  C+human, +femaleD a r e f e a t u r e s o f " g i r l . " t h e noun " r e a s o n " r e p r e s e n t s C+reason3 ; s e m a n t i c a l l y redundant  K  And, i n " ^ r e a s o n  because,"  hence, "^reason because" i s  and u n a c c e p t a b l e .  However, i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e sequence " r e a s o n t h a t " i s a c c e p t a b l e because t h a t may a s s i m i l a t e i n sense t o any noun. sentence  Moreover, as  (33) i l l u s t r a t e s , t h a t must have a noun t o govern i t s sense.  One c a n i m m e d i a t e l y r e p e a t t h e same word f o r purposes o f i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n , as i n t h e sequences " v e r y , v e r y h o t " o r " r e d , r e d r o s e . " One may n o t say "very- h o t , h o t " o r " r e d r o s e , r o s e . " Nor can a.verb pro-form immediately f o l l o w i t s antecedent: "John r a n down t h e h i l l and Mary d i d , t o o " i s a c c e p t a b l e . But " John r a n down t h e h i l l d i d and Mary, t o o " i s u n a c c e p t a b l e .  62 But since because a s s i m i l a t e s only t o "reason" or (as I s h a l l argue below), t o "cause," because may not occur i n a p o s i t i o n immediately f o l l o w i n g e i t h e r o f these l e x i c a l items without unacceptable semantic redundancy.  Furthermore, since because a s s i m i l a t e s only t o these  l e x i c a l items, because can occur i n sentences without e i t h e r "reason" or "cause." F i n a l evidence that because i s a pro-form f o r "reason" i s t h a t because-clauses cannot precede the noun "reason" i n d i s c o u r s e - i n i t i a l sentences.  This p r o h i b i t i o n i s compatible w i t h Susumu Kuno's condition  on backward pronominalization.  He states that backward pronominalization  i s p o s s i b l e only when the r i g h t o f two noun phrases i s o l d information. I f because i s anaphoric i n the f o l l o w i n g sentences, then we may p r e d i c t t h e i r unacceptability: (3*0  ^Because I was hungry i s the reason that I got up.  (.35)  Because he was hurt i s the reason John stayed out of the game.  (36)  because i t r a i n e d f o r t y days i s the reason the r i v e r flooded.  A reversed order of the clauses produces acceptable sentences: (3V)  The reason that I got up i s because I was hungry.  (35')  The reason John stayed out of the game i s because he was h u r t .  C36')  The reason that the r i v e r flooded i s because i t r a i n e d f o r t y days.  Susumu Kuno, "Functional Sentence P e r s p e c t i v e , " L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry, 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , ' 302.  17  63 And, as f u r t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n , c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g u n a c c e p t a b l e sentences where because i s p r e p o s e d and embedded i n a c l e f t (37)  S  I t was because  form:  I was i l l was t h e r e a s o n t h a t I  s t a y e d home. (38)  K  I t was because i t r a i n e d f o r t y days i s t h e r e a s o n t h e river  flooded.  I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o p r o v i d e acceptable sentences f o r (38)  b y r e v e r s i n g t h e o r d e r o f the c l a u s e s .  (37) and  P r e p o s i n g must be a  c o n d i t i o n on c l e f t i n g i n sentences i n w h i c h reason and because c o - o c c u r .  l8 T h i s c o n d i t i o n does not a p p l y t o sentences o f t h e  because  form.  I c o n c l u d e t h a t because i s a p r o - f o r m f o r r e a s o n i n t h e p r e v i o u s l y  19 described environments. summarized d a t a .  I base t h i s c o n c l u s i o n on t h e f o l l o w i n g  I n any sentence o f p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l form where r e a s o n  and because c o - o c c u r , t h a t can s u b s t i t u t e f o r b e c a u s e , and because may not immediately f o l l o w reason.  I n any sentence where a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e  i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s r e a s o n , and because o c c u r s i n t h e p r e d i c a t e , because can be d e l e t e d . zation rules:  F i n a l l y , b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s adhere t o backward p r o n o m i n a l i b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s cannot precede main c l a u s e s w h i c h  contain  reason", i f t h e sentence i s d i s c o u r s e - i n i t i a l . Now I w i l l show t h a t when because o c c u r s i n sentences o f p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l form where t h e s u b j e c t i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e noun cause, because  l8 Thus, i n r e p l y t o t h e q u e s t i o n , "What r e a s o n i s g i v e n f o r t h e f l o o d ? " , one may r e p l y a c c e p t a b l e e i t h e r with., " i t ' s because i t r a i n e d t h a t t h e r i v e r f l o o d e d , " o r , w i t h , " i t ' s t h a t t h e r i v e r f l o o d e d because i t rained." 1  9  See pp5"<?.  6k functions- as a p r o - f o r m t o t h e noun. t h e f e a t u r e C+causeH.  I n t h i s e n v i r o n m e n t , because has  N o t i c e t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g c o l l o c a t i o n s o f cause  and because a r e p o s s i b l e : (a)  The cause o f . . . is- because .  (b)  The cause o f . . . is- t h a t  . . .  (c)  The cause o f . . . i s t h a t  . . ,.- and because  (d>  The cause o f . . . i s because . . . and t h a t  (e)  The cause . . . i s not t h a t  (f)  The cause . . . i s not because .. . . b u t t h a t  •  •  . . . b u t because  Lences are u n a c c e p t a b l e : (g)  *The cause because  (h)  *The cause o f . . . because  My e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e u n a c c e p t a b l e sequence o f " r e a s o n b e c a u s e " a l s o a p p l i e s here t o u n a c c e p t a b l e c o l l o c a t i o n ( g ) . That i s , i n s e n t e n c e s K  w h i c h c o n t a i n cause and b e c a u s e , r u l e s o f E n g l i s h do n o t a l l o w  immediate  sequences o f words c o n t a i n i n g redundant semantic i n f o r m a t i o n .  In the  f o r e g o i n g forms, (a) - ( f ) , t h e r e i s a l s o a p h o n i c e x p l a n a t i o n why t h e f a r t h e r a p a r t because i s from c a u s e , t h e more n a t u r a l t h e s e n t e n c e sounds. N o t i c e t h a t sequences  ( c ) and (e) sound more a c c e p t a b l e t h a n sequences (d)  and ( f ) . The e x p l a n a t i o n  seems t o be t h a t speakers a v o i d p h o n i c redundancy  u n l e s s assonance i s d e s i r e d f o r s p e c i a l s t y l i s t i c p u r p o s e s . J u s t as t h a t can s u b s t i t u t e f o r because i n r e a s o n . . . because c o n s t r u c t i o n s , t h a t can s u b s t i t u t e f o r because i n cause . . .  because  constructions: (.39)  The cause o f t h e f i r e was because I was c a r e l e s s .  65 (39')  The cause o f t h e f i r e was t h a t I was c a r e l e s s .  (1+0)  The cause o f t h e f l o o d was because i t thawed r a p i d l y , and because t h e d i k e s were weak.  (1+0') The cause o f t h e f l o o d was t h a t i t thawed r a p i d l y , and t h a t t h e d i k e s were weak. (4l)  The cause o f my b e i n g l a t e i s not because I s l e p t i n , b u t because my c a r f a i l e d t o s t a r t .  .(1+1') The cause o f my b e i n g l a t e i s not t h a t I s l e p t i n , , b u t t h a t my c a r f a i l e d t o s t a r t . And, p a r a l l e l t o r e a s o n . . . because c o n s t r u c t i o n s , because can be d e l e t e d i n cause . . . because c o n s t r u c t i o n s w i t h o u t l o s s o f sense. (39")  The cause o f t h e f i r e was I was c a r e l e s s .  (1+0") The cause o f t h e f l o o d was i t thawed r a p i d l y and t h e d i k e s were weak. (Ul")  The cause o f my b e i n g l a t e i s not my s l e e p i n g i n b u t my c a r f a i l i n g t o s t a r t .  I c o n c l u d e t h a t s u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h a t f o r because i n s e n t e n c e s (39)-(4l") would be i m p o s s i b l e i f because were not a p r o - f o r m f o r cause. I n a d d i t i o n , i n sentences (39")-(4l"), because can be d e l e t e d s i n c e i t s f e a t u r e C+causeH i s a l s o a p r o p e r t y o f t h e noun cause. As Because  . . . r e a s o n sequences are u n a c c e p t a b l e , so Because  cause sequences a r e u n a c c e p t a b l e .  I n the f o l l o w i n g sentences which are  d i s c o u r s e i n i t i a l , t h e p r o h i b i t i o n on p r e p o s i n g because i s p r e d i c t a b l e from Kuno's c o n s t r a i n t on backwards  pronominalization:  (1+2) ^Because I was- c a r e l e s s was t h e cause o f t h e f i r e .  ..  66  (fc3)  'Because i t thawed r a p i d l y and because t h e d i k e s were weak was t h e cause o f t h e f l o o d .  (MO  ^Not because I s l e p t i n b u t because my c a r f a i l e d t o s t a r t i s t h e cause o f my b e i n g l a t e .  S i m i l a r l y , c e l f t forms a r e u n a c c e p t a b l e : (1+2')  I t was because I was c a r e l e s s was t h e cause o f the  (1+3')  fire.  * I t was because i t thawed r a p i d l y and because t h e d i k e s were weak was t h e cause o f t h e f l o o d .  (1+1+') * I t was not because I s l e p t i n b u t because  my  c a r f a i l e d t o s t a r t i s t h e cause o f my b e i n g l a t e . I c o n c l u d e t h a t i n s e n t e n c e s where t h e noun cause c o l l o c a t e s w i t h b e c a u s e , because i s a p r o - f o r m o f cause.  In these sentences, the  f e a t u r e C-causeH i s suspended, and t h e f e a t u r e C+causeH a s s i m i l a t e s t o the noun. Because a l s o o c c u r s i n sentences w i t h t h e verb cause.  And,  a l t h o u g h none o f t h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e s my case f o r a c a u s a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f because i n n o m i n a l cause . . . because s e n t e n c e s h o l d s for  v e r b a l cause . . . because s e n t e n c e s , I w i l l , n e v e r t h e l e s s ,  demon-  s t r a t e t h a t because a l s o a s s i m i l a t e s i n sense t o v e r b a l cause.  I will  begin w i t h negative evidence.  F i r s t , a b e c a u s e - c l a u s e can e i t h e r precede  or f o l l o w a v e r b : (1+5)  Because I was c a r e l e s s , I caused t h e f i r e .  (1+5')  I caused t h e f i r e because I was  (1+6)  Because he was b e i n g hounded by debt c o l l e c t o r s , his  careless.  d e s i r e f o r t h e money caused him t o y i e l d t o  t h e i r demands.  67 (46')  H i s d e s i r e f o r t h e money caused h i m t o y i e l d t o t h e i r demands because he was b e i n g hounded by debt collectors.  (47)  Because I h a t e l i v i n g i n t h e r a i n , t h e n i c e weather i s one o f t h e t h i n g s w h i c h caused me t o come h e r e .  (47')  The n i c e weather i s one o f t h e t h i n g s w h i c h caused me t o come h e r e , because I h a t e l i v i n g i n t h e r a i n .  We cannot c o n c l u d e , t h e n , as we d i d w i t h n o m i n a l cause . . . because c o l l o c a t i o n s , t h a t v e r b a l cause . . . because c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e a n a p h o r i c i n t h e sense o f a p r o - f o r m . Second, i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o d e l e t e because from t h e f o r e g o i n g sentences and r e t a i n  sense:  (4-5")  K  I was c a r e l e s s , I caused t h e f i r e .  (4-5"')  K  I s t a r t e d t h e f i r e I was c a r e l e s s .  (46")  *He was b e i n g hounded by debt c o l l e c t o r s , h i s d e s i r e f o r t h e money caused h i m t o y i e l d t o t h e i r demands. * H i s d e s i r e f o r t h e money caused him t o y i e l d t o  (46"')  t h e i r demands he was b e i n g hounded by debt collectors . (47")  K  I h a t e l i v i n g i n t h e r a i n , t h e n i c e weather i s one o f t h e t h i n g s which, caused me t o come h e r e .  (47"*)  *The n i c e weather i s one o f t h e t h i n g s w h i c h caused me t o come h e r e I h a t e l i v i n g i n t h e r a i n .  F i n a l l y , i t i s a l s o i m p o s s i b l e t o s u b s t i t u t e t h a t f o r because i n sentences  (45)-(47).  D e s p i t e t h e s e n e g a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s , I contend t h a t  68 because a s s i m i l a t e s i n sense t o t h e v e r b cause on t h e grounds t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e l e t e because when t h e b e c a u s e - c l a u s e i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a restrictive  appositive.  There i s t r a d i t i o n a l p r e c e d e n t f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n .  Jespersen  s t a t e s t h a t p a r t i c l e s — h e c l a s s i f i e s because as a p a r t i c l e — a r e o f t e n placed i n apposition t o a primary. follow the primary.  The a p p o s i t i v e may e i t h e r precede o r  I n t h e s e s e n t e n c e s , he s a y s , any form o f be_ denotes  20 "cause o r r e a s o n . "  I amend t h i s d e f i n i t i o n t o s t a t e t h a t i n cases  where be_ i s i n a p p o s i t i o n t o a s e n t e n c e w h i c h i n c l u d e s v e r b a l c a u s e , t h e a p p o s i t i v e i s c a u s a l i n meaning. evidence f o r t h i s  I p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s as  amendation.  C o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g s e t o f sentences i n w h i c h because i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e (a) examples, b u t i s r e p l a c e d by a p a r t i c i p i a l form o f be_ i n t h e (b) examples. (48a)  Because I was c a r e l e s s , I caused t h e f i r e .  (48b)  B e i n g c a r e l e s s , I caused t h e f i r e .  (49a)  Because he was b e i n g hounded by debt  collectors,  h i s d e s i r e f o r t h e money caused him t o y i e l d t o t h e i r demands. (49b)  B e i n g hounded by debt c o l l e c t o r s , h i s d e s i r e f o r t h e money caused h i m t o y i e l d t o t h e i r demands.  (,50a)  Because I hate l i v i n g i n t h e r a i n , t h e n i c e weather i s one o f t h e t h i n g s w h i c h caused me t o come h e r e .  0 . J e s p e r s e n , E s s e n t i a l s , p. 9 4 .  69 (50b)  Hating  (as I do) t o l i v e i n t h e r a i n , t h e n i c e  weather i s one o f t h e t h i n g s w h i c h caused me t o come h e r e . I m a i n t a i n t h a t i t w o u l d be i m p o s s i b l e t o d e l e t e because i n t h e s e  sentences  and r e t a i n sense i f because added semantic i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e sentence. One might c o u n t e r t h a t t h e s e sentences a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y easy t o paraphrase w i t h a d j e c t i v a l  appositive constructions, since the subject  noun i n b o t h c l a u s e s i s i d e n t i c a l i n r e f e r e n c e . I n sentences (51a)-(52b), t h e s u b j e c t nouns o f t h e two c l a u s e s are not c o - r e f e r e n t i a l ,  y e t an a p p o s i t i v e a n a l y s i s w i t h have as p a r t i c i p l e  holds: (51a)  The match caused t h e f i r e i n t h e compartment because t h e oxygen hadn't been t u r n e d o f f .  (51b)  The match caused t h e f i r e i n t h e compartment, t h e oxygen not h a v i n g been t u r n e d o f f .  (52a)  The crowd caused a n o t h e r d i s t u r b a n c e because t h e B e a t l e s p l a y e d so l o u d .  (52b)  The crowd caused a n o t h e r d i s t u r b a n c e , t h e B e a t l e s h a v i n g p l a y e d so l o u d .  T h e r e f o r e , because can be d e l e t e d i n sentences w h i c h c o n t a i n v e r b a l cause. I n c o n c l u s i o n , I propose t h e f o l l o w i n g l e x i c a l a n a l y s i s o f because.  I n t h e sentence f o r m ,  c o n t a i n s t h e l e x i c a l items C+causeH.  because S^, where n e i t h e r  nor  " r e a s o n " o r "cause," because has t h e f e a t u r e  Because has two c o n d i t i o n e d v a r i a n t s .  When because o c c u r s i n  a sentence o f p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l form whose s u b j e c t i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e  70 noun " r e a s o n , " t h e f e a t u r e C t c a u s e l i s suspended, and because has t h e f e a t u r e C-causeH.  When because o c c u r s i n a sentence o f p r e d i c a t e n o m i n a l  form whose s u b j e c t i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e noun "cause," t h e f e a t u r e C-causeH i s suspended, and because has t h e f e a t u r e C+causeH.  In these predicate  n o m i n a l sentence forms, because i s a p r o - f o r m o f t h e nouns " r e a s o n " and "cause."  When because o c c u r s i n a sentence w i t h v e r b a l c a u s e , t h e f e a t u r e  C-causeD i s suspended, and C+causeH a s s i m i l a t e s t o t h e v e r b .  Therefore,  r e t u r n i n g t o M a r g o l i s '"'suggestions and Kac's i n t u i t i o n , because i s b o t h a p o i n t o f c o n t a c t and a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e l o g i c o f reasons and the  l o g i c o f causes.  71 SUMMARY I n Chapter I , I d e s c r i b e p r e v i o u s l i n g u i s t i c r e s e a r c h on because and b e c a u s e - c l a u s e s .  Data from t h e s e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e s  because w i t h p o s i t i o n s o f prominence i n a s e n t e n c e .  I n Chapter I I , I  i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s prominence by a p p l y i n g c r i t e r i a o f t h e t e r m " f o c u s " t o because.  The d e f i n i t i o n o f " f o c u s " " s y n t h e s i s e d from p r e v i o u s  d e f i n i t i o n s , i n c l u d e s l i n g u i s t i c r u l e s o f s t r e s s , n e g a t i o n , q u e s t i o n , and embedding.  I n Chapter I I I , I propose t h a t because may have semantic  f e a t u r e s common t o r e a s o n - and c a u s a l - e x p l a n a t i o n s .  I c l a i m t h a t S^  because S^ i s t h e u n d e r l y i n g form o f b e c a u s e , and t h a t i n t h i s because has t h e semantic p r o p e r t y C±causeH.  form,  I d e s c r i b e two c o n d i t i o n e d  v a r i a n t s o f because o c c u r r i n g i n sentences e i t h e r w i t h t h e noun r e a s o n o r w i t h t h e noun o r verb cause.  I n t h e former environment, t h e f e a t u r e  O c a u s e H i s suspended and because a s s i m i l a t e s i n sense t o r e a s o n . S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e l a t t e r e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e f e a t u r e C - c a u s e l i s suspended and because a s s i m i l a t e s i n sense t o t h e noun o r v e r b cause.  72 Literature  Cited  Anderson, Stephen R. "On t h e L i n g u i s t i c S t a t u s o f t h e P e r f o r m a t i v e C o n s t a t i v e D i s t i n c t i o n . " I n d i a n a U n i v . Club Mimeograph, O c t o b e r , 1971, pp. 1-28. A u s t i n , J . L. P h i l o s o p h i c a l P a p e r s .  O x f o r d : Clarendon P r e s s , 196l.  How t o Do Things W i t h Words. P r e s s , 1962.  New York: O x f o r d U n i v .  Bowers, F. "On t h e S t r u c t u r e o f Apparent C a u s a t i v e - A f f e c t i v e s i n E n g l i s h . " P r o g r e s s Report Mimeograph, Vancouver: U n i v . o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. Chafe, W a l l a c e L.. Meaning and t h e S t r u c t u r e o f Language. U n i v . o f Chicago P r e s s 1 9 7 0 .  Chicago:  Chomsky, Noam. "Deep S t r u c t u r e , S u r f a c e S t r u c t u r e , and Semantic I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " Semantics: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Reader i n P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s and P s y c h o l o g y . . Ed. Danny D. S t e i n b e r g and Leon A. J a k o b o v i t s . Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s ,  1971, pp. 183-216. Danes,. F r a n t i s e k . "Sentence I n t o n a t i o n from a F u n c t i o n a l P o i n t o f View." Word, 16 (i960), 34-54. D a v i s o n , A l i c e . " C a u s a l Adverbs and P e r f o r m a t i v e Verbs.". Papers from t h e S i x t h R e g i o n a l M e e t i n g o f t h e Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , A p r i l , 1 9 J 0 , pp. 190-201. D a v i s o n , J a c k . " C o n t e x t u a l C o n s t r a i n t s on Reason A d v e r b i a l s . " L i n g u i s t i c s , (1973). To Appear. F r a s e r , B r u c e . "An E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e P e r f o r m a t i v e A n a l y s i s . " I n d i a n a U n i v . Club Mimeograph, O c t o b e r , 1971, pp. 1-30. Garner, R i c h a r d . " ' P r e s u p p o s i t i o n ' i n P h i l o s o p h y and L i n g u i s t i c s . " S t u d i e s i n L i n g u i s t i c .Semantics. Ed. C h a r l e s J . F i l l m o r e and D. Terence Langendoen. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1971, pp. 23-42. Greenbaun, S i d n e y . S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h A d v e r b i a l Usage. Longmans, Green and Co., L t d , 1969. H a l l i d a y , M. A. K.  London:  "Notes on T r a n s i t i v i t y and Theme." J . L i n g u i s t i c s  3 (1967), 177-244.  73 J e s p e r s e n , O t t o . A Modern E n g l i s h Grammar On H i s t o r i c a l P r i n c i p l e s , V o l . V. Copenhagen: E j n a r Munksgaard, 1940. . E s s e n t i a l s o f E n g l i s h Grammar. o f Alabama, 1964.  U n i v e r s i t y : Univ.  J o n e s , D a n i e l . An Q u t l i n e o f E n g l i s h P h o n e t i c s , 9th ed., Cambridge: W. H e f f e r & Sons, L t d . , 1964. Kac, M i c h a e l . "Clauses o f S a y i n g and t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Because." Language, 48 (1972), 626-632. K i p a r s k y , P a u l and C a r o l K i p a r s k y . " F a c t . " Semantics: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Reader i n P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s and P s y c h o l o g y . Ed. Danny D. S t e i n b e r g and Leon A. J a k o b o v i t s . Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1971, pp. 345-369. Kuno, Susumu.  " F u n c t i o n a l Sentence P e r s p e c t i v e . "  Linguistic Inquiry,  3 (1972), 269-320. L a k o f f , George. I r r e g u l a r i t y i n Syntax. and W i n s t o n , I n c . , 1970. "On disciplinary Ed. Danny D. Univ. Press,  New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t  G e n e r a t i v e S e m a n t i c s . " Semantics: An I n t e r Reader i n P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s and Psychology. S t e i n b e r g and Leon A. J a k o b o v i t s . Cambridge: 1971, pp. 232-296.  L y o n s , John. An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o T h e o r e t i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s . Cambridge U n i v . P r e s s , 1968.  London:  McCawley, James D. "Where Do Noun Phrases Come From?" Readings i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar. Ed. R o d e r i c k A. Jacobs and P e t e r S. Rosenbaum. M a s s a c h u s e t t s : Ginn and Co., 1970, pp. 166183. A r e v i s e d v e r s i o n i s i n Semantics: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Reader i n P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s and P s y c h o l o g y . Ed. Danny D. S t e i n b e r g and Leon A. J a k o b o v i t s . Cambridge: U n i v . P r e s s , 1971, pp. 217-232. McGowan, Robert and Myron Gochnauer. "A B i b l i o g r a p h y o f t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f A c t i o n . " A g e n t , A c t i o n , and Reason Ed. Robert B i n k l e y , R i c h a r d Bronaugh, and A u s o n i o M a r r a s . Toronto: U n i v . o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1971, pp. 167-199. M a c k l i n , R u t h . " E x p l a n a t i o n and A c t i o n : Recent I s s u e s Synthese 20 (1969), 388-415. •  and'Controversies."  M a r g o l i s , J o s e p h . . " E x p l a n a t i o n by Reasons: and by Causes." o f P h i l o s o p h y 67 (1970), 187-195-  The J o u r n a l  lk R o s s , John R o b e r t . "On D e c l a r a t i v e S e n t e n c e s . " Readings i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar. Ed. R o d e r i c k A. Jacobs and P e t e r S. Rosenbaum. M a s s a c h u s e t t s : Ginn and Co., pp. 222-272. R u t h e r f o r d , W i l l i a m E. "Some O b s e r v a t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g S u b o r d i n a t e C l a u s e s i n E n g l i s h . " Language U6 (1970), 91-115. T r u b e t s k o y , N. S. P r i n c i p l e s o f Phonology. Trans. C h r i s t i a n e A. M. B a l t a x e . B e r k e l e y : U n i v . o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1969.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101506/manifest

Comment

Related Items