SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  210
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
Across the Line of Speech
and Writing Variation
Across the Line of Speech
and Writing Variation
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches
to Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Catherine Bolly and Liesbeth Degand (eds)
© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2013
Registration of copyright: D/2013/9964/25
ISBN: 978-2-87558-220-1
ISBN PDF version: 978-2-87558-221-8
ISSN: 2034-6417
Printed in Belgium
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, adapted or translated, in any form or by any
means, in any country, without the prior permission of
Presses universitaires de Louvain
Cover design: Marie-Hélène Grégoire
Distribution: www.i6doc.com, on-line university publishers
Available on order from bookshops or at
Diffusion universitaire CIACO (University Distributors)
Grand-Rue, 2/14
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Tel: +32 10 47 33 78
Fax: +32 10 45 73 50
duc@ciaco.com
Distributor in France:
Librairie Wallonie-Bruxelles
46 rue Quincampoix
75004 Paris, France
Tel: +33 1 42 71 58 03
Fax: +33 1 42 71 58 09
librairie.wb@orange.fr
Corpora and Language in Use
Corpora and Language in Use is a series aimed at publishing research monographs and
conference proceedings in the area of corpus linguistics and language in use. The main focus is
on corpus data, but research that compares corpus data to other kinds of empirical data, such as
experimental or questionnaire data, is also of interest, as well as studies focusing on the design
and use of new methods and tools for processing language texts.
The series also welcomes volumes that show the relevance of corpus analysis to application
fields such as lexicography, language learning and teaching, or natural language processing.
Editorial Board
Kate Beeching (University of the West of England, Bristol)
Douglas Biber (Northern Arizona University)
Mireille Bilger (Université de Perpignan)
Benjamin Fagard (Université Paris 3)
Gaëtanelle Gilquin (Université catholique de Louvain)
Stefan Th. Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Hilde Hasselgård (University of Oslo)
Philippe Hiligsmann (Université catholique de Louvain)
Diana Lewis (Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I)
Christian Mair (Universität Freiburg)
Fanny Meunier (Université catholique de Louvain)
Rosamund Moon (University of Birmingham)
Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen (University of Manchester)
Joanne Neff-van Aertselaer (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)
Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley (Université Toulouse-Le Mirail)
Paul Rayson (Lancaster University)
Ted Sanders (Utrecht University)
Anne Catherine Simon (Université catholique de Louvain)
Editorial Management
Université catholique de Louvain
Contact: cluse@uclouvain.be
http://www.uclouvain.be/cluse.html
Published volumes
Granger, Sylviane, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Meunier, Fanny (eds). (2013). Twenty Years of Learner
Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Proceedings of LCR 2011, Louvain-la-Neuve, 15-17
September 2011 [Corpora and Language in Use - Proceedings 1]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses
universitaires de Louvain.
Bolly, Catherine & Degand, Liesbeth (eds). (2013). Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation.
Proceedings of LPTS 2011, Louvain-la-Neuve, 16-18 November 2011. [Corpora and Language in
Use - Proceedings 2]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Forthcoming volume
Sarda, Laure, Carter-Thomas, Shirley, Fagard, Benjamin & Charolles, Michel (eds). Adverbials in
Use: From predicative to discourse functions. [Corpora and Language in Use - Monograph 1]. Lou-
vain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
9
Table of contents
Introduction 11
Catherine BOLLY & Liesbeth DEGAND
Causal constructions in speech 17
Maria Josep CUENCA
The emergence of discourse connectives in discourse constructions 33
Diana M. LEWIS
Syntactic complexity in discourse production across different text types 51
Dorit RAVID
Comparaison écrit/ oral de au fond en français moderne 67
Noalig TANGUY & Laure SARDA
Questions de variation : autour de quelques locutions méconnues de l’oral, 81
niveau, par rapport à, en termes de
Juliette DELAHAIE & Danièle FLAMENT-BOISTRANCOURT
Le participe présent adjoint en position polaire comme marqueur de 95
structuration du discours à l’oral et à l’écrit
Eva HAVU & Michel PIERRARD
Italian reformulation markers: a study on spoken and written language 113
Federica CIABARRI
A stylistic continuum of speech, CMC and writing: a comparative linguistic 129
analysis of Japanese texts
Yukiko NISHIMURA
Oral/ écrit dans l’émergence de la mémoire auditive partagée 143
Tea PRŠIR
Etude d’une variation sans suite : le cas de pieça et des locutions adverbiales 153
de temps basées sur le quantifieur piece
Daniéla CAPIN
Figement et configuration textuelle : les segments de discours répétés dans 165
les rapports éducatifs
Georgeta CISLARU, Frédérique SITRI & Frédéric PUGNIÈRE-SAAVEDRA
10
Interpréter les pronoms et les démonstratifs : une opération de recherche 185
référentielle inversée ?
Marion FOSSARD, Alan GARNHAM & H. Wind COWLES
Towards a corpus of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) discourses 199
Laurence MEURANT & Aurélie SINTE
11
Introduction
Catherine Bolly & Liesbeth Degand
F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain
After a first edition in Paris in September 2009, the second edition of Linguistic &
Psycholinguistic Approaches to Text Structuring was held at the University of Louvain
(Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) in November 2011. The aim of the conference was to
consider text and discourse structure from the perspective of language variation, with a
special focus on the distinction between language modes (spoken vs. written) (Biber
1991; Biber & Conrad 2009) and the degree of formality involved (Chafe & Danielewicz
1987).
The medium we use to communicate (oral, written or even gestural) plays an important
role in the choices we make, consciously or not, when structuring our discourse.
However, a more nuanced view, which overrules the traditional dichotomy between
speech and writing, consists in situating discourse on a stylistic continuum between a
formal and an informal pole (‘communicative distance and proximity’) (Koch &
Österreicher 2001). Moreover, when organizing our discourse we can draw on linguistic
structuring markers, such as connectives, discourse markers or frame markers, or on
(marked) information structure constructions (e.g. clefting). What is the impact of the
nature of the medium (spoken vs. written) and of the style of the discourse at hand
(formal vs. informal) on the choice of one linguistic expression over the other? While
medium seems to play a role in the discrimination between text types (e.g. casual coffee
conversation between colleagues, business meeting, e-novel), it is less clear what the
potential impact is of extra-linguistic parameters, such as emotional weight or spatio-
temporal distance between the interlocutors, on the structuring of those texts.
These questions bring us face to face with the limits of the traditional dichotomic
representation opposing speech and writing on the sole basis of the medium at hand.
The suggestion was here to consider discourse structure not only from the perspective
of variation between the written and the spoken mode, but also from the perspective of
variation on a continuum from formal to informal ways of communicating.
In linguistics and psycholinguistics, these issues raise a number of questions, which
were addressed during the conference:
- Which role do speech and writing play in the rise of structuring markers in
diachrony? How can we trace the evolution of typical “spoken” markers in the
history of a language that is primarily written?
- What is the added value of contrastive (cross-linguistic) studies of discourse
structuring markers?
12
- The constant evolution of new information technologies has led to the diversification
of the means of communication. Does this imply that on-line press, texting language,
chat, or videoconferencing have modified our linguistic behaviours? What is the
impact of these new information technologies on discourse structuring?
- Is discourse processing different in speech and writing contexts, and what is the
specific role of discourse structuring markers in production or comprehension?
- How does a native or non-native speaker learn to structure their discourse as a
function of text type? What is the role of discourse structuring markers on
comprehension? How can these specific markers be accounted for in the learning
process?
The volume starts with three contributions from plenary speakers at the conference. Maria
Josep Cuenca addresses the issue of causal constructions in oral Catalan. Comparing the
frequency and meaning of causals in three types of oral discourse, she concludes that
causal constructions may exhibit specific properties that are not present in writing. In
particular, causality may also be expressed by means of modal markers (e.g. es que) that
modify the utterance by introducing the speaker’s attitude or stance. Diana Lewis takes a
diachronic perspective. Her paper focuses on the emergence of two English connectives
(in fact and after all) out of adverbials which developed in turn from prepositional phrases.
Considering that constructions emerge from language use, she examines the role of the
discourse construction in the rise of connective meanings in adverbials. Dorit Ravid
tackles the question of continuing syntactic development in later childhood, adolescence,
and adulthood, targeting the emergence of complex structures in written discourse, at both
the levels of grammar and discourse. Focusing on conjunct constructions in Hebrew, she
observes the gradual increase in the amount of these constructions in texts from mid-grade
school to adulthood, and the increase in their syntactic and discursive complexity. In
writing, these conjunct constructions serve major narrative functions regarding events,
descriptions and interpretations.
The ten additional contributions are a selection of the papers that were presented during
the conference. They all tackle one or several of the dimensions that were central to the
conference’s theme, i.e. variation in speech and writing. Noalig Tanguy and Laure Sarda
present a contrastive study of the prepositional phrase au fond in spoken and written
French. Working within the framework of grammaticalisation theory, they trace its
evolution from spatial preposition to discourse marker through a reinterpretation of its
spatial meaning when au fond is used at the discourse or pragmatic level. As a discourse
marker, au fond is used to signal epistemic modality, or as a confirmation or reformulation
marker. Juliette Delahaie and Danièle Flament-Boistrancourt analyse the use of three
frame markers that appear to be typical of spoken French and non-existent in writing in
this function: niveau (lit. ‘level’), par rapport à (‘in relation to’), en termes de (‘in terms
of’). Their use in different interactional contexts shows that a description in terms of frame
marker (‘introducteur de cadre’) and thematic frame introducer (‘introducteur de cadre
thématique’) does not fully account for their discursive distribution. The three locutions
are not variants of one another (they are not interchangeable) and they participate
13
differently to the discursive structure of the spoken interaction. The next contribution, by
Eva Havu and Michel Pierrard, also provides a comparison of written and spoken French
focusing on the adjunctive use of the Present Participle, fulfilling a discourse structuring
role when it occurs in utterance-initial or utterance-final position. It appears that this
function varies according to the medium used (spoken or written) but also according to the
discourse conception (oral or scriptural).
The two following contributions investigate discourse phenomena by adopting a corpus-
based perspective on languages other than French. In her exploration of the
spoken/written continuum in Italian, Federica Ciabarri focuses on reformulation
markers. Several tendencies emerge from her study: (i) short simple markers are
preferred in speech, while longer and more complex markers are typical in writing;
(ii) there is a correlation between the medium of communication and the meaning
expressed by a single marker (e.g. explanative cioè tends to appear in genres
characterized by a closer proximity between speaker/author and addressee); (iii)
reformulation is oriented towards the reader’s needs in written texts, while it is oriented
towards the speaker’s in the spoken mode. Yukiko Nishimura aims at integrating
computer-mediated communication (CMC) into the stylistic continuum when she
explores Japanese corpus data from 10 different text types, focusing on subcategories of
particles and auxiliaries. In line with the Biberian tradition, her findings shed some light
on variation within each text type, as well as on variation between the media under
scrutiny: among other results, the study reveals that specific linguistic features are
particular to some text types, and that genre commonality may override medium
differences (as it is the case of print and online novels).
In her endeavour to define the notion of ‘shared auditory memory’ on the basis of the
concept of discursive memory, Tea Pršir offers a prosodic corpus-based approach to
style and genre variations (data taken from French radiophonic press reviews). The
assumption is that the hearer and speaker are able to mutually retrieve prosodic elements
attributed to individual styles (‘phonstyle’) or to social and professional groups
(‘phonogenres’).
In the next paper, Daniéla Capin adopts a diachronic view of variation in medieval
French, exploring the evolution of the noun piece (‘moment’) and its grammaticalized
form as a temporal adverbial pieça (‘a long time ago’). What the author assumes, by
means of her richly exemplified study, is that the disappearance of the two items after
the Middle-Ages may be due to intra-systemic features, such as internal concurrency or
evolution of other adverbs during the same period of time.
In their investigation of repeated segments in professional language, Georgeta Cislaru,
Frédérique Sitri and Frédéric Pugnière-Saavedra adopt a quantitative and so-called
‘genetic’ approach in order to study drafts of educational reports in written French. The
authors aim to identify recurrent patterns (e.g. discours + Modifier, être en/dans ‘to be
in’+ N abstract), which play a role in the configuration of texts, and to estimate how
they may be impacted by the successive re-writings in drafts.
14
A psycholinguistic perspective on text structuring is adopted by Marion Fossard, Alan
Garnham and H. Wind Cowles. Comparing demonstratives (that N (man/woman)) and
anaphoric pronouns in English (he or she), by means of tasks measuring the time spent
reading, they show that the demonstrative description orients the interpretative process
towards the less salient character, when the context does not make it possible to
distinguish between two referents.
The final contribution is concerned with the study of discourse in sign language. In their
paper, Laurence Meurant and Aurélie Sinte give an account of previous experiences in
collecting sign languages corpora. Then, the authors present an innovative project which
aims at building a large-scale native-like corpus of French Belgian Sign Language
(LSFB) discourses (approx. 70 signers, 280 hrs. of video recordings).
Acknowledgments
Special thanks go to the reviewers of the proceedings: Karin Aijmer (Göteborgs
Universitet), Antoine Auchlin (Univeristé de Genève), Alice Bardiaux (F.R.S.-FNRS &
Université catholique de Louvain), Kate Beeching (University of the West of England),
Christophe Benzitoun (Université Nancy 2), Dominique Boutet (Université Evry Val
Essonne & Université Paris 8), Annelies Braffort (LIMSI-CNRS, Université d’Orsay),
Michel Charolles (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Saveria Colonna
(Université Paris 8), Gilles Corminboeuf (Université de Neuchâtel), Gaétane Dostie
(Université de Sherbrooke), Julien Eychenne (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies),
Benjamin Fagard (CNRS & Lattice), Fanny Forsberg-Lundell (Stockholm University),
Michel Francard (Université catholique de Louvain), Gaëtanelle Gilquin (F.R.S.-FNRS
& Université Catholique de Louvain), Céline Guillot (Université Lyon 2), Nicolas
Hernandez (Université de Nantes), Victorine Hancock (Stockholm University), Lydia-
Mai Ho-Dac (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Florence Lefeuvre (Université
Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Diana Lewis (Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I),
Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Paola Pietrandrea
(Università Roma TRE), Cristel Portes (Université Aix-Marseille), Sophie Prévost
(ENS Montrouge & Lattice), Elisabeth Richard (Université Rennes 2), Catherine
Schnedeker (Université de Strasbourg), Agnès Tutin (Université Stendhal Grenoble 3),
Denis Vigier (Université Lyon 2), Sandrine Zufferey (Université de Genève).
15
References
Biber, Douglas. 1991. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chafe, Wallace & Jane Danielewicz. 1987. Properties of spoken and written language. In
Rosalind Horrowitz & S. Jay Samuels (eds), Comprehending oral and written language. San
Diego: Academic Press, 83-113.
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2001. Langage oral et langage écrit. In Günter Holthus (ed.),
Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik (tome 1-2). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 584-627.
Keynote speakers
Maria Josep Cuenca (Universitat de València): “The role(s) of discourse markers in oral and
written argumentation”
Diana Lewis (Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I): “The emergence of discourse markers
from discourse constructions”
Dorit Ravid (Tel Aviv University): “Syntactic complexity in discourse production across
different text types: a developmental perspective”
Mark Torrance (Nottingham Trent University): “Micro and macro-level processes in the
production of single sentences and extended texts. Evidence from keystrokes and eye
movements”
Committees
Organizing committee
Catherine Bolly (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain)
Liesbeth Degand (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain)
Jean Giot (Université de Namur)
Laurence Meurant (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université de Namur)
Marie-Anne Schelstraete (Université catholique de Louvain)
Dominique Willems (Universteit Gent)
Local organizing committee
Stéphanie Audrit (Université catholique de Louvain), Alice Bardiaux (F.R.S.-FNRS &
Université catholique de Louvain), Federica Ciabarri (Université catholique de Louvain), Sarah
Defosse (Université catholique de Louvain), Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac (Université Toulouse II-Le
Mirail), Stéphanie Kleinen (Université catholique de Louvain), Anne Küppers (Université
catholique de Louvain), Vincent Mariscal (Université catholique de Louvain), Noalig Tanguy
(Université catholique de Louvain), Deniz Uygur (Université catholique de Louvain).
16
Scientific committee
Karin Aijmer (Göteborgs Universitet), Nicholas Asher (Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier),
Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (Tel Aviv University), Kate Beeching (University of the West of
England), Alain Berrendonner (Université de Fribourg), Christophe Benzitoun (Université
Nancy 2), Marie-José Béguelin (Université de Neuchâtel), Bergljot Behrens (Universitetet i
Oslo), Yves Bestgen (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Catherine Bolly
(F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Andrée Borillo (Université Toulouse II-
Le Mirail), Shirley Carter-Thomas (Institut Télécom & Lattice), Michel Charolles (Université
Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Gilles Corminbœuf (Université de Neuchâtel), Jeanne-Marie
Debaisieux (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Liesbeth Degand (F.R.S.-FNRS &
Université catholique de Louvain), José Deulofeu (Université de Provence), Holger Diessel
(Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena), Gabriele Diewald (Leibniz Universität Hannover),
Gaétane Dostie (Université de Sherbrooke), Britt Erman (Stockholms Universitet), Jacqueline
Evers-Vermeul (Universiteit Utrecht), Benjamin Fagard (CNRS & Lattice), Pierre Fastrez
(F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Fanny Forsberg (Stockholms Universitet),
Michel Francard (Université catholique de Louvain), Françoise Gadet (Université Paris Ouest
Nanterre la Défense (Paris X)), Gaëtanelle Gilquin (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de
Louvain), Sylviane Granger (Université catholique de Louvain), Victorine Hancock
(Stockholms Universitet), Agata Jackiewicz (Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV)), Béatrice
Lamiroy (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), Frédéric Landragin (CNRS & Lattice), Anne Le
Draoulec (CNRS & Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Christiane Marchello-Nizia (ENS
Lyon), Laurence Meurant (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université de Namur), Jacques Moeschler
(Université de Genève), Mary-Annick Morel (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Jean-
Luc Nespoulous (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Henning Nølke (Aarhus Universitet), Jon
Oberlander (University of Edinburgh), Magali Paquot (Université catholique de Louvain),
Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Paola Pietrandrea (Università
Roma TRE), Sophie Prévost (ENS Montrouge & Lattice), Laurent Rasier (F.R.S.-FNRS &
Université catholique de Louvain), Frédéric Sabio (Université de Provence), Ted Sanders
(Universiteit Utrecht), Laure Sarda (CNRS & Lattice), Marie-Anne Schelstraete (Université
catholique de Louvain), Catherine Schnedecker (Université Marc Bloch - Strasbourg 2), Anne
Catherine Simon (Université catholique de Louvain), Wilbert Spooren (Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam), Manfred Stede (Universität Potsdam), Agnès Tutin (Université Stendhal
Grenoble 3), Luuk Van Waes (Universiteit Antwerpen), Denis Vigier (Université Lyon 2),
Diane Vincent (Université Laval), Dominique Willems (Universiteit Gent), Sandrine Zufferey
(Université de Genève).
Cuenca, Maria Josep. 2013. Causal constructions in speech. In Catherine Bolly & Liesbeth Degand (eds), Across
the Line of Speech and Writing Variation. Corpora and Language in Use – Proceedings 2. Louvain-la-Neuve:
Presses universitaires de Louvain, 17-31.
17
Causal constructions in speech
Maria Josep Cuenca
University of Valencia
Abstract
Presenting two contents as cause-effect, through a basic discourse operation, is neither simple nor
straightforward. Previous research has identified different types of causals. The classifications and
analyses generally focus on certain connectives, are mainly based on written texts and often stem from
a sentential perspective. But focusing on speech and taking a discourse perspective, other causal
constructions can be identified. In this paper, causal constructions are analyzed in three types of oral
texts in Catalan: conversation, oral texts obtained through a semi-structured interview protocol and a
political debate. The analysis shows that causal constructions exhibit specific properties in speech and
that causality is not only expressed by means of prototypical causal constructions (i.e. including a causal
conjunction). There are other constructions that activate the causal relation at the discourse level, involve
presuppositions and are subjective or intersubjective. The most frequent in Catalan are constructions
including a modal marker that is either added to a basic connective (perquè clar S ‘because of course
S’) or that precedes a discourse segment (és que S, ‘(it) is (just) that S’).
Keywords: causal constructions, causal connectives, modal markers, oral Catalan, és que constructions
1. Introduction
Causal relationships are one of the most basic linking relations in language. However,
presenting two contents as cause-effect is neither a simple nor straightforward discourse
operation, as the research devoted to the topic highlights.1
The classifications focus on
conjunctions, are mainly based on made-up examples or written texts, and often stem
from a sentential perspective.2
But if we focus on speech and take a discourse
perspective, various factors appear to become relevant for the characterization of causal
constructions.
In this presentation, causal constructions are analyzed in three types of oral texts in
Catalan:
 Casual conversations among 3 or more participants (Corpus oral de conversa
colloquial, COC). The texts are informal and dialogical.
 Oral texts obtained through a semi-structured interview protocol that consisted of 5
tasks designed to elicit different types of text (Corpus audiovisual plurilingüe, CAP).
The texts are relatively formal and mostly monological, since the interviewers keep
their interventions to a minimum.
1
Pit (2003) includes an extensive overview of the state of the art.
2
There are some exceptions to this tendency, such as Simon and Degand (2007) and some of the papers
in the Special Issue on “Causal connectives in discourse” edited by Sanders and Stukker (2012).
MARIA JOSEP CUENCA
18
 A political debate with the participation of a moderator and 5 politicians (1995
Catalonia’s Regional Government Election). The text is formal and combines
monologue (long individual turns) with dialog with the moderators and the other
politicians.3
The structures expressing cause (specifically backward cause) in the three genres have
been identified and classified. Among them, typically oral constructions that activate
presuppositions are described in more detail. Finally, the uses in the three corpora are
compared in order to test to what extent the contextual conditions of oral texts have an
influence on the use and frequency of causal constructions and markers.
2. Causal constructions and markers in oral Catalan
Causal constructions in oral texts, in contrast with written texts, exhibit a reduced variety
of markers but a wider variety of structures and meanings. As for the markers, the
conjunctions that occur in our corpora are perquè (‘because’), which is the basic and
most frequent, and com que (‘since’, ‘as’), which introduces presupposed causals. They
always preface the first conjunct and mark the following content as “information that is
taken for granted” (Goethals 2010: 2213). There are also 5 cases of que (COC) with a
more or less prominent causal meaning.
This reduced set of conjunctions contrasts with the list of causal conjunctions that can
be retrieved in Catalan grammars, mostly based on formal written texts. For instance,
Badia i Margarit (1994: 324) lists the following conjunctions: perquè, que, com que, ja
que, atès que, vist que, per tal com, puix (que).4
However, the reduced list of markers
doesn’t mean simplicity regarding the use of causals in speech. Let us analyze a long
excerpt (1) that includes a variety of causal constructions in order to observe their
complexity. Segment 329 (“perquè ‘because’ short it is easier”) includes a typical use
of perquè: ‘I will do it myself one day, because short is easier’:
(1)
303 NIA (. 0.20) què li volies fer what did you want to do to her
304 MAM allisar-li do her hair straight
305 NIA (.. 0.72) ja en saps d'allisar ja/ do you really know how to straighten it,
eh?
306 MAM [s::] ((mou el cap amunt i
avall))
ye...[she nods]
307 ANI [és que em] fa-- ((ANI està
refredada))
és que (‘(it) is (just) that’) I’m
looking… [she has a cold]
308 ANI (.. 0.61) (INH)
309 ANI fa molta il·lu portar-lo llis I’m looking forward to having it straight
310 NIA (... 1.38) jo sempre que vaig a:_ I, whenever I go to
3
A sample of the three corpora has been selected for quantitative purposes. Each sample analyzed
includes about 15.000 words: 15,897 words corresponding to 3 conversations from COC, 16,230 words
corresponding to 40 interviews from CAP, and 15,931 words from the Debate (258 turns).
4
Also car should be added to the list. It is now considered archaic but it is sometimes used in very
formal texts.
CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH
19
311 NIA tallar[-me les pu:n]tes_ to have my ends trimmed
312 ??? [(tos)] (coughing)
313 NIA o qual[sevol cosa_] or anything
314 ANI [jo vaig pensar] I thought
315 NIA me l'alliso: I'll have it straightened
316 NIA ara [{(??) p(e)rò és que*_}] now... but és que (‘(it) is (just) that’)
317 ANI [jo és que* abans] el duia llarg
no/
me, és que (‘(it) is (just) that’) before I
had it long, right?
318 ANI (.. 0.59) llavors si me'l volia
allisar tenia que anar a la peluqueria
so if I wanted to have my hair
straightened, I had to go to the
hairdresser
319 ANI [{(??) perquè clar}] perquè clar ‘because of course’
320 NIA (... 1.16) [p(e)rò el rissat és] teu/ but your hair is wavy
321 ANI sí yes
322 ANI (.. 0.92) x per (ai)xò me'l vull
allisar
that’s why I want it straightened
323 ANI (.. 0.80) i: el tenia: llarg and I had long hair
324 ANI el tenia per aquí i clar ((fa un
senyal amb la mà a l'alçada de l'espatlla))
it was like this and, obviously, [she
signals her shoulder with her hand]
325 ANI (. 0.22) jo no me'l podia allisar I couldn't straighten it on my own
326 ANI (.. 0.95) {(AC) p(e)rò ara xx--} but now
327 ANI com que el porto curt ara_ com que ‘since’ it's short now
328 ANI (.. 0.46) i dic me'l faré un dia and I say I'll have it done one day
329 ANI perquè_ perquè ‘because’
330 ANI (.. 0.31) curt és més fàcil short makes it easier
331 (... 1.21)
332 ANI x[xx]
333 NIA [més fà]cil de fer it is easier to do
334 NIA p(e)rò de que se t'aguanti més-- but it's that it stays like that longer
335 NIA (. 0.28) més [costa] it takes more
336 ANI [ja::] yeah
337 ANI p(e)rò que és més fàcil de fer-
m'ho
but it is easier for me to do
338 NIA ja (COC06 303-338) yeah
MAM is going to straighten ANI’s hair. NIA wonders whether MAM is able to do it.
ANI justifies her decision to have her hair straight. If we follow ANI’s argumentation,
several markers and types of causals can be identified:
 Segment 327 (“com que ‘since’ it is short now”): com que introduces a cause that is
taken for granted and no conclusion or effect follows. It is an example of an
“independent” subordinate, a phenomenon that is relatively usual in speech,
especially with com que, as Goethals (2010: 2214) points out: “the predictability of
the consequence or conclusion […] leads frequently to the omission of the main
clause in spontaneous speech”.
 Segment 329 (“perquè ‘because’ short it is easier”) includes a typical use of perquè:
‘I will do it myself one day, because short is easier’.
In addition to these constructions, typically marked by a causal conjunction, there are
other structures that convey a causal relation:
MARIA JOSEP CUENCA
20
 Segment 319 (“perquè clar” ‘because of course’): by adding clar to perquè a cause is
presented as shared knowledge or obvious. In this example, the cause is, however,
truncated because the utterance overlaps with a question that ANI decides to answer.
 Segment 307 (“és que ‘(it) is just that’ I’m looking forward to have it straight”): NIA
questions the ability of MAM to straighten the hair and ANI justifies her decision of
allowing MAM to do so. The effect is at the presupposition level.
 Segment 317 (“me, és que ‘(it) is just that’ before I had it long, right?”): ANI further
justifies her decision: she used to have long hair and had to go to the hairdresser’s.
Since now her hair is short, she can do it at home.
The previous excerpt clearly illustrates that if the search goes well beyond typical causal
constructions (i.e. A connective B), it is possible to find other causal constructions
involving presuppositions and (inter)subjective modal uses.
3. Types of causals
3.1. Previous research
Previous research has identified different types of causals. The dominant distinctions
are binary and distinguish between causals that relate propositional contents of discourse
segments and causals that involve the illocutionary meaning of one or both segments.5
In this vein, Halliday and Hasan (1976) distinguish external and internal conjunctions.
Other authors differentiate semantic and pragmatic causals (e.g. Sanders et al. 1992;
Sanders 1997). Semantic interpretation holds at the level of locutionary meaning: “A
relation is semantic if the discourse segments are related because of their propositional
content, i.e. the locutionary meaning of the segments” (Sanders 1997: 122). Pragmatic
interpretation connects locutionary and illocutionary meaning: “A relation is pragmatic
if the discourse segments are related because of the illocutionary meaning of one or both
of the segments. In pragmatic relations the CR [coherence relation] concerns the speech
act status of the segments” (Sanders 1997: 122).
Sweetser (1990: chap. 4) distinguishes three domains (namely, content, epistemic and
speech-act) and considers that some conjunctions can be pragmatically “ambiguous”:
Causal conjunction in the speech-act domain […] indicates causal explanation of the
speech act being performed, while in the epistemic domain a causal conjunction will mark
the cause of a belief or a conclusion, and in the content domain it will mark “real-world”
causality of an event. (Sweetser 1990: 81)
Sweetser illustrates the three readings with the following examples:
(2a) John came back because he loved her
(2b) John loved her, because he came back
(2c) What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on.
5
Cf. Lagerwerf (1998: chap. 2); Knot et al. (2001); Pander Maat and Degand (2001), Pit (2003), and
the special issue of Journal of Pragmatics edited by Sanders and Stukker (2012), among others.
CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH
21
In (2a) there is real world causality, i.e. A and B are content units in a causal relation (B
is the cause of A in the real world: ‘The fact that he loved her caused the fact that John
came back’). In (2b), causality holds “between premise and conclusion in the speaker’s
mind” (1990: 80), i.e. the speaker’s knowledge of A causes the conclusion that B (‘the
knowledge that he came back causes the conclusion that he loved her’). In (2c), “the
because-clause gives the cause of the speech act embodied by the main clause” (1990:
77), i.e. B causes the act of saying A (‘the fact that there’s a good movie on causes the
asking of what you are doing tonight’).
More recent research tends to unify binary and ternary proposals, since it is possible to
interpret that content domain conjunctions are semantic (or external or objective) and
epistemic and speech-act domain conjunctions are pragmatic (or internal or subjective).
Other authors propose a scalar approach based on the notion of subjectivity (Pander
Maat & Sanders 2001; Pit 2003) or speaker involvement (Pander Maat & Degand 2001;
Degand & Pander Maat 2003): “the degree to which the present speaker is implicitly
involved in the construal of the causal relation” (2003: 176). Speaker involvement
increases according to four parameters: (i) the degree of subjective involvement of a
conscious participant, (ii) the degree of iconicity of the causal relation, (iii) the distance
to speaker and speaking time, and (iv) the degree of explicitness of the participants (the
implicit realization of the protagonist). The scalar approach is especially adequate to
differentiate the uses of similar conjunctions.
3.2. Causal constructions: prototypical examples
In the texts analyzed, there are good examples of causals in the different domains, namely,
semantic (content) and pragmatic (epistemic and speech-act), as the following:
(3) la: seva filla_ (INH) cau en coma (.. 0.40) perquè:_ té porfídia (C1CA22CS: 33-37)
Her daughter falls into a coma because she suffers from porphyria
(4) e::l_ tema de l'immigració a Europa_ (INH)/ és un tema una mica conflictiu_ (..
0.62) perquè:_ si:_ bé veiem_/ que:_/ les últimes eleccions_ per exemple
franceses_ casi bé guanya Le Pen_ (C1TE22CS: 3-13)
the subject of immigration in Europe is a rather controversial issue because if…
well, look at the last elections, for instance, the French ones, Le Pen almost won
(5) BEB p(e)rò l'Anna on ha anat (. 0.29) perquè té el biquini fet eh} (COC06:
1097-1098)
But where has Anna gone? Because her ham and cheese sandwich is ready, uh?
The content interpretation (3) is clear when the two segments include two (objective)
facts (‘The fact Q caused the fact P’: ‘her daughter falls in a coma because she suffers
from porphyria’). Epistemic causals, as in (4), relate a piece of evidence and a
conclusion (‘The knowledge that Le Pen almost won causes the conclusion that the
subject of immigration is controversial’). Speech-act causals (5) typically include a
question, as in the previous example, or an order or suggestion, which are the effect of
some fact (‘The fact that her sandwich is ready causes her asking where she is gone’).
MARIA JOSEP CUENCA
22
However, the domains are not strictly separable or clear-cut, as most authors point out.6
It is often the case that a construction is pragmatically ambiguous, for instance, when
one of the two segments is an opinion. If the first segment is an opinion expressed in
third person, an epistemic reading is more prominent, although a content reading is also
possible:
(6) a l'hora de treballa:r_ {(AC) i tenen problemes_ perquè ningú els vol
contractar}(C2TE15SS: 34-36)
When it comes to work..., and they have problems, because nobody wants to hire
them
The previous example can be paraphrased as “The fact that no one wants to hire them
causes the fact that they have problems” or also “I conclude/think/believe that they have
problems because no one wants to hire them”.
Other cases are intermediate between epistemic and speech-act, as when the cause is a
comment or a parenthesis in the discourse flow:
(7) i que passi la nit allà am(b) ells vale/ i ell i el seu go:s_perquè també té un gos
(INH)/ es posen a dormir (C1TN21CS: 10-15)
And that it spends the night there with them, right? And he and his dog—because
he also has a dog— go to sleep
The causal makes explicit an existential presupposition: the fact that “he also has a dog”
justifies my saying that “he and his dog went to sleep”. Example (7) can be considered
epistemic, since there is lack of correspondence with a causal relation in the real world,
but also speech-act, though there is no specific mark of a different speech act or a
performative verb in the first segment.
In fact, this example matches Pander Maat and Degand’s (2001: 225) characterization
of speech-act relations:
speech act relations concern the structure of the present discourse—and nothing else.
They appear in discourse in response to the interactional needs of a specific/potential
interlocutor, not to present facts or draw conclusions concerning the real world. In these
kinds of relations, the speaker is not involved as a thinking being, but solely in his role as
a speaker.
The intermediate nature is also present when because does not express a proper causal
relationship but it rather indicates continuity in discourse:
(8) i després hi va haver un lio_ perquè_ jo vaig trucar a la fàbrica am el meu pare_/
(.. 0.32) i el meu pare i el meu tiet_/treballen junts (C1CN06CC: 40-45)
and then there was a mess because I phoned my father at the factory… and my
father and my uncle work together
The speaker in (8) is telling a story. She presents the situation by saying that “there was a
mess” and starts explaining the “mess” introducing the whole sub-narration as a causal.
In conclusion, intermediate or ambiguous cases are frequent in oral texts, especially
spontaneous ones. This fact, along with the frequency of truncated examples, in which
6
Cf. Lagerwerf (1998: 2.2) and Pit (2003).
CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH
23
the second segment is missing or is not complete, increases the difficulty of analysing
some of the examples, especially in the non-formal texts.
4. Non-prototypical causals
As exemplified in Section 2, there are some causal constructions that differ from
prototypical causals. In this section two peripheral causals will be described: the ones
that combine perquè ‘because’ and clar ‘it is clear/of course’ and és que-constructions.
4.1. Causals and epistemicity
Causality and epistemicity can be directly related, as Gonzàlez and Ribas (2008)
convincingly argue.
…when the speaker makes use of pragmatic because […] the source and mode of
knowledge from which the cause-effect relationship is established becomes of primary
importance, since causal relations originate from different sorts of evidence that the
speaker interprets. (Gonzàlez & Ribas 2008: 127)
The epistemic nature of causals is enhanced when perquè (‘because’) is followed by the
marker (és) clar (‘(it is) sure’, ‘of course’, ‘obviously’). This modal marker turns a
‘neutral’ cause into an emphatic one whose content is presented as certain and often as
shared knowledge.7
(9) em van di:r_ bueno aquí no et podem fer re:_ t'haurem de portar a Bellvitge_
perquè clar_ e:_ si::_ no es millora_ lo que s'ha de fer és intubar_
(C2CN16SS:153-161)
they said to me, well, we can't do anything for you here, we'll have to take you to
Bellvitge [a hospital] perquè clar ‘because of course’ if it doesn't get better, what
we'll have to do is intubate
The marker in (9) indicates the speaker’s attitude towards the upcoming content,
specifically, that the cause is generally acknowledged. In fact, whenever (és) clar follows
a conjunction or another discourse marker, it reinforces the propositional meaning of the
next segment adding a modal sense of certainty. It is an upgrading device that presents a
cause (and also a consequence or an antithesis) as obvious for both speaker and hearer.
As predicted by Gonzàlez and Ribas, most cases of perquè, (és) clar in our corpus are
related to belief, which implies a relatively high degree of reliability:
(10) p(e)rò suposo que devia ser_ poc poc (.. 0.53) un minut com a molt perquè
clar_ si t'ofegue:s_ (.. 0.35) vull di:r_ no pots aguantar molt estona (C1CN04CC:
46-53)
I suppose it was a short, a short [time] a minute at most, perquè clar ‘because of
course’ if you suffocate, I mean, you can’t resist for a long time
As the previous examples show, the speaker’s stance is a key-feature in many causals,
especially in pragmatic ones. In fact, when perquè, (és) clar is used, the speaker
7
On Catalan (és) clar (literally, ‘(it is) clear, fair’), an adjective that has developed functions as a
discourse marker, see Cuenca and Marín (2012). On its Spanish counterpart, claro, see Fuentes (1993),
Freites (2006), Pons (2003) and Maldonado (2010).
MARIA JOSEP CUENCA
24
involvement, in Degand and Pander Maat’s terms, is generally high: there is a conscious
participant involved (parameter i), who expresses his or her stance (parameter iv), there
is often no isomorphism between the relation and the state of affairs in the real world
(parameter ii), and there is proximity of the relation to the present speaker (parameter
iii).
Finally, it is worth noticing that there is a combination that has the opposite effect of
perquè clar. Perquè miri (‘because look’) introduces a cause that is considered as very
important and new and non-shared between speaker and hearer, as in (11):
(11) El principal problema de Catalunya, senyor Pujol, és que molta gent no té feina.
[…] I aquest és el problema. I vostè ha de comprendre, i si no ho comprèn és
igual, perquè miri, el dinou de novembre potser ho arreglaran altres, però vostè
hauria de fer l’esforç encara que només fos per la seva satisfacció intel·lectual de
comprendre que el que vostè ha fet […] és detraure diners allà on creen realment
llocs de treball, que és en el sector_ que és en el sector privat. (Debate, turn 304)
Catalonia’s main problem, Mr Pujol, is that many people have no job. […] And
that's the problem. And you must understand, and if you don’t it doesn’t matter,
perquè miri ‘because look’, on November 19th
maybe other people will fix it, but
you should make the effort, if only for your own intellectual satisfaction of
understanding what you’ve done […] is to take the money from the place where it
really creates employment, which is in the sector_ which is in the private sector.
4.2. Causals and intersubjectivity
As already shown, there are constructions that express a cause and do not include a
conjunction, and often cannot include one. This is the case for some utterances
introduced by és que, which are frequent in conversation8
to express modal values
related to the speaker’s intention of justifying his or her response to what has just been
said, especially in order to avoid a face-threatening act (Porroche Ballesteros 1998;
Delahunty 2001; Pusch 2006; Marín & Cuenca 2012).
(12) NIA (.. 0.58) què t'anava a di:r (. 0.27) que em sap greu de no haver-te avisat al final
de que venia aquí(. 0.17) és que em pensava que t'ho havia dit (COC06: 386)
What was I about to say? I’m sorry I didn’t tell you that I was finally coming
here. És que ‘(it) is (just) that’ I thought that I already had
The és que-construction can be roughly paraphrased as “The reason/justification for P ‘(it)
is (just) that’ Q”. So in the previous example NIA’s last intervention means: ‘The reason
why I didn’t tell you that I was coming here is that I thought I already had’. But, in contrast
with the same sequence without és que, it also implies that the speaker feels guilty (or
supposes that the hearer might think she is) and wants to justify her behavior.
The marker cannot be substituted by perquè. This is because és que introduces a different
type of cause and also because, in contrast with causal conjunctions, és que is not linking
two linguistic segments. Rather, it is introducing a subjective cause whose effect must be
inferred contextually. In (12), NIA’s intervention triggers presuppositions: “Being sorry for
8
The constructions including és que as a marker can indicate either justification or emphasis. In this
paper, only those indicating justification have been considered.
CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH
25
something implies that it actually happened” and “The fact that I didn’t tell you that I was
coming is something that I assume that can make you angry”.
As Sancho (2010: 115) indicates, perquè and és que are not interchangeable either on
syntactic or on semantic-pragmatic grounds.9
Syntactically, the utterance that és que
prefaces is distributionally autonomous and cannot be integrated as the second clause of
a causal sentence.
(13a)No he anat a recollir els xiquets perquè he perdut l'autobús
I didn’t fetch the children because I missed the bus
(13b)*No he anat a recollir els xiquets és que he perdut l'autobús
I didn’t fetch the children és que (‘(it) is (just) that’) I missed the bus
Semantically, the two responses in Sancho’s example (14) cannot be considered
synonymous:
(14) Per què no has anat a recollir els xiquets?
Why didn’t you fetch the children?
(14a)Perquè he perdut l'autobús.
Because I missed the bus
(14b)És que he perdut l'autobús.
És que (‘(it) is (just) that’) I missed the bus
Response (14a) is a cause at the content level (“I didn’t fetch the children because I
missed the bus”), whereas (14b) is a justification or excuse that includes the causal
relation and presupposes that the speaker should have done something (s)he hasn’t.
Hence, the causal relation that és que indicates is activated at the presupposition level:
és que presupposes a previous content, whether explicit or implicit, to which the
following utterance is a justification or excuse (Delahunty & Gatzkiewicz 2000; Fuentes
1997; Marín & Cuenca 2012). The marker introduces a reactive speech-act to something
that has been said or the speaker assumes that the hearer can think. The use of és que as
a subjective cause introducer is associated with some kind of negation and contrast. This
is especially obvious when the construction is a reactive turn to a question, an order or
a request. In (15), the interviewer is asking the interviewee to suggest a film to her:
(15) ECC: vinga m'has de convèncer eh
Come on, you've got to convince, huh?
I12: (. 0.28) és que no sé si:_ es diu així eh no {(EXH)(P) me'n recordo} molt
[bé_ p(e)rò em sem]bla que es di:u_ [...]19 es diu {(L2) Soy Sam} (C2CA12SS
1-6, 19)
És que ‘(it) is (just) that’ I don’t know whether this is the title, eh? I don’t
remember very well but I think that the title is… the title is “I am Sam”
The informant assumes a negative answer to an oriented request (‘you must convince
me, huh?’), whose expected answer is yes. Her justification (P = I am not sure about the
title) is prefaced by és que, which mitigates the presupposition (‘I’m not sure that I’ll be
able to convince you because P’).
9
In fact, there are some examples in which the causal marker is the combination perquè és que.
MARIA JOSEP CUENCA
26
These structures are typically used in spontaneous conversation, but a few examples can
be found in the debate, especially when the moderator distributes turns because a
politician has exceeded his or her time:
(16) Colom: Acabo [( (zzzz?) )].
I am just finishing xxx
Moderador: [(No, no, de veritat, és que anem passats, acabem aquest bloc o no
l’acabarem mai)]. (Debate, turn 255)
No, no, really, és que ‘(it) is (just) that’ we're over the time, let’s finish this section
or we’ll never finish it.
In these cases, és que mitigates a clearly face-threatening act.
According to the description of és que as a subjective cause introducer, the resulting
construction could be considered a type of speech-act causal. However, there are several
differences between the two types that point to the idea that és que introduces a causal
at a higher-level, that of ‘discourse’ or, more specifically, the presupposition level.
Speech-act causals indicate a “causal explanation of the speech act being performed”
(Sweetser 1990: 81), which is often an order, a suggestion or a question, whereas és que
introduces a subjective cause as a reaction to a presupposition triggered by something
that has been said or done.
Perquè is a two position operator (a conjunction); és que is a one position inferential
maker.
The two segments linked through perquè are attributed to the same speaker; és que
introduces a turn (so two speakers are at play) or an act inside a turn (just one speaker).
Inside a turn, some kind of polyphony is activated, as if the speaker were introducing
some kind of locutor or activating a different (more procedural) level of speech.
Speech-act causals are hearer-oriented (they usually include a second person or an
inclusive first person in the main clause); és que constructions are (more) speaker-
oriented and often include first person (singular) markers, so that the speaker
involvement is higher than in speech-act causals.
Let us compare a case of speech-act causal and an és que-construction, both based on
an order:
(17) REP (.. 0.58) no con[testis que] et quedaràs sense de halar
Don’t you answer, ’cause you’ll end up without eating (COC01: 1329)
(18) Moderadora [(Vagi acabant, senyor Vidal-Quadras, sisplau)]. [...] No, no, senyor
Vidal-Quadras, ss_ és que li ha acabat el temps, [(han passat de sobra els seus dos
minuts)].
Finish your turn, Mr. Vidal-Quadras, please. [...] No, no, Mr. Vidal-Quadras, és que
‘(it) is (just) that’ you've run out of time, your two minutes were up some time ago
Vidal-Quadras [(És que em sembla que no ho ha_ )] em sembla que no ho ha acabat
d’entendre encara. (Debate, turns 2723-273)
És que ‘(it) is (just) that’ I don't think he has_ I don't think he has quite understood yet.
CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH
27
The fist case illustrates the construction “order – cause” and can be paraphrased as ‘The
reason why I suggest that you don’t answer the questions is that you won’t eat’. The
second case is similar to the first one and can also be paraphrased as ‘The reason why I
ask you to stop talking is that you have run out of time’, but it also implies a complex
presupposition: ‘This is a sufficient cause for me to give you this order, but I suppose it
is not so for you’. In fact, the politician’s response is also prefaced by és que: he refuses
to stop talking and his subjective cause is that “I think that he has not already
understood”.
On the other hand, perquè and és que can combine as introducers of a single causal
clause, which clearly indicates that they are not synonymous:
(19) (.. 0.40) vai passar malament perquè és que és un país que no coneixes_
I had a bad time perquè és que ‘because is that’ it is a country that you don’t know
In conclusion, és que is a pragmatic marker that introduces a turn or move and marks it
as a subjective cause—a justification or excuse with respect to “the mental
representation of an utterance or of a situation in a context of assumptions other than
those intended by the speaker (Delahunty & Gatzkiewicz 2000: 321)—. The marker és
que is not a linking word, but a modal particle that mitigates the following content by
framing it as a plausible or necessary cause from the point of view of the speaker, though
(s)he assumes that the hearer may not agree.
5. Causal constructions across genres
Orality is not a homogeneous phenomenon. As a consequence, an interesting question
to be addressed is to what extent the different production conditions have an effect on
the frequency and use of the markers identified and the different levels or domains.
As for the forms, Table 1 summarizes the main results:
Form Debate Interview
(CAP)
Conversation
(COC)
Total
perquè 78 99 66 243
és que 8 11 30 49
com que 8 14 17 39
que 5 5
94 124 118 336
Table 1. Causal markers in the corpora
In all genres perquè is the most frequent marker. It can express different kinds of causes
and combines with several particles. Com que is less frequent in debate, maybe because,
as que, it is not considered formal or rather because its meaning is not usually adequate
to a non-collaborative genre as political debate, where causes are not generally taken for
granted. The main difference among genres lies in the use of és que as a marker, which
is almost absent in the debate, more used in the interview corpus, but is relatively
frequent in conversation, where the speaker often needs to justify or excuse his or her
MARIA JOSEP CUENCA
28
actions, and interactivity is high. As for the functions, the fact that many examples are
truncated and that the limits between domains are not clear-cut (see Section 3.2), makes
it difficult to derive sound quantitative conclusions. The general results are summarized
in Table 2.
First of all, it must be pointed out that in general terms the meanings are clearer and less
ambiguous in the debate than in the other two types of text, which is consistent with the
more formal nature of the former. Causals introducing (side) comments or continuity
segments are almost exclusive of conversation. Similarly, truncated examples and
independent causals are more frequent in conversation.
Regarding the type of causals, according to our data, content causals are relatively
frequent, but there is a higher proportion of epistemic causals, especially in the debate.
Speech-act causals are frequent in debate, but are more prototypically used in
conversation, where interaction is higher. Finally, és que constructions are typical of the
informal genres with a high degree of interactivity. In fact, they are seldom used in
typically formal monological (i.e. written texts) and also in the debate.
Type Debate Interview
(CAP)
Conversation
(COC)
Total
Content 26 43 28 99
Epistemic 40 58 25 123
Speech-Act 9 2 8 19
Discourse 7 12 23 42
Others (truncated or
grammaticalized)
12 9 34 55
94 124 118 336
Table 2. Types of causal constructions in the corpora
6. Conclusions
Causal constructions (CCs) in oral Catalan exhibit outstanding features in several respects:
 CCs are often truncated (the second segment is missing or is not complete) or independent
(the main clause is implicit), mainly in informal and interactive discourse.
 The meaning of CCs is often not clearly defined or it is intermediate or ambiguous
between domains, especially in non-formal corpora. CCs introducing (side)
comments, continuity segments or units that need lots of context to finally establish
the causal link are almost exclusive of informal texts.
 CCs include a reduced variety of conjunctions (mainly perquè and com que).
 Along with typical causal constructions (i.e. A connective B), it is possible to identify
other causal constructions associated with informality and interactivity. This is the
case of clar added to perquè or és que as utterance introducer. Both markers create
causal relations that go beyond speech-act causals and imply presuppositions and
CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH
29
(inter)subjective values on the part of the speaker. The increase of modal charge is
more prominent in spontaneous and interactive exchanges, while formality limits
subjectivity.
 The speaker’s stance is a key-feature in many causals, especially in pragmatic ones.
 The main difference among genres lies in the use of és que as a marker, which is
relatively frequent in informal genres, especially in conversation, where the speaker
often needs to justify or excuse his or her actions.
In conclusion, causal constructions exhibit some specific properties in oral Catalan and
are also expressed by means of modal markers that modify the utterance by introducing
the speaker’s attitude or stance.
Acknowledgements
This research is part of the project Cohargument (reference FFI2011-25236) supported
by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and of the research group GEV, Grup
d'Estudi de la Variació (reference 2009-SGR 521) supported by Generalitat de
Catalunya.
References
Badia i Margarit, Antoni Maria. 1994. Gramàtica de la llengua catalana. Descriptiva,
normativa, diatòpica, diastràtica. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana.
Cuenca, Maria Josep & Maria Josep Marín. 2012. Discourse markers and modality in spoken
Catalan: the case of (és) clar. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15), 2211-2225.
Degand, Liesbeth & Henk Pander Maat. 2003. A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal
connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In Arie Verhagen & Jeroen van de Weijer
(eds), Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch. Lexicon, grammar, discourse. Utrecht: LOT, 175-
199.
Delahunty, Gerald. 2001. Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39, 517-545.
Delahunty, Gerald & Laura Gatzkiewicz. 2000. On the Spanish inferential construction ser que.
Pragmatics 10(3), 301-322.
Freites Barros, Francisco. 2006. El marcador de discurso claro: funcionamiento pragmático,
metadiscursivo y organizador de la estructura temàtica. Verba, Anuario Galego de Filoloxía
33, 261-279.
Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina. 1993. Claro: modalización y conexión. Sociolingüística Andaluza
8, 99-126.
Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina. 1997. Los conectores en la lengua oral: es que como introductor
de enunciado. Verba 24, 237-263.
Goethals, Patrick. 2010. A multi-layered approach to speech events. The case of Spanish
justificational conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8), 2204-2218.
Gonzàlez, Montserrat & Montserrat Ribas. 2008. The construction of epistemic space via causal
connectives. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds), Intention, Common Ground and the
Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 127-150.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
MARIA JOSEP CUENCA
30
Knot, Alistair, Ted Sanders & Jon Oberlander. 2001. Levels of representation in discourse
relations. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 197-209.
Lagerwerf, Luuk. 1998. Causal Connectives have Presuppositions. Effects on Coherence and
Discourse Structure. LOT Dissertation series 10. http://hdl.handle.net/1871/15721
Maldonado, Ricardo. 2010. Claro: de objeto perceptible a refuerzo pragmático. In M. José
Rodríguez Espinería (ed.), Adjetivos en discurso. Sobre emociones, posibilidades, certezas
y evidencias. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 61-113.
Marín, Maria Josep & Maria Josep Cuenca. 2012. De l’atribució a la modalitat: construccions
amb és que en català oral. Caplletra 52, 65-94.
Pander Maat, Henk & Liesbeth Degand. 2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms
of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 211-245.
Pander Maat, Henk & Ted Sanders. 2001. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical
study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 247-273.
Payrató, Lluís & Núria Alturo (eds). 2002. Corpus oral de conversa col·loquial. Materials de
treball. Barcelona: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona. http: www.ub.edu/cccub.
Payrató, Lluís & Jaume Fitó (eds). 2008. Corpus audiovisual plurilingüe. Barcelona:
Publicacions i Edicions Universitat de Barcelona.
Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Subjectivity and Causal
Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Pons, Salvador. 2003. From agreement to stressing and hedging: Spanish bueno and claro. In
Gudrun Held (ed.), Partikeln und Höflichkeit. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 219-236.
Porroche Ballesteros, Margarita. 1998. Sobre algunos usos de que, si y es que como marcadores
discursivos. In Maria Antonia Martín Zorraquino & Estrella Montolío (eds), Los marcadores
del discurso. Teoría y análisis. Madrid: Arco Libros, 229-242.
Pusch, Claus D. 2006. Marqueurs discursifs et subordination syntaxique: La construction
inférentielle en français et dans d’autres langues romanes. In Martina Drescher & Barbara
Frank-Job (eds), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes. Approches théoriques
et méthodologiques. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 173-188.
Sancho, Pelegrí. 2010. Anàlisi de les unitats fraseològiques amb funció connectiva en un
fragment de conversa colloquial. Caplletra 48, 93-125.
Sanders, Ted J. M. 1997. Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence. On the categorisation
of coherence relations in context. Discourse processes 24(1), 119-147.
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Ninke Stukker (eds). 2012. Causal connectives in discourse. Special Issue
of Journal of Pragmatics 44(2).
Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. Spooren & Leo G. M. Noordman. 1992. Semantic and
pragmatic sources of coherence. On the categorization of coherence relations in context.
Discourse processes 15, 1-35.
Simon, Anne & Liesbeth Degand. 2007. Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et
profils prosodiques: le cas de car et de parce que. French Language Studies 17(3), 323-341.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH
31
Appendix 1. Transcription conventions
1. Prosodic aspects
Intonation unit (one line for each intonation unit)
Boundary tone/Closure
falling 
rising /
continuative _
Truncated intonation unit --
Manner/Quality
high {(A) text}
low {(B) text}
Voice of another {(EV) text}
Tempo
accelerated speech {(AC) text}
piano, attenuated speech {(DC) text}
Lenghtening (short, medium and long) : :: :::
2. Vocal aspects
Laughing text {(@) text}
Laugh
One symbol per pulse @
Long fragment, timed @R(time)R@
Inhalation and exhalation (INH) (EXH)
3. Pauses and overlaps
Pause, timed
very short (0.1 < p < 0.3) (. time)
short (p < 1) (.. time)
medium (1 ≤ p < 3) (... time)
long (p  3) (.... time)
Overlaps [text]
4. Regularizations and comments
Deletion use of brackets to mark the deleted
sound
Transcriptor’s comments
concrete (comment)
general ((comment))
5. Difficult fragments
Uncertain words {(??) text}
Unintelligible
One sign per syllable x
Long fragment, timed xX(time)Xx
6. Other aspects
Code-switch {(L2) text}
Truncated/cut-off word wor-
Lewis, Diana M. 2013. The emergence of discourse connectives in discourse constructions. In Catherine Bolly &
Liesbeth Degand (eds), Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation. Corpora and Language in Use –
Proceedings 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 33-49.
33
The emergence of discourse connectives in
discourse constructions
Diana M. Lewis
University of Aix-Marseille
Abstract
Discourse connectives tend cross-linguistically to escape easy categorization: they are recruited from a
heterogeneous range of lexemes and adverbial phrases and rarely form a neat paradigm. The paper
focuses on the diachronic emergence of two English connectives out of adverbials which developed in
turn from prepositional phrases. It examines the role of the discourse construction in the emergence of
connective meanings in adverbials.
Keywords: English, connectives, discourse constructions, diachrony
1. Introduction
If some linguistic categories seem to be more stable than others, then discourse
connectives may be among the less stable ones. They tend to emerge relatively easily
from various kinds of lexical item. Many English discourse connectives originate
ultimately, as in many other languages, from temporal or locative expressions.
This paper considers the role of discourse-collocational frequency in generating
connective semantics, as well as the place of information structuring in the sense of the
relative salience of elements of the discourse. The paper is structured as follows. Section
2 places the development in the context of the increase in the number of connective
types in the Modern English period. It describes the hypothesis that frequency of
discourse construction contributes to usage-based change in discourse elements such as
connectives. Section 3 presents case studies of two present-day English (PDE) discourse
connectives, in fact and after all. Following these, section 4 focuses on the status of the
category 'discourse connective' in the light of the two case studies, and argues for greater
recognition of their information structuring role. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Discourse connectives in diachrony
2.1. Discourse connectives
Discourse connectives are defined here as words or conventionalized phrases which in
certain constructions encode a discourse relation. Discourse relations (or coherence
relations) link successive ideas expressed in clauses or sentences; examples of relations
are cause, condition, elaboration, justification, concession, antithesis, evidence, and so
on. Discourse relations are sometimes discussed in terms of a more or less fine-grained
set of relations, and sometimes in terms of an area of conceptual space which might lend
DIANA M. LEWIS
34
itself to description by a semantic map of discourse connectivity. This issue will not be
taken up here. Relations are attributed by the speaker, reflecting both her construal of
events and her rhetorical purposes. They are therefore subjective inasmuch as they
encode speaker viewpoint. The coding of discourse relations seems to involve a
relatively high turnover of expressions, as old ones fall out of favour and give way to
new recruits. It can also vary considerably across genres and across individuals.
Discourse connectives often result from a (non-connective) adverbial undergoing
lexical-semantic and/or morphosyntactic change. Insofar as they can be considered a
class, they do not fall neatly on one side or the other of the traditional lexical/
grammatical divide, having characteristics of both. But they are easily accommodated
in a framework that posits a lexical-grammatical continuum. Discourse connectives,
then, are identified on partly formal but largely functional criteria, and we will assume
here that they can in principle belong to any of a range of syntactic categories. We will
assume also that in English most of them can best be categorized as (speaker-oriented)
sentence adverbs (cf. Bellert 1977).
A considerable increase in the number of dedicated connectives (i.e. their type
frequency) is attested over the Modern English period (Swan 1988; Lenker 2010). This
trend continues in present-day English; recent additions to the inventory of connectives
include plus, at any rate, similarly, in the same way, final though, too. The next sub-
section looks at the role that constructions, in particular 'discourse constructions', may
play in the case of the development of discourse connectives.
2.2. Discourse constructions and the usage-based framework
Where a discourse relation regularly co-occurs with a particular lexical and syntactic
configuration, there can arise a discourse-constructional meaning leading to lexical-
semantic shift. This is the hypothesis to be examined in relation with in fact and after
all. The observations can be accommodated in a Construction Grammar type approach,
which is not sentence-based and which is compatible with a panchronic view of
language (Bergs & Diewald 2008). In recent years, attention has increasingly been
drawn to the key role of the construction in internal language change (e.g. Bybee 2003;
Traugott & Trousdale 2010). The term 'construction' is used here in the sense of a form-
meaning pairing that is represented in a speaker's knowledge of her language as a node
in a structured inventory. A construction may be maximally 'schematic', i.e. a sequence
of 'slots' such as the English intransitive construction [SUBJ PRED], or maximally 'filled'
as is the case for specific lexical items or fixed idioms such as [over the moon], or semi-
schematic, i.e. a mixture of specific forms and slots, as in present-day English [do the
V-ing] or [the COMP, the COMP: the sooner the better; the more I think about it, the more
suspicious I am, etc.]. Semi-schematic or schematic constructions range from
unproductive to fully productive.
By 'discourse construction' is meant a semi-schematic or schematic construction that is
beyond sentential level. 'Discourse construction' will be informally defined here as a
frequent sequence of discourse elements stored in the mental inventory (the mental lexicon)
THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS
35
(but cf. Östman 2005; Trousdale & Östman 2013). An example is the Contrastive in fact
construction, to be discussed in section 3, in which in fact links two 'conjoins'1
(two
situations, or sequences of situations, each of which is encoded by a stretch of discourse
that may comprise one or more clauses): [(non-claimed) situation 1 in fact (claimed)
situation 2]. Discourse constructions are hypothesized to emerge through repetition of
'discourse patterns' and categorization. By 'discourse pattern' is meant a recurring sequence
of two (or more) ideas linked by the speaker with a discourse relation (which is not
necessarily expressed).2
There is no need for the term 'discourse construction', as simple
'construction' would do, but the term is convenient in the context of a discussion of
'discourse connectives'.
This study starts from the hypothesis that constructions are emergent from language use, as
suggested by proponents of a 'usage-based' approach to the nature of language (Barlow &
Kemmer 2000; Bybee 2001, 2010). Bybee describes constructional emergence as follows:
The mechanisms for the establishment of constructions are (i) automation of chunks of
linguistic material due to repetition, and (ii) categorization of the items occurring in
particular positions in these larger chunks." (Bybee 2001: 173).
Memory and processing constraints will limit the size of the chunks of linguistic material
susceptible to being repeated and automated in this way; nevertheless, it is argued that these
mechanisms together with analogy can lead to discourse patterns becoming
conventionalized just like any other construction.
The hypothesis is that repetition of a discourse pattern can lead to its constructionalization
and the categorization or recategorization of items within it. This is the background against
which data on in fact and after all will be examined. Through corpora it is possible to
observe patterns and infer constructional frequency effects. We will look at the kinds of
discourse patterns that co-occur with future connectives and that arguably acquire
constructional representation.
3. Discourse patterns in the emergence of two polysemous
English connectives
3.1. Data and genres
This section describes the polysemy of PDE in fact and after all and traces their recent
historical development via functional splitting. The data on the two expressions comes
from the corpora listed in the appendix. This is of course written data only for the
historical development, but the conventional term 'speaker' will be used to indicate the
producer of the text, 'hearer' for the receiver. The choice of texts is the result of
privileging quantity of text, in order to maximize the number of occurrences of the target
items, over corpus balance. Nevertheless, for each period both more formal, bookish
1
There is no suitable, widely-shared term to refer to the stretches of discourse that are linked or
conjoined by a connective; they are sometimes called 'conjuncts' or 'spans'; Lenker (2010: 24-25) refers
to them as 'connects'; the term 'conjoin' used here follows Quirk et al. (1985: 47).
2
On implicit and explicit relations, see for example Taboada (2009).
DIANA M. LEWIS
36
texts and more informal texts such as plays and personal letters are included.
Independently of genre differences, frequency seems to vary a lot across individual
authors even within the same genre. This is something to be investigated in other
research. For concordancing WordSmith Tools (Scott 2008) was used.
In fact and after all have several features in common. They have both emerged as
connectives relatively recently. Both have their origins in prepositional phrases and
retain to some extent the prepositional usage. Both have evolved two different
connective constructions on different discourse planes (as outlined below) and both are
associated with speaker commitment to what is expressed in the host clause. They also
differ from each other especially in word order, with in fact moving leftwards from
clause-final to medial and initial position, while after all originates in a PP that was
primarily clause-initial.
3.2. 'In fact'
3.2.1. 'In fact' in PDE
In PDE in fact often serves as an epistemic adverb to forestall doubt over the veracity
of a situation, where the speaker estimates that her claim may run counter to the
addressee's expectations, as in (1). In fact is not connective here; it says 'this is true,
despite what you might have thought'.
(1) ... the arts can be a hugely important promoter of Britain. The unlamented Hunt
in fact understood this well (05/09/2012, The Guardian; until 04/09/2012 Hunt
was UK minister responsible for the arts)
In addition, in fact has two distinct connective uses, both of high token frequency. One
is in the Contrastive relation as in (2), which exemplifies the discourse construction
[External claim + in fact + Incompatible speaker-claim].
(2) He tells us that comets would “burn up” in the thin atmosphere of Mars; in fact
they would strike its surface with explosive violence (29/03/1998, Sunday Times)
The conjoins are subject to some constraints. The first conjoin (External claim) includes
a situation marked as not claimed by the speaker; it is typically something that has been
claimed or potentially claimed or believed by someone else (or by the speaker herself at
some other time). The second (Incompatible speaker-claim) encodes a situation that is
incompatible with the first and is claimed by the speaker at the time of utterance.
The other connective use is in the Elaborative relation [Claim + In fact + Elaborated
claim] (3).
(3) that Michael Watson give him some stick ... in fact if he hadn’t have knocked
him out and put him in a coma ... that Michael Watson would have won it (1980s,
BNC spoken)
THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS
37
These two uses operate on two different planes of the discourse, which we will call the
epistemic plane (the status of the proposition) and the rhetorical plane (speaker's
rhetorical presentation, at the speech act level).3
Contrastive in fact is an epistemic modal marker: it occurs as the second (anaphoric) of
a pair of epistemic markers, and links back to the expression of the epistemic status of
the previous proposition. Thus, in example (2) the pair he tells us that and in fact operate
a modal contrast, signalling incompatibility between the two ideas and speaker
commitment to the second. The construction therefore cannot be felicitously used unless
there appears to be a real-world incompatibility or incongruence between the two
consecutive ideas. In fact attaches to the second connect and signals both that the
previous situation is false in some way and that the speaker commits herself to the
second.
Elaborative in fact (3), operates at the rhetorical level to signal that the current situation
(in the clause to which in fact attaches and over which it has scope) is compatible or
consonant with the previous situation, and takes that idea further, by presenting a stronger
claim, or a more detailed or more concrete claim, and so on. In so doing, the Elaborative
in fact may implicate evidence or justification for the first connect, since the second
situation often entails the first. Elaborative in fact may link back not to a single
proposition, but to a sequence that hangs together at a wider discourse level.
How did in fact come to occur in two such different discourse constructions? It will be
argued that repeated occurrence of in fact in certain discourse patterns, or rhetorical
sequences, led to the gradual emergence and strengthening of long-distance
dependencies. This favoured the development of schematic discourse patterns that
subsequently led, it will be suggested, to the conventionalized discourse constructions
apparent in PDE. Figure 1 shows the evolution of token frequency and Figure 2 the
proportions of context types over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
3.2.2. The development of Contrastive 'in fact'
Early examples of in fact encode that some situation existed or took place as opposed to
being supposed, or thought of or spoken of, etc. From epistemic marker of realization,
in fact naturally assumed the role of counter-expectation marker (being used mainly
where it was deemed necessary to dispel any doubt that the situation really occurred)
and thence to a marker of contrast with some alternative situation that was mooted or
that evidence might suggest was likely:
epistemic marker of realization > counter-expectation > contrast
3
Most accounts of discourse relations posit two or three kinds of relation, such as relations at the level
of the content of the discourse ('real-world' relations), relations at some modal level (the status of the
propositions expressed), and relations at the level of the speaker's presentation (speaker attitude and
rhetorical management). A substantial body of literature on discourse planes exists. In the context of
discourse connectivity, see Mann and Thompson 1987, Schiffrin 1987, Sweetser 1990, Redeker 1991,
Lang 2000.
DIANA M. LEWIS
38
Adverbial in fact probably dates from mid to late C16th, as the PP in fact, which is often
in contrast with another PP such as in words, in law, in right, etc., started to expand into
further contexts and a gradual split started to open up between context types, leading to
an incipient splitting off of a semi-lexicalized adverb from the PP. Clearly a PP/adverb
vagueness is likely to have lasted some time, but in fact in (5) appears to be further along
the route to adverbial than the PP in fact of (4).
(4) If any whosoeuer will needes be offering abuse in fact, or snip-snapping in
termes. (1593, OED)
(5) The infancie of King Edward the sixt, and the Couerture of Qu. Mary (which are
both Non abilities in the Lawe) did in fact disable them to accomplish the
Conquest of Ireland (1612, OED)
Figure 1. Increase in token frequency of 'in fact' C18th - C20th
Figure 2 shows the decline in the proportion of PP in fact tokens, as the adverb becomes
more frequent. Contrastive in fact is quite recent. Example (4) shows in fact opposed to
in termes. From the mid-eighteenth century, in fact is commonly used in contrastive
contexts. But there is no evidence that it carries (non-defeasible) contrastive meaning at
that time. In the data up to the end of the nineteenth century, in fact rarely occurs in
contrastive contexts without a marker of contrast such as but, yet, though, etc. In PDE
the presence of but or whereas, etc. is still common, though no longer necessary.
From the eighteenth century, in fact is found in a range of contrastive discourse patterns
that are still current today. These range from Antithesis relations, through appearance vs
reality, to different construals of a situation. The Antithesis relation is the strongest
contrast, the two situations justaposed being polar opposites, as illustrated in (6) and, for
PDE, (7).
(6) It may be wondered, perhaps, that in all this no mention has been made of the
theological principle ... . But the case is, this is not in fact a distinct principle.
(1781, Bentham)
1720-1759 1760-1799 1800-1839 1840-1879 1880-1920s
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
per
million
words
THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS
39
(7) a certain Dave Manning .. - who was regularly quoted giving glowing reviews to
Sony's films - did not, in fact, exist. (13/02/2002, The Guardian)
Example (8), and for PDE example (9), show in fact highlighting alternative construals
of a situation.
(8) Johnson said of an actor ... 'There is a courtly vivacity about the fellow;' when in
fact, according to Garrick's account, 'he was the most vulgar ruffian that ever
went upon boards' (1760, Boswell)
(9) Although our report may have "triggered the Stevens III inquiry", as your article
states, we had in fact never sought a third investigation by Stevens.
(03/07/2007, The Guardian)
In each case, the writer's aim is to persuade the reader to believe the second situation, so
that, from a discourse information-structure point of view, the focus is on the second
situation (in boldface in exs 6-9). Moreover, in fact starts to occur in initial position (pre-
Subject) in the eighteenth century and to become parenthetical. It is thus poised to
become the autonomous discourse segment with its own tone group that is PDE
Contrastive in fact, in which the in fact host is understood to replace a false idea.
Figure 2. Contexts of 'in fact'
3.2.3. The development of Elaborative 'in fact'
The development of Elaborative in fact is a further expansion to rhetorical level. In their
discussion of the development of Elaborative, or discourse-marking, in fact, which they
term in fact3 (by contrast with the PP in fact1 and the Contrastive (adversative) in fact2),
Traugott (1999) and Schwenter and Traugott (2000) suggest that “its origins can only be
understood using the epistemic adversative adverb in fact2 as its point of departure”
(2000: 21). As has been seen in section 3.1.2, however, in fact developed an intrinsic
contrastive sense very recently, despite its regular occurrence in contrastive contexts and
co-occurrence with contrastive connectives such as but. Our data suggest that in fact co-
occurred with elaborative contexts from at least the eighteenth century. The data suggest
that the new senses crystallized rather slowly. From Figure 2 it can be inferred that the
sharp rise in token frequency is largely accounted for by emergent Elaborative in fact,
1700-1749 1750-1799 1800-49 1850-99
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Elab. context
Contr. context
Epistemic adv
PP
DIANA M. LEWIS
40
elaborative contexts corresponding to more than half of occurrences in the nineteenth
century. In fact is a classic case of inferencing leading to language change; what seems
to be most relevant in this case is the inference that it has ever wider scope, leading to
gradual context expansion.
In fact occurs in the elaborative contexts of defining, summarizing or concluding, as
exemplified below. In each case, in fact accompanies or introduces the definition, the
summary or the conclusion.
The defining/explaining pattern takes the form [term + definition/explanation], as in (10).
(10) [ the work] was set up in moveable copper matrices; each matrix being in fact a
piece of copper of the same size as the type (1832, Babbage)
A summing up of a topic consists of a shorter and often stronger expression of it, in the
pattern [sequence of ideas + summing up], exemplified in (11).
(11) 'Her modesty,' said Mrs. Thrale (as she told me), 'is really beyond bounds. It
quite provokes me. And, in fact, I can never make out how the mind that could
write that book could be ignorant of its value.' (c1780, Burney)
The third pattern consists of an interpretation or logical conclusion drawn from the
previous idea(s) in the discourse: [previous discourse + conclusion] as in (12).
(12) In very many cases ... either the anthers burst before the stigma is ready for
fertilisation, or the stigma is ready before the pollen of that flower is ready, so
that these plants have in fact separated sexes .. (1859, Darwin)
In these cases, in fact marks further, consonant material on the current topic. It often
follows and, for, or so that, and, unlike Contrastive in fact, its host is informationally
secondary or additional to the idea(s) just expressed.
From the mid nineteenth century, however, there is an increasing tendency for the in fact
host not just to elaborate on the current topic, but to express a stronger version of the
previous idea, although it remains rhetorically secondary (13). In these contexts, in fact
marks the host idea as surprising or counterexpectational (its epistemic value) and may be
compared with counterexpectational use of indeed, in many ways its predecessor.
(13) At half-past Seven this Theatre was crowded in every part, by upwards of four
hundred Students, of the most respectable description; in fact we never before
witnessed so genteel a Surgical class (1823, OED)
By the turn of the twentieth century, in fact has undergone considerable increase in token
frequency (Figure 1) and occurs in a wider range of contexts still, to include cases where
it is not so much that the host idea is surprising as that the speaker/writer perceives it to
be a stronger and slightly different claim from the preceding one (14).
(14) he was very good; in fact, his one fault was that he was too good (1909, Hudson)
In PDE this reformulating use, as illustrated in (15), is common.
(15) that's enough now David ... in fact it's too much of it (1980s, BNC spoken)
In fact in recent PDE has come to be used in additive contexts with relatively weak
elaboration: in some cases it simply signals that the speaker/writer is about to say
THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS
41
something more on the same general topic. It may be that in initial position it is moving
towards becoming a presentational (as is the case for PDE so). At the same time, final
position Elaborative in fact may be becoming more common, especially after clause
fragments. Perhaps Elaborative in fact is starting to split into an initial, presentational in
fact where it will put its host into focus, and a final-position additive in fact where it will
background its host.
3.3. 'After all'
3.3.1. 'After all' in PDE
The present-day English adverb after all, like in fact, has two distinct connective
polysemies,4
partly correlated with position. The diachronically first, now found
overwhelmingly in clause-final position, is a counterexpectation use illustrated in (16)
and (17). The expectation or belief is made explicit in (16) (was thought to be ...), while
in (17) the expectation (that a reduction in the bailout interest rate was worth pursuing)
is coded only in after all.
(16) Archaeopteryx, which was thought to be the oldest and most primitive bird on
Earth, might not have been a bird after all, according to scientists in China
(01/08/2011, The Guardian)
(17) It seems a reduction in the bailout interest rate isn't worth pursuing after all
(08/06/2011, The Guardian)
The second, found in clause-initial, medial and final positions, introduces the
justification or explanation for the previous idea, whether the idea is presented as
speaker-external, as in (18), where the aides' attitude is explained, or as speaker's own,
as in (19) where after all introduces a justification of the speaker's claim.
(18) The prime minister's aides ... recoil at talk of a Cameron Doctrine. Cameron is,
after all, a traditional Tory who does pragmatism, underpinned by his values.
They don't do ideology in Peasemore. (22/09/2011, The Guardian)
(19) the best we can hope for is half decent revivals of classic shows. Sad, but why
not? We don't, after all, expect very much from new work in opera or operetta.
(09/05/1998, Irish Times)
3.3.2. The development of 'after all': counterexpectation
Over the centuries, from Old English, a gradual shift in after occurs, from predominantly
spatial (meaning 'behind', etc., many remnants of which persist in PDE) towards
predominantly temporal ('later than', etc.). This is typical of the well-known tendency
for lexemes to undergo spatial > temporal shifts, attested across many languages (Heine
& Kuteva 2002). After all develops from the temporal sense of after. After all
4
The PP after all N (temporal preposition - determiner - noun) remains of course the most frequent
context of the sequence after all. But the non-connective temporal PP after all where all is the noun, has
all but vanished, perhaps driven out by the combination of strong association of after all with the
connective sense and the dwindling of all as a noun outside idiomatic expressions. Over the period 1640-
1920, the number of tokens of after all as a proportion of tokens of after rises steadily, from 3.2% to 9.4%.
DIANA M. LEWIS
42
subsequently develops connectivity in certain contexts and as the connective sense takes
root, non-connective use of after all fades away.
The data examined here confirm that the Counterexpectation use predates the
Justificative one. After all as a constituent (preposition + noun, forming a temporal
adverbial phrase) is attested from at least the beginning of the sixteenth century. The
earliest OED quotation is from 1526 (20).
(20) After all she was thrast unto the herte with a swerde (1526, OED)
But the seeds of PDE usage, both Counterexpectational and Justificative, are to be found
as much in patterns that emerged in the prepositional usage, i.e. after all N, as in (21).
(21) If any man after all this Evidence be yet unsatisfyed in this point, I will send him
to France (1674, Turnor, Lampeter)
From the early seventeenth century a pattern emerges of [After all X + unexpected
outcome], based on a situation where the NP encodes evidence suggesting one event or
situation, but what occurs is different. An expectation (explicit or presupposed) is
unfulfilled. This pattern continues into PDE. Typical contexts are where the unrealized
event is the target of effort or intention (22), or of belief, hope or fear (23) on the part of
someone.
(22) the Commissioners from Scotland (after all the wrestling they could) were forced
to consent to the sending of those Propositions (1646, Campbell, Lampeter)
(23) after all my fears what doubts and difficulties my Lord Privy Seale would make
at my Tangier Privy Seale, he did pass it at first reading (1664, Pepys)
Occurrences of after all as an adverbial phrase, i.e. where the NP is simply all, follow
the same pattern. In (24) after all can be interpreted as 'after all the efforts just
mentioned', and implicating 'despite all the efforts just mentioned', the goal might have
been unrealized. In (25), it is the ships' going out of Europe (the expectation) that is
unrealized, after all meaning roughly 'after all the talk in Holland' and implicating
'despite all the talk in Holland'.
(24) I found it hard work to get up this Hill, and as hard to come by the Lions mouths;
and truly if it had not been for the good Man, the Porter that stands at the Gate, I
do not know, but that after all, I might have gone back again (1678, Bunyan)
(25) it was said in Holland that 9 or 10 dutch men of War ... were gone out on some
private designe as was beleived out of Europe, but after all it appears in reality
these ships are gone to joyne Leiutenat Admirall de Ruyter in the mediterranean
(1676, Newdigate)
The collocation of an adversative such as yet, but, etc. with after all, as in (25) above, falls
from around 40% in the 1640-1679 data to around 12% in the 1840-1879 data, reflecting
perhaps the semanticization of the contrastive sense into the counterexpectational after all
construction.
All in after all refers initially to events recoverable from the context. But increasingly
over the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries after all refers more vaguely or abstractly
to the end of some period of time, and more abstractly still to the end of some thought
THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS
43
process as in (25) above. In this period, after all is perhaps most comparable to PDE
usage of in the end. We can hypothesize a gradual reanalysis in after all from
[preposition + NP] to [adverb]. Some clues to this reanalysis can be found in changing
word order. At the same time, a semantic split opens up: on one hand after all acquires
counterexpectation implicatures as a result of its association with contexts such as those
in (21-25); on the other hand, after all as an increasingly lexicalized (in the sense of
univerbation) expression generalizes or bleaches to mean ‘in the end’, and is then suited
to introducing a result, a conclusion, or a general truth.
3.3.3. The development of 'after all': justification
The Justificative use of after all develops from contexts where the 'in the end' sense is
salient and where speaker commitment to the idea introduced by after all is strong, the
speaker emphasizing that this is (despite intentions, hopes or beliefs) what really
happened or is the case.
Early examples of after all embedded in a concluding idea are given in (26) and (27).
But it is clear from the contexts that these examples represent counterexpectation.5
(26) Antipathy, therefore, can never be a right ground of action. No more, therefore,
can resentment, which ... is but a modification of antipathy. The only right
ground of action, that can possibly subsist, is, after all, the consideration of utility
(1781, Bentham)
(27) Tell Mrs. Boswell that I shall taste her marmalade cautiously at first. Timeo
Danaos et dona ferentes. Beware, says the Italian proverb, of a reconciled enemy.
But when I find it does me no harm, I shall then receive it and be thankful for it,
as a pledge of firm, and, I hope, of unalterable kindness. She is, after all, a dear,
dear lady. (1777, S. Johnson, conclusion of letter)
The OED (OED Online 2012) does not recognize what is termed here the Justificative
use, but defines after all as 'in spite of any indications or expectations to the contrary;
when all is said and done, nevertheless'. Justificative after all does not appear from the
data to have crystallized before the turn of the twentieth century. To the end of the
nineteenth century, we find clause-initial but after all and plain after all in
counterexpectation contexts where it would be impossible in PDE (28).
(28) Well, I am writing you an amusing letter to-day, I think. After all, I wasn't made to
live in England, or I should not cough there perpetually (1851, Barrett Browning)
Throughout the nineteenth century many contexts of after all are compatible with both
a counterexpectation and a conclusive ('in the end') reading. As often occurs when an
expression becomes popular in a context type and increases its token frequency rather
suddenly, after all starts to be inserted in all sorts of contexts, sometimes doing little
more than lend some rhetorical force to the discourse, until eventually it settles down
into a functional split. (29) shows an early instance of an unambiguous Justificative use.
5
It has been suggested that the discourse marker (Justificative) use of after all dates from the beginning
of the eighteenth century Traugott (1997), but there is no evidence that after all itself, without a
connective such as for, has conventional discourse connective sense.
DIANA M. LEWIS
44
(29) I could think of no better plan than to climb down into the road ... to see where it
would lead me. After all, I said, my time is my own. (1909, Hudson)
Figure 3 shows the increase in token frequency, due to the expansion of the adverbial
phrase. PP indicates occurrences where after all is followed by a noun, as in after all
this or after all Endeavours;Adv indicates occurrences of after all as an adverbial phrase
or adverb.
Figure 3. Increase in token frequency of 'after all' C18th - C20th; PP = after all N;
Adv = after all
The data are too sparse to identify quite how Justificative after all emerɡed. It is possible
that the sequence for after all became frequent enough that the causal sense of for started
to pervade the whole sequence (the sequence is not frequent in the data). It is plausible
that it resulted from epistemic implicatures: after all meaning 'in the end' came to present
what happened as certain as well as final; and a split may have occurred between
particular events in focus (counterexpectation) and more general or background
situations (presupposed true, leading to justification).
The semantic changes to after all within the two main discourse patterns can be summed
up as follows:
Discourse pattern I [After all (N) + unexpected outcome]
after the events just mentioned
> after unspecified events (cf. PDE 'in the end')
> 'despite what some previous events suggest' (after no longer strictly temporal)
> 'contrary to what was or might be expected' (no presupposed referent for all)
(PDE Counterexpectation after all)
1720-1759 1760-1799 1800-1839 1840-1879 1880-1920s
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Adv
PP
per
million
w
ords
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)
Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation  Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)

Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...
Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...
Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...Elisa Agosti
 
Analyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdf
Analyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdfAnalyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdf
Analyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdfZakaryaMahfoud1
 
F.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à Marloweb
F.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à MarlowebF.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à Marloweb
F.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à MarlowebOpenEdition
 
Nelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbaux
Nelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbauxNelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbaux
Nelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbauxBaudosky Konnigui
 
Culture Et Communication D’Entreprise
Culture Et Communication D’EntrepriseCulture Et Communication D’Entreprise
Culture Et Communication D’Entrepriseguestb103eb3
 
Temporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & Psychomécanique
Temporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & PsychomécaniqueTemporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & Psychomécanique
Temporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & PsychomécaniqueEditions La Dondaine
 
Article hilaire nov 2007
Article hilaire nov 2007Article hilaire nov 2007
Article hilaire nov 2007blessedkkr
 
Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...
Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...
Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...GCAF
 
Conf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quanti
Conf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quantiConf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quanti
Conf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quantimap8slide
 
Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02
Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02
Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02AGELLID Bucama
 
Argumenta Expolangues Fr
Argumenta Expolangues FrArgumenta Expolangues Fr
Argumenta Expolangues Frserracasals
 
Présentation seminaire
Présentation seminaire Présentation seminaire
Présentation seminaire Nadine Robert
 
Lecture partagée - A. Witko
Lecture partagée - A. WitkoLecture partagée - A. Witko
Lecture partagée - A. Witkoauroreape
 
Dossier expression orale
Dossier expression oraleDossier expression orale
Dossier expression oralekgoldmann
 
20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...
20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...
20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...Sandina Iulia Vasile
 
Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014
Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014
Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014lhriba
 

Similaire à Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011) (20)

Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...
Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...
Elisa Agosti TESI LAUREA TRIENNALE Tendances récentes de la didactique des la...
 
Analyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdf
Analyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdfAnalyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdf
Analyse de l’interdisciplinarité en.pdf
 
F.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à Marloweb
F.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à MarlowebF.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à Marloweb
F.Chateauraynaud : de Prospero à Marloweb
 
Nelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbaux
Nelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbauxNelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbaux
Nelly flaux dejan stosic interpréter les temps verbaux
 
Culture Et Communication D’Entreprise
Culture Et Communication D’EntrepriseCulture Et Communication D’Entreprise
Culture Et Communication D’Entreprise
 
Temporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & Psychomécanique
Temporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & PsychomécaniqueTemporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & Psychomécanique
Temporalité & Spatialisation, Guillaume & Psychomécanique
 
Article hilaire nov 2007
Article hilaire nov 2007Article hilaire nov 2007
Article hilaire nov 2007
 
Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...
Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...
Analyse comparative de phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’orth...
 
Programme c1 2011 2012
Programme c1 2011  2012Programme c1 2011  2012
Programme c1 2011 2012
 
Conf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quanti
Conf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quantiConf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quanti
Conf map Amiens mai 2012 quali/quanti
 
Ps015100359
Ps015100359Ps015100359
Ps015100359
 
Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02
Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02
Insecurite 090416061237-phpapp02
 
Argumenta Expolangues Fr
Argumenta Expolangues FrArgumenta Expolangues Fr
Argumenta Expolangues Fr
 
Présentation seminaire
Présentation seminaire Présentation seminaire
Présentation seminaire
 
PNE Valenciennes
PNE ValenciennesPNE Valenciennes
PNE Valenciennes
 
Lecture partagée - A. Witko
Lecture partagée - A. WitkoLecture partagée - A. Witko
Lecture partagée - A. Witko
 
Dossier expression orale
Dossier expression oraleDossier expression orale
Dossier expression orale
 
20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...
20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...
20 ans de Séminaire de Didactique Universitaire, organisé à la Faculté des Le...
 
Appel cdl 2014
Appel  cdl 2014Appel  cdl 2014
Appel cdl 2014
 
Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014
Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014
Appel ã  communication cmlf 2014
 

Plus de Jim Webb

When Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It Recommende
When Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It RecommendeWhen Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It Recommende
When Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It RecommendeJim Webb
 
016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave H
016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave H016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave H
016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave HJim Webb
 
How To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - Greetinglines
How To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - GreetinglinesHow To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - Greetinglines
How To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - GreetinglinesJim Webb
 
Essay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout College
Essay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout CollegeEssay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout College
Essay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout CollegeJim Webb
 
Write Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - Comp
Write Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - CompWrite Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - Comp
Write Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - CompJim Webb
 
Wicked Fun In First Grade
Wicked Fun In First GradeWicked Fun In First Grade
Wicked Fun In First GradeJim Webb
 
Research Paper Help ‒ Write My P
Research Paper Help ‒ Write My PResearch Paper Help ‒ Write My P
Research Paper Help ‒ Write My PJim Webb
 
How To Do A Term Paper. D
How To Do A Term Paper. DHow To Do A Term Paper. D
How To Do A Term Paper. DJim Webb
 
Essay Websites Life Philosophy Essay
Essay Websites Life Philosophy EssayEssay Websites Life Philosophy Essay
Essay Websites Life Philosophy EssayJim Webb
 
Baby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title Idea
Baby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title IdeaBaby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title Idea
Baby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title IdeaJim Webb
 
Buy Essay Paper - Purchase Cu
Buy Essay Paper - Purchase CuBuy Essay Paper - Purchase Cu
Buy Essay Paper - Purchase CuJim Webb
 
From Where Can I Avail Cheap Essa
From Where Can I Avail Cheap EssaFrom Where Can I Avail Cheap Essa
From Where Can I Avail Cheap EssaJim Webb
 
Writing Philosophy Papers
Writing Philosophy PapersWriting Philosophy Papers
Writing Philosophy PapersJim Webb
 
Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491
Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491
Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491Jim Webb
 
PPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPo
PPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPoPPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPo
PPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPoJim Webb
 
Economics Summary Essay Example
Economics Summary Essay ExampleEconomics Summary Essay Example
Economics Summary Essay ExampleJim Webb
 
Who Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit From
Who Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit FromWho Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit From
Who Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit FromJim Webb
 
Sample Personal Statements Graduate School Persona
Sample Personal Statements Graduate School PersonaSample Personal Statements Graduate School Persona
Sample Personal Statements Graduate School PersonaJim Webb
 
Buy A Critical Analysis Paper
Buy A Critical Analysis PaperBuy A Critical Analysis Paper
Buy A Critical Analysis PaperJim Webb
 
Writing A Position Paper - MUNKi
Writing A Position Paper - MUNKiWriting A Position Paper - MUNKi
Writing A Position Paper - MUNKiJim Webb
 

Plus de Jim Webb (20)

When Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It Recommende
When Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It RecommendeWhen Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It Recommende
When Practicing Writing Chinese, Is It Recommende
 
016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave H
016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave H016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave H
016 King Essay Example Stephen Why We Crave H
 
How To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - Greetinglines
How To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - GreetinglinesHow To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - Greetinglines
How To Write An Essay Fast Essay Writing Guide - Greetinglines
 
Essay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout College
Essay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout CollegeEssay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout College
Essay Coaching Seven Secrets For Writing Standout College
 
Write Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - Comp
Write Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - CompWrite Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - Comp
Write Essays That Get In And Get Money EBook - Comp
 
Wicked Fun In First Grade
Wicked Fun In First GradeWicked Fun In First Grade
Wicked Fun In First Grade
 
Research Paper Help ‒ Write My P
Research Paper Help ‒ Write My PResearch Paper Help ‒ Write My P
Research Paper Help ‒ Write My P
 
How To Do A Term Paper. D
How To Do A Term Paper. DHow To Do A Term Paper. D
How To Do A Term Paper. D
 
Essay Websites Life Philosophy Essay
Essay Websites Life Philosophy EssayEssay Websites Life Philosophy Essay
Essay Websites Life Philosophy Essay
 
Baby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title Idea
Baby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title IdeaBaby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title Idea
Baby Thesis Introduction Sample - Thesis Title Idea
 
Buy Essay Paper - Purchase Cu
Buy Essay Paper - Purchase CuBuy Essay Paper - Purchase Cu
Buy Essay Paper - Purchase Cu
 
From Where Can I Avail Cheap Essa
From Where Can I Avail Cheap EssaFrom Where Can I Avail Cheap Essa
From Where Can I Avail Cheap Essa
 
Writing Philosophy Papers
Writing Philosophy PapersWriting Philosophy Papers
Writing Philosophy Papers
 
Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491
Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491
Paragraph Ipyu9-M682198491
 
PPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPo
PPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPoPPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPo
PPT - Writing Biomedical Research Papers PowerPo
 
Economics Summary Essay Example
Economics Summary Essay ExampleEconomics Summary Essay Example
Economics Summary Essay Example
 
Who Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit From
Who Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit FromWho Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit From
Who Are Professional Essay Writers And How Students Might Benefit From
 
Sample Personal Statements Graduate School Persona
Sample Personal Statements Graduate School PersonaSample Personal Statements Graduate School Persona
Sample Personal Statements Graduate School Persona
 
Buy A Critical Analysis Paper
Buy A Critical Analysis PaperBuy A Critical Analysis Paper
Buy A Critical Analysis Paper
 
Writing A Position Paper - MUNKi
Writing A Position Paper - MUNKiWriting A Position Paper - MUNKi
Writing A Position Paper - MUNKi
 

Dernier

Vulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdf
Vulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdfVulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdf
Vulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdfSylvianeBachy
 
DIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptx
DIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptxDIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptx
DIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptxMartin M Flynn
 
Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)
Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)
Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)Gabriel Gay-Para
 
La Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdf
La Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdfLa Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdf
La Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdfbdp12
 
Bibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdfBibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdfAtelier Canopé 37 - Tours
 
Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-
Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-
Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-Majida Antonios, M.Ed.
 
Aux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècle
Aux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècleAux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècle
Aux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècleAmar LAKEL, PhD
 
Calendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avril
Calendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avrilCalendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avril
Calendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avrilfrizzole
 
Bibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdfBibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdfAtelier Canopé 37 - Tours
 
Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24
Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24
Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24BenotGeorges3
 
Apprendre avec des top et nano influenceurs
Apprendre avec des top et nano influenceursApprendre avec des top et nano influenceurs
Apprendre avec des top et nano influenceursStagiaireLearningmat
 
Chana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienne
Chana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienneChana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienne
Chana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienneTxaruka
 
Pas de vagues. pptx Film français
Pas de vagues.  pptx   Film     françaisPas de vagues.  pptx   Film     français
Pas de vagues. pptx Film françaisTxaruka
 
L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...
L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...
L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...Unidad de Espiritualidad Eudista
 
Présentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptx
Présentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptxPrésentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptx
Présentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptxJCAC
 
Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...
Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...
Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...Atelier Canopé 37 - Tours
 

Dernier (17)

Vulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdf
Vulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdfVulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdf
Vulnérabilité numérique d’usage : un enjeu pour l’aide à la réussitepdf
 
Bulletin des bibliotheques Burkina Faso mars 2024
Bulletin des bibliotheques Burkina Faso mars 2024Bulletin des bibliotheques Burkina Faso mars 2024
Bulletin des bibliotheques Burkina Faso mars 2024
 
DIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptx
DIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptxDIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptx
DIGNITAS INFINITA - DIGNITÉ HUMAINE; déclaration du dicastère .pptx
 
Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)
Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)
Faut-il avoir peur de la technique ? (G. Gay-Para)
 
La Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdf
La Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdfLa Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdf
La Base unique départementale - Quel bilan, au bout de 5 ans .pdf
 
Bibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdfBibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Les intelligences artificielles en bibliotheque.pdf
 
Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-
Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-
Copilot your everyday AI companion- OFFICE 365-
 
Aux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècle
Aux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècleAux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècle
Aux origines de la sociologie : du XIXème au début XX ème siècle
 
Calendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avril
Calendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avrilCalendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avril
Calendrier de la semaine du 8 au 12 avril
 
Bibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdfBibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdf
Bibdoc 2024 - Sobriete numerique en bibliotheque et centre de documentation.pdf
 
Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24
Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24
Newsletter SPW Agriculture en province du Luxembourg du 10-04-24
 
Apprendre avec des top et nano influenceurs
Apprendre avec des top et nano influenceursApprendre avec des top et nano influenceurs
Apprendre avec des top et nano influenceurs
 
Chana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienne
Chana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienneChana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienne
Chana Orloff.pptx Sculptrice franco-ukranienne
 
Pas de vagues. pptx Film français
Pas de vagues.  pptx   Film     françaisPas de vagues.  pptx   Film     français
Pas de vagues. pptx Film français
 
L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...
L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...
L'Unité de Spiritualité Eudiste se joint à toute l'Église Universelle et en p...
 
Présentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptx
Présentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptxPrésentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptx
Présentation - Initiatives - CECOSDA - OIF - Fact Checking.pptx
 
Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...
Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...
Bibdoc 2024 - L’Éducation aux Médias et à l’Information face à l’intelligence...
 

Across The Line Of Speech And Writing Variation Proceedings Of The 2Nd International Conference On Linguistic And Psycholinguistic Approaches To Text Structuring (LPTS 2011)

  • 1. Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation
  • 2.
  • 3. Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches to Text Structuring (LPTS 2011) Catherine Bolly and Liesbeth Degand (eds)
  • 4. © Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2013 Registration of copyright: D/2013/9964/25 ISBN: 978-2-87558-220-1 ISBN PDF version: 978-2-87558-221-8 ISSN: 2034-6417 Printed in Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, adapted or translated, in any form or by any means, in any country, without the prior permission of Presses universitaires de Louvain Cover design: Marie-Hélène Grégoire Distribution: www.i6doc.com, on-line university publishers Available on order from bookshops or at Diffusion universitaire CIACO (University Distributors) Grand-Rue, 2/14 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Tel: +32 10 47 33 78 Fax: +32 10 45 73 50 duc@ciaco.com Distributor in France: Librairie Wallonie-Bruxelles 46 rue Quincampoix 75004 Paris, France Tel: +33 1 42 71 58 03 Fax: +33 1 42 71 58 09 librairie.wb@orange.fr
  • 5. Corpora and Language in Use Corpora and Language in Use is a series aimed at publishing research monographs and conference proceedings in the area of corpus linguistics and language in use. The main focus is on corpus data, but research that compares corpus data to other kinds of empirical data, such as experimental or questionnaire data, is also of interest, as well as studies focusing on the design and use of new methods and tools for processing language texts. The series also welcomes volumes that show the relevance of corpus analysis to application fields such as lexicography, language learning and teaching, or natural language processing. Editorial Board Kate Beeching (University of the West of England, Bristol) Douglas Biber (Northern Arizona University) Mireille Bilger (Université de Perpignan) Benjamin Fagard (Université Paris 3) Gaëtanelle Gilquin (Université catholique de Louvain) Stefan Th. Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara) Hilde Hasselgård (University of Oslo) Philippe Hiligsmann (Université catholique de Louvain) Diana Lewis (Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I) Christian Mair (Universität Freiburg) Fanny Meunier (Université catholique de Louvain) Rosamund Moon (University of Birmingham) Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen (University of Manchester) Joanne Neff-van Aertselaer (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley (Université Toulouse-Le Mirail) Paul Rayson (Lancaster University) Ted Sanders (Utrecht University) Anne Catherine Simon (Université catholique de Louvain) Editorial Management Université catholique de Louvain Contact: cluse@uclouvain.be http://www.uclouvain.be/cluse.html Published volumes Granger, Sylviane, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Meunier, Fanny (eds). (2013). Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Proceedings of LCR 2011, Louvain-la-Neuve, 15-17 September 2011 [Corpora and Language in Use - Proceedings 1]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. Bolly, Catherine & Degand, Liesbeth (eds). (2013). Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation. Proceedings of LPTS 2011, Louvain-la-Neuve, 16-18 November 2011. [Corpora and Language in Use - Proceedings 2]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. Forthcoming volume Sarda, Laure, Carter-Thomas, Shirley, Fagard, Benjamin & Charolles, Michel (eds). Adverbials in Use: From predicative to discourse functions. [Corpora and Language in Use - Monograph 1]. Lou- vain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
  • 6.
  • 7. 9 Table of contents Introduction 11 Catherine BOLLY & Liesbeth DEGAND Causal constructions in speech 17 Maria Josep CUENCA The emergence of discourse connectives in discourse constructions 33 Diana M. LEWIS Syntactic complexity in discourse production across different text types 51 Dorit RAVID Comparaison écrit/ oral de au fond en français moderne 67 Noalig TANGUY & Laure SARDA Questions de variation : autour de quelques locutions méconnues de l’oral, 81 niveau, par rapport à, en termes de Juliette DELAHAIE & Danièle FLAMENT-BOISTRANCOURT Le participe présent adjoint en position polaire comme marqueur de 95 structuration du discours à l’oral et à l’écrit Eva HAVU & Michel PIERRARD Italian reformulation markers: a study on spoken and written language 113 Federica CIABARRI A stylistic continuum of speech, CMC and writing: a comparative linguistic 129 analysis of Japanese texts Yukiko NISHIMURA Oral/ écrit dans l’émergence de la mémoire auditive partagée 143 Tea PRŠIR Etude d’une variation sans suite : le cas de pieça et des locutions adverbiales 153 de temps basées sur le quantifieur piece Daniéla CAPIN Figement et configuration textuelle : les segments de discours répétés dans 165 les rapports éducatifs Georgeta CISLARU, Frédérique SITRI & Frédéric PUGNIÈRE-SAAVEDRA
  • 8. 10 Interpréter les pronoms et les démonstratifs : une opération de recherche 185 référentielle inversée ? Marion FOSSARD, Alan GARNHAM & H. Wind COWLES Towards a corpus of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) discourses 199 Laurence MEURANT & Aurélie SINTE
  • 9. 11 Introduction Catherine Bolly & Liesbeth Degand F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain After a first edition in Paris in September 2009, the second edition of Linguistic & Psycholinguistic Approaches to Text Structuring was held at the University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) in November 2011. The aim of the conference was to consider text and discourse structure from the perspective of language variation, with a special focus on the distinction between language modes (spoken vs. written) (Biber 1991; Biber & Conrad 2009) and the degree of formality involved (Chafe & Danielewicz 1987). The medium we use to communicate (oral, written or even gestural) plays an important role in the choices we make, consciously or not, when structuring our discourse. However, a more nuanced view, which overrules the traditional dichotomy between speech and writing, consists in situating discourse on a stylistic continuum between a formal and an informal pole (‘communicative distance and proximity’) (Koch & Österreicher 2001). Moreover, when organizing our discourse we can draw on linguistic structuring markers, such as connectives, discourse markers or frame markers, or on (marked) information structure constructions (e.g. clefting). What is the impact of the nature of the medium (spoken vs. written) and of the style of the discourse at hand (formal vs. informal) on the choice of one linguistic expression over the other? While medium seems to play a role in the discrimination between text types (e.g. casual coffee conversation between colleagues, business meeting, e-novel), it is less clear what the potential impact is of extra-linguistic parameters, such as emotional weight or spatio- temporal distance between the interlocutors, on the structuring of those texts. These questions bring us face to face with the limits of the traditional dichotomic representation opposing speech and writing on the sole basis of the medium at hand. The suggestion was here to consider discourse structure not only from the perspective of variation between the written and the spoken mode, but also from the perspective of variation on a continuum from formal to informal ways of communicating. In linguistics and psycholinguistics, these issues raise a number of questions, which were addressed during the conference: - Which role do speech and writing play in the rise of structuring markers in diachrony? How can we trace the evolution of typical “spoken” markers in the history of a language that is primarily written? - What is the added value of contrastive (cross-linguistic) studies of discourse structuring markers?
  • 10. 12 - The constant evolution of new information technologies has led to the diversification of the means of communication. Does this imply that on-line press, texting language, chat, or videoconferencing have modified our linguistic behaviours? What is the impact of these new information technologies on discourse structuring? - Is discourse processing different in speech and writing contexts, and what is the specific role of discourse structuring markers in production or comprehension? - How does a native or non-native speaker learn to structure their discourse as a function of text type? What is the role of discourse structuring markers on comprehension? How can these specific markers be accounted for in the learning process? The volume starts with three contributions from plenary speakers at the conference. Maria Josep Cuenca addresses the issue of causal constructions in oral Catalan. Comparing the frequency and meaning of causals in three types of oral discourse, she concludes that causal constructions may exhibit specific properties that are not present in writing. In particular, causality may also be expressed by means of modal markers (e.g. es que) that modify the utterance by introducing the speaker’s attitude or stance. Diana Lewis takes a diachronic perspective. Her paper focuses on the emergence of two English connectives (in fact and after all) out of adverbials which developed in turn from prepositional phrases. Considering that constructions emerge from language use, she examines the role of the discourse construction in the rise of connective meanings in adverbials. Dorit Ravid tackles the question of continuing syntactic development in later childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, targeting the emergence of complex structures in written discourse, at both the levels of grammar and discourse. Focusing on conjunct constructions in Hebrew, she observes the gradual increase in the amount of these constructions in texts from mid-grade school to adulthood, and the increase in their syntactic and discursive complexity. In writing, these conjunct constructions serve major narrative functions regarding events, descriptions and interpretations. The ten additional contributions are a selection of the papers that were presented during the conference. They all tackle one or several of the dimensions that were central to the conference’s theme, i.e. variation in speech and writing. Noalig Tanguy and Laure Sarda present a contrastive study of the prepositional phrase au fond in spoken and written French. Working within the framework of grammaticalisation theory, they trace its evolution from spatial preposition to discourse marker through a reinterpretation of its spatial meaning when au fond is used at the discourse or pragmatic level. As a discourse marker, au fond is used to signal epistemic modality, or as a confirmation or reformulation marker. Juliette Delahaie and Danièle Flament-Boistrancourt analyse the use of three frame markers that appear to be typical of spoken French and non-existent in writing in this function: niveau (lit. ‘level’), par rapport à (‘in relation to’), en termes de (‘in terms of’). Their use in different interactional contexts shows that a description in terms of frame marker (‘introducteur de cadre’) and thematic frame introducer (‘introducteur de cadre thématique’) does not fully account for their discursive distribution. The three locutions are not variants of one another (they are not interchangeable) and they participate
  • 11. 13 differently to the discursive structure of the spoken interaction. The next contribution, by Eva Havu and Michel Pierrard, also provides a comparison of written and spoken French focusing on the adjunctive use of the Present Participle, fulfilling a discourse structuring role when it occurs in utterance-initial or utterance-final position. It appears that this function varies according to the medium used (spoken or written) but also according to the discourse conception (oral or scriptural). The two following contributions investigate discourse phenomena by adopting a corpus- based perspective on languages other than French. In her exploration of the spoken/written continuum in Italian, Federica Ciabarri focuses on reformulation markers. Several tendencies emerge from her study: (i) short simple markers are preferred in speech, while longer and more complex markers are typical in writing; (ii) there is a correlation between the medium of communication and the meaning expressed by a single marker (e.g. explanative cioè tends to appear in genres characterized by a closer proximity between speaker/author and addressee); (iii) reformulation is oriented towards the reader’s needs in written texts, while it is oriented towards the speaker’s in the spoken mode. Yukiko Nishimura aims at integrating computer-mediated communication (CMC) into the stylistic continuum when she explores Japanese corpus data from 10 different text types, focusing on subcategories of particles and auxiliaries. In line with the Biberian tradition, her findings shed some light on variation within each text type, as well as on variation between the media under scrutiny: among other results, the study reveals that specific linguistic features are particular to some text types, and that genre commonality may override medium differences (as it is the case of print and online novels). In her endeavour to define the notion of ‘shared auditory memory’ on the basis of the concept of discursive memory, Tea Pršir offers a prosodic corpus-based approach to style and genre variations (data taken from French radiophonic press reviews). The assumption is that the hearer and speaker are able to mutually retrieve prosodic elements attributed to individual styles (‘phonstyle’) or to social and professional groups (‘phonogenres’). In the next paper, Daniéla Capin adopts a diachronic view of variation in medieval French, exploring the evolution of the noun piece (‘moment’) and its grammaticalized form as a temporal adverbial pieça (‘a long time ago’). What the author assumes, by means of her richly exemplified study, is that the disappearance of the two items after the Middle-Ages may be due to intra-systemic features, such as internal concurrency or evolution of other adverbs during the same period of time. In their investigation of repeated segments in professional language, Georgeta Cislaru, Frédérique Sitri and Frédéric Pugnière-Saavedra adopt a quantitative and so-called ‘genetic’ approach in order to study drafts of educational reports in written French. The authors aim to identify recurrent patterns (e.g. discours + Modifier, être en/dans ‘to be in’+ N abstract), which play a role in the configuration of texts, and to estimate how they may be impacted by the successive re-writings in drafts.
  • 12. 14 A psycholinguistic perspective on text structuring is adopted by Marion Fossard, Alan Garnham and H. Wind Cowles. Comparing demonstratives (that N (man/woman)) and anaphoric pronouns in English (he or she), by means of tasks measuring the time spent reading, they show that the demonstrative description orients the interpretative process towards the less salient character, when the context does not make it possible to distinguish between two referents. The final contribution is concerned with the study of discourse in sign language. In their paper, Laurence Meurant and Aurélie Sinte give an account of previous experiences in collecting sign languages corpora. Then, the authors present an innovative project which aims at building a large-scale native-like corpus of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) discourses (approx. 70 signers, 280 hrs. of video recordings). Acknowledgments Special thanks go to the reviewers of the proceedings: Karin Aijmer (Göteborgs Universitet), Antoine Auchlin (Univeristé de Genève), Alice Bardiaux (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Kate Beeching (University of the West of England), Christophe Benzitoun (Université Nancy 2), Dominique Boutet (Université Evry Val Essonne & Université Paris 8), Annelies Braffort (LIMSI-CNRS, Université d’Orsay), Michel Charolles (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Saveria Colonna (Université Paris 8), Gilles Corminboeuf (Université de Neuchâtel), Gaétane Dostie (Université de Sherbrooke), Julien Eychenne (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies), Benjamin Fagard (CNRS & Lattice), Fanny Forsberg-Lundell (Stockholm University), Michel Francard (Université catholique de Louvain), Gaëtanelle Gilquin (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université Catholique de Louvain), Céline Guillot (Université Lyon 2), Nicolas Hernandez (Université de Nantes), Victorine Hancock (Stockholm University), Lydia- Mai Ho-Dac (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Florence Lefeuvre (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Diana Lewis (Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I), Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Paola Pietrandrea (Università Roma TRE), Cristel Portes (Université Aix-Marseille), Sophie Prévost (ENS Montrouge & Lattice), Elisabeth Richard (Université Rennes 2), Catherine Schnedeker (Université de Strasbourg), Agnès Tutin (Université Stendhal Grenoble 3), Denis Vigier (Université Lyon 2), Sandrine Zufferey (Université de Genève).
  • 13. 15 References Biber, Douglas. 1991. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, Wallace & Jane Danielewicz. 1987. Properties of spoken and written language. In Rosalind Horrowitz & S. Jay Samuels (eds), Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego: Academic Press, 83-113. Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2001. Langage oral et langage écrit. In Günter Holthus (ed.), Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik (tome 1-2). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 584-627. Keynote speakers Maria Josep Cuenca (Universitat de València): “The role(s) of discourse markers in oral and written argumentation” Diana Lewis (Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I): “The emergence of discourse markers from discourse constructions” Dorit Ravid (Tel Aviv University): “Syntactic complexity in discourse production across different text types: a developmental perspective” Mark Torrance (Nottingham Trent University): “Micro and macro-level processes in the production of single sentences and extended texts. Evidence from keystrokes and eye movements” Committees Organizing committee Catherine Bolly (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain) Liesbeth Degand (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain) Jean Giot (Université de Namur) Laurence Meurant (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université de Namur) Marie-Anne Schelstraete (Université catholique de Louvain) Dominique Willems (Universteit Gent) Local organizing committee Stéphanie Audrit (Université catholique de Louvain), Alice Bardiaux (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Federica Ciabarri (Université catholique de Louvain), Sarah Defosse (Université catholique de Louvain), Lydia-Mai Ho-Dac (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Stéphanie Kleinen (Université catholique de Louvain), Anne Küppers (Université catholique de Louvain), Vincent Mariscal (Université catholique de Louvain), Noalig Tanguy (Université catholique de Louvain), Deniz Uygur (Université catholique de Louvain).
  • 14. 16 Scientific committee Karin Aijmer (Göteborgs Universitet), Nicholas Asher (Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier), Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (Tel Aviv University), Kate Beeching (University of the West of England), Alain Berrendonner (Université de Fribourg), Christophe Benzitoun (Université Nancy 2), Marie-José Béguelin (Université de Neuchâtel), Bergljot Behrens (Universitetet i Oslo), Yves Bestgen (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Catherine Bolly (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Andrée Borillo (Université Toulouse II- Le Mirail), Shirley Carter-Thomas (Institut Télécom & Lattice), Michel Charolles (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Gilles Corminbœuf (Université de Neuchâtel), Jeanne-Marie Debaisieux (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Liesbeth Degand (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), José Deulofeu (Université de Provence), Holger Diessel (Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena), Gabriele Diewald (Leibniz Universität Hannover), Gaétane Dostie (Université de Sherbrooke), Britt Erman (Stockholms Universitet), Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul (Universiteit Utrecht), Benjamin Fagard (CNRS & Lattice), Pierre Fastrez (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Fanny Forsberg (Stockholms Universitet), Michel Francard (Université catholique de Louvain), Françoise Gadet (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense (Paris X)), Gaëtanelle Gilquin (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Sylviane Granger (Université catholique de Louvain), Victorine Hancock (Stockholms Universitet), Agata Jackiewicz (Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV)), Béatrice Lamiroy (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), Frédéric Landragin (CNRS & Lattice), Anne Le Draoulec (CNRS & Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Christiane Marchello-Nizia (ENS Lyon), Laurence Meurant (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université de Namur), Jacques Moeschler (Université de Genève), Mary-Annick Morel (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III)), Jean- Luc Nespoulous (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Henning Nølke (Aarhus Universitet), Jon Oberlander (University of Edinburgh), Magali Paquot (Université catholique de Louvain), Marie-Paule Péry-Woodley (Université Toulouse II-Le Mirail), Paola Pietrandrea (Università Roma TRE), Sophie Prévost (ENS Montrouge & Lattice), Laurent Rasier (F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain), Frédéric Sabio (Université de Provence), Ted Sanders (Universiteit Utrecht), Laure Sarda (CNRS & Lattice), Marie-Anne Schelstraete (Université catholique de Louvain), Catherine Schnedecker (Université Marc Bloch - Strasbourg 2), Anne Catherine Simon (Université catholique de Louvain), Wilbert Spooren (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), Manfred Stede (Universität Potsdam), Agnès Tutin (Université Stendhal Grenoble 3), Luuk Van Waes (Universiteit Antwerpen), Denis Vigier (Université Lyon 2), Diane Vincent (Université Laval), Dominique Willems (Universiteit Gent), Sandrine Zufferey (Université de Genève).
  • 15. Cuenca, Maria Josep. 2013. Causal constructions in speech. In Catherine Bolly & Liesbeth Degand (eds), Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation. Corpora and Language in Use – Proceedings 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 17-31. 17 Causal constructions in speech Maria Josep Cuenca University of Valencia Abstract Presenting two contents as cause-effect, through a basic discourse operation, is neither simple nor straightforward. Previous research has identified different types of causals. The classifications and analyses generally focus on certain connectives, are mainly based on written texts and often stem from a sentential perspective. But focusing on speech and taking a discourse perspective, other causal constructions can be identified. In this paper, causal constructions are analyzed in three types of oral texts in Catalan: conversation, oral texts obtained through a semi-structured interview protocol and a political debate. The analysis shows that causal constructions exhibit specific properties in speech and that causality is not only expressed by means of prototypical causal constructions (i.e. including a causal conjunction). There are other constructions that activate the causal relation at the discourse level, involve presuppositions and are subjective or intersubjective. The most frequent in Catalan are constructions including a modal marker that is either added to a basic connective (perquè clar S ‘because of course S’) or that precedes a discourse segment (és que S, ‘(it) is (just) that S’). Keywords: causal constructions, causal connectives, modal markers, oral Catalan, és que constructions 1. Introduction Causal relationships are one of the most basic linking relations in language. However, presenting two contents as cause-effect is neither a simple nor straightforward discourse operation, as the research devoted to the topic highlights.1 The classifications focus on conjunctions, are mainly based on made-up examples or written texts, and often stem from a sentential perspective.2 But if we focus on speech and take a discourse perspective, various factors appear to become relevant for the characterization of causal constructions. In this presentation, causal constructions are analyzed in three types of oral texts in Catalan:  Casual conversations among 3 or more participants (Corpus oral de conversa colloquial, COC). The texts are informal and dialogical.  Oral texts obtained through a semi-structured interview protocol that consisted of 5 tasks designed to elicit different types of text (Corpus audiovisual plurilingüe, CAP). The texts are relatively formal and mostly monological, since the interviewers keep their interventions to a minimum. 1 Pit (2003) includes an extensive overview of the state of the art. 2 There are some exceptions to this tendency, such as Simon and Degand (2007) and some of the papers in the Special Issue on “Causal connectives in discourse” edited by Sanders and Stukker (2012).
  • 16. MARIA JOSEP CUENCA 18  A political debate with the participation of a moderator and 5 politicians (1995 Catalonia’s Regional Government Election). The text is formal and combines monologue (long individual turns) with dialog with the moderators and the other politicians.3 The structures expressing cause (specifically backward cause) in the three genres have been identified and classified. Among them, typically oral constructions that activate presuppositions are described in more detail. Finally, the uses in the three corpora are compared in order to test to what extent the contextual conditions of oral texts have an influence on the use and frequency of causal constructions and markers. 2. Causal constructions and markers in oral Catalan Causal constructions in oral texts, in contrast with written texts, exhibit a reduced variety of markers but a wider variety of structures and meanings. As for the markers, the conjunctions that occur in our corpora are perquè (‘because’), which is the basic and most frequent, and com que (‘since’, ‘as’), which introduces presupposed causals. They always preface the first conjunct and mark the following content as “information that is taken for granted” (Goethals 2010: 2213). There are also 5 cases of que (COC) with a more or less prominent causal meaning. This reduced set of conjunctions contrasts with the list of causal conjunctions that can be retrieved in Catalan grammars, mostly based on formal written texts. For instance, Badia i Margarit (1994: 324) lists the following conjunctions: perquè, que, com que, ja que, atès que, vist que, per tal com, puix (que).4 However, the reduced list of markers doesn’t mean simplicity regarding the use of causals in speech. Let us analyze a long excerpt (1) that includes a variety of causal constructions in order to observe their complexity. Segment 329 (“perquè ‘because’ short it is easier”) includes a typical use of perquè: ‘I will do it myself one day, because short is easier’: (1) 303 NIA (. 0.20) què li volies fer what did you want to do to her 304 MAM allisar-li do her hair straight 305 NIA (.. 0.72) ja en saps d'allisar ja/ do you really know how to straighten it, eh? 306 MAM [s::] ((mou el cap amunt i avall)) ye...[she nods] 307 ANI [és que em] fa-- ((ANI està refredada)) és que (‘(it) is (just) that’) I’m looking… [she has a cold] 308 ANI (.. 0.61) (INH) 309 ANI fa molta il·lu portar-lo llis I’m looking forward to having it straight 310 NIA (... 1.38) jo sempre que vaig a:_ I, whenever I go to 3 A sample of the three corpora has been selected for quantitative purposes. Each sample analyzed includes about 15.000 words: 15,897 words corresponding to 3 conversations from COC, 16,230 words corresponding to 40 interviews from CAP, and 15,931 words from the Debate (258 turns). 4 Also car should be added to the list. It is now considered archaic but it is sometimes used in very formal texts.
  • 17. CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH 19 311 NIA tallar[-me les pu:n]tes_ to have my ends trimmed 312 ??? [(tos)] (coughing) 313 NIA o qual[sevol cosa_] or anything 314 ANI [jo vaig pensar] I thought 315 NIA me l'alliso: I'll have it straightened 316 NIA ara [{(??) p(e)rò és que*_}] now... but és que (‘(it) is (just) that’) 317 ANI [jo és que* abans] el duia llarg no/ me, és que (‘(it) is (just) that’) before I had it long, right? 318 ANI (.. 0.59) llavors si me'l volia allisar tenia que anar a la peluqueria so if I wanted to have my hair straightened, I had to go to the hairdresser 319 ANI [{(??) perquè clar}] perquè clar ‘because of course’ 320 NIA (... 1.16) [p(e)rò el rissat és] teu/ but your hair is wavy 321 ANI sí yes 322 ANI (.. 0.92) x per (ai)xò me'l vull allisar that’s why I want it straightened 323 ANI (.. 0.80) i: el tenia: llarg and I had long hair 324 ANI el tenia per aquí i clar ((fa un senyal amb la mà a l'alçada de l'espatlla)) it was like this and, obviously, [she signals her shoulder with her hand] 325 ANI (. 0.22) jo no me'l podia allisar I couldn't straighten it on my own 326 ANI (.. 0.95) {(AC) p(e)rò ara xx--} but now 327 ANI com que el porto curt ara_ com que ‘since’ it's short now 328 ANI (.. 0.46) i dic me'l faré un dia and I say I'll have it done one day 329 ANI perquè_ perquè ‘because’ 330 ANI (.. 0.31) curt és més fàcil short makes it easier 331 (... 1.21) 332 ANI x[xx] 333 NIA [més fà]cil de fer it is easier to do 334 NIA p(e)rò de que se t'aguanti més-- but it's that it stays like that longer 335 NIA (. 0.28) més [costa] it takes more 336 ANI [ja::] yeah 337 ANI p(e)rò que és més fàcil de fer- m'ho but it is easier for me to do 338 NIA ja (COC06 303-338) yeah MAM is going to straighten ANI’s hair. NIA wonders whether MAM is able to do it. ANI justifies her decision to have her hair straight. If we follow ANI’s argumentation, several markers and types of causals can be identified:  Segment 327 (“com que ‘since’ it is short now”): com que introduces a cause that is taken for granted and no conclusion or effect follows. It is an example of an “independent” subordinate, a phenomenon that is relatively usual in speech, especially with com que, as Goethals (2010: 2214) points out: “the predictability of the consequence or conclusion […] leads frequently to the omission of the main clause in spontaneous speech”.  Segment 329 (“perquè ‘because’ short it is easier”) includes a typical use of perquè: ‘I will do it myself one day, because short is easier’. In addition to these constructions, typically marked by a causal conjunction, there are other structures that convey a causal relation:
  • 18. MARIA JOSEP CUENCA 20  Segment 319 (“perquè clar” ‘because of course’): by adding clar to perquè a cause is presented as shared knowledge or obvious. In this example, the cause is, however, truncated because the utterance overlaps with a question that ANI decides to answer.  Segment 307 (“és que ‘(it) is just that’ I’m looking forward to have it straight”): NIA questions the ability of MAM to straighten the hair and ANI justifies her decision of allowing MAM to do so. The effect is at the presupposition level.  Segment 317 (“me, és que ‘(it) is just that’ before I had it long, right?”): ANI further justifies her decision: she used to have long hair and had to go to the hairdresser’s. Since now her hair is short, she can do it at home. The previous excerpt clearly illustrates that if the search goes well beyond typical causal constructions (i.e. A connective B), it is possible to find other causal constructions involving presuppositions and (inter)subjective modal uses. 3. Types of causals 3.1. Previous research Previous research has identified different types of causals. The dominant distinctions are binary and distinguish between causals that relate propositional contents of discourse segments and causals that involve the illocutionary meaning of one or both segments.5 In this vein, Halliday and Hasan (1976) distinguish external and internal conjunctions. Other authors differentiate semantic and pragmatic causals (e.g. Sanders et al. 1992; Sanders 1997). Semantic interpretation holds at the level of locutionary meaning: “A relation is semantic if the discourse segments are related because of their propositional content, i.e. the locutionary meaning of the segments” (Sanders 1997: 122). Pragmatic interpretation connects locutionary and illocutionary meaning: “A relation is pragmatic if the discourse segments are related because of the illocutionary meaning of one or both of the segments. In pragmatic relations the CR [coherence relation] concerns the speech act status of the segments” (Sanders 1997: 122). Sweetser (1990: chap. 4) distinguishes three domains (namely, content, epistemic and speech-act) and considers that some conjunctions can be pragmatically “ambiguous”: Causal conjunction in the speech-act domain […] indicates causal explanation of the speech act being performed, while in the epistemic domain a causal conjunction will mark the cause of a belief or a conclusion, and in the content domain it will mark “real-world” causality of an event. (Sweetser 1990: 81) Sweetser illustrates the three readings with the following examples: (2a) John came back because he loved her (2b) John loved her, because he came back (2c) What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on. 5 Cf. Lagerwerf (1998: chap. 2); Knot et al. (2001); Pander Maat and Degand (2001), Pit (2003), and the special issue of Journal of Pragmatics edited by Sanders and Stukker (2012), among others.
  • 19. CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH 21 In (2a) there is real world causality, i.e. A and B are content units in a causal relation (B is the cause of A in the real world: ‘The fact that he loved her caused the fact that John came back’). In (2b), causality holds “between premise and conclusion in the speaker’s mind” (1990: 80), i.e. the speaker’s knowledge of A causes the conclusion that B (‘the knowledge that he came back causes the conclusion that he loved her’). In (2c), “the because-clause gives the cause of the speech act embodied by the main clause” (1990: 77), i.e. B causes the act of saying A (‘the fact that there’s a good movie on causes the asking of what you are doing tonight’). More recent research tends to unify binary and ternary proposals, since it is possible to interpret that content domain conjunctions are semantic (or external or objective) and epistemic and speech-act domain conjunctions are pragmatic (or internal or subjective). Other authors propose a scalar approach based on the notion of subjectivity (Pander Maat & Sanders 2001; Pit 2003) or speaker involvement (Pander Maat & Degand 2001; Degand & Pander Maat 2003): “the degree to which the present speaker is implicitly involved in the construal of the causal relation” (2003: 176). Speaker involvement increases according to four parameters: (i) the degree of subjective involvement of a conscious participant, (ii) the degree of iconicity of the causal relation, (iii) the distance to speaker and speaking time, and (iv) the degree of explicitness of the participants (the implicit realization of the protagonist). The scalar approach is especially adequate to differentiate the uses of similar conjunctions. 3.2. Causal constructions: prototypical examples In the texts analyzed, there are good examples of causals in the different domains, namely, semantic (content) and pragmatic (epistemic and speech-act), as the following: (3) la: seva filla_ (INH) cau en coma (.. 0.40) perquè:_ té porfídia (C1CA22CS: 33-37) Her daughter falls into a coma because she suffers from porphyria (4) e::l_ tema de l'immigració a Europa_ (INH)/ és un tema una mica conflictiu_ (.. 0.62) perquè:_ si:_ bé veiem_/ que:_/ les últimes eleccions_ per exemple franceses_ casi bé guanya Le Pen_ (C1TE22CS: 3-13) the subject of immigration in Europe is a rather controversial issue because if… well, look at the last elections, for instance, the French ones, Le Pen almost won (5) BEB p(e)rò l'Anna on ha anat (. 0.29) perquè té el biquini fet eh} (COC06: 1097-1098) But where has Anna gone? Because her ham and cheese sandwich is ready, uh? The content interpretation (3) is clear when the two segments include two (objective) facts (‘The fact Q caused the fact P’: ‘her daughter falls in a coma because she suffers from porphyria’). Epistemic causals, as in (4), relate a piece of evidence and a conclusion (‘The knowledge that Le Pen almost won causes the conclusion that the subject of immigration is controversial’). Speech-act causals (5) typically include a question, as in the previous example, or an order or suggestion, which are the effect of some fact (‘The fact that her sandwich is ready causes her asking where she is gone’).
  • 20. MARIA JOSEP CUENCA 22 However, the domains are not strictly separable or clear-cut, as most authors point out.6 It is often the case that a construction is pragmatically ambiguous, for instance, when one of the two segments is an opinion. If the first segment is an opinion expressed in third person, an epistemic reading is more prominent, although a content reading is also possible: (6) a l'hora de treballa:r_ {(AC) i tenen problemes_ perquè ningú els vol contractar}(C2TE15SS: 34-36) When it comes to work..., and they have problems, because nobody wants to hire them The previous example can be paraphrased as “The fact that no one wants to hire them causes the fact that they have problems” or also “I conclude/think/believe that they have problems because no one wants to hire them”. Other cases are intermediate between epistemic and speech-act, as when the cause is a comment or a parenthesis in the discourse flow: (7) i que passi la nit allà am(b) ells vale/ i ell i el seu go:s_perquè també té un gos (INH)/ es posen a dormir (C1TN21CS: 10-15) And that it spends the night there with them, right? And he and his dog—because he also has a dog— go to sleep The causal makes explicit an existential presupposition: the fact that “he also has a dog” justifies my saying that “he and his dog went to sleep”. Example (7) can be considered epistemic, since there is lack of correspondence with a causal relation in the real world, but also speech-act, though there is no specific mark of a different speech act or a performative verb in the first segment. In fact, this example matches Pander Maat and Degand’s (2001: 225) characterization of speech-act relations: speech act relations concern the structure of the present discourse—and nothing else. They appear in discourse in response to the interactional needs of a specific/potential interlocutor, not to present facts or draw conclusions concerning the real world. In these kinds of relations, the speaker is not involved as a thinking being, but solely in his role as a speaker. The intermediate nature is also present when because does not express a proper causal relationship but it rather indicates continuity in discourse: (8) i després hi va haver un lio_ perquè_ jo vaig trucar a la fàbrica am el meu pare_/ (.. 0.32) i el meu pare i el meu tiet_/treballen junts (C1CN06CC: 40-45) and then there was a mess because I phoned my father at the factory… and my father and my uncle work together The speaker in (8) is telling a story. She presents the situation by saying that “there was a mess” and starts explaining the “mess” introducing the whole sub-narration as a causal. In conclusion, intermediate or ambiguous cases are frequent in oral texts, especially spontaneous ones. This fact, along with the frequency of truncated examples, in which 6 Cf. Lagerwerf (1998: 2.2) and Pit (2003).
  • 21. CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH 23 the second segment is missing or is not complete, increases the difficulty of analysing some of the examples, especially in the non-formal texts. 4. Non-prototypical causals As exemplified in Section 2, there are some causal constructions that differ from prototypical causals. In this section two peripheral causals will be described: the ones that combine perquè ‘because’ and clar ‘it is clear/of course’ and és que-constructions. 4.1. Causals and epistemicity Causality and epistemicity can be directly related, as Gonzàlez and Ribas (2008) convincingly argue. …when the speaker makes use of pragmatic because […] the source and mode of knowledge from which the cause-effect relationship is established becomes of primary importance, since causal relations originate from different sorts of evidence that the speaker interprets. (Gonzàlez & Ribas 2008: 127) The epistemic nature of causals is enhanced when perquè (‘because’) is followed by the marker (és) clar (‘(it is) sure’, ‘of course’, ‘obviously’). This modal marker turns a ‘neutral’ cause into an emphatic one whose content is presented as certain and often as shared knowledge.7 (9) em van di:r_ bueno aquí no et podem fer re:_ t'haurem de portar a Bellvitge_ perquè clar_ e:_ si::_ no es millora_ lo que s'ha de fer és intubar_ (C2CN16SS:153-161) they said to me, well, we can't do anything for you here, we'll have to take you to Bellvitge [a hospital] perquè clar ‘because of course’ if it doesn't get better, what we'll have to do is intubate The marker in (9) indicates the speaker’s attitude towards the upcoming content, specifically, that the cause is generally acknowledged. In fact, whenever (és) clar follows a conjunction or another discourse marker, it reinforces the propositional meaning of the next segment adding a modal sense of certainty. It is an upgrading device that presents a cause (and also a consequence or an antithesis) as obvious for both speaker and hearer. As predicted by Gonzàlez and Ribas, most cases of perquè, (és) clar in our corpus are related to belief, which implies a relatively high degree of reliability: (10) p(e)rò suposo que devia ser_ poc poc (.. 0.53) un minut com a molt perquè clar_ si t'ofegue:s_ (.. 0.35) vull di:r_ no pots aguantar molt estona (C1CN04CC: 46-53) I suppose it was a short, a short [time] a minute at most, perquè clar ‘because of course’ if you suffocate, I mean, you can’t resist for a long time As the previous examples show, the speaker’s stance is a key-feature in many causals, especially in pragmatic ones. In fact, when perquè, (és) clar is used, the speaker 7 On Catalan (és) clar (literally, ‘(it is) clear, fair’), an adjective that has developed functions as a discourse marker, see Cuenca and Marín (2012). On its Spanish counterpart, claro, see Fuentes (1993), Freites (2006), Pons (2003) and Maldonado (2010).
  • 22. MARIA JOSEP CUENCA 24 involvement, in Degand and Pander Maat’s terms, is generally high: there is a conscious participant involved (parameter i), who expresses his or her stance (parameter iv), there is often no isomorphism between the relation and the state of affairs in the real world (parameter ii), and there is proximity of the relation to the present speaker (parameter iii). Finally, it is worth noticing that there is a combination that has the opposite effect of perquè clar. Perquè miri (‘because look’) introduces a cause that is considered as very important and new and non-shared between speaker and hearer, as in (11): (11) El principal problema de Catalunya, senyor Pujol, és que molta gent no té feina. […] I aquest és el problema. I vostè ha de comprendre, i si no ho comprèn és igual, perquè miri, el dinou de novembre potser ho arreglaran altres, però vostè hauria de fer l’esforç encara que només fos per la seva satisfacció intel·lectual de comprendre que el que vostè ha fet […] és detraure diners allà on creen realment llocs de treball, que és en el sector_ que és en el sector privat. (Debate, turn 304) Catalonia’s main problem, Mr Pujol, is that many people have no job. […] And that's the problem. And you must understand, and if you don’t it doesn’t matter, perquè miri ‘because look’, on November 19th maybe other people will fix it, but you should make the effort, if only for your own intellectual satisfaction of understanding what you’ve done […] is to take the money from the place where it really creates employment, which is in the sector_ which is in the private sector. 4.2. Causals and intersubjectivity As already shown, there are constructions that express a cause and do not include a conjunction, and often cannot include one. This is the case for some utterances introduced by és que, which are frequent in conversation8 to express modal values related to the speaker’s intention of justifying his or her response to what has just been said, especially in order to avoid a face-threatening act (Porroche Ballesteros 1998; Delahunty 2001; Pusch 2006; Marín & Cuenca 2012). (12) NIA (.. 0.58) què t'anava a di:r (. 0.27) que em sap greu de no haver-te avisat al final de que venia aquí(. 0.17) és que em pensava que t'ho havia dit (COC06: 386) What was I about to say? I’m sorry I didn’t tell you that I was finally coming here. És que ‘(it) is (just) that’ I thought that I already had The és que-construction can be roughly paraphrased as “The reason/justification for P ‘(it) is (just) that’ Q”. So in the previous example NIA’s last intervention means: ‘The reason why I didn’t tell you that I was coming here is that I thought I already had’. But, in contrast with the same sequence without és que, it also implies that the speaker feels guilty (or supposes that the hearer might think she is) and wants to justify her behavior. The marker cannot be substituted by perquè. This is because és que introduces a different type of cause and also because, in contrast with causal conjunctions, és que is not linking two linguistic segments. Rather, it is introducing a subjective cause whose effect must be inferred contextually. In (12), NIA’s intervention triggers presuppositions: “Being sorry for 8 The constructions including és que as a marker can indicate either justification or emphasis. In this paper, only those indicating justification have been considered.
  • 23. CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH 25 something implies that it actually happened” and “The fact that I didn’t tell you that I was coming is something that I assume that can make you angry”. As Sancho (2010: 115) indicates, perquè and és que are not interchangeable either on syntactic or on semantic-pragmatic grounds.9 Syntactically, the utterance that és que prefaces is distributionally autonomous and cannot be integrated as the second clause of a causal sentence. (13a)No he anat a recollir els xiquets perquè he perdut l'autobús I didn’t fetch the children because I missed the bus (13b)*No he anat a recollir els xiquets és que he perdut l'autobús I didn’t fetch the children és que (‘(it) is (just) that’) I missed the bus Semantically, the two responses in Sancho’s example (14) cannot be considered synonymous: (14) Per què no has anat a recollir els xiquets? Why didn’t you fetch the children? (14a)Perquè he perdut l'autobús. Because I missed the bus (14b)És que he perdut l'autobús. És que (‘(it) is (just) that’) I missed the bus Response (14a) is a cause at the content level (“I didn’t fetch the children because I missed the bus”), whereas (14b) is a justification or excuse that includes the causal relation and presupposes that the speaker should have done something (s)he hasn’t. Hence, the causal relation that és que indicates is activated at the presupposition level: és que presupposes a previous content, whether explicit or implicit, to which the following utterance is a justification or excuse (Delahunty & Gatzkiewicz 2000; Fuentes 1997; Marín & Cuenca 2012). The marker introduces a reactive speech-act to something that has been said or the speaker assumes that the hearer can think. The use of és que as a subjective cause introducer is associated with some kind of negation and contrast. This is especially obvious when the construction is a reactive turn to a question, an order or a request. In (15), the interviewer is asking the interviewee to suggest a film to her: (15) ECC: vinga m'has de convèncer eh Come on, you've got to convince, huh? I12: (. 0.28) és que no sé si:_ es diu així eh no {(EXH)(P) me'n recordo} molt [bé_ p(e)rò em sem]bla que es di:u_ [...]19 es diu {(L2) Soy Sam} (C2CA12SS 1-6, 19) És que ‘(it) is (just) that’ I don’t know whether this is the title, eh? I don’t remember very well but I think that the title is… the title is “I am Sam” The informant assumes a negative answer to an oriented request (‘you must convince me, huh?’), whose expected answer is yes. Her justification (P = I am not sure about the title) is prefaced by és que, which mitigates the presupposition (‘I’m not sure that I’ll be able to convince you because P’). 9 In fact, there are some examples in which the causal marker is the combination perquè és que.
  • 24. MARIA JOSEP CUENCA 26 These structures are typically used in spontaneous conversation, but a few examples can be found in the debate, especially when the moderator distributes turns because a politician has exceeded his or her time: (16) Colom: Acabo [( (zzzz?) )]. I am just finishing xxx Moderador: [(No, no, de veritat, és que anem passats, acabem aquest bloc o no l’acabarem mai)]. (Debate, turn 255) No, no, really, és que ‘(it) is (just) that’ we're over the time, let’s finish this section or we’ll never finish it. In these cases, és que mitigates a clearly face-threatening act. According to the description of és que as a subjective cause introducer, the resulting construction could be considered a type of speech-act causal. However, there are several differences between the two types that point to the idea that és que introduces a causal at a higher-level, that of ‘discourse’ or, more specifically, the presupposition level. Speech-act causals indicate a “causal explanation of the speech act being performed” (Sweetser 1990: 81), which is often an order, a suggestion or a question, whereas és que introduces a subjective cause as a reaction to a presupposition triggered by something that has been said or done. Perquè is a two position operator (a conjunction); és que is a one position inferential maker. The two segments linked through perquè are attributed to the same speaker; és que introduces a turn (so two speakers are at play) or an act inside a turn (just one speaker). Inside a turn, some kind of polyphony is activated, as if the speaker were introducing some kind of locutor or activating a different (more procedural) level of speech. Speech-act causals are hearer-oriented (they usually include a second person or an inclusive first person in the main clause); és que constructions are (more) speaker- oriented and often include first person (singular) markers, so that the speaker involvement is higher than in speech-act causals. Let us compare a case of speech-act causal and an és que-construction, both based on an order: (17) REP (.. 0.58) no con[testis que] et quedaràs sense de halar Don’t you answer, ’cause you’ll end up without eating (COC01: 1329) (18) Moderadora [(Vagi acabant, senyor Vidal-Quadras, sisplau)]. [...] No, no, senyor Vidal-Quadras, ss_ és que li ha acabat el temps, [(han passat de sobra els seus dos minuts)]. Finish your turn, Mr. Vidal-Quadras, please. [...] No, no, Mr. Vidal-Quadras, és que ‘(it) is (just) that’ you've run out of time, your two minutes were up some time ago Vidal-Quadras [(És que em sembla que no ho ha_ )] em sembla que no ho ha acabat d’entendre encara. (Debate, turns 2723-273) És que ‘(it) is (just) that’ I don't think he has_ I don't think he has quite understood yet.
  • 25. CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH 27 The fist case illustrates the construction “order – cause” and can be paraphrased as ‘The reason why I suggest that you don’t answer the questions is that you won’t eat’. The second case is similar to the first one and can also be paraphrased as ‘The reason why I ask you to stop talking is that you have run out of time’, but it also implies a complex presupposition: ‘This is a sufficient cause for me to give you this order, but I suppose it is not so for you’. In fact, the politician’s response is also prefaced by és que: he refuses to stop talking and his subjective cause is that “I think that he has not already understood”. On the other hand, perquè and és que can combine as introducers of a single causal clause, which clearly indicates that they are not synonymous: (19) (.. 0.40) vai passar malament perquè és que és un país que no coneixes_ I had a bad time perquè és que ‘because is that’ it is a country that you don’t know In conclusion, és que is a pragmatic marker that introduces a turn or move and marks it as a subjective cause—a justification or excuse with respect to “the mental representation of an utterance or of a situation in a context of assumptions other than those intended by the speaker (Delahunty & Gatzkiewicz 2000: 321)—. The marker és que is not a linking word, but a modal particle that mitigates the following content by framing it as a plausible or necessary cause from the point of view of the speaker, though (s)he assumes that the hearer may not agree. 5. Causal constructions across genres Orality is not a homogeneous phenomenon. As a consequence, an interesting question to be addressed is to what extent the different production conditions have an effect on the frequency and use of the markers identified and the different levels or domains. As for the forms, Table 1 summarizes the main results: Form Debate Interview (CAP) Conversation (COC) Total perquè 78 99 66 243 és que 8 11 30 49 com que 8 14 17 39 que 5 5 94 124 118 336 Table 1. Causal markers in the corpora In all genres perquè is the most frequent marker. It can express different kinds of causes and combines with several particles. Com que is less frequent in debate, maybe because, as que, it is not considered formal or rather because its meaning is not usually adequate to a non-collaborative genre as political debate, where causes are not generally taken for granted. The main difference among genres lies in the use of és que as a marker, which is almost absent in the debate, more used in the interview corpus, but is relatively frequent in conversation, where the speaker often needs to justify or excuse his or her
  • 26. MARIA JOSEP CUENCA 28 actions, and interactivity is high. As for the functions, the fact that many examples are truncated and that the limits between domains are not clear-cut (see Section 3.2), makes it difficult to derive sound quantitative conclusions. The general results are summarized in Table 2. First of all, it must be pointed out that in general terms the meanings are clearer and less ambiguous in the debate than in the other two types of text, which is consistent with the more formal nature of the former. Causals introducing (side) comments or continuity segments are almost exclusive of conversation. Similarly, truncated examples and independent causals are more frequent in conversation. Regarding the type of causals, according to our data, content causals are relatively frequent, but there is a higher proportion of epistemic causals, especially in the debate. Speech-act causals are frequent in debate, but are more prototypically used in conversation, where interaction is higher. Finally, és que constructions are typical of the informal genres with a high degree of interactivity. In fact, they are seldom used in typically formal monological (i.e. written texts) and also in the debate. Type Debate Interview (CAP) Conversation (COC) Total Content 26 43 28 99 Epistemic 40 58 25 123 Speech-Act 9 2 8 19 Discourse 7 12 23 42 Others (truncated or grammaticalized) 12 9 34 55 94 124 118 336 Table 2. Types of causal constructions in the corpora 6. Conclusions Causal constructions (CCs) in oral Catalan exhibit outstanding features in several respects:  CCs are often truncated (the second segment is missing or is not complete) or independent (the main clause is implicit), mainly in informal and interactive discourse.  The meaning of CCs is often not clearly defined or it is intermediate or ambiguous between domains, especially in non-formal corpora. CCs introducing (side) comments, continuity segments or units that need lots of context to finally establish the causal link are almost exclusive of informal texts.  CCs include a reduced variety of conjunctions (mainly perquè and com que).  Along with typical causal constructions (i.e. A connective B), it is possible to identify other causal constructions associated with informality and interactivity. This is the case of clar added to perquè or és que as utterance introducer. Both markers create causal relations that go beyond speech-act causals and imply presuppositions and
  • 27. CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH 29 (inter)subjective values on the part of the speaker. The increase of modal charge is more prominent in spontaneous and interactive exchanges, while formality limits subjectivity.  The speaker’s stance is a key-feature in many causals, especially in pragmatic ones.  The main difference among genres lies in the use of és que as a marker, which is relatively frequent in informal genres, especially in conversation, where the speaker often needs to justify or excuse his or her actions. In conclusion, causal constructions exhibit some specific properties in oral Catalan and are also expressed by means of modal markers that modify the utterance by introducing the speaker’s attitude or stance. Acknowledgements This research is part of the project Cohargument (reference FFI2011-25236) supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and of the research group GEV, Grup d'Estudi de la Variació (reference 2009-SGR 521) supported by Generalitat de Catalunya. References Badia i Margarit, Antoni Maria. 1994. Gramàtica de la llengua catalana. Descriptiva, normativa, diatòpica, diastràtica. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana. Cuenca, Maria Josep & Maria Josep Marín. 2012. Discourse markers and modality in spoken Catalan: the case of (és) clar. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15), 2211-2225. Degand, Liesbeth & Henk Pander Maat. 2003. A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In Arie Verhagen & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch. Lexicon, grammar, discourse. Utrecht: LOT, 175- 199. Delahunty, Gerald. 2001. Discourse functions of inferential sentences. Linguistics 39, 517-545. Delahunty, Gerald & Laura Gatzkiewicz. 2000. On the Spanish inferential construction ser que. Pragmatics 10(3), 301-322. Freites Barros, Francisco. 2006. El marcador de discurso claro: funcionamiento pragmático, metadiscursivo y organizador de la estructura temàtica. Verba, Anuario Galego de Filoloxía 33, 261-279. Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina. 1993. Claro: modalización y conexión. Sociolingüística Andaluza 8, 99-126. Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina. 1997. Los conectores en la lengua oral: es que como introductor de enunciado. Verba 24, 237-263. Goethals, Patrick. 2010. A multi-layered approach to speech events. The case of Spanish justificational conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8), 2204-2218. Gonzàlez, Montserrat & Montserrat Ribas. 2008. The construction of epistemic space via causal connectives. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 127-150. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  • 28. MARIA JOSEP CUENCA 30 Knot, Alistair, Ted Sanders & Jon Oberlander. 2001. Levels of representation in discourse relations. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 197-209. Lagerwerf, Luuk. 1998. Causal Connectives have Presuppositions. Effects on Coherence and Discourse Structure. LOT Dissertation series 10. http://hdl.handle.net/1871/15721 Maldonado, Ricardo. 2010. Claro: de objeto perceptible a refuerzo pragmático. In M. José Rodríguez Espinería (ed.), Adjetivos en discurso. Sobre emociones, posibilidades, certezas y evidencias. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 61-113. Marín, Maria Josep & Maria Josep Cuenca. 2012. De l’atribució a la modalitat: construccions amb és que en català oral. Caplletra 52, 65-94. Pander Maat, Henk & Liesbeth Degand. 2001. Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 211-245. Pander Maat, Henk & Ted Sanders. 2001. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 247-273. Payrató, Lluís & Núria Alturo (eds). 2002. Corpus oral de conversa col·loquial. Materials de treball. Barcelona: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona. http: www.ub.edu/cccub. Payrató, Lluís & Jaume Fitó (eds). 2008. Corpus audiovisual plurilingüe. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions Universitat de Barcelona. Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective. Subjectivity and Causal Connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pons, Salvador. 2003. From agreement to stressing and hedging: Spanish bueno and claro. In Gudrun Held (ed.), Partikeln und Höflichkeit. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 219-236. Porroche Ballesteros, Margarita. 1998. Sobre algunos usos de que, si y es que como marcadores discursivos. In Maria Antonia Martín Zorraquino & Estrella Montolío (eds), Los marcadores del discurso. Teoría y análisis. Madrid: Arco Libros, 229-242. Pusch, Claus D. 2006. Marqueurs discursifs et subordination syntaxique: La construction inférentielle en français et dans d’autres langues romanes. In Martina Drescher & Barbara Frank-Job (eds), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes. Approches théoriques et méthodologiques. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 173-188. Sancho, Pelegrí. 2010. Anàlisi de les unitats fraseològiques amb funció connectiva en un fragment de conversa colloquial. Caplletra 48, 93-125. Sanders, Ted J. M. 1997. Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence. On the categorisation of coherence relations in context. Discourse processes 24(1), 119-147. Sanders, Ted J. M. & Ninke Stukker (eds). 2012. Causal connectives in discourse. Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics 44(2). Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. Spooren & Leo G. M. Noordman. 1992. Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence. On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse processes 15, 1-35. Simon, Anne & Liesbeth Degand. 2007. Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et profils prosodiques: le cas de car et de parce que. French Language Studies 17(3), 323-341. Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 29. CAUSAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN SPEECH 31 Appendix 1. Transcription conventions 1. Prosodic aspects Intonation unit (one line for each intonation unit) Boundary tone/Closure falling rising / continuative _ Truncated intonation unit -- Manner/Quality high {(A) text} low {(B) text} Voice of another {(EV) text} Tempo accelerated speech {(AC) text} piano, attenuated speech {(DC) text} Lenghtening (short, medium and long) : :: ::: 2. Vocal aspects Laughing text {(@) text} Laugh One symbol per pulse @ Long fragment, timed @R(time)R@ Inhalation and exhalation (INH) (EXH) 3. Pauses and overlaps Pause, timed very short (0.1 < p < 0.3) (. time) short (p < 1) (.. time) medium (1 ≤ p < 3) (... time) long (p  3) (.... time) Overlaps [text] 4. Regularizations and comments Deletion use of brackets to mark the deleted sound Transcriptor’s comments concrete (comment) general ((comment)) 5. Difficult fragments Uncertain words {(??) text} Unintelligible One sign per syllable x Long fragment, timed xX(time)Xx 6. Other aspects Code-switch {(L2) text} Truncated/cut-off word wor-
  • 30.
  • 31. Lewis, Diana M. 2013. The emergence of discourse connectives in discourse constructions. In Catherine Bolly & Liesbeth Degand (eds), Across the Line of Speech and Writing Variation. Corpora and Language in Use – Proceedings 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 33-49. 33 The emergence of discourse connectives in discourse constructions Diana M. Lewis University of Aix-Marseille Abstract Discourse connectives tend cross-linguistically to escape easy categorization: they are recruited from a heterogeneous range of lexemes and adverbial phrases and rarely form a neat paradigm. The paper focuses on the diachronic emergence of two English connectives out of adverbials which developed in turn from prepositional phrases. It examines the role of the discourse construction in the emergence of connective meanings in adverbials. Keywords: English, connectives, discourse constructions, diachrony 1. Introduction If some linguistic categories seem to be more stable than others, then discourse connectives may be among the less stable ones. They tend to emerge relatively easily from various kinds of lexical item. Many English discourse connectives originate ultimately, as in many other languages, from temporal or locative expressions. This paper considers the role of discourse-collocational frequency in generating connective semantics, as well as the place of information structuring in the sense of the relative salience of elements of the discourse. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 places the development in the context of the increase in the number of connective types in the Modern English period. It describes the hypothesis that frequency of discourse construction contributes to usage-based change in discourse elements such as connectives. Section 3 presents case studies of two present-day English (PDE) discourse connectives, in fact and after all. Following these, section 4 focuses on the status of the category 'discourse connective' in the light of the two case studies, and argues for greater recognition of their information structuring role. Section 5 concludes the paper. 2. Discourse connectives in diachrony 2.1. Discourse connectives Discourse connectives are defined here as words or conventionalized phrases which in certain constructions encode a discourse relation. Discourse relations (or coherence relations) link successive ideas expressed in clauses or sentences; examples of relations are cause, condition, elaboration, justification, concession, antithesis, evidence, and so on. Discourse relations are sometimes discussed in terms of a more or less fine-grained set of relations, and sometimes in terms of an area of conceptual space which might lend
  • 32. DIANA M. LEWIS 34 itself to description by a semantic map of discourse connectivity. This issue will not be taken up here. Relations are attributed by the speaker, reflecting both her construal of events and her rhetorical purposes. They are therefore subjective inasmuch as they encode speaker viewpoint. The coding of discourse relations seems to involve a relatively high turnover of expressions, as old ones fall out of favour and give way to new recruits. It can also vary considerably across genres and across individuals. Discourse connectives often result from a (non-connective) adverbial undergoing lexical-semantic and/or morphosyntactic change. Insofar as they can be considered a class, they do not fall neatly on one side or the other of the traditional lexical/ grammatical divide, having characteristics of both. But they are easily accommodated in a framework that posits a lexical-grammatical continuum. Discourse connectives, then, are identified on partly formal but largely functional criteria, and we will assume here that they can in principle belong to any of a range of syntactic categories. We will assume also that in English most of them can best be categorized as (speaker-oriented) sentence adverbs (cf. Bellert 1977). A considerable increase in the number of dedicated connectives (i.e. their type frequency) is attested over the Modern English period (Swan 1988; Lenker 2010). This trend continues in present-day English; recent additions to the inventory of connectives include plus, at any rate, similarly, in the same way, final though, too. The next sub- section looks at the role that constructions, in particular 'discourse constructions', may play in the case of the development of discourse connectives. 2.2. Discourse constructions and the usage-based framework Where a discourse relation regularly co-occurs with a particular lexical and syntactic configuration, there can arise a discourse-constructional meaning leading to lexical- semantic shift. This is the hypothesis to be examined in relation with in fact and after all. The observations can be accommodated in a Construction Grammar type approach, which is not sentence-based and which is compatible with a panchronic view of language (Bergs & Diewald 2008). In recent years, attention has increasingly been drawn to the key role of the construction in internal language change (e.g. Bybee 2003; Traugott & Trousdale 2010). The term 'construction' is used here in the sense of a form- meaning pairing that is represented in a speaker's knowledge of her language as a node in a structured inventory. A construction may be maximally 'schematic', i.e. a sequence of 'slots' such as the English intransitive construction [SUBJ PRED], or maximally 'filled' as is the case for specific lexical items or fixed idioms such as [over the moon], or semi- schematic, i.e. a mixture of specific forms and slots, as in present-day English [do the V-ing] or [the COMP, the COMP: the sooner the better; the more I think about it, the more suspicious I am, etc.]. Semi-schematic or schematic constructions range from unproductive to fully productive. By 'discourse construction' is meant a semi-schematic or schematic construction that is beyond sentential level. 'Discourse construction' will be informally defined here as a frequent sequence of discourse elements stored in the mental inventory (the mental lexicon)
  • 33. THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS 35 (but cf. Östman 2005; Trousdale & Östman 2013). An example is the Contrastive in fact construction, to be discussed in section 3, in which in fact links two 'conjoins'1 (two situations, or sequences of situations, each of which is encoded by a stretch of discourse that may comprise one or more clauses): [(non-claimed) situation 1 in fact (claimed) situation 2]. Discourse constructions are hypothesized to emerge through repetition of 'discourse patterns' and categorization. By 'discourse pattern' is meant a recurring sequence of two (or more) ideas linked by the speaker with a discourse relation (which is not necessarily expressed).2 There is no need for the term 'discourse construction', as simple 'construction' would do, but the term is convenient in the context of a discussion of 'discourse connectives'. This study starts from the hypothesis that constructions are emergent from language use, as suggested by proponents of a 'usage-based' approach to the nature of language (Barlow & Kemmer 2000; Bybee 2001, 2010). Bybee describes constructional emergence as follows: The mechanisms for the establishment of constructions are (i) automation of chunks of linguistic material due to repetition, and (ii) categorization of the items occurring in particular positions in these larger chunks." (Bybee 2001: 173). Memory and processing constraints will limit the size of the chunks of linguistic material susceptible to being repeated and automated in this way; nevertheless, it is argued that these mechanisms together with analogy can lead to discourse patterns becoming conventionalized just like any other construction. The hypothesis is that repetition of a discourse pattern can lead to its constructionalization and the categorization or recategorization of items within it. This is the background against which data on in fact and after all will be examined. Through corpora it is possible to observe patterns and infer constructional frequency effects. We will look at the kinds of discourse patterns that co-occur with future connectives and that arguably acquire constructional representation. 3. Discourse patterns in the emergence of two polysemous English connectives 3.1. Data and genres This section describes the polysemy of PDE in fact and after all and traces their recent historical development via functional splitting. The data on the two expressions comes from the corpora listed in the appendix. This is of course written data only for the historical development, but the conventional term 'speaker' will be used to indicate the producer of the text, 'hearer' for the receiver. The choice of texts is the result of privileging quantity of text, in order to maximize the number of occurrences of the target items, over corpus balance. Nevertheless, for each period both more formal, bookish 1 There is no suitable, widely-shared term to refer to the stretches of discourse that are linked or conjoined by a connective; they are sometimes called 'conjuncts' or 'spans'; Lenker (2010: 24-25) refers to them as 'connects'; the term 'conjoin' used here follows Quirk et al. (1985: 47). 2 On implicit and explicit relations, see for example Taboada (2009).
  • 34. DIANA M. LEWIS 36 texts and more informal texts such as plays and personal letters are included. Independently of genre differences, frequency seems to vary a lot across individual authors even within the same genre. This is something to be investigated in other research. For concordancing WordSmith Tools (Scott 2008) was used. In fact and after all have several features in common. They have both emerged as connectives relatively recently. Both have their origins in prepositional phrases and retain to some extent the prepositional usage. Both have evolved two different connective constructions on different discourse planes (as outlined below) and both are associated with speaker commitment to what is expressed in the host clause. They also differ from each other especially in word order, with in fact moving leftwards from clause-final to medial and initial position, while after all originates in a PP that was primarily clause-initial. 3.2. 'In fact' 3.2.1. 'In fact' in PDE In PDE in fact often serves as an epistemic adverb to forestall doubt over the veracity of a situation, where the speaker estimates that her claim may run counter to the addressee's expectations, as in (1). In fact is not connective here; it says 'this is true, despite what you might have thought'. (1) ... the arts can be a hugely important promoter of Britain. The unlamented Hunt in fact understood this well (05/09/2012, The Guardian; until 04/09/2012 Hunt was UK minister responsible for the arts) In addition, in fact has two distinct connective uses, both of high token frequency. One is in the Contrastive relation as in (2), which exemplifies the discourse construction [External claim + in fact + Incompatible speaker-claim]. (2) He tells us that comets would “burn up” in the thin atmosphere of Mars; in fact they would strike its surface with explosive violence (29/03/1998, Sunday Times) The conjoins are subject to some constraints. The first conjoin (External claim) includes a situation marked as not claimed by the speaker; it is typically something that has been claimed or potentially claimed or believed by someone else (or by the speaker herself at some other time). The second (Incompatible speaker-claim) encodes a situation that is incompatible with the first and is claimed by the speaker at the time of utterance. The other connective use is in the Elaborative relation [Claim + In fact + Elaborated claim] (3). (3) that Michael Watson give him some stick ... in fact if he hadn’t have knocked him out and put him in a coma ... that Michael Watson would have won it (1980s, BNC spoken)
  • 35. THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS 37 These two uses operate on two different planes of the discourse, which we will call the epistemic plane (the status of the proposition) and the rhetorical plane (speaker's rhetorical presentation, at the speech act level).3 Contrastive in fact is an epistemic modal marker: it occurs as the second (anaphoric) of a pair of epistemic markers, and links back to the expression of the epistemic status of the previous proposition. Thus, in example (2) the pair he tells us that and in fact operate a modal contrast, signalling incompatibility between the two ideas and speaker commitment to the second. The construction therefore cannot be felicitously used unless there appears to be a real-world incompatibility or incongruence between the two consecutive ideas. In fact attaches to the second connect and signals both that the previous situation is false in some way and that the speaker commits herself to the second. Elaborative in fact (3), operates at the rhetorical level to signal that the current situation (in the clause to which in fact attaches and over which it has scope) is compatible or consonant with the previous situation, and takes that idea further, by presenting a stronger claim, or a more detailed or more concrete claim, and so on. In so doing, the Elaborative in fact may implicate evidence or justification for the first connect, since the second situation often entails the first. Elaborative in fact may link back not to a single proposition, but to a sequence that hangs together at a wider discourse level. How did in fact come to occur in two such different discourse constructions? It will be argued that repeated occurrence of in fact in certain discourse patterns, or rhetorical sequences, led to the gradual emergence and strengthening of long-distance dependencies. This favoured the development of schematic discourse patterns that subsequently led, it will be suggested, to the conventionalized discourse constructions apparent in PDE. Figure 1 shows the evolution of token frequency and Figure 2 the proportions of context types over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 3.2.2. The development of Contrastive 'in fact' Early examples of in fact encode that some situation existed or took place as opposed to being supposed, or thought of or spoken of, etc. From epistemic marker of realization, in fact naturally assumed the role of counter-expectation marker (being used mainly where it was deemed necessary to dispel any doubt that the situation really occurred) and thence to a marker of contrast with some alternative situation that was mooted or that evidence might suggest was likely: epistemic marker of realization > counter-expectation > contrast 3 Most accounts of discourse relations posit two or three kinds of relation, such as relations at the level of the content of the discourse ('real-world' relations), relations at some modal level (the status of the propositions expressed), and relations at the level of the speaker's presentation (speaker attitude and rhetorical management). A substantial body of literature on discourse planes exists. In the context of discourse connectivity, see Mann and Thompson 1987, Schiffrin 1987, Sweetser 1990, Redeker 1991, Lang 2000.
  • 36. DIANA M. LEWIS 38 Adverbial in fact probably dates from mid to late C16th, as the PP in fact, which is often in contrast with another PP such as in words, in law, in right, etc., started to expand into further contexts and a gradual split started to open up between context types, leading to an incipient splitting off of a semi-lexicalized adverb from the PP. Clearly a PP/adverb vagueness is likely to have lasted some time, but in fact in (5) appears to be further along the route to adverbial than the PP in fact of (4). (4) If any whosoeuer will needes be offering abuse in fact, or snip-snapping in termes. (1593, OED) (5) The infancie of King Edward the sixt, and the Couerture of Qu. Mary (which are both Non abilities in the Lawe) did in fact disable them to accomplish the Conquest of Ireland (1612, OED) Figure 1. Increase in token frequency of 'in fact' C18th - C20th Figure 2 shows the decline in the proportion of PP in fact tokens, as the adverb becomes more frequent. Contrastive in fact is quite recent. Example (4) shows in fact opposed to in termes. From the mid-eighteenth century, in fact is commonly used in contrastive contexts. But there is no evidence that it carries (non-defeasible) contrastive meaning at that time. In the data up to the end of the nineteenth century, in fact rarely occurs in contrastive contexts without a marker of contrast such as but, yet, though, etc. In PDE the presence of but or whereas, etc. is still common, though no longer necessary. From the eighteenth century, in fact is found in a range of contrastive discourse patterns that are still current today. These range from Antithesis relations, through appearance vs reality, to different construals of a situation. The Antithesis relation is the strongest contrast, the two situations justaposed being polar opposites, as illustrated in (6) and, for PDE, (7). (6) It may be wondered, perhaps, that in all this no mention has been made of the theological principle ... . But the case is, this is not in fact a distinct principle. (1781, Bentham) 1720-1759 1760-1799 1800-1839 1840-1879 1880-1920s 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 per million words
  • 37. THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS 39 (7) a certain Dave Manning .. - who was regularly quoted giving glowing reviews to Sony's films - did not, in fact, exist. (13/02/2002, The Guardian) Example (8), and for PDE example (9), show in fact highlighting alternative construals of a situation. (8) Johnson said of an actor ... 'There is a courtly vivacity about the fellow;' when in fact, according to Garrick's account, 'he was the most vulgar ruffian that ever went upon boards' (1760, Boswell) (9) Although our report may have "triggered the Stevens III inquiry", as your article states, we had in fact never sought a third investigation by Stevens. (03/07/2007, The Guardian) In each case, the writer's aim is to persuade the reader to believe the second situation, so that, from a discourse information-structure point of view, the focus is on the second situation (in boldface in exs 6-9). Moreover, in fact starts to occur in initial position (pre- Subject) in the eighteenth century and to become parenthetical. It is thus poised to become the autonomous discourse segment with its own tone group that is PDE Contrastive in fact, in which the in fact host is understood to replace a false idea. Figure 2. Contexts of 'in fact' 3.2.3. The development of Elaborative 'in fact' The development of Elaborative in fact is a further expansion to rhetorical level. In their discussion of the development of Elaborative, or discourse-marking, in fact, which they term in fact3 (by contrast with the PP in fact1 and the Contrastive (adversative) in fact2), Traugott (1999) and Schwenter and Traugott (2000) suggest that “its origins can only be understood using the epistemic adversative adverb in fact2 as its point of departure” (2000: 21). As has been seen in section 3.1.2, however, in fact developed an intrinsic contrastive sense very recently, despite its regular occurrence in contrastive contexts and co-occurrence with contrastive connectives such as but. Our data suggest that in fact co- occurred with elaborative contexts from at least the eighteenth century. The data suggest that the new senses crystallized rather slowly. From Figure 2 it can be inferred that the sharp rise in token frequency is largely accounted for by emergent Elaborative in fact, 1700-1749 1750-1799 1800-49 1850-99 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Elab. context Contr. context Epistemic adv PP
  • 38. DIANA M. LEWIS 40 elaborative contexts corresponding to more than half of occurrences in the nineteenth century. In fact is a classic case of inferencing leading to language change; what seems to be most relevant in this case is the inference that it has ever wider scope, leading to gradual context expansion. In fact occurs in the elaborative contexts of defining, summarizing or concluding, as exemplified below. In each case, in fact accompanies or introduces the definition, the summary or the conclusion. The defining/explaining pattern takes the form [term + definition/explanation], as in (10). (10) [ the work] was set up in moveable copper matrices; each matrix being in fact a piece of copper of the same size as the type (1832, Babbage) A summing up of a topic consists of a shorter and often stronger expression of it, in the pattern [sequence of ideas + summing up], exemplified in (11). (11) 'Her modesty,' said Mrs. Thrale (as she told me), 'is really beyond bounds. It quite provokes me. And, in fact, I can never make out how the mind that could write that book could be ignorant of its value.' (c1780, Burney) The third pattern consists of an interpretation or logical conclusion drawn from the previous idea(s) in the discourse: [previous discourse + conclusion] as in (12). (12) In very many cases ... either the anthers burst before the stigma is ready for fertilisation, or the stigma is ready before the pollen of that flower is ready, so that these plants have in fact separated sexes .. (1859, Darwin) In these cases, in fact marks further, consonant material on the current topic. It often follows and, for, or so that, and, unlike Contrastive in fact, its host is informationally secondary or additional to the idea(s) just expressed. From the mid nineteenth century, however, there is an increasing tendency for the in fact host not just to elaborate on the current topic, but to express a stronger version of the previous idea, although it remains rhetorically secondary (13). In these contexts, in fact marks the host idea as surprising or counterexpectational (its epistemic value) and may be compared with counterexpectational use of indeed, in many ways its predecessor. (13) At half-past Seven this Theatre was crowded in every part, by upwards of four hundred Students, of the most respectable description; in fact we never before witnessed so genteel a Surgical class (1823, OED) By the turn of the twentieth century, in fact has undergone considerable increase in token frequency (Figure 1) and occurs in a wider range of contexts still, to include cases where it is not so much that the host idea is surprising as that the speaker/writer perceives it to be a stronger and slightly different claim from the preceding one (14). (14) he was very good; in fact, his one fault was that he was too good (1909, Hudson) In PDE this reformulating use, as illustrated in (15), is common. (15) that's enough now David ... in fact it's too much of it (1980s, BNC spoken) In fact in recent PDE has come to be used in additive contexts with relatively weak elaboration: in some cases it simply signals that the speaker/writer is about to say
  • 39. THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS 41 something more on the same general topic. It may be that in initial position it is moving towards becoming a presentational (as is the case for PDE so). At the same time, final position Elaborative in fact may be becoming more common, especially after clause fragments. Perhaps Elaborative in fact is starting to split into an initial, presentational in fact where it will put its host into focus, and a final-position additive in fact where it will background its host. 3.3. 'After all' 3.3.1. 'After all' in PDE The present-day English adverb after all, like in fact, has two distinct connective polysemies,4 partly correlated with position. The diachronically first, now found overwhelmingly in clause-final position, is a counterexpectation use illustrated in (16) and (17). The expectation or belief is made explicit in (16) (was thought to be ...), while in (17) the expectation (that a reduction in the bailout interest rate was worth pursuing) is coded only in after all. (16) Archaeopteryx, which was thought to be the oldest and most primitive bird on Earth, might not have been a bird after all, according to scientists in China (01/08/2011, The Guardian) (17) It seems a reduction in the bailout interest rate isn't worth pursuing after all (08/06/2011, The Guardian) The second, found in clause-initial, medial and final positions, introduces the justification or explanation for the previous idea, whether the idea is presented as speaker-external, as in (18), where the aides' attitude is explained, or as speaker's own, as in (19) where after all introduces a justification of the speaker's claim. (18) The prime minister's aides ... recoil at talk of a Cameron Doctrine. Cameron is, after all, a traditional Tory who does pragmatism, underpinned by his values. They don't do ideology in Peasemore. (22/09/2011, The Guardian) (19) the best we can hope for is half decent revivals of classic shows. Sad, but why not? We don't, after all, expect very much from new work in opera or operetta. (09/05/1998, Irish Times) 3.3.2. The development of 'after all': counterexpectation Over the centuries, from Old English, a gradual shift in after occurs, from predominantly spatial (meaning 'behind', etc., many remnants of which persist in PDE) towards predominantly temporal ('later than', etc.). This is typical of the well-known tendency for lexemes to undergo spatial > temporal shifts, attested across many languages (Heine & Kuteva 2002). After all develops from the temporal sense of after. After all 4 The PP after all N (temporal preposition - determiner - noun) remains of course the most frequent context of the sequence after all. But the non-connective temporal PP after all where all is the noun, has all but vanished, perhaps driven out by the combination of strong association of after all with the connective sense and the dwindling of all as a noun outside idiomatic expressions. Over the period 1640- 1920, the number of tokens of after all as a proportion of tokens of after rises steadily, from 3.2% to 9.4%.
  • 40. DIANA M. LEWIS 42 subsequently develops connectivity in certain contexts and as the connective sense takes root, non-connective use of after all fades away. The data examined here confirm that the Counterexpectation use predates the Justificative one. After all as a constituent (preposition + noun, forming a temporal adverbial phrase) is attested from at least the beginning of the sixteenth century. The earliest OED quotation is from 1526 (20). (20) After all she was thrast unto the herte with a swerde (1526, OED) But the seeds of PDE usage, both Counterexpectational and Justificative, are to be found as much in patterns that emerged in the prepositional usage, i.e. after all N, as in (21). (21) If any man after all this Evidence be yet unsatisfyed in this point, I will send him to France (1674, Turnor, Lampeter) From the early seventeenth century a pattern emerges of [After all X + unexpected outcome], based on a situation where the NP encodes evidence suggesting one event or situation, but what occurs is different. An expectation (explicit or presupposed) is unfulfilled. This pattern continues into PDE. Typical contexts are where the unrealized event is the target of effort or intention (22), or of belief, hope or fear (23) on the part of someone. (22) the Commissioners from Scotland (after all the wrestling they could) were forced to consent to the sending of those Propositions (1646, Campbell, Lampeter) (23) after all my fears what doubts and difficulties my Lord Privy Seale would make at my Tangier Privy Seale, he did pass it at first reading (1664, Pepys) Occurrences of after all as an adverbial phrase, i.e. where the NP is simply all, follow the same pattern. In (24) after all can be interpreted as 'after all the efforts just mentioned', and implicating 'despite all the efforts just mentioned', the goal might have been unrealized. In (25), it is the ships' going out of Europe (the expectation) that is unrealized, after all meaning roughly 'after all the talk in Holland' and implicating 'despite all the talk in Holland'. (24) I found it hard work to get up this Hill, and as hard to come by the Lions mouths; and truly if it had not been for the good Man, the Porter that stands at the Gate, I do not know, but that after all, I might have gone back again (1678, Bunyan) (25) it was said in Holland that 9 or 10 dutch men of War ... were gone out on some private designe as was beleived out of Europe, but after all it appears in reality these ships are gone to joyne Leiutenat Admirall de Ruyter in the mediterranean (1676, Newdigate) The collocation of an adversative such as yet, but, etc. with after all, as in (25) above, falls from around 40% in the 1640-1679 data to around 12% in the 1840-1879 data, reflecting perhaps the semanticization of the contrastive sense into the counterexpectational after all construction. All in after all refers initially to events recoverable from the context. But increasingly over the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries after all refers more vaguely or abstractly to the end of some period of time, and more abstractly still to the end of some thought
  • 41. THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES IN DISCOURSE CONSTRUCTIONS 43 process as in (25) above. In this period, after all is perhaps most comparable to PDE usage of in the end. We can hypothesize a gradual reanalysis in after all from [preposition + NP] to [adverb]. Some clues to this reanalysis can be found in changing word order. At the same time, a semantic split opens up: on one hand after all acquires counterexpectation implicatures as a result of its association with contexts such as those in (21-25); on the other hand, after all as an increasingly lexicalized (in the sense of univerbation) expression generalizes or bleaches to mean ‘in the end’, and is then suited to introducing a result, a conclusion, or a general truth. 3.3.3. The development of 'after all': justification The Justificative use of after all develops from contexts where the 'in the end' sense is salient and where speaker commitment to the idea introduced by after all is strong, the speaker emphasizing that this is (despite intentions, hopes or beliefs) what really happened or is the case. Early examples of after all embedded in a concluding idea are given in (26) and (27). But it is clear from the contexts that these examples represent counterexpectation.5 (26) Antipathy, therefore, can never be a right ground of action. No more, therefore, can resentment, which ... is but a modification of antipathy. The only right ground of action, that can possibly subsist, is, after all, the consideration of utility (1781, Bentham) (27) Tell Mrs. Boswell that I shall taste her marmalade cautiously at first. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. Beware, says the Italian proverb, of a reconciled enemy. But when I find it does me no harm, I shall then receive it and be thankful for it, as a pledge of firm, and, I hope, of unalterable kindness. She is, after all, a dear, dear lady. (1777, S. Johnson, conclusion of letter) The OED (OED Online 2012) does not recognize what is termed here the Justificative use, but defines after all as 'in spite of any indications or expectations to the contrary; when all is said and done, nevertheless'. Justificative after all does not appear from the data to have crystallized before the turn of the twentieth century. To the end of the nineteenth century, we find clause-initial but after all and plain after all in counterexpectation contexts where it would be impossible in PDE (28). (28) Well, I am writing you an amusing letter to-day, I think. After all, I wasn't made to live in England, or I should not cough there perpetually (1851, Barrett Browning) Throughout the nineteenth century many contexts of after all are compatible with both a counterexpectation and a conclusive ('in the end') reading. As often occurs when an expression becomes popular in a context type and increases its token frequency rather suddenly, after all starts to be inserted in all sorts of contexts, sometimes doing little more than lend some rhetorical force to the discourse, until eventually it settles down into a functional split. (29) shows an early instance of an unambiguous Justificative use. 5 It has been suggested that the discourse marker (Justificative) use of after all dates from the beginning of the eighteenth century Traugott (1997), but there is no evidence that after all itself, without a connective such as for, has conventional discourse connective sense.
  • 42. DIANA M. LEWIS 44 (29) I could think of no better plan than to climb down into the road ... to see where it would lead me. After all, I said, my time is my own. (1909, Hudson) Figure 3 shows the increase in token frequency, due to the expansion of the adverbial phrase. PP indicates occurrences where after all is followed by a noun, as in after all this or after all Endeavours;Adv indicates occurrences of after all as an adverbial phrase or adverb. Figure 3. Increase in token frequency of 'after all' C18th - C20th; PP = after all N; Adv = after all The data are too sparse to identify quite how Justificative after all emerɡed. It is possible that the sequence for after all became frequent enough that the causal sense of for started to pervade the whole sequence (the sequence is not frequent in the data). It is plausible that it resulted from epistemic implicatures: after all meaning 'in the end' came to present what happened as certain as well as final; and a split may have occurred between particular events in focus (counterexpectation) and more general or background situations (presupposed true, leading to justification). The semantic changes to after all within the two main discourse patterns can be summed up as follows: Discourse pattern I [After all (N) + unexpected outcome] after the events just mentioned > after unspecified events (cf. PDE 'in the end') > 'despite what some previous events suggest' (after no longer strictly temporal) > 'contrary to what was or might be expected' (no presupposed referent for all) (PDE Counterexpectation after all) 1720-1759 1760-1799 1800-1839 1840-1879 1880-1920s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Adv PP per million w ords