2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

“Car, parce que, puisque” revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
63
0
6

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
63
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies on French, German, and Dutch causal connectives have already shown that the distribution of connectives over causal categories seems to vary in relation to the context (Degand & Pander Maat 2003;Frohning 2007;Pit 2003;Zufferey 2012). Subjective causal connectives such as French car, German denn, and Dutch want, which are all roughly translated as 'because' , display consistent usage patterns across text types such as newspapers, novels, and periodicals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies on French, German, and Dutch causal connectives have already shown that the distribution of connectives over causal categories seems to vary in relation to the context (Degand & Pander Maat 2003;Frohning 2007;Pit 2003;Zufferey 2012). Subjective causal connectives such as French car, German denn, and Dutch want, which are all roughly translated as 'because' , display consistent usage patterns across text types such as newspapers, novels, and periodicals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of the diachronic processes involved, the narrow view of grammaticalization would probably call for a pragmaticalization phase following up on the grammaticalization of the French connective, and would leave this pragmaticalization phase out for the Dutch connective. In present day language use, however, both French car and Dutch want are being described as highly subjective connectives (see Degand 2001;Degand and Pander Maat 2003;Pit 2006;Spooren et al 2010;Degand and Fagard 2012;Zufferey 2012), fulfilling very similar semantic and pragmatic functions. Descriptively, it does not seem adequate to call for different diachronic processes, when the outcome is highly similar.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this move is not enough, simply because what NEG can do is refute the addition of POS to the common ground. So, the best way to do this is by either presenting it as new information, introduced by parce que 'because', or old information with puisque 'since', which contradicts what is believed to belong to the common ground (Zufferey 2012). This could not be accomplished by a corrective clause nor by a contrastive connective, such as on the contrary or but, because COR in MN2 introduces the negation of POS presupposition (89), while mais can either introduce the negation of POS implicature in MN1, or indirectly negate POS via its entailment (NEG) in DN (90) …”
Section: Criteria For Mn2mentioning
confidence: 99%