Construction of items

The structure and content of analytic causative constructions and intersentential causal relations used in the experiment should correspond at crucial aspects. No variation must occur at essential points with respect to the cause-part, the effect-part and the relation between the two elements in the paraphrasing relation as compared to the original relation.⁵ Because of the constructional differences between the two

5 Note that in the case of analytical causatives rigidly seperating ‘cause’ from ‘effect’ is violating the conceptual model related to the construction (Kemmer & Verhagen 1994; cf.

discussion in Chapter 3). But for the present analytical purposes, it is helpful to do so: in

construction types, it is not self-evident that a connective always marks exactly the same elements in the causal chain as a causal verb would do in an otherwise similar causal relation. However, in order to make the present experimental design work, it is of vital importance that it does. So, of all items tested in the experiment, the causal relation in the intersentential paraphrase should parallel the one reported in the analytical causative construction exactly with respect to the structure of the causal relation, at points that are vital for categorization. This means specifically that in constructing intersentential paraphrases, elements that are essential in determining the choice for a causality marker must be left unchanged.

In chapter 3 and chapter 4 these elements were identified. Relative findings of these chapters will be summarized below with reference to example (3)⁶

(3) [Context: On Saturday night, the open air festival of Blokzijl was about to start]

[Enkele spetters regen]CR deden [de organisatoren]CE het ergste vrezen.

[A few splashes rain] did [the organisers] the worst fear.

”A few drops of rain made the organisers fear for the worst.”

Paraphrase

Er vielen enkele spetters regen.

There fell some splashes rain.

”Some drops of rain fell”

a. Daardoor vreesden [de organisatoren]LOE het ergste.

Because of that feared [the organisers] the worst.

“Because of that the organisers feared for the worst.”

b. Daarom vreesden [de organisatoren]LOE het ergste.

That’s why feared [the organisers] the worst.

“That’s why the organisers feared for the worst.”

It is assumed that the elements determining categorization analytic causative constructions are: the causer (the participant that is viewed as the ‘initiator’ of causal process – referred to in (3) with subscript ‘CR’) and the causee (the participant that carries out the causal effect; referred to with subscript ‘CE’)⁷. It is the nature of the interaction between these participants that determines the marking of the causal relation. If the causer is construed as bringing about the causal effect (expressed with the infinitive) directly, the relation is categorized as an instance of ‘direct

order to grasp differences between entities, describing one thing making use of the conceptual model of the other may clarify things.

6 This is an adaptation of item G2, tested in the experiment reported in Section 4.5. It was simplified for the sake of the discussion.

7 It is not entirely clear yet whether this statement holds for all possible types of analytic causative constructions. Kemmer & Verhagen (1994) suggest that the construal of the causee’s role in the process may vary with grammatical type of the effected predicate of the construction, especially if the causee is not left unexpressed. As this experiment will make use of constructions with explicit causee only, we may assume that for all of the items tested, the statement holds (cf. discussion in Section 3.3.1 and 3.4.3).

causation’ with doen. If, on the other hand, the causee is construed as the most direct source in bringing about the causal effect, the relation is marked with laten as an instance of indirect causation. The causal process in (3) is construed as being directly caused by the causer; the infinitive fear can not be controlled by its experiencer, the causee. Thus, the causal relation is categorized with doen as ‘direct causation’ (for a more elaborate discussion: cf. Section 3.2).

Turning to daarom and daardoor, it was found that categorization is determined by an equivalent of the causee, the locus of effect. The LOE was defined in Chapter 4 as “the participant that is most directly influenced by the event or situation conceptualized as the cause”; in general, it is the grammatical subject of sentence that denotes the causal effect. The nature of its contribution is decisive for categorization. If the LOE carries out some intentional act, daarom is chosen to mark the causal relation as ‘objective intentional causation’. If the LOE is an inanimate entity, or an animate being not acting intentionally, daardoor is chosen to mark the causal relation as ‘objective non-intentional causation’ (cf. discussion in Section 4.6).

From this discussion, a first prescription for constructing paraphrases can be deduced: when constructing an intersentential paraphrase out of an analytical causative construction, it is important that the role of the Locuses of Effect (i.e.:

their identity and the process they ‘carry out’) remain constant. Generally this is not a problem, since the only conversion needed is to replace the infinitival form in the analytic causative construction by the corresponding finite form in the effect clause of the intersentential causal relation (cf. (3) in which infinitival vrezen (‘fear’) from the causal sentence is replaced by the finite form vreesden (‘feared’)).

But what about paraphrasing the cause-part? In analytical causal

constructions, the ‘causing event’ is generally relatively unspecified (cf. discussion in Section 3.2). A vast majority of cases only conveys information about the entity that is viewed as the ‘onset’ of the causing event: the causer. In intersentential causal relations, on the other hand, the cause-part is by definition elaborated in (at least) one complete clause. So, it is mainly with respect to the expression of the cause-part that construction types under investigation in the present study diverge. Since in both construction types categorization can be determined by the role of the effect-part⁸, the incongruity of the expression of the cause is not insuperable.

However, this aspect needs careful attention. At this point, a second principle for constructing intersentential paraphrases from analytic causative constructions can be deduced: in extending the (nominal) causer to a complete clause, adding new (extra) elements to the causal chain should be avoided. More specifically, no new elements must be introduced in the process of interaction between the causer and the causee (cause-clause and LOE in intersentential

relations), as it is this interaction that determines categorization in analytic causative constructions. Transitive predicates, for example are to be avoided, as these can be understood as lexical causatives themselves, and will therefore add extra elements to the causal chain (cf. Kemmer & Verhagen 1994: 118). But clauses that predicate

8 As a matter of fact, categorization in analytic causative constructions can be analyzed from the causer-perspective as well as from the causee-perspective.

properties to entities, on the other hand, or clauses that denote static situations are very appropriate.

This prescription also has implications for the process of selecting analytic causative constructions that may form the basis for experimental items. The mentioning of the causer may be accompanied by different kinds of specifying information in modifier (adjectival and adverbial) phrases. It is this kind of analytical causative construction that is especially appropriate for the purposes of the present experiment, for they are relatively easily ‘paraphrased’ in an intersentential structure without adding any extra content. Extending modifier phrases to complete clauses is very well possible without changing the structure of the causal relation at crucial points.

This point, too, can be illustrated with reference to (3). In the analytic causative construction, the causal relation is constructed between the causer drops of rain and the causee the organizers who feared for the worst. The cause-part consists of only an NP: the noun drops, complemented with the modifyers some and of rain.

In the intersentential paraphrase, the causer is extended into a complete clause by adding the verb fell and Dutch presentative ‘er’. An important difference lies of course in the switching of an noun phrase (part of proposition) to a situation (complete proposition), but the change in conceptualization that is brought about is limited to ‘zooming out’ on the causal process: the content remains constant, it is only the relative attention different elements receive that has changed.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be rather difficult to find enough natural examples that met all of the criteria mentioned in this section, and that provided

‘neat’ and complete causal relations in one analytical construction. Therefore, a part of the constructions that are included in the experiment have been supplemented with elements that were present in their immediate linguistic or conceptual context.

Examples of strategies used in constructing material are: extending a subject noun phrase with nominalization into a simple clause (4)⁹; extending subject NP + instrument role associated with it into simple clause (5)¹⁰; extending subject NP + cause prepositional phrase associated with it into a simple clause 0¹¹.

(4) [Context: During a press conference the Minister for Education presented the proposed cut-backs.]

De kritisch doorvragende journalisten deden hem vrezen voor de The critically through asking journalists did him fear for the weergave van zijn plannen in de media.

representation of his plans in the media.

”The persistently critical journalists made him worry about the representation of his plans in the media.”

Paraphrase

De journalisten bleven kritisch doorvragen;

The journalists stayed critically through asking;

”The journalists continued to pose critical questions.”

9 Included in the experiment reported in Section 4.5 as item D2

10 Included in the experiment reported in Section 4.5 as item G8

11 Included in the experiment reported in Section 4.5 as item G16

a. daardoor vreesde hij voor de weergave van zijn plannen in de media.

because of that feared he for the representation of his plans in the media

“because of that, he worried about the representation of his plans in the media.”

b. daarom vreesde hij voor de weergave van zijn plannen in de media.

that’s why feared he for the representation of his plans in the media.

“that’s why he worried about the representation of his plans in the media.”

(5) [Context: Karen enjoys attracting all the attention at parties]

Met haar zeer gewaagde jurk deed ze de gesprekken With her very bold dress did she the conversations stokken toen ze zaterdagavond binnenkwam.

halt when she Saturday night entered.

”With her very provocative dress she stopped conversations when she came in on Saturday night.”

Paraphrase

Ze droeg een zeer gewaagde jurk en She wore a very bold dress and

”She wore a provocative dress and”

a.daarom stokten de gesprekken toen ze zaterdagavond binnenkwam.

that’s why halted the conversations when she Saturday night entered.

“that’s why the conversations halted when she came in Saturday night.”

b.daardoor stokten de gesprekken toen ze zaterdagavond binnenkwam.

because of that halted the conversations when she Saturday night entered

“because of that, the conversations came to a halt when she came in Saturday night.”

(6) [Context: It took a while before we were able to speak to Martijn again.]

Vanwege de enorme drukte met zijn verhuizing liet hij Because of the enormous busyness with his moving let he for wekenlang niets van zich horen.

Weeks nothing of himself hear.

“Due to his being busy with moving house, no one heard from him for weeks.”

Paraphrase

Hij had het enorm druk met zijn verhuizing, en He had it enormously busy with his moving, and

”He was very busy moving house and”

a. daarom hoorden we wekenlang niets van hem.

that’s why heard we for weeks nothing of him.

“that’s why we didn’t hear from him for weeks.”

b. daardoor hoorden we wekenlang niets van hem.

because of that heard we for weeks nothing of him.

“Because of that we didn’t hear from him for weeks.”