Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:04:51.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Usage and processing of the French causal connectives ‘car’ and ‘parce que’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

SANDRINE ZUFFEREY ,
WILLEM MAK ,
SARA VERBRUGGE  and
TED SANDERS
SANDRINE ZUFFEREY*
Affiliation:
Université de Berne
WILLEM MAK
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht
SARA VERBRUGGE
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
TED SANDERS
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht
*
Address for correspondence: e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The difference between ‘car’ and ‘parce que’ is often explained in the literature by the type of causal relation (objective or subjective) that each connective prototypically conveys. Recent corpus studies have demonstrated, however, that this distinction does not hold in speech, and is fluctuating in writing. In this article, we present new empirical data to assess the status of this pair of connectives. In Experiment 1, we test French-speakers’ intuitions about ‘car’ and ‘parce que’ in a completion task, and compare these results with those of a similar experiment in Dutch. In Experiment 2, we measure the processing of objective and subjective causal relations containing ‘car’ and ‘parce que’ in an online reading experiment. Experiments 1 and 2 lead us to conclude that ‘car’ has to a large extent lost its specific procedural meaning. In the literature, the difference between ‘car’ and ‘parce que’ is also linked to a difference of register, ‘car’ being perceived as a formal equivalent of ‘parce que’. We assess the strength of this distinction in Experiment 3, by means of a completion task involving sentences from different registers. Results confirm the effect of register as a distinguishing factor between ‘car’ and ‘parce que’.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 85 - 112
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analysing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bentolila, F. (1986). Car en français écrit. La Linguistique, 22: 95–115.Google Scholar
Bertin, A. (1997). L'expression de la cause en ancien français. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Bescherelle, aîné, Becherelle, jeune, and Litais de, Gaux (1835). Grammaire nationale ou Grammaire de Voltaire, Racine [. . .], renfermant plus de 100 000 exemples. Paris: Bourgeois Maze.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. and Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Processing psych verbs: Behavioural and MEG measures of two different types of semantic complexity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25: 777–807.Google Scholar
Canestrelli, A., Mak, W. and Sanders, T. (2013). Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye-movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28/9: 1394–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. (2002). Le fonctionnement de parce que en français parlé: étude quantitative sur corpus. In: Pusch, C. D. and Raible, W. (eds.), Romanistische Korpuslinguistik - Korpora und gesprochene Sprache, Romance Corpus Linguistics, Corpora and Spoken Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 349–376.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. (2004). Les conjonctions de subordination: mots grammaticaux ou mots de discours? Le cas de parce que. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 15–16: 51–67.Google Scholar
Degand, L. and Fagard, B. (2012). Competing connectives in the causal domain. French car and parce que. Journal of Pragmatics, 44/2: 154–168.Google Scholar
Degand, L. and Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In: Verhagen, A. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Usage Based Approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT, pp. 349–376.Google Scholar
Fagard, B. and Degand, L. (2008). La fortune des mots: Grandeur et décadence de car. Proceedings of the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CD-ROM). Paris.Google Scholar
Ferrari, A. (1992). Encore à propos de ‘parce que’ à la lumière des structures linguistiques de la séquence causale. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 13: 183–214.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. (1997). Coherence cues mapping during comprehension. In: Costermans, J. and Fayol, M. (eds.), Processing Interclausal Relationships. Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1999). Multilevel Statistical Models. 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Groupe, Lambda-L. (1975). Car, parce que, puisque. Revue Romane, 10: 248–280.Google Scholar
Iordanskaja, L. (1993). Pour une description lexicographique des conjonctions du français contemporain. Le Français Moderne, 2: 159–190.Google Scholar
Koehn, P. (2005). Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. Phuket: Thailand, pp. 79–86.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K., Bordeaux, J. and Reichle, R. (2006). Cognitive constraints on assertion scope: The case of spoken French parce que. In Nishida, C. and Montreuil, J. (eds.), New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Volume I: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 143–154.Google Scholar
Lopes, A. (2009). Justification: a coherence relation. Pragmatic, 19/2: 241–252.Google Scholar
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. and Magnuson, J. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59/4: 475–494.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (1987). Trois emplois de parce que en conversation. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 8: 97–110.Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2005). Connecteurs pragmatiques, inférences directionnelles et représentations mentales. Cahiers Chronos, 12: 35–50.Google Scholar
Nazarenko, A. (2000). La cause et son expression en français. Paris. Ophrys.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, H. and Sanders, T. (2001). Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, 12/3: 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasch, R. (1983). Die Kausalkonjunktionen ‘da’, ‘denn’, und ‘weil’: drei Konjunktionen – drei lexikalische Kalssen. Deutsch als Fremsprache, 20: 332–337.Google Scholar
Pit, M. (2003). How to Express Yourself with a Causal Connective? Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Pit, M. (2007). Cross-linguistic analyses of backward causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Languages in Contrast, 7: 53–82.Google Scholar
Quené, H. and Van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43/1-2: 103– 121.Google Scholar
Quené, H. and Van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59: 413–425.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. and Spooren, W. (2009). Causal categories in discourse - Converging evidence from language use. In: Sanders, T. and Sweetser, E. (eds), Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 205–246.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. and Stukker, N. (2012). Causal connectives in discourse: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 44/2: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, A.-C. and Degand, L. (2007). Connecteurs de causalité, implication du locuteur et profils prosodiques: le cas de car et de parce que. Journal of French Language Studies, 17/3: 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M., Bybee, M. and Pickering, M. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50/3: 481–497.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Sanford, A. J., Aked, J. P. and Moxey, L. M. (1997). Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 23/1: 88–101.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xing, F. 2001. “汉汉汉句研究”. ‘A Study of Chinese Complex Sentences’. Beijing: Commercial Publishing House.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2012). ‘Car, parce que, puisque’ revisited: Three empirical studies on French causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 44.2: 138–153.Google Scholar
Zufferey, S. and Cartoni, B. (2012). ‘English and French causal connectives in contrast’. Languages in Contrast, 12/2: 232–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, S. (2014). ‘Givenness, procedural meaning and connectives: The case of French puisque ’. Journal of Pragmatics, 62/1: 121–135.Google Scholar