Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

18.6: Conclusion

  • Page ID
    138729
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    We have identified two basic uses of because in English: truth-conditional vs. use-conditional. These two uses can be distinguished using familiar tests for truth-conditional propositional content. First, truth-conditional because clauses can be part of what is negated or questioned when the sentence as a whole is negated or questioned, but this is not the case with use-conditional because. Second, truth-conditional because clauses can be embedded within if clauses, but use-conditional because clauses cannot. Third, the truth of a statement can be appropriately challenged based on the causal relationship expressed in a truthconditional because clause, but not on that expressed in a use-conditional because clause.

    We have also identified two different structural configurations in which because may occur: co-ordinate vs. subordinate. Diagnostics for distinguishing these two structures include the following: (i) Subordinate because clauses can be fronted, but co-ordinate because clauses cannot. (ii) Co-ordinate because clauses must be separated from the main clause by a pause (comma intonation), but this pause is not allowed before subordinate because clauses. (iii) Scope ambiguities involving negation, quantifiers, modals, or propositional attitude verbs are possible with subordinate because clauses, but not with co-ordinate because clauses.

    We proposed the following structural constraint on the interpretation of because: the truth-conditional use of because may occur in either a subordinate or a co-ordinate clause, but the use-conditional interpretation is possible only in the co-ordinate structure. This same constraint holds in German as well, but in German the two structures are introduced by different conjunctions: weil for subordinate reason clauses, and denn for co-ordinate reason clauses.

    Further reading

    Sæbø (1991) and (2011: §3.3) provide a good overview of the semantics of causal connectives like because, and a comparison with other types of adverbial connectives. D. Lewis (1973a) and (2000) lay out two different versions of his counterfactual analysis of causation. Scheffler (2013: ch. 4) provides a detailed discussion of the syntax and semantics of the two German conjunctions meaning ‘because’.

    Discussion exercises

    A: Explain the scopal ambiguity of the following sentences, and state the two readings in logical notation:

    1. Arthur didn’t marry Susan because she is rich.​​​​​​​

    2. Mrs. Thatcher will not win because she is a woman. (spoken in 1979)

    3. Tourists rarely visit Delhi because the food is so spicy.

    4. I doubt that Peter is happy because he was fired

    B: Show how you could use some of the tests discussed in this chapter to determine whether the because clauses in the following examples contribute truth-conditional or use-conditional meaning:

    1. Arthur works for the State Department, because he has a STATE.GOV e-mail address.

    2. Oil prices are rising, because OPEC has agreed to cut production.

    Homework exercises

    In §18.2 we proposed the following analysis for the scopal ambiguity of sentence (2b): Arthur didn’t marry Susan because she is rich.​​​​​​​

    i. ¬CAUSE(RICH(s), MARRY(a,s))

    ii. CAUSE(RICH(s), ¬MARRY(a,s))

    Provide a similar analysis showing the two possible readings for each of the following sentences. If you wish, you may write out the clauses in prose rather than using formal logic notation, e.g.: ¬CAUSE(Susan is rich, Arthur marry Susan).

    1. Steve Jobs didn’t start Apple because he loved technology.a

    2. Arnold must have sold his Jaguar because I saw him driving a minivan.

    3. Few Texans voted for Romney because he is a Mormon.

    4. Susan believes that A.G. Bell was rich because he invented the telephone.


    a https://www.fastcompany.com/3001441/...w-your-passion


    This page titled 18.6: Conclusion is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Paul Kroeger (Language Library Press) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.

    • Was this article helpful?