The situation in German is very similar, but the distinction between co-ordinate and subordinate structures is much easier to recognize in German than in English.7 German has two different words which are translated as ‘because’. Both of these words can be used to describe real-world causality, as illustrated in (27– 28). In each case, the a and b sentences have the same English translation.
(27) a. Ich habe den Bus verpasst, weil ich spät dran war.
1sg aux the.acc bus missed because 1sg late there was
‘I missed the bus because I got there late.’
b. Ich habe den Bus verpasst, denn ich war spät dran. (same meaning)8
(28) a. Die Straße ist ganz naß, weil es geregnet hat.
the.nom street is all wet because it rained aux
b. Die Straße ist ganz naß, denn es hat geregnet. (same meaning)9
However, in other contexts the two words are not interchangeable. Only denn can be used to translate use-conditional functions of because. This includes both Sweetser’s “epistemic” use, as in (29), and her “speech act” use, as in (30). Weil cannot be used in such sentences.
(29) a. Es hat geregnet, denn die Straße ist ganz naß.
it has rained because the.nom street is all wet
‘It was raining, because the street is wet.’
b. *Es hat geregnet, weil die Straße ganz naß ist.
(30) a. Ist vom Mittag noch etwas übrig? Denn ich habe schon wieder Hunger.
is from midday still anything left.over because 1sg have already again hunger
‘Is there anything left over from lunch? Because I’m already hungry again.’
b. ⁇ Ist vom Mittag noch etwas übrig? Weil ich schon wieder Hunger habe.
There are structural differences between the two conjunctions as well: weil is a subordinating conjunction, whereas denn is a co-ordinating conjunction. The difference between subordination and co-ordination in German is clearly visible due to differences in word order. In German main clauses, the auxiliary verb (or tensed main verb if there is no auxiliary) occupies the second position in the clause, as illustrated in (31a). In subordinate clauses, however, the auxiliary or tensed main verb occupies the final position in the clause, as illustrated in (31b).10
(31) a. Ich habe zwei Hunde gekauft.
1sg.nom have two dogs bought.ptcp
‘I have bought two dogs.’
b. Sie sagt, daß er dieses Buch gelesen hätte.
3sg.f.nom says that 3sg.m.nom this.acc book read have.sbjv
‘She says that he has read this book.’
Looking back at examples (27–28), we can see that the tensed verbs war ‘was’ and hat ‘has’ occur in second position following denn but in final position following weil. This contrast provides a clear indication that weil clauses are subordinate while denn clauses are co-ordinate. Further evidence that weil clauses are subordinate while denn clauses are co-ordinate comes from their syntactic behavior. First, weil clauses can be fronted but denn clauses cannot, as shown in (32). Second, weil clauses can stand alone as the answer to a why-question like that in (33), whereas denn clauses cannot. This is one of the classic tests for syntactic constituency. The contrast in (33) suggests that weil combines with the clause that it introduces to form a complete syntactic constituent, whereas denn does not. This is what we would expect if weil is a subordinating conjunction and denn is a co-ordinating conjunction.11
(32) a. Weil es geregnet hat, ist die Straße naß.
‘Because it rained, the street is wet.’
b. *Denn es hat geregnet, ist die Straße naß.
(33) a. Warum ist die Katze gesprungen?
why aux the.nom cat jumped
— Weil sie eine Maus sah.
— because she a mouse saw
‘Why did the cat jump? — Because it saw a mouse.’
b. —*Denn sie sah eine Maus.
In our earlier discussion we demonstrated that subordinate because clauses in English can be negated, questioned, or embedded within conditional clauses; whereas none of these things is possible with co-ordinate because clauses. Interestingly, a very similar pattern emerges in German. As illustrated in (34), weil clauses can be interpreted within the scope of main clause negation, whereas denn clauses cannot.
(34) a. Paul ist nicht zu spät gekommen, weil er den Bus verpaßt hat [Sondern er hatte noch zu tun.]
Paul aux neg too late come because he the.acc bus missed aux rather he had still to do
‘Paul wasn’t late because he missed the bus. [But rather, because he still had work to do.]’
b. #Paul ist nicht zu spät gekommen, denn er hat den Bus verpaßt. [Sondern er hatte noch zu tun.]
Similarly, weil clauses in questions can be interpreted as part of what is being questioned, that is, within the scope of the interrogative force (35a). Denn clauses cannot be interpreted in this way, as shown in (35b).
(35) a. Wer kam zu spät, weil er den Bus verpaßt hat?
who came too late because he the bus missed has
‘Who was late because he missed the bus?’
b. ⁇ Wer kam zu spät, denn er hat den Bus verpaßt?
Denn clauses cannot be embedded within a subordinate clause, whereas this is possible with weil clauses. Example (36) illustrates this contrast in a complement clause, and (37) in a conditional clause.
(36) a. Ich glaube nicht, daß Peter nach Hause geht, weil er Kopfschmerzen hat.
1sg believe neg comp Peter to home goes because he headache has
‘I don’t believe that Peter is going home because he has a headache.’
b. #Ich glaube nicht, daß Peter nach Hause geht, denn er hat Kopfschmerzen.
(37) a. Wenn Peter zu spät kam, weil er den Bus verpaßt hat, war es seine eigene Schuld.
‘If Peter was late because he missed the bus, it was his own fault.’
b. #Wenn Peter zu spät kam, denn er hat den Bus verpaßt, war es seine eigene Schuld.
Scheffler (2008) points out that denn clauses are normally unacceptable if the content of the because-clause is evident or has been previously mentioned. This explains why only weil is possible in the mini-conversation in (38). This interesting observation suggests that denn clauses, because of their coordinate structure, count as independent assertions. As we noted in Chapter 3, in our discussion of entailments, asserting a fact which is already part of the common ground typically creates an unnatural redundancy.
(38) a. Es hat heute sehr geregnet.
it has today very rained
Ja, die ganze Straße steht unter Wasser, weil es geregnet hat.
yes the whole street stands under water because it rained has
‘It rained a lot today.’
‘Yes, the whole street is submerged under water because it rained.’
b. Es hat heute sehr geregnet.
#Ja, die ganze Straße steht unter Wasser, denn es hat geregnet.
A number of other languages also have two words for ‘because’, including Modern Greek, Dutch, and French.12
7 The material in this section is based almost entirely on the work of Tatjana Scheffler (2005; 2008), and all examples that are not otherwise attributed come from these works.
8 answers.yahoo.com
9 Scheffler (2008: §3.1)
10 This is true for subordinate clauses which are introduced by a conjunction or complementizer. Where there is no conjunction or complementizer at the beginning of the subordinate clause, the auxiliary or tensed main verb occupies the second position.
11 Notice that the tensed verb sah ‘saw’ occupies the final position in (33a)
12 Pit (2003); Kitis (2006).
