Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseely
emunix.emich.edu>
I would like to thank the following persons very much for their judgements, comments and various hints concerning my query: Marie Egan, Duncan MacGregor, Richard Ingham, James Kirchner, Kevin Lemoine, David Powers, Karen Ward, Yael Ziv and especially Karen Stanley, who took a poll about my claims among her colleagues (a big thank-you to them too). >From the mail I have received by now, the following picture emerges: Including the people interviewed by K. Stanley, 7 do not agree with my distinction and 5 do agree more or less. Some informants suggest other distinctions between the conjunctions: For one, 'since' and 'as' are more formal than 'because' (a view which is also presented in some dictionaries and grammars), for another, 'as' is more formal than 'because' but 'since' is "only suitable for informal conversation but nor for writing". The latter judgement seems to be in conformity with a prescriptivist view according to which 'since' as a causal conjunction is not to be used at all. (I want to note that I have identified 209 (=13%) causal since-clauses among 1576 causal as-, because-, for- and since-clauses in the machine readable British-English LOB-Corpus (written texts from 1961). Most of these since-clauses are to be found in the category called 'Learned and scientific writing'.) Another informant, for whom my example sentence (1) is essentially synonymous with either conjunction, has the impression that the speaker of (1) using 'because' "feels John's admission more noteworthy, or more important to the narrative, than he or she would if 'since' or 'as' were used." Into the same direction, I assume, goes another judgement according to which 'because' is "stronger and more explicit and more exceptional." (I have found a similar view in the literature and have interpreted it as a consequence of my differentiation: Entailment on the basis of a rule or norm is intrinsically less noteworthy, less exceptional than 'real' causation.) Some people have pointed out the relevance of the position of the causal clause. As a tendency, my rule/norm interpretation is considered to be more in accordance with the causal clause (be it 'since/as' or 'because') preceding its main/matrix clause. However, one informant feels "more comfortable with since clauses preceding, and because clauses following, the main clause." (This impression is somehow in conformity with the statistical situation in the above mentioned LOB-Corpus: Only about 9% of the because-clauses are preposed, whereas 41% of the since-clauses and 43% of the as-clauses are preposed there.) One informant pointed out constraints which may affect the acceptability of 'since' as a causal conjunction: "'since' seems to have a much more limited application. For me there is a tense/aspect/??? constraint between the clauses (consistent with the temporal meaning it also has??), otherwise it sounds forced or stilted. I don't really like your sentence (1) with 'since'. Reversing the clauses makes it more acceptable to me, as does changing 'was' to 'is' (strange!). Conversely, changing 'has been' to 'was' makes the 'since' version even less acceptable to me." (Probably, the last point in this quotation is caused by the fact that replacement of 'was' by 'has been' makes the sentence grammatically acceptable with a temporal interpretation of the since-clause.) Do I have to conclude from the 'empirical' outcome of my query that my differentiation is not tenable? For various reasons (which I hope to develop convincingly in a doctoral dissertation to be submitted soon), I do not think so. Are there, perhaps, some more people 'out there' who agree with my claims, but who refrain from simply stating 'I agree'? Of course, this would not make my query statistically more valid, but it would suggest that there is some plausibility to my non-empirical reasons. Carsten Breul e-mail: carsten.breulMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuerz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de