If you’re a young person who is regularly on the internet, you’ve probably seen the because-x construction. Because reasons, because sleep, because language – there are a multitude of examples. On the surface, the structure looks like it’s just a simplification of how we usually use because. “I’m studying because of the test” becomes “I’m studying because test” (Okada 719). But there’s actually more to this construction than meets the eye. However, in order to explain what makes because-x so interesting, we’ll have to learn a bit about Japanese – but we’ll come back to that in a bit.
Because vs Because-X
First, backing up, what makes because-x different from standard uses of because? In standard use because links two clauses that describe an effect and that effect’s cause respectively (724). “She went for a walk because the weather was nice,” involves two actions, one of which is causing the other: the nice weather causes her to go on a walk. Similarly, we can say “she went for a walk because of the nice weather”, although we need to use “because of” to link the two clauses, since our second clause is just a noun phrase (ie, it has no verbs). With because-x we can say “she went for a walk because weather” without using ‘of’, even though x (“weather”) is a noun phrase. Because-x can also introduce lone adjectives, adverbs, and verbs (719). Clearly something non-standard is occurring here.
Non-standard Historical Uses of Because
There are some historical cases where we see ‘because’ being used in seemingly nonstandard ways. Take an example from 1820: “This would at least be honest, though I think it would be unwise, because [it is] unnecessary” (727). The dropped ‘it’ from “because [it is] unnecessary” refers back to earlier referents in the sentence “this” and “it”. Because in these cases is able to take a lone adjective because the dropped subject of that adjective has been mentioned in a previous clause (727). This is a similar process to what happens in sentences like “I visited Uncle Leonard while in Paris”, where “while in Paris” is an abbreviated form of “while I was in Paris” which drops the duplicated subject “I” (727). Because can also take a noun or nominal phrase in a similar way, as in the 1596 example, “He is likewise called Sathan, because [he is] an adversary” (728).
But because-x is weirder than these historical examples. An example like “She went for a walk because weather” is not dropping the previously mentioned subject from the because-clause. If anything, ‘weather’ would be the subject here – “I went for a walk because [the] weather [was nice]”, or something to that effect. These historical examples also only involve dropping the verb ‘to be’ – “because [it is] unnecessary”, because [he is] an adversary” and so on. Because-x can involve other verbs, as in the example “we’re full because [we had] pie” or “she’s taking that class because [she needs the] credits”.
Additionally, in cases where x is a noun, it is most often a bare noun – one without determiners or adjectives (720). “I went for a walk because the weather” or “I went for a walk because nice weather” are therefore both unacceptable constructions. But historical examples like “because [he is] an adversary” do not hold to the bare noun rule. And finally, x is not limited to the adjectives or nouns seen in the historical examples – x can also be filled by interjections, verbs, and more.
Similar structures
Although because-x is the most common by far, there are some other structures that follow the form ‘connector-x’. ‘In case-x’ is one example, where x can be filled by any number of bare nouns, adjectives, or verbs (733). In standard usage, we could say “The council has power to
suspend and cancel enrolment in case there is violation or misconduct”, whereas if we use in case-x such a sentence would be realized as “The council has power to suspend and cancel enrolment in case violation or misconduct” (733). This seems to be fairly similar to how because-x is realized, although x is here being filled by a nominal phrase rather than a lone noun.
‘As a result-x’ is another example. However, ‘as a result’ is an interesting construction because its two standard forms (‘as a result of’, ‘and as a result’) actually have opposite meanings. In the example “Hurley…died as a result [of] a collision with a pickup truck”, the effect (Hurley’s death) precedes the cause (a collision) (738). On the other hand, in the example “Airports…mitigate the risks of bird strikes, [and] as a result serious incidents are…very rare”, the cause (Airports mitigating bird strikes) is preceding the effect (the rarity of serious incidents) (738). By dropping ‘of’ in ‘as a result of’ or ‘and’ in ‘and as a result’, the relationship between the two clauses can become more ambiguous. If because-x developed simply due to brevity, this may be why ‘as a result-x’ has not become as popular – the ambiguity it creates is not worth the brevity it allows for. Again, as with ‘in case-x’, ‘as a result-x’ allows for more robust phrases in the x-slot compared to because-x.
Both of these similar structures, as well as others, are used much less frequently than because-x. On top of that, in case-x appeared more frequently in the sampled data than as a result-x, despite ‘as a result’ being used more frequently in general. Therefore, because these new forms do not appear to be used proportionally to their base forms, Okada suggests that frequency of the base form is not what is driving the creation of these new forms (735). Although there are some unanswered questions about these similar x structures, let’s leave them be for now.
Public/Private Expressions in Japanese and English
Now we’re going to take a brief aside to look at one difference between Japanese and English. Trust me, we’ll loop back to because-x.
In English, an utterance is public by default. In Japanese, an utterance is private by default. Now, what does that mean? As English-speakers, when we construct an utterance we are describing a situation from an outsider perspective, as if we’re narrating it for anyone to hear (Kanetani 12). “I am sitting on the floor of my room” specifies who is speaking and what room they are sitting in. In Japanese, meanwhile, utterances are private by default, with speakers constructing an utterance around their own subjective perspective (12). Our example sentence would be something more like “Sitting on floor of room”, which would be ungrammatical in English. A public utterance seeks to communicate something to the listener, while a private utterance is an expression of thought (3). Something like “Sitting on floor of room” doesn’t really communicate anything to a listener – who is sitting? What room are they sitting in? But it does function as an expression of a subjective perspective – we know we can only express our own perspective, so there’s no need to specify ‘I’. The only room that is relevant is the one we’re currently perceiving, so there’s no need to specify what room it is.
Similarly, when English speakers say a sentence like “today is Saturday,” it is functionally equivalent to explicitly declaring “I say to you, today is Saturday” (12). Although we don’t see sentences like the second example very frequently, there is no change in meaning. We assume that this unmarked statement – “Today is Saturday” is a declaration by the speaker, without having to specify such a thing. Therefore, the unmarked statement is a public expression. In Japanese, however, the unmarked “today is Saturday” is not functionally equivalent to “I say to you, today is Saturday” (12). The utterance only gains a declarative function when we add markers, like verbs with varying levels of politeness, to establish the speaker’s relationship to the audience (12). The unmarked statement is therefore a private expression.
Public/Private Expressions and Because-X
Kanetani argues that in the because-x construction, x is functioning as a private expression within the larger public expression of the complete sentence (3, 8). In general, then, we are able to understand the meaning of the private expression within because-x by adopting the perspective of the writer as they move from a narration role to a subjective perspective within because-x (20).
Because-x has several traits in common with private expressions. For example, pronouns don’t occur in x (8). One of the few written examples we see of private utterances in English is diary entries, and the first person pronoun ‘I’ is often dropped in this context (16). As private utterances, there is no need to specify the speaker’s relationship to anyone, and hence pronouns are unneeded. This explains sentences like “I’m at home because sick”. “I’m at home” acts at the narrative public expression, and “because sick” as the private perspective of the writer. This same phenomenon can be expanded to other dropped pronouns in x, as in the example “Those moments when you choose to eat a salad not because you want salad … but because [you] want croutons” (16). The writer moves from a narration of a hypothetical situation they are experiencing to a private expression expressing their desire. Although the writer uses ‘you’ within the sentence, we recognize that this is a hypothetical ‘you’ that is in fact referring to the writer themself.
The explanation for dropped pronouns also explains why nouns in the x-slot are typically bare, without adjectives or articles and determiners like ‘that’ or ‘this’; these added words specify the noun’s relationship to the listener, and are thus unnecessary in a private expression. The only exception to this rule is if an adjective and noun combined create a specific lexical unit of meaning which becomes more than the sum of their parts (14). A red house is simply a house that is red, but ‘free speech’ is not simply speech that is free; it carries a specific meaning regarding a right to expression, and thus acts more like a single word than like an adjective and word combination. So ‘free speech’ could appear in the x-slot – “He argued with them because free speech” – while something like ‘red house’, ‘my essay’, or ‘that box’ cannot (14). We can apply a similar logic to explain why verbs in the x-slot are typically not conjugated for person or tense, as in the example “I reset an alarm for 9:30 because sleep” (15).
Another feature because-x has in common with private expressions is the categories of words that can appear within them. Interjections, for instance, may be used in the x-slot (“because ugh”). Interjections don’t communicate meaning; they express an emotion (13). To understand what an interjection means in general, or what an interjection means in the x of because-x, we need external context (13). “Ugh”, for example, tells us how a speaker is feeling but not why they are feeling that way. Similarly to dropped pronouns, we must adopt the perspective of the writer in order to figure out what is being represented by the given interjection. Agreement words can appear in the x-slot (“because yeah”) and function in a similar manner, where the actual meaning behind ‘yeah’, ‘no’, or other agreement words can only be recovered by adopting the perspective of the speaker to determine what they are agreeing or disagreeing with (15-16).
With all these similarities in mind, it seems we can say with some confidence that the x in because-x is functioning as a private expression.
Significance of Because-X
Kanetani suggests that this structure functions as a way to bridge the emotional gap between the online writer and reader by creating a sense of intimacy between the participants. Markers of intimacy in real life, like body language, physical closeness, gesture, and so on cannot be directly translated to the written word. In response, alternate forms and structures like because-x have arisen as a way to mitigate the gap in non-verbal communication. If we accept this argument, because-x is not simply a structure being used online, but a structure that arose specifically due to online pressures.
How does this structure create intimacy between participants in a conversation? As noted earlier, private expressions require the reader to take on the perspective of the writer in order to understand the meaning of an utterance. In that sense, intimacy is created by the reader stepping into the writer’s perspective. But because-x exists within a larger public expression, so readers know that the writer is seeking to communicate information to an audience; ie, we aren’t just stumbling upon someone’s private thoughts. By using a private expression within the public expression, the author is also assuming that a reader will be able to figure out what they mean (22). They’re sending a sort of ‘I know this is cryptic but I trust you to figure this out’ message (22). So the writer is also creating a sense of intimacy by establishing they trust that the reader can correctly interpret the writer’s message.
Kanetani’s explanation also provides an explanation for why some of the other x constructions Okada provides, like ‘in case x’ or ‘as a result x’ feel more incorrect than because-x. Most of the provided examples for these x constructions are informative statements dealing with third parties, not expressions of the author about their own experiences or feelings. On top of that, the x-slot is filled by entire phrases rather than the bare nouns or other lone words we see in the because-x examples. These other structures, then, are not introducing private expressions. Despite seeming to be somewhat similar, in that all of these structures introduce adjunct clauses and have a base form which uses ‘of’, they are not fulfilling the same function. When reading these examples, many of them feel like typos, and that may be all they are. It’s certainly possible that in case-x or as a result-x could be used similarly to because-x to create private expressions within larger public expressions, but for the time being that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Conclusion
Because-x is a novel syntactic structure largely found in online contexts of interpersonal communication. If Kanetani’s argument is correct, this structure arose due to the pressures of online communication and the need to create connections or intimacy between conversation participants without having access to the ways we do this in spoken conversation. Furthermore, this suggests that there may be other novel structures with similar functions, both in English and in languages besides English. If we can find these examples, we can further justify Kanetani’s reading of the function of because-x and why because-x exists.
References
Kanetani, Masaru. “A grammatico-pragmatic analysis of the because X construction: Private expression within public expression.” F1000Research, vol. 10, 28 Feb. 2022, doi:10.12688/f1000research.72971.2.
Okada, Sadayuki. “Category-Free Complement Selection in Causal Adjunct Phrases.” English Language and Linguistics, vol. 25, no. 4, 2021, pp. 719–741. doi:10.1017/S1360674320000295.
