{"id":41,"date":"2022-11-29T19:13:04","date_gmt":"2022-11-30T00:13:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/?p=41"},"modified":"2022-11-29T19:13:04","modified_gmt":"2022-11-30T00:13:04","slug":"supplemental-because-x","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/supplemental-because-x\/","title":{"rendered":"Supplemental: Because-X"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019re a young person who is regularly on the internet, you\u2019ve 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\u2019s just a simplification of how we usually use because. \u201cI\u2019m studying because of the test\u201d becomes \u201cI\u2019m studying because test\u201d (Okada 719). But there\u2019s actually more to this construction than meets the eye. However, in order to explain what makes because-x so interesting, we\u2019ll have to learn a bit about Japanese – but we\u2019ll come back to that in a bit.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Because vs Because-X<\/b><\/p>\n

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\u2019s cause respectively (724). \u201cShe went for a walk because the weather was nice,\u201d involves two actions, one of which is causing the other: the nice weather causes her to go on a walk. Similarly, we can say \u201cshe went for a walk because of the nice weather\u201d, although we need to use \u201cbecause of\u201d 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 \u201cshe went for a walk because weather\u201d without using \u2018of\u2019, even though x (\u201cweather\u201d) is a noun phrase. Because-x can also introduce lone adjectives, adverbs, and verbs (719). Clearly something non-standard is occurring here.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Non-standard Historical Uses of Because<\/b><\/p>\n

There are some historical cases where we see \u2018because\u2019 being used in seemingly nonstandard ways. Take an example from 1820: \u201cThis would at least be honest, though I think it would be unwise, because [it is] unnecessary\u201d (727). The dropped \u2018it\u2019 from \u201cbecause [it is] unnecessary\u201d refers back to earlier referents in the sentence \u201cthis\u201d and \u201cit\u201d. 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).\u00a0 This is a similar process to what happens in sentences like \u201cI visited Uncle Leonard while in Paris\u201d, where \u201cwhile in Paris\u201d is an abbreviated form of\u00a0 \u201cwhile I was in Paris\u201d which drops the duplicated subject \u201cI\u201d (727). Because can also take a noun or nominal phrase in a similar way, as in the 1596 example, \u201cHe is likewise called Sathan, because [he is] an adversary\u201d (728).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But because-x is weirder than these historical examples. An example like \u201cShe went for a walk because weather\u201d is not dropping the previously mentioned subject from the because-clause. If anything, \u2018weather\u2019 would be the subject here\u00a0 – \u201cI went for a walk because [the] weather [was nice]\u201d, or something to that effect. These historical examples also only involve dropping the verb \u2018to be\u2019 – \u201cbecause [it is] unnecessary\u201d, because [he is] an adversary\u201d and so on. Because-x can involve other verbs, as in the example \u201cwe\u2019re full because [we had] pie\u201d or \u201cshe\u2019s taking that class because [she needs the] credits\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, in cases where x is a noun, it is most often a bare noun – one without determiners or adjectives (720). \u201cI went for a walk because the weather\u201d or \u201cI went for a walk because nice weather\u201d are therefore both unacceptable constructions. But historical examples like \u201cbecause [he is] an adversary\u201d 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Similar structures<\/b><\/p>\n

Although because-x is the most common by far, there are some other structures that follow the form \u2018connector-x\u2019. \u2018In case-x\u2019 is one example, where x can be filled by any number of bare nouns, adjectives, or verbs (733). In standard usage, we could say \u201cThe council has power to<\/span>
\n<\/span>suspend and cancel enrolment in case there is violation or misconduct\u201d, whereas if we use in case-x such a sentence would be realized as \u201cThe council has power to suspend and cancel enrolment in case violation or misconduct\u201d (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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018As a result-x\u2019 is another example. However, \u2018as a result\u2019 is an interesting construction because its two standard forms (\u2018as a result of\u2019, \u2018and as a result\u2019) actually have opposite meanings. In the example \u201cHurley\u2026died as a result [of] a collision with a pickup truck\u201d, the effect (Hurley\u2019s death) precedes the cause (a collision) (738). On the other hand, in the example \u201cAirports\u2026mitigate the risks of bird strikes, [and] as a result serious incidents are\u2026very rare\u201d, the cause (Airports mitigating bird strikes) is preceding the effect (the rarity of serious incidents) (738). By dropping \u2018of\u2019 in \u2018as a result of\u2019 or \u2018and\u2019 in \u2018and as a result\u2019, the relationship between the two clauses can become more ambiguous. If because-x developed simply due to brevity, this may be why \u2018as a result-x\u2019 has not become as popular – the ambiguity it creates is not worth the brevity it allows for. Again, as with \u2018in case-x\u2019, \u2018as a result-x\u2019 allows for more robust phrases in the x-slot compared to because-x.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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 \u2018as a result\u2019 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\u2019s leave them be for now.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Public\/Private Expressions in Japanese and English<\/b><\/p>\n

Now we\u2019re going to take a brief aside to look at one difference between Japanese and English. Trust me, we\u2019ll loop back to because-x.<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019re narrating it for anyone to hear (Kanetani 12). \u201cI am sitting on the floor of my room\u201d 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 \u201cSitting on floor of room\u201d, 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 \u201cSitting on floor of room\u201d doesn\u2019t 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\u2019s no need to specify \u2018I\u2019. The only room that is relevant is the one we\u2019re currently perceiving, so there\u2019s no need to specify what room it is.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, when English speakers say a sentence like \u201ctoday is Saturday,\u201d it is functionally equivalent to explicitly declaring \u201cI say to you, today is Saturday\u201d (12). Although we don\u2019t see sentences like the second example very frequently, there is no change in meaning. We assume that this unmarked statement – \u201cToday is Saturday\u201d 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 \u201ctoday is Saturday\u201d is not functionally equivalent to \u201cI say to you, today is Saturday\u201d (12). The utterance only gains a declarative function when we add markers, like verbs with varying levels of politeness, to establish the speaker\u2019s relationship to the audience (12). The unmarked statement is therefore a private expression.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Public\/Private Expressions and Because-X<\/b><\/p>\n

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).<\/span><\/p>\n

Because-x has several traits in common with private expressions. For example, pronouns don\u2019t 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 \u2018I\u2019 is often dropped in this context (16). As private utterances, there is no need to specify the speaker\u2019s relationship to anyone, and hence pronouns are unneeded. This explains sentences like \u201cI\u2019m at home because sick\u201d. \u201cI\u2019m at home\u201d acts at the narrative public expression, and \u201cbecause sick\u201d as the private perspective of the writer. This same phenomenon can be expanded to other dropped pronouns in x, as in the example \u201cThose moments when you choose to eat a salad not because you want salad … but because [you] want croutons\u201d (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 \u2018you\u2019 within the sentence, we recognize that this is a hypothetical \u2018you\u2019 that is in fact referring to the writer themself.<\/span><\/p>\n

The explanation for dropped pronouns also explains why nouns in the x-slot are typically bare, without adjectives or articles and determiners like \u2018that\u2019 or \u2018this\u2019; these added words specify the noun\u2019s 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 \u2018free speech\u2019 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 \u2018free speech\u2019 could appear in the x-slot –\u00a0 \u201cHe argued with them because free speech\u201d – while something like \u2018red house\u2019, \u2018my essay\u2019, or \u2018that box\u2019 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 \u201cI reset an alarm for 9:30 because sleep\u201d (15).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Another feature because-x has in common with private expressions is the categories of words that <\/span>can<\/span><\/i> appear within them. Interjections, for instance, may be used in the x-slot (\u201cbecause ugh\u201d). Interjections don\u2019t 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). \u201cUgh\u201d, 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 (\u201cbecause yeah\u201d) and function in a similar manner, where the actual meaning behind \u2018yeah\u2019, \u2018no\u2019, 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).<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Significance of Because-X<\/b><\/p>\n

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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019t just stumbling upon someone\u2019s 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\u2019re sending a sort of \u2018I know this is cryptic but I trust you to figure this out\u2019 message (22). So the writer is also creating a sense of intimacy by establishing they trust that the reader can correctly interpret the writer\u2019s message.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Kanetani\u2019s explanation also provides an explanation for why some of the other x constructions Okada provides, like \u2018in case x\u2019 or \u2018as a result x\u2019 feel more incorrect than because-x. Most of the provided\u00a0 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 \u2018of\u2019, 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\u2019s 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\u2019t seem to be the case.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n

Because-x is a novel syntactic structure largely found in online contexts of interpersonal communication. If Kanetani\u2019s 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\u2019s reading of the function of because-x and why because-x exists.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/b><\/p>\n

Kanetani, Masaru. \u201cA grammatico-pragmatic analysis of the\u00a0 <\/span>because<\/span><\/i> X construction: Private expression within public expression.\u201d <\/span>F1000Research,<\/span><\/i> vol. 10, 28 Feb. 2022, doi:10.12688\/f1000research.72971.2.<\/span><\/p>\n

Okada, Sadayuki. \u201cCategory-Free Complement Selection in Causal Adjunct Phrases.\u201d <\/span>English Language and Linguistics<\/span><\/i>, vol. 25, no. 4, 2021, pp. 719\u2013741. doi:10.1017\/S1360674320000295.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019re a young person who is regularly on the internet, you\u2019ve 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\u2019s just a … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1807,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,48],"tags":[49,26,41,51,50],"class_list":["post-41","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-history","category-supplemental","tag-because-x","tag-english","tag-japanese","tag-public-private-expressions","tag-syntax"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1807"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions\/42"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.smith.edu\/internetlinguistics2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}