CAUSAL RELATIONS IN ENGLISH NEWS MAGAZINE DISCOURSE: JOURNALISTS’ AGE PERSPECTIVE

Iryna Danylchenko

doi:10.5817/DI2020-1-25

CAUSAL RELATIONS IN ENGLISH NEWS MAGAZINE DISCOURSE: JOURNALISTS’ AGE PERSPECTIVE

Vol.13,No.1(2020)

Iryna Danylchenko

https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2020-1-25

PDF

Abstract

This paper reveals how journalists’ age influences the linguistic representation of causal relations in English news magazine articles. Treating cause in a broad sense covering adverbials and clauses of reason, concession, purpose and result, the study finds that causal relations are scarce in the texts of young reporters. Unlike them, middle-aged authors’ articles demonstrate a 17-per-cent-higher frequency of adverbials and clauses of reason, and older journalists’ texts show a 12-per-cent rise in concessive clauses with the temporal concessive, comparative concessive, alternative concessive, conditional concessive and generalizing concessive relations. To account for these findings, I apply Talmy’s (1985) force dynamics theory viewing cause as an interaction of entities concerning force and energy where one causes another. Given this theory, middle-aged journalists verbalise causal relations grounded in what I call energy transfer model with one moving entity causing another to move, and energy loss model where inactivity of one entity is due to blocking of the other entity. In older authors’ articles, causal relations are represented by concessive clauses introduced by a range of conjunctions specifying concessive meaning: temporal concessive, comparative concessive, alternative concessive, conditional concessive and generalizing concessive.

Keywords:
causal relations; news magazine discourse; journalists’ age; reason clauses; adverbials of reason; concessive clauses; force dynamics; energy transfer model; energy loss model

References

Cambridge Dictionary Online. https://www.dictionary.cambridge.org

Chu, C. (2004) Event Conceptualisation and Grammatical Realisation: The Case of Motion in Mandarin Chinese. PhD Dissertation. Manoa: University of Hawaii.

Cook, W. H. (1979) A Grammar of North Carolina Cherokee. PhD Dissertation. New Haven: Yale University.

Cotter, C. (2010) News Talk: Investigating the Language of Journalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811975

Copley, B., Wolff, P. and Shepard, J. (2015) ‘Force interaction in the expression of causation.’ Proceedings of SALT 25, 433-451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3482

Copley, B. and Harley, H. (2015) ‘A force-theoretic framework for event structure.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2), 103-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x

Croft, W. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001

Dalbergenova, L., Zharkynbekova, S., Akynova, D. and Aimoldina, A. (2014) ‘Cognitive approach to the study of causal relations.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 143, 233-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.394

Erikson, E. H. and Erikson, J. M. (1998) The Life Cycle Completed: Extended Version. New York: W. W. Norton.

Fillmore, C. J. (1977) ‘The case for case reopened.’ In: Cole, P. and Sadock, J. (eds) Syntax and Semantics. Volume 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. 59-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_005

Gilquin, G. (2010) Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.39

Goldberg, A. E. (2010) ‘Verbs, constructions, and semantic frames.’ In: Rappaport Hovav M., Doron, E. and Sichel, I. (eds) Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 39-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0003

Heil, J. (2016) ‘Causal relations.’ In: Marmodoro, A. and Yates, D. (eds) The Metaphysics of Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 127-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735878.003.0008

Hollenbach, B. (1975) ‘Discourse structure, interpropositional relations, and translation.’Notes on Translation 1(56), 2-21.

Kemmer, S. and Verhagen, A. (1994) ‘The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events.’ Cognitive Linguistics 5(2), 115-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.115

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995) Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online. https://www.ldoceonline.com Martin, F. and Schafer, F. (2014) ‘Causation at the syntax-semantics interface.’ In: Copley, B. and Martin, F. (eds) Causation in Grammatical Structures. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 209-244.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary Neeleman, A. and van de Koot, H. (2012) ‘The linguistic expression of causation.’ In: Everaert, M., Marelj, M. and Siloni, T. (eds) The Theta System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602513.003.0002

Pander Maat, H. and Degand, L. (2001) ‘Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement.’ Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 211-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.002

Pander Maat, H. and Sanders, T. (2001) ‘Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use.’ Cognitive Linguistics 12(3), 247-273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.003

Potapenko, S. (2016) ‘Cognitive rhetoric of effect: Energy flow as a means of persuasion in inaugurals.’ Topics in Linguistics 17(2), 12-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0010

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Pearson Longman.

Ruppenhofer, J. and Rehbein, I. (2012) ‘Yes we can!? Annotating the senses of English modal verbs.’ LREC 2012, Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation – European Language Resources Association, 1538-1545.

Shibatani, M. (1976) ‘The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus.’ In: Shibatani, M. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics. Volume 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press. 1-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368842_002

Sweetser, E. (1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904

Solstad T. and Bott O. (2017) ‘Causality and causal reasoning in natural language.’ In: Waldmann, M. R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press. 619-644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199399550.013.32

Talmy, L. (1985) ‘Force dynamics in language and thought.’ Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at the Twenty-first Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21, 293-337.

Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Williams, B. (1979) ‘Internal and external reasons.’ In: Harrison, R. (ed.) Rational Action. Cambridge University Press. 101-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001

Wolff, P., Jeon, G.-H., Klettke, B. and Yu, L. (2010). ‘Force creation and possible causers across languages.’ In: Malt, B. C. and Wolff, P. (eds) Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 93-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0006

Metrics