The role of prosody in distinguishing different backward causal coherence relations in spoken English

Without intonation, this causal relation might be interpreted in multiple ways. The speaker might reason, “There would be no parking either on one of those sides”. This conclusion is then based on the argument, “It’s street sweeping day, or something”. This causal relation is interpreted as such by the speaker herself. We can describe such a causal relation as relatively subjective (cf. e.g. Pander Maat & Sanders 2001, Pander Maat & Degand 2001a, Pit 2003, Verhagen 2005a). However, it might also be the case that the speaker is describing a causal relation in the real world. It is something happening in the real world that “There is no parking either on one of those sides, because it’s street sweeping day, or something”. Such a causal relation can be identified as relatively objective (cf. e.g. Pander Maat & Sanders 2001, Pander Maat & Degand 2001b, Pit 2003, Verhagen 2005a). In both written and spoken Dutch the difference between the two interpretations can bemarked by the use of different connectives. To describe an objective causal relation a speaker or writer can use omdat (“because1”). To describe a subjective causal relation want (“because2”) can be used (cf. e.g. Pit 2003, Spooren et al. in press, Sanders & Spooren submitted). In other words, by using two different causal connectives to express backward causal relations, Dutch language marks a distinction between relatively subjective and relatively objective causal relations. Omdat is most frequently used to describe a causal relation situated in the real world. Want, on the other hand, is most frequently used to describe a causal relation interpreted as such by the speaker herself.