A negative "cause"?

[metal56]

The verb cause predominantly has a negative semantic prosody, i.e. it is normally found paired with, or collocated with, nouns that have a negative connotation. Would you say that such an observation is important to language learning, in particular vocabulary learning? Would a student be able to predict the predominant negativity associated with the verb "cause" if they only read the dictionary definition?

Inflected forms: caused, caus·ing, caus·es
1. To be the cause of or reason for; result in.

Here are the first ten examples from the British National Corpus (BNC):

CAUSE TROUBLE

CAUSE CANCER

CAUSE INJURY

CAUSE DEATH

CAUSE CONFUSION

CAUSE CONCERN

CAUSE HAVOC

CAUSE DIFFICULTY

CAUSE OFFENCE

CAUSE CHAOS


The list goes on to 100. In all those, there is not one noun that normally has a positive connotation.

Here are the first 10 examples with "cause a" + noun:

CAUSE A PROBLEM

CAUSE A LOT

CAUSE A CHANGE

CAUSE A BREACH

CAUSE A PERSON

CAUSE A RISE

CAUSE A REDUCTION

CAUSE A LOSS

CAUSE A FALL

CAUSE A BIT

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote:

The verb cause predominantly has a negative semantic prosody, i.e. it is normall found paired with, or collocated with, nouns that have a negative connotation. Would you say that such an observation is important to language learning, in particular vocabulary learning?

Probably. It's usefulness, IMO, would depend on which of the following criteria are true:
1) The use of "cause" with negative prosody is a logical consequence of its meaning.
2) The use of "cause" with negative prosody is not a logical consequence of its meaning.

In the first case, we should determine what that logical reason is. Any ideas?

In the second case, we need to explain that that's just how we use the word in English. One consequence of this would be a possible source of L1 interference where students' L1 use a similar word in a positive context.

If anyone thinks either 1) or 2) are correct, please let me know.

[metal56]

Probably. It's usefulness, IMO, would depend on which of the following criteria are true:
1) The use of "cause" with negative prosady is a logical consequence of its meaning.
2) The use of "cause" with negative prosady is not a logical consequence of its meaning.

att: prosody.

In the first case, we should determine what that logical reason is. Any ideas?

Not as yet.

In the second case, we need to explain that that's just how we use the word in English.

Do you mean that we only use it with noun that have a nagative connotation?

One consequence of this would be a possible source of L1 interference where students' L1 use a similar word in a positive context.

One consequence of what?

[Andrew Patterson]

Metal wrote:

att: prosody.

In the second case, we need to explain that that's just how we use the word in English.

Do you mean that we only use it with noun that have a nagative connotation?

att: Negative.
Yes

One consequence of this would be a possible source of L1 interference where students' L1 use a similar word in a positive context.

One consequence of what?

One consequence of criterion 2: that there is no logical reason why the verb cause predominantly has a negative semantic prosody and it's just the way English is. (Other languages may do it differently.)

[JuanTwoThree]

Hang on a bit. Isn't it just that sh*t happens a lot?


You'd still use "cause" in front of mirth, hilarity, exhilaration, drunkenness, exuberence, a sense of well-being and oneness with the universe and a not very long etcetera.

But these things don't seem to happen as often as confusion, havoc, depression, grubby elastic bandages, pain, sleeepless nights and hours waiting to see doctors.

It's not the way English is. It's life.



'

[metal56]

It's not the way English is. It's life.

Only in English? I should have been born in Turkemenestan, life is much more fun there.

[LarryLatham]

The verb cause predominantly has a negative semantic prosody, i.e. it is normally found paired with, or collocated with, nouns that have a negative connotation. Would you say that such an observation is important to language learning, in particular vocabulary learning? ...

Here are the first ten examples from the British National Corpus (BNC):

CAUSE TROUBLE

CAUSE CANCER

CAUSE INJURY

CAUSE DEATH

CAUSE CONFUSION

CAUSE CONCERN

CAUSE HAVOC

CAUSE DIFFICULTY

CAUSE OFFENCE

CAUSE CHAOS


The list goes on to 100. In all those, there is not one noun that normally has a positive connotation.

Here are the first 10 examples with "cause a" + noun:

CAUSE A PROBLEM

CAUSE A LOT

CAUSE A CHANGE

CAUSE A BREACH

CAUSE A PERSON

CAUSE A RISE

CAUSE A REDUCTION

CAUSE A LOSS

CAUSE A FALL

CAUSE A BIT

Though JuanTwoThree's observations are quite illuminating, and serve to remind us that "cause" is not EXCLUSIVELY paired with negative words, the fact remains that it seems to be most commonly so.

That being the case, teaching students these pairings (collocations) is highly likely to be fruitful in the classroom. It gives them language they can use. (Because, as JTT has pointed out, sh*t happens.)

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Though JuanTwoThree's observations are quite illuminating, and serve to remind us that "cause" is not EXCLUSIVELY paired with negative words, the fact remains that it seems to be most commonly so.

That being the case, teaching students these pairings (collocations) is highly likely to be fruitful in the classroom. It gives them language they can use. (Because, as JTT has pointed out, sh*t happens.)

Larry Latham

It certainly does. And I agree with you other conclusion.