UNIT 25

LOGICAL RELATIONS OF CAUSE, CONSEQUENCE AND

PURPOSE AT SENTENCE LEVEL

0. INTRODUCTION
1. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE NOTIONS OF CAUSE,
CONSEQUENCE AND PURPOSE
2. CAUSAL CLAUSES
2.1. Definition
2.2. Main structural features
3. CONSECUTIVE CLAUSES
3.1. Definition
3.2. Result clauses vs. purpose clauses
3.3. Main structural features
4. FINAL CLAUSES
4.1. Definition
4.2. The preposition ‘FOR’
4.2. Purpose clauses vs. result clauses
4.3. Main structural features
5. CONCLUSION
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.1

0. INTRODUCTION

This unit aims to examine the English logical relations of cause, consequence and purpose at
sentence level in terms of their main structural features regarding form, function and main
uses. This is an important aspect in the mastery of the foreign language since this entails
much more than being grammatically accurate. As a matter of fact, communicative
competence comprises several subcompetences, among which grammar competence
stands out. But, in order to communicate students should not only focus on form, but also
understand sentences in context, that is, its illocutionary force.
In order to offer an insightful analysis on the logical relations of cause, consequence and
purpose in English respectively, we shall deal with the most relevant works in the field, both
old and current, and in particular, influential grammar books which have assisted for years
students of English as a foreign language in their study of grammar, this is, Thomson &
Martinet, A Practical English Grammar (1986); Rodney Huddleston, English Grammar, An
Outline (1988); and Quirk & Greenbaum, A University Grammar of English (1973).

1. A LINGUISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE NOTIONS OF CAUSE, CONSEQUENCE AND

PURPOSE

Before describing in detail the logical relations of cause, consequence and purpose at
sentence level in English, it is relevant to establish first a linguistic framework for these
notions, since they must be described in grammatical terms.
Following Traditional Grammar guidelines, the expression of cause, consequence and
purpose is given by the grammatical category of adverbs, and therefore, adverbial phrases.
Moreover, these notions are also classified according to their syntactic function in causal,
consecutive and final clauses and which are embedded respectively under the category of
contingency clauses as conjuncts, disjuncts and adjuncts.
When expressing cause, consequence and purpose we are mainly dealing with adverbs that,
when taken to phrase and sentence level, may be substituted by other grammatical
categories, in particular, prepositional phrases, noun phrases and specific syntactic
structures.
Furthermore, the terms cause, consequence and purpose give account of the logical
relations between the main clause and the subordinate clauses they represent (i.e. She
went out alone because he got asleep). It must be borne in mind that there is no clear-cut
distinction between them and they may interrelate between each other by exchanging
adverbials (conjuncts or disjuntcs) (i.e. clauses of reason and result-cause introduced by as
or because: We camped here as/because it was too dark).
The three notions (cause, consequence and purpose) are syntactically realized by 'causal,
consecutive and final subordinate clauses' which represent semantically reason, result and
purpose. They respectively express (1) the cause of the action which took place in the main
clause (i.e. He was late -main clause- because he couldn't find a taxi -cause-reason-) and
answers the question of "Why was he late?"; (2) consecutive subordinate clauses express
the result of the action which took place in the main clause (i.e. He was working very hard
(main clause), so he got asleep soon (consequence-result); and (3) final subordinate clauses
express the purpose of what it is said in the main clause (i.e. I worked late (main clause) in
order to clear up my papers (finality-purpose)).

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.2

2. CAUSAL CLAUSES

2.1. Definition
Causal clauses are also called clauses of cause or clauses of reason. The term cause gives
account of the logical relation between the main clause and the subordinate clause it
represents within the framework of a complex sentence (i.e. She went on a trip because she
was on holiday).
This notion is syntactically realized by causal clauses which semantically represent 'the
reason why...', and in particular, the cause of the action which took place in the main clause
(i.e. He was late (main clause) because he couldn't find a taxi (cause-reason)) by answering
the question of "Why?"

2.2. Main structural features

Regarding its main structural features, we shall start by reviewing the logical relation of
cause in terms of function and use, that is, from the field of semantics and pragmatics.
Therefore, we shall examine the different types of relations that a clause of reason
establishes with its main clause, which sometimes are not clear-cut and overlap other
meanings such as circumstances, conditions, effect, motivation and so on. Thus, we find
direct and indirect relations, the former being semantic relations and the latter being
syntactic ones.
(A) With respect to DIRECT RELATIONS, following Quirk et al. (1990), these are reason
clauses which convey a direct relationship with the matrix clause in four different ways:
 First, the relationship of cause and effect (i.e. He looks thinner because he
has been on a strict diet), that is, when the effect in the main clause (He looks
thinner) has an outstanding objective connection with the cause in the
subordinate clause (because he has been on a strict diet). We can also convey
this meaning by asking "Why does he look thinner?"
 Secondly, the relationship of reason and consequence (i.e. She tidied up her
bedroom because it was completely messed up), that is, when the
consequence in the main clause (She tidied up her bedroom) is inferred by
the speaker as an outstanding subjective connection with the reason in the
subordinate clause (it -the room- was completely messed up). Note that we
can also convey this meaning by asking "Why did she tidy up her room?"
 Thirdly, in the relationship of motivation and result (i.e. I am going to tell you
a secret because you are my best friend), the main clause expresses a result (I
am going to tell you a secret) whose come out is expressed in the
subordinate clause, making reference to the intention of the speaker, usually
the motivation of an animate being (because you are my best friend). Note
that the motivation is also drawn from the question "Why is he going to tell
him a secret?"
 Finally, in the relationship of circumstance and consequence (i.e. Since the
bride is ill, the wedding will be put off), the reason (Since the bride is ill) is
combined with a condition that is to be filled (in our case) or about to be
filled (the wedding will be put off).
(B) Similarly, with respect to INDIRECT RELATIONS, Quirk et al. (1990) stated that reason
clauses may express an indirect reason. The reason is not related to the situation in the

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.3

matrix clause but is a motivation for the implicit speech act of the utterance" (i.e. As you are
in charge, where are the files on the new project?). As we shall see, the indirect relationship
is conveyed with the matrix clause by (1) introducing subordination elements such as
'because' and 'since' and other subordinators include 'as', 'as long as', 'why', 'now that', 'for
(somewhat formal); and (2) non-finite and verbless clauses without conjunction, by using
'seeing (that)' or 'considering (that)' with circumstantial clauses (i.e. Being a witty man, he
soon mended the engine).
A syntactic analysis of these constructions will shed light on the different positional
tendencies of the respective conjunctions and subordinators within this type of clauses. Yet,
they reflect a different syntactic status, for instance, because-clauses are adjuncts, whereas
as- and since-clauses are disjuncts. Informally, however, a final because-clause sometimes
functions as a disjunct of reason (i.e. They've burning old papers, because I can see the
smoke from here).
The different positional tendencies are fronting and final positions. For instance, those
clauses introduced by 'because' are usually in final position (i.e. He can't be here because he
is on holidays). On the contrary, those clauses introduced by 'since', 'as', 'now that' and
those expressing circumstances (seeing that, considering that or other non-finite forms,
such as 'writing hurriedly', 'Tired as he was') are usually fronted (As it was raining, we stayed
at home/Since you insist, I'll tell you the truth/Now that you've come, you need new
clothes).
Other special cases are, for instance, the subordinator 'for' which is not very common as a
causal conjunct in colloquial speech and it is not used to answer the question "Why?"
However, if it appears, a for-clause must be in final position (i.e. I asked him to stop, for I
had something important to tell him). Moreover, the conjunct 'that' may be a circumstantial
subordinator when the subject complement is obligatorily fronted (i.e. Clumsy idiot that he
was, Michael spoilt our romantic dinner).
As we have seen, morphologically speaking, the notion of 'cause' is introduced by the
grammatical category of conjunctions, also called conjuncts (because, as, since, for -
somewhat formal-, hence, as a result - my father made a terrible fuss about my coming in
late. I therefore told him I'd go and look for somewhere else to live) or non-finite and
verbless clauses with no conjunctions and with a circumstantial meaning (seeing that =
Seeing that is about to rain, we'll take an umbrella). Moreover, resultative meaning is often
signaled by adverbs like already, at last, just, yet... (At last we were over the crest of the
hill). Regarding intonation, the main clause is usually taken with rising intonation and the
subordinate causal clause is taken with falling intonation.

3. CONSECUTIVE CLAUSES

3.1. Definition
Consecutive clauses are also called clauses of consequence or clauses of result. The term
consequence or result gives account of the logical relation between the main clause and the
subordinate clause it represents within the framework of a complex sentence, that is, a
subordinate sentence (i.e. We paid him immediately, so he left quite happy). This notion is
syntactically realized by result or consecutive clauses which semantically represent the
result of the action which took place in the main clause (i.e. We paid him immediately (main
clause), so he left quite happy (consequence-result). The answer can be elicited by asking
"What was the result of paying him immediately?"
Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.4
 3.2. Result clauses vs. purpose clauses: so and so that
Since the relations of consequence or result are sometimes overlapped with the uses of
purpose, we shall establish first the difference between result clauses and purpose clauses
in semantic and syntactic terms. Generally speaking, clauses of result are introduced by the
subordinators so that and so. Regarding semantic similarities or meaning, we shall state that
result clauses have factual meaning, that is, the result is achieved, whereas purpose clauses
have putative meaning, that is, the purpose is to be achieved. Hence, we may establish our
second distinction following syntactic guidelines, that is, finite clauses of result do not need
a modal auxiliary in their construction (i.e. We paid him immediately, so that he left happy),
whereas purpose clauses do (i.e. We paid him immediately so that he could leave happy).

3.3. Main structural features

Regarding its main structural features, we have seen already the logical relations of
consequence or result at sentence level in terms of function and use, that is, from the field
of semantics and pragmatics by means of subordinate elements such as 'so' and 'so that'.
Besides, a syntactic analysis of these constructions will shed more light on this type of
clauses when overlapped with purpose clauses and causal clauses.
On the one hand, regarding purpose vs. consequence, we refer to a different syntactic
status, for instance, result clauses are realized by disjuncts (i.e. so, so that, so + adjective +
that), whereas purpose clauses are realized by adjuncts (usually infinitival, non-finite forms).
'So' may be ambiguous when 'and' is inserted before it, so it may convey coordination rather
than subordination (i.e. We paid him immediately, and so he left happy).
Moreover, this distinction is also present by punctuation since in consecutive clauses we
introduce a comma before 'so that', whereas in purpose clauses we do not (i.e. I'll help you
so that you can finish early (purpose) vs. I'll help you, so that you can finish early (result)).
We shall highlight two main points here: first, that purpose clauses require a modal auxiliary
within their construction and second, the important role of intonation within this
distinction, where we do mark the consecutive clause by pausing in the middle of the
sentence and finish with falling intonation.
On the other hand, the dichotomy result vs. cause have a close semantic relation since they
both reflect the 'result of the action' of the main clause, thus, 'result clauses' reflect the
result itself of the main clause action whereas 'causal clauses' reflect the same idea but with
the nuance of 'the reason why the action took place in the main clause'. But, they are
realized and, therefore, distinguished, by different positions in the sentence, thus a causal
clause like 'He couldn't buy the new U2 single because he had no money' (action + cause)
may be turned into a result clause just by reversing the main and subordinate clause and by
adding a comma before 'so' (i.e. He had no money, so he couldn't buy the new U2 single -
action + result). As we can see, result clauses (disjuncts) are placed in final position in the
sentence rather than fronting. Other special syntactic cases are those constructions
equivalent to the use of 'so' and 'so that'. For instance, other structures such as:
 such + a(n) + (adjective) + noun + that ... (i.e. He is such a good student that
he never fails an exam!)
 so + a(n) + (adjective) + noun + that ... (i.e. His grandfather was so rich that he
even had a McDonald's at home!)

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.5

  so much/many + noun + that ... (i.e. He ate so many oysters that he had a
stomach ache afterwards).
 so + adjective + verb + noun (i.e. So happy was Thomas that he bought a new
car to his son).
 So + adjective/adverb + as + to-infinitive (i.e. She was so naive as to believe
what he told that night).
 For + accusative + to-infinitive (i.e. This house is too expensive for you to buy
it). We use this construction when the subject of the sentence and the
accusative of the infinitive do not refer to the same person.
As we have seen, morphologically speaking, the notion of 'result' is introduced by the
grammatical category of disjuncts (so, so that) and equivalent constructions. Regarding
intonation, the most important mention to be done is to a pause before the disjuncts 'so' or
'so that' to indicate the distinction between causal and result clauses, marked by a comma
in punctuation; and the falling intonation in result clauses.

4. FINAL CLAUSES

4.1. Definition
Final clauses are also called clauses of purpose. The term purpose gives account of the
logical relation between the main clause and the subordinate clause it represents within the
framework of a complex sentence, that is, a subordinate sentence (i.e. They trained hard to
play the match). This notion is syntactically realized by final clauses which semantically
represent the purpose of what it is said in the main clause (i.e. I worked late (main clause) in
order to clear up my papers (finality purpose)), eliciting the answer by asking "What for?"
and not "Why?" (i.e. What did you work late for? - To clear up my papers). Yet, it is also
realized by the preposition 'for'.

4.2. The preposition FOR

Purpose can be conveyed by means of the preposition FOR:
- Phrases introduced by 'for': He died for his country.
- For + gerund, for general purposes: A tin opener is a tool for opening tools.
- Purpose is also indicated by the construction for + (pro)noun + infinitive when the subject
of the principal clause is different from that of the final clause: I stood aside for her to enter.

4.3. Purpose clauses vs. result clauses

Since the relations of consequence and result are sometimes overlapped with the uses of
purpose, we shall establish first the difference between these two clauses in semantic and
syntactic terms. First of all, regarding semantic similarities or meaning, we shall state that
purpose clauses have putative meaning, that is, the purpose is to be achieved (i.e. They hit
him so that he would tell the truth), whereas result clauses have factual meaning, that is,
the result is achieved (i.e. They hit him, so that he told the truth), whereas result clauses
have factual meaning, that is, the result is achieved (i.e They hit him, so that he told the
truth). Hence, in syntactic terms, finite clauses of result do not need a modal auxiliary in
their construction, whereas purpose clauses do.

4.4. Main structural features

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.6

Regarding its main structural features, we shall see the logical relations of purpose at
sentence level in terms of function and use, that is, from the field of semantics and
pragmatics by means of subordinate elements such as the non-finite form 'to + verb' (the
most usual adjunct -I've come to see her), and other conjuncts such as 'in order to', 'so as
to', 'so that', 'lest', 'for fear of, 'in case', 'so' (informal) vs. 'in order that' (formal), 'that'
(archaic use) and equivalent constructions when overlapped with the uses of result (for +
noun + to-infinitive).
On the other hand, a syntactic analysis of these constructions will shed more light on the
specific constructions of this type of clauses. As stated above, when referring to the
distinction purpose vs. result, we refer to a different syntactic status, for instance, result
clauses are realized by disjuncts (i.e. so, so that, so + adjective + that), whereas purpose
clauses are realized by adjuncts (usually infinitival, non-finite forms).
Moreover, this distinction is also present by punctuation since in consecutive clauses we
introduce a comma before 'so that', whereas in purpose clauses we do not (i.e. I'll help you
so that you can finish early (purpose) vs. I'll help you, so that you can finish early (result)).
We shall highlight two main points here: first, that purpose clauses require a modal auxiliary
within their construction and second, the important role of intonation within this
distinction, where we do mark the consecutive clause by pausing in the middle of the
sentence and finish with falling intonation.
Syntactically, purpose clauses are realized by a wide range of means, from non-finite forms
to prepositional phrases. Hence, we may distinguish several constructions, for instance:
 Adjuncts in non-finite forms is the most common way of expressing positive
purpose, usually introduced by the infinitival forms of 'to-infinitive' (informal)
as in 'She came to see you' vs. 'in order to' and 'so as to' (formal) in
affirmative sentences. In order to express negative purpose, we shall
introduce the particle 'not' before the proclitic 'to' (not to see her/in order
not to see her/so as not to see her).
 Positive purpose is also realized by the constructions 'so that' and 'so'
(informal) vs. 'in order that' (formal) as in "He visited Bristol in order that/so
that he could see his doctor", and also the archaic 'that'. In this type of
clauses, we find the putative meaning, which means the introduction of
modal auxiliaries, such as 'may' for present and future time; 'might' for past
time; 'can', 'could' and 'should' in colloquial style (i.e. I'll phone him so that he
can get ready on time).
 Also, 'in case' (i.e. I've brought my umbrella in case it rains).
 Negative purpose is expressed by introducing 'lest' (an archaic and very
formal conjunction) and 'shall' for present time (i.e. I broke his glasses lest he
should buy a pair of new ones); 'should' for past time (i.e. He arrived late on
purpose so that he should not take the exam); and also 'for fear of (i.e. They
left early for fear they would meet him).
 Other equivalent construction is 'for + accusative + to-infinitive (i.e. It is too
early for you to start smoking). We use this construction when the subject of
the sentence and the accusative of the infinitive do not refer to the same
person. Similarly, other structures can be used instead of the to-infinitive,
one of this being 'and + some verbs' like come, go run, hurry up, stay, top and
try ( Let's wait and see what's all this about). Finally, purpose is expressed by

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.7

 the verbs: prevent, allow, enable, let, make or give (I think that some
discipline is necessary to prevent children from developing into hooligans).

5. CONCLUSION

So far, we have attempted in this discussion to provide a broad account of the notions of
cause, consequence and purpose in order to set it up within the linguistic theory, going
through the localization of adjuncts, disjuncts and conjuncts in syntactic structures, and
finally, once correctly framed, a brief presentation of the three main notions under study.
We hope students are able to understand the relevance of handling correctly the expression
of these logical relations in everyday life communication.
The notions of cause, consequence and purpose have been considered an important
element of language teaching because of its high-frequency in speech. Hence, the
importance of how to handle these expressions cannot be understated since one cannot
communicate without it. Learners are expected to be able to recognize and produce all the
above clause types. However, language learners do not automatically recognize similarities
which seem obvious to teachers; learners need to have these associations brought to their
attention.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 GREENBAUM, S. and QUIRK, R.; A Student's Grammar of the English Language.

London: Longman, 1990.
 HUDDLESTON, R.; English Grammar, an Outline. Cambridge: C.U.P., 1988.
 QUIRK, R. & GREENBAUM, S.; A University Grammar of English. London: Longman,
1973.
 SEARLE, J. Speech Acts. Cambridge: C.U.P., 1969.
 THOMSON, A.J. and A.V. MARTINET.; A Practical English Grammar. Oxford: O.U.P.,
1986.

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.8

Unit 25 www.oposicionestandem.com Pg.9