The

Twenty-third
LACUS Forum
1996

 2009 The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States (lacus).
The content of this article is from lacus Forum 23 (published 1997). This article and others
from this volume may be found on the Internet at http://www.lacus.org/volumes/23.
YOUR RIGHTS
This electronic copy is provided free of charge with no implied warranty. It is made available
to you under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license
version 3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/)
Under this license you are free:

to Share to copy, distribute and transmit the work

to Remix to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author
or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work).
Noncommercial You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

With the understanding that:

Waiver Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the
copyright holder.
Other Rights In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
Your fair dealing or fair use rights;
The author's moral rights;
Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is
used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

Notice: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of
this work. The best way to do this is with a link to the web page cited above.
For inquiries concerning commercial use of this work, please visit
http://www.lacus.org/volumes/republication
Cover: The front cover of this document is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bynd/3.0/) and may not be altered in any fashion. The lacus lakes logo and Brigham Young
University logo on the cover are trademarks of lacus and Brigham Young University
respectively. The Brigham Young University logo is used here with permission from the
trademark holder. No license for use of these trademarks outside of redistribution of this
exact file is granted. These trademarks may not be included in any adaptation of this work.

TIME AND CAUSE IN THE ENGLISH CONNECTOR AS

Lori Morris
Universit du Qubec Chicoutimi

1. THE PROBLEM.* The English word as plays a tremendous variety of roles in

English, including that of a connector, a role in which it can be used to link
verbal events either causally or temporally:
(1)

As he was 18, he could drink. [Causal interpretation]

(2)

As she was on her way home, she ran into an old friend.
[Temporal interpretation]

(3)

As you go down Main Street, pick up a box of Coronas for me.

[Temporal or causal interpretation] (Quirk et al. 1985)

In its connective capacity, as raises a number of interesting questions which

have been left largely unexamined over the years. For instance, one might
wonder what conditions must be met for each of the interpretations to result.
Moreover, given that as cannot be replaced by another connector of time
(when, while, etc.) or by another connector of cause (because, since, etc.) without giving rise to a measurable change in expressive effect, it can be assumed
that it evokes a particular form of both temporality and causality. One might
therefore wonder about the source of the uniqueness of the temporality and
the causality evoked by as and about how the two might be linked. It must also
be kept in mind that the problem of the temporality and causality evoked by
as is ultimately a small part of a much greater picture. Whatever explanation
is arrived at for the temporal and causal aspects of as must therefore also
prove to be compatible with the various other functions of the word, including its comparative and instrumental uses (He was as hungry as a bear; She served
as Prime Minister; They used the knife as a screwdriver). Furthermore, the theory
of as ultimately developed will also have to prove compatible in a very general
way with what can be observed in the case of the numerous connectors which
* This subject is treated in considerably more detail in the ma thesis of Sylvia Pilisi done under
my supervision (Universit du Qubec Chicoutimi, 1996). This paper owes much to the fine example collecting and research work of Mme Pilisi.

418

Lori Morris

do both temporal and causal duty in English, in other Indo-European languages, and in languages from different language groups.
2. THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH. As per se has attracted surprisingly little linguistic attention and does not seem to have been treated in systematic fashion
as a single word in any study. Grammar books tend to treat as under a variety
of different headings according to its grammatical function. Edgren (1971)
deals with temporal uses of as in a broad study of temporal connectors, but
does not consider its causal uses. Conversely, Heinmaki (1978) and Fang
(1992) deal with causal as, but not the temporal version. One of the few writers to attempt any theorization touching on both uses of as is Adamczewski
(1982), who tries to work the connector, rather unsuccessfully, into his rhematic/thematic opposition. Shyldkrot (n.d.) deals with the relationship between time and cause, but for French rather than English. The net result is a
rather patchy and highly unsatisfactory grammatical portrait of as in its connecting role.
Despite the sketchiness of the work done thus far on as, there are a few
points made that are worthy of retention. Several writers remarkwithout any
attempt at explanationthat as is a weak or neutral connector, particularly in
causal terms. This point clearly needs to be explored given the frequency with
which it is found in prescriptive grammars. A number of others comment on
the fusion of time and cause. They observe that any relationship that poses
one event as preceding another sets up conditions comparable to those that
exist in a situation of causality. These authors often suggestas will this
studythat time and cause appear to be two faces of a single reality. Finally,
almost all writers comment on the impression of simultaneity that predominates in the case of temporal as. Unfortunately, no one goes on to study how
this impression is created, how the simultaneity of as differs from that of while,
or how it might be reproduced in a causal constructions with as.
In short, previous studies involving as have been few in number and generally very limited in scope. Although this one is far from complete and definitive, it does differ from those that have come before in that it marks a first
attempt to understand how and why as can link events in both temporal and
causal relationships. It also assumes that as is a single word in English, despite
its many uses, and therefore starts from the premise that any explanation of
the connective role of as must also have the potential to explain the various
other uses of the word.
3. EVENTS EVOKED BY VERBS. Since temporal and causal uses of as involve the
linking of two verbal events, it is useful to set down a few basics concerning
the nature of events before looking at how as situates them with respect to
each other. For a verbal event to be recognized as such, it must be perceived

Time and cause in the English connector AS

419

to have a distinct beginning and end; without these thresholds, an event cannot be distinguished or set off from any background. Between these thresholds can be lodged as many instants as are necessary to cover the full duration
of the event, either a single instant or many instants.
The instants lodged between the beginning and the end of an event can be
perceived in two different manners: either they are all perceived to be identical to each other and therefore unopposable, with the result being an event
which is static or monophase in nature, or they are all perceived to be different and therefore opposable, with the result being an event which is dynamic
or multiphase in nature. In the case of a monophase event, the relationship
of the subject to the verb is necessarily constant and unchanging, while in the
case of a multiphase event, the relationship of the subject to the verb is in constant evolution. From one instant to the next the subject can be seen to realize a different phase of the event.
Once a line is drawn between monophase and multiphase events, it becomes easier to comprehend the conditions which give rise to either temporal or causal interpretations of the connector as.
4. TEMPORAL as. Temporal as plays a dual role within an utterance. It has an
impact on the interpretation to be given to the verb within its own clause and
it also has an impact on the way in which the principal and subordinate
clauses are situated with respect to each other. For this reason, it is useful to
examine the impact of as in each situation.
4.1 TEMPORAL as WITHIN ITS CLAUSE. The most revealing thing about temporal
as is that it is not found in all contexts. For instance, it does not occur when
the verbal event in its clause is of a static nature:
(4)

As you are here

As you know
As he wore a red sweater

In addition, temporal as is not generally found with a verb in the perfect form:
(5)

As he has finished
As they had played

Edgren (1971) has found one exception to this tendency in a very extensive
corpus of examples of temporal as:
(6)

Just as I had packed my possessions ready to leave home, I developed chickenpox. (Edgren B32.7)

420

Lori Morris

It is significant that this example includes just. It will be argued below that the
presence of this wordwhich is incompatible with causal asultimately provides the conditions necessary for a temporal interpretation to result.
Temporality would also seem to be incompatible with the negation of the
event in the subordinate clause:
(7)

As she wasnt working

As you dont go down Main Street

It is also generally incompatible with modal auxiliaries:

(8)

As she can run fast

As they might come early
As he will be working on Sunday

There is however a use of would, to be discussed below, which can be found

with a temporal interpretation of as:
(9)

As he would potter about in the garden, she would knit.

The incompatibility observed between temporal interpretations of as and

certain verb forms can be understood when reference is made to the
monophase/multiphase distinction made in the previous section. In the case
of stative verbs, the event evoked is unquestionably monophase in nature. The
same is true of the perfect, which places the subject in the static aftermath or
result phase of a preceding event. When an event is negated, the subject is, in
a sense, refused access to the event, not allowed to realize it. Its position is
therefore unchanging with respect to the event, exactly as is the case in
monophase events. Modals, in potentializing events, create another type of
stable, unvarying relationship between the subject and the verbal event. The
potential created by the modal is constant for the duration of its existence.
Thus, in every instance where a temporal interpretation of as proves impossible, the verbal event evoked in the subordinate clause is monophase in nature
and the relationship between the subject and the verb is constant and unchanging. In other words, if no two instants of the verbal event can be opposed, a temporal interpretation cannot occur.
Before considering the apparent exceptions noted above, it is useful to examine cases in which a temporal interpretation of as is possible in order to assess the impact of the connector on its clause. When it occurs with a simple
form, as seems to situate the subject before the end of the event and slow the
cadence. The following examples provide a basis for comparison. In the ab-

Time and cause in the English connector AS

421

sence of as, the subject is perceived to have reached the end of the event. In
the presence of as, the subject is caught in the act of realizing the event:
(10)

a. He caught the ball

b. As he caught the ball

(11)

a. He walked down the street

b. As he walked down the street

(12)

a. I pull a rabbit from my hat

b. As I pull a rabbit from my hat

With the progressive form, the addition of as does not result in the same degree of change in interpretation. This would suggest that the progressive form
and as might well play similar roles within the clause, probably in that they
both situate the subject somewhere between the beginning and the end of the
event:
(13) a. He was catching the ball
b. As he was catching the ball
(14) a. He was walking down the street
b. As he walking down the street
(15) a. I am pulling a rabbit from my hat
b. As I am pulling a rabbit from my hat
Two additional observations are also worthy of attention. Contrary to original
expectations, temporal as occurred more frequently with simple forms than
with progressive forms in the corpus consulted. However, the make-up of the
corpuswhich included a high number of magazine articlesmight have
contributed to this skewing of results. Even more significantly, it was discovered that it was very difficult to get an temporal interpretation from impersonal verbs (rain, snow, hail, etc.) and from the verb wear. The problem was
found to be particularly acute in the progressive form.
When all of the various observations are combined, a portrait of temporal
as begins to emerge. The connector situates the subject between the beginning and end of the verbal event, and follows its progress over more than one
instant of the events development. For this to happen the verbal event has to
be multiphase in nature, thereby allowing for the opposition of at least two
different instants in the event. This, in turn, explains the affinity observed between temporal as and the simple form and the lesser compatibility of the pro-

422

Lori Morris

gressive form. The simple form evokes an event in its totality; when it is used,
all of the instants of the event are either seen or forseen. In contrast, the progressive, which uses be as an auxiliary evokes a single instant of the event. This
difference in the representation of events has clear consequences for as.
When the simple form is used to evoke a dynamic, multiphase event, the conditions for the existence of temporal as are necessarily met since at least two
opposable instants are evoked. In the case of the progressive form, however,
the conditions for temporal as are not automatically met since only a single
instant of the total event of the lexical verb is evoked. A temporal interpretation is of course possible, since the event represented by the progressive is
seized in its development, thus implying that it is not complete and that other
instants are likely to exist. These instants are not, however, explicitly evoked
as they are in the case of the simple form.
As for the impersonal verbs and wear, which are rarely found in temporal
uses, they are not verbs which usually allow for a dynamic relationship between the subject and the verb because the verbal events they evoke tend to
be pretty much the same from instant to instant. Moreover, in the case of the
impersonals, it is difficult to imagine what the subject is, let alone imagine it
somewhere in the on-going process of snowing or raining. It is only when the
process is clearly graduatedsuggesting that the different instants of the
event are opposablethat a temporal interpretation is possible:
(16) As it rained, the boat slowly filled with water. [Temporal or causal
interpretation]
This brings us to the previously evoked problem of the exceptional temporal uses of as with the modal would.
(9)

As he would potter about in the garden, she would knit.

What is interesting in this case and similar examples is that the event has two
states of existence. In one state, the modality of would characterizes potter about
the garden as a habit and the focus is the potentialization of the event. In the
other state, the repeated realization of the event comes to the fore and
the focus falls on actualization instead of potentialization. This means that the
event in (9) is at once a potential event and a previously actualized event.
When the subject is imagined in the actual process of pottering about, the actualized aspect dominates and a temporal interpretation of as becomes possible. In contrast, in its purely conditional use, would is not compatible with
temporal as.
It is also possible to explain the other exceptional case mentioned above:
the fact that the addition of just to as always results in a temporal interpretation,

Time and cause in the English connector AS

423

even when the verbal event evoked after it would not normally allow for a temporal interpretation:
(6)

Just as I had packed my possessions ready to leave home, I developed chickenpox. (Edgren b32.7)

Just as can be paraphrased by the very instant and would therefore seem to
narrow the event to a single instant and make a temporal interpretation impossible if what has been argued thus far is true. Just, however, necessarily
evokes more than a single instant because it marks a threshold, the point at
which two events join, and can be discerned only when two different instants
can be opposed. Thus, the presence of just ensures that the fundamental condition for the existence of temporal as is fulfilled.
4.2 TEMPORAL as WITHIN THE SENTENCE. Within the broader framework of the
sentence, as plays two roles which seem to be contradictory. It serves as a connector of simultaneity and it also situates the event of the principal clause
within the development of the event of the subordinate, thereby posing one
event in a position of anteriority with respect to the other. This gives rise to
the paradox of as: on the one hand the connector expresses simultaneity,
while on the other it suggests the existence of a before/after relationship.
This paradox can be resolved only when one considers the nature of each
relationship. The simultaneity evoked by temporal as resides in the dynamic,
coincidental chronological development of two events. In contrast, the consequential relationship is static rather than dynamic, logical rather than
chronological.
The paradox of as is in fact the paradox of linguistic expression in general,
and as, particularly in its temporal manifestation, can be regarded as a solution to a fundamental linguistic problem. We can perceive more than one
thing at one time, but given the linearity of language, we cannot express more
than one thing at one time. All linear forms of expression must constantly
compensate for their linearity, and as is one form of compensation. As indicates that two events arranged consecutively by necessity were perceived simultaneously and, in a sense, share a common space by overlapping in their
development.
The overlapping of events evoked by as comes through clearly when as is
contrasted with when, a temporal connector that simply marks the point at
which two events come together.
(17) a. She was photographed as she left the room.
b. She was photographed when she left the room.

424

Lori Morris

In (17)a, the subject is photographed on the way out of the room, whereas in
(17)b the picture is taken after she has left the room.
The way in which temporal space is shared by the overlapping events connected by as is also pertinent, since there is another connector, while, which
also places two events within the same time-frame. In many instances it is well
nigh impossible to detect a difference in expressive effects between the two,
but there are nonetheless a few pertinent examples where the two connectors
take separate paths and where the impact of as can be assessed:
(18) a. As he grew older, he grew wiser.
b. *While he grew older, he grew wiser.
(19) a. As the leaves change colour, the scenery becomes even more
spectacular.
b. *While the leaves change colour, the scenery becomes even
more spectacular.
If the focus is on the development of the verbal event rather than on the timeframe within which the development occurs, only as is possible. This suggests
that the simultaneity of as entails more than the simple coincidence of two
events. One event is situated not only within the time-frame of the other, but
also within the development of the other, using at least two different instants
as a support.
When all of the observations made thus far concerning temporal as are
compiled, the result is a short list of pertinent, defining features of the connector. As is used first and foremost to situate two events in a relationship of
total or partial simultaneity. The simultaneity is perceived to be dynamic or
developmental in nature since it covers at least two different instants of a
multiphase event. In addition, the event of the subordinate clause is recognized as preceding that of the principal clause logically. This means that even
in temporal as there is an element of the logic strongly evocative of a relationship of causality.
5. CAUSAL as. Although the problem of causal as has not yet been addressed
directly, much has already been said in an indirect manner through the discussion of temporal as.
5.1 CAUSAL as WITHIN ITS CLAUSE. Unlike temporal as, causal as can be found
with all verb forms and tenses. It is nonetheless restricted in its use since it is
found only in cases where the verbal event found in its clause is of the
monophase variety and where no individual instants can be discerned. In
these cases, the subject is no longer perceived to be realizing the event one in-

Time and cause in the English connector AS

425

stant at a time. The event is instead perceived as an attribute of the subject.

This can be seen clearly through an examination of Quirk et al.s (1985) ambiguous example:
(3)

As you go down Main Street, pick up a box of Coronas for me.

In the temporal interpretation, the speaker imagines the subject on his way
down the street, passing in front of a variety of stores and houses. In contrast,
in the causal interpretation going down Main Street is perceived to be part
of the listeners normal route and the subject is not seen to be in the realization phase of the event.
A study of causal as shows that the subject can enter into a stable relationship with a verbal event in several different ways: the event can come to be
seen as a potential acquired by the speaker (as you can speak Chinese); the event
can be perceived as a result acquired by the speaker (as you have finished the assignment); the event can be attributed to the speaker as a characteristic (as you
know). Causal as is therefore distinct from temporal as in that it does not allow
for any evolution in the relationship between the subject and the verb. The incidence between the two is constant throughout the duration of the event.
5.2 CAUSAL as WITHIN THE SENTENCE. The remarks made thus far have focused
primarily on causality in general, but not on the particular nature of the
causality found with as. To focus more specifically on as, it is necessary to consider the role of the connector within the broader context of the sentence
and to contrast its workings with those of because and since. The following examples, borrowed from Davison (1970), provide an excellent starting point
for a more detailed analysis of the type of causality evoked by as:
(20) a. As you are an expert on antique paperclips, what do you think
of my collection? (Davison 191)
b. ?Because you are an expert on antique paperclips, what do you
think of my collection?
While (20)a is fine, (20)b is very odd indeed. In (20)a, the asking of the question that constitutes the principal clause of the sentence is dependent on
recognition of the listeners expertise in the field of antique paperclips. In
other words, it is the expertise of the listener that renders the speakers question possible. Example (20b) is odd because the connector used is one that
suggests that the two clauses are in a cause/effect, before/after type of relationship, but that is not the case. The question does not follow after the expertise of the listener, but is instead conditioned or made possible by the

426

Lori Morris

expertise. In other words, the expertise of the speaker provides an underlying

support for the question.
Much the same thing happens in examples (21)a and (21)b, where the
former strikes one as being more normal and certainly more polite. This is
because the possession of money conditions the subjects ability to pay but
does not cause it. Example (21)b verges on rudeness because it seems to
oblige the person to pay by setting up a cause/effect situation:
(21) a As you have money on you, you can pay.
b. ?Because you have money on you, you can pay.
In (22) and (23), where the two clauses overlap little or not at all temporally
or logically, because is far more normal, and as shifts towards a temporal
interpretation.
(22) a. Because he lit a match too close to the gas can, it exploded.
b. As he lit a match too close to the gas can, it exploded.
(23) a. He was arrested because he committed a crime.
b. He was arrested as he committed a crime.
What is interesting to note here is the inability of as to sustain a causal relationship when the clauses are not in a logical order, whence, no doubt, the
comments from numerous grammarians concerning the weakness or neutrality of as. The explanation for this weakness or neutrality is not hard to
imagine. The role of as is simply to open up a space for two events to co-occur
and indicate that the event in the subordinate clause serves as the referential
frame. When the logical order of the sentence is reversed, it is normally to
focus attention on the event of the principal clause. In this case, the subordinate declines sharply in importance; after all, providing a referential framework for the event of the principal clause after evoking it serves little purpose.
In such circumstances the subordinate functions more as an adverbially complement modifying the event of the principal clause than as a subordinate
clause providing a referential framework.
Contrasting as with since highlights another characteristic of the causality of
the connector.
(24) a. Since youre so smart, you do it!
b. ?As youre so smart, you do it!
Rather curiously, only (24a) is suitable for expressing the sarcasm normally associated with the utterance. This is due to the actualizing nature of as. The

Time and cause in the English connector AS

427

speaker in (24) does not really consider his listener to be smart and does not
think that he can do any better than himself at the task. He must therefore
colour the affirmation youre so smart in hypothetical tones to undermine its reality. If as is used, the smartness is posed as being real because it is represented
as a condition upon which the consequence constantly depends. In contrast,
since does not introduce a conditioning event. It instead evokes a logical or
temporal starting point and does not call attention to the conditioning effect
of the situating event on the situated event. This means that since can be used
to express the unreal or counterfactual, while as does not lend itself so well to
the task.
6. TIME AND CAUSE. On the basis of the evidence presented thus far, it can be
argued that there is no temporal as and no causal as per se. There is simply a
connector as that indicates that two events represented linearly in discourse
were perceived simultaneously. This conclusion can be drawn because the
temporal and causal uses of as show a series of common characteristics. In
both cases the two events coordinated by as are overlapping and interrelated
at every instant. One event supports the other through the duration of the period of coincidence, and, at the same time, also serves as a framework within
in which the supported event is situated. In the case of temporal as, the support provided is chronological; every separate instant of the situated event follows a separate instant of the situating event. In the case of causal as, the
entire situating event supports the situated event by rendering it possible for
however long it lasts.
The temporal/causal distinction is not made by as, but is instead made possible by as. If the verbal event evoked by the subordinate clause is perceived
to be composed of opposable instants, a temporal interpretation results. If the
verbal event evoked by the subordinate clause is perceived to be composed of
nonopposable, indistinguishable instants, the result is a causal interpretation,
as time is frozen and therefore potentialized. In a sense then, cause is simply
the result of a potentializing of a temporal relationship, and time and cause
two are faces of the same reality.

REFERENCES
ADAMCZEWSKI, H. 1982. Grammaire linguistique de langlais. Paris: Armand
Colin.
ALTENBERG, B. 1982. Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia linguistica 38:2069.
ANSCOMBRE, J-CL. 1984. La reprsentation de la notion de cause dans la
langue, Cahiers de Grammaire 8:155.

428

Lori Morris

BOLINGER, D. 1986. As strikes back. American speech 61:4.

DANLOS, L. 1988. Connecteurs et relations causales. Langue franaise
77:92127.
DAVISON, A. 1970. Causal adverbs and performative verbs. In Papers from the
sixth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.
DOUGHTY, R. C. 197071. A Grammar of coordinate conjoined structures,
Language 46:85098; 47:298329.
EDGREN, E. 1971. Temporal clauses in English. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.
EMONDS, JOSEPH. 1984. The prepositional copula as. Linguistic analysis
13/2:12744.
FANG, X. 1992. Expressing causation in written English. relc journal
23/1:6280.
FRIES, P. H. 1977. English predications of comparison. Studia Anglia Posna
niensia 9:95103.
GAGNON, ODETTE. 1992. Quelques connecteurs causals; car, puisque, parce que,
comme, tant donn que, sous prtexte que dans un corpus qubcois de textes
crits: description smantico-pragmatique. Mmoire de matrise, Universit
Laval.
HEINMAKI, O. 1975. Because and since, Linguistica Silesiania 1:13543.
. 1978. Semantics of English temporal connectives. Bloomington: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
MARTIN, R. 1988. Temporalit et classes de verbes. Linformation grammaticale.
Vol. 39:38.
QUIRK, R. et al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London
and New York: Longman.
ROHRER, C. 1977. How to define temporal conjunctions. Ling. 51:111.
SHYLDKROT, H. B-Z. n.d. Conjonctions et expression temporelle-causale en
franais, Folia linguistica historica Europea, X. 12:26380.