Jeff faces off against just because clauses

Dr. Jeff Hodges writes a post titled, "Just because I don't understand 'just because' clauses doesn't mean I don't understand how to use 'just because' clauses!"  Jeff writes:

I've been thinking about "just because" clauses recently. Why? Just because, that's why. No, don't get up and leave. I'll tell you why. Just because I don't know much about "just because" clauses doesn't mean that I don't think they're important. I do think they're important. I want to know how to explain them so that I can tell my two children how to use them.

Among other reasons . . .

I wrote in response:

Interesting question. I suppose one could teach it as a verbal pattern:

(1) just because [clause] doesn't mean (that) [clause]

(or)

(2) just because [clause], that doesn't mean (that) [clause]

 

Note that pattern (1) treats "just because" as introducing a noun clause, whereas in (2), "just because" is simply introducing the subordinate-clause part of a complex sentence.

That doesn't answer the question of how to explain the meaning of "just because," though, nor does it explain when to use the pattern. Maybe the "just" is a note of dismissiveness in reply to something someone has said or in response to something observed and deemed unworthy or insufficient.

Just because you're sitting on the world's fastest horse doesn't mean you'll get this parcel to Sacramento in time.

 

The above sentence implies a pessimistic evaluation of the horse: even that horse doesn't have much of a chance of making the Sacramento run in time.

 

What if we try rewriting the sentence to figure out the shape of the pattern's semantic field? Some possibilities:

 

You might be on the world's fastest horse, but you're still not gonna get this parcel to Sacramento in time.

 

The simple fact that you're on the world's fastest horse doesn't mean you'll get this parcel to Sacramento in time.

 

Even though you're sitting on the world's fastest horse, that doesn't mean you'll get this parcel to Sacramento in time.

 

Does that help us understand the meaning and role of "just because" in the pattern? Maybe "just because" is a scornful form of "even though." It also occurs to me that the "doesn't mean" part of the pattern is crucial for helping to convey that scorn.

 

There are many hard-to-explain locutions in English—hard for me to explain, anyway. Another good one is "may as well," which I use to express emotions ranging from resignation to a sort of grim pragmatism rooted in pessimism. "May as well" is hard to explain to EFL students.

 

Resignation:

Bah. This painting's going nowhere. I may as well start over.

 

Grim pragmatism:

The jungle's dangerous. You may as well take your gun.

Just some disjointed thoughts. Good luck figuring out how to explain "just because" to your critters.

Jeff responded:

Thanks, Kevin. Here's a paper that also might help:

Just-Because Clauses.

I've had a chance to glance at the paper Jeff linked to, and it's a way-deep examination of the topic.  However, I have quibbles with the way some of the example sentences are written in the paper.  If you've followed my ongoing series on commas, you'll see what I mean when I show you the following sentences from the paper:

Because we have lived in Berkeley for a year we haven’t turned into leftwing radicals.

Just because we have lived in Berkeley for a year we haven’t turned into leftwing radicals. 

It could be that the above sentences were deliberately written incorrectly (I'm also not a fan of the compound "leftwing"; I'd write that as "left-wing," and in the paper, "left-wing" does appear, bizarrely enough, which is a nightmare for consistency); I need to read the paper more deeply to see whether that's so.  But at first blush, both sentences are complex sentences with the subordinate clause coming first, so there needs to be a comma at the end of the subordinate clause.  The simple example used in my comma-related posts is this:

(1) If you do that again, I'll kill you.

(2) I'll kill you if you do that again.

In the first sentence, the subordinate clause (introduced by the subordinating conjunction if) comes first, so the rule is that there needs to be a comma.  In the second sentence, the subordinate clause comes last, so there's no comma.

Anyway, I look forward to reading and not understanding the paper Jeff linked to.  It may be a little—or a lot—over my head.