Cause and effect: expressing results

result

English has a number of ways to express the connections between causes and results. Here are some examples of the kinds of structures commonly used classified by what they are. In what follows, we'll look at each type in turn.

Clausal subordination:
I missed the meeting because the train was late
If it hadn't snowed, I wouldn't have missed the meeting
Clausal coordination:
The train was late so that I missed the meeting
The train was late and I missed the meeting
Conjuncts:
The train was late. Consequently, I missed the meeting
The train was late. As a result, I missed the meeting
Below, there is also consideration of the small class of attitudinal disjuncts that perform an allied function.
Noun or prepositional phrases:
Due to the snow, the train was late
Because of the snow, the train was late
Subject nouns:
The consequence of the snow was that the trains were delayed
The upshot of the snow was that the trains were delayed
Result verbs:
The snow caused the delay
The snow affected the trains

Which formulation is selected from the range of choices available to a speaker / writer will depend, primarily, on two factors:

Style:
Conjuncts and subject nouns which refer to results are generally more formal than simple subordination or the use of simple result verbs. For example:
    The train was late. Hence, I missed the meeting
and
    The result of the delay was that I missed the meeting
are generally considered more formal than
    The snow made the train late
or
    I missed the meeting because the train was late
Desired effect:
Whether the speaker / writer wishes to emphasise the cause or its effect will often determine the structure of choice. For example:
The consequence was that I missed the meeting
emphasises the result
But for the snow, I would have been here
emphasises the cause.

Subordination and Coordination

There is separate guide to subordination and another to coordination on this site linked in the list of related guides at the end.
We are not concerned here to investigate the subtle and sometimes rather fluid distinctions between subordinators and coordinators (as that is the topic of other guides). We are more concerned here to investigate the functional properties of conjunctions of both sorts (and those that fall in between the categories).

The most frequently used are:

Subordination: as, because, if, in order to / to, in order (that), seeing that, since, so as
Coordination: so, and, so that, for

Although it was noted above that subordination is often the choice when informal language is required, it can be seen that some of these conjunctions (especially, in order that and since) are more formal than others in the list and more likely to appear in written English, especially where precision and clarity are needed such as in academic texts.
The complex subordinator in order to is often contracted to to as in, e.g.:
I came to hear what he would say
which is often described as the infinitive of purpose although it is a very arguable point that it is an infinitive at all.
(To this list, we might add the conjunction whereby which generally introduces the means by which an intended outcome is achieved. It is unusual and almost fully confined to formal writing.)

There are two functions that the subordinators perform:

as, because, so, since, seeing that function to link a cause to an inevitable result. For example:
1.     As the train was late, I missed the meeting
      Because the train was late, I missed the meeting
      I missed the meeting since the train was late
      Seeing that I missed the meeting, I don't know what was decided
2. These are proper subordinators, rather than coordinators, so the order of the clauses can be reversed, the subordinator remaining fixed to introduce the cause, not the effect, like this:
      I missed the meeting as the train was late
      I missed the meeting because the train was late
      Since the train was late, I missed the meeting
      I don't know what was decided, seeing that I missed the meeting
in order to / to, in order (that), so that, so as, whereby, through all imply an action taken to secure a result rather than an inevitable consequence of an event. For example:
1.     In order not to be late, I hurried
      So as not to be late, I hurried
      I hurried to get there on time
      In order that I wouldn't be late, I hurried
      I hurried so that I wouldn't be late
      I hurried so as not to be late
      Through hurrying, I managed not to be late
2. Again, because these are subordinators, the clause ordering can be reversed but the conjunction sticks with the outcome of the action:
      I hurried in order not to be late
      To get there on time, I hurried
      I hurried in order that I wouldn't be late
      So that I wouldn't be late, I hurried
      So as not to be late, I hurried
      I managed not to be late through hurrying

There are some important logical and structural issues to be considered.

It is important to distinguish between action taken to secure an outcome and the inevitable result of an event or the wrong message is sent and, often, nonsense results. So, for example:
    The train was late so that I missed the meeting
    In order that I don't know what was decided I missed the meeting
    I hurried because I wouldn't be late
    Since I wouldn't be late, I hurried
are all either nonsense or not the intended meaning. The first of these implies, incidentally, that someone deliberately made the train late to bring about the result.
Structurally, there are also differences between the forms because the subordinators which signal an action taken to secure an outcome need verb forms which imply the action was taken. Often this is accomplished via the use of a non-finite infinitive form so we allow, e.g.:
    I hurried in order not to be late
    I hurried so as not to be late
but not
    I hurried in order that I wasn't late
    I hurried seeing that to be late
Otherwise, a finite clause can be used with these conjunctions. For example:
    So that I wouldn't be late, I hurried
    In order that I wouldn't be late, I hurried
Two complex subordinators (so as and in order to / to) require the non-finite infinitive form and the preposition through requires an -ing form:
    I hurried so as not to be late
    I hurried not to be late
    I hurried in order not to be late
    I managed not to be late through hurrying
are acceptable, but
    *I hurried so as I wouldn't be late
    *I hurried to not be late
    *I hurried in order to I wouldn't be late
    *Through I hurried I wasn't late
are unacceptable.
The subordinating conjunction so that also has a coordinating function (see below) but in terms of cause and effect, that use is considerably rarer.

if-clauses and but for (the fact that)

Conditional clauses are frequently used to link cause and effect either to refer to the future or to express that but for an event a result would not have occurred. For example:
If the train is late, I'll miss the meeting
refers to the result of a possible cause
If the train hadn't been late, I wouldn't have missed the meeting
refers to a past event which had a past consequence
In the past, conditional structures are frequently in the negative or imply a frustrated event to show the direction of causation so we can have, for example:
I would have been at the meeting if the train hadn't been late
or
I would have been at the meeting if the train had been on time (but it wasn't)
The expression but for always refers to a noun or a nominal clause, not to a finite verb or clause so, e.g.:
    But for the train delay, I wouldn't have been late
    I would have been at the meeting but for the train delay
    I would have been at the meeting but for the fact that the train was late
are acceptable, although
    *But for the train was late I would have been at the meeting
    *I would have been at the meeting but for I was delayed
are not.
(Lawyers reading this will no doubt recall that in law the but-for test is often applied to determine factual guilt. The consideration is:
    But for the actions of the accused, would the damage, injury etc. have occurred?)
In order to convert a finite clause into a noun phrase, a common tactic is to insert the fact that + the clause. For example:
Because the train was late, I missed the meeting
can be converted to
I missed the meeting because of the fact that the train was late
This type of conversion is particularly frequent in written texts.

The ordering of the clauses is, as we saw, reversible but the choice will normally be made depending on whether the speaker / writer wishes to emphasise the cause or the effect. Whichever is fronted is likely to be where the stress lies.
When the subordinate clause is in the initial position it is usually followed by a comma.

Four coordinating conjunctions serve to express resultative meaning. They are:

so, and, so that, for

In common with other coordinators, these are in a fixed position between the clauses they link and are not as mobile as subordinators. They show explicitly the direction of causation.
For example:
    The train was late so I missed the meeting
    The train was late and I missed the meeting
    There was a long delay so that I missed the meeting
    I missed the meeting for the train was late

There are differences in the use of coordinators to consider:

The clauses cannot be reversed as they can with subordination:
    So the train was late I missed the meeting
    And I missed the meeting the train was late
    So that I missed the meeting there was a long delay
    For the train was late I missed the meeting
are all unacceptable because coordinators must appear between the clauses they connect.
The exception is the coordinator so which lies in the grey area between coordinators and subordinators. This conjunction can, in a limited way, move with the subordinate clause and we allow:
    So I could meet his sister, I called at his house
and
    I called at his house so I could meet his sister
However, in this meaning, the conjunctions signals purpose rather than causality.
The direction of causality is usually explicitly signalled or nonsense results:
    I missed the meeting and the train was late
    I missed the meeting so that the train was late
    The train was late for I missed the meeting
are all nonsense.
The conjunction so that is rare in this meaning and is normally used as a subordinator (see above) with a purposive rather than resultative meaning.
The conjunction and is frequently used to show the ordering of events and allows the hearer / reader to make the causal connection rather than explicitly signalling it. It is, however, very common, especially in informal speech but rare in writing and almost never present in formal writing.
The conjunction for is a more formal alternative to because but it is a coordinator and because subordinates so the grammar and mobility of the clauses vary.

Commas are not usually used when the conjunction serves to coordinate rather than subordinate.

Conjuncts

Conjuncts differ from conjunctions in that they are not part of clause in which they appear but function to link two independent clauses or sentences. This does not invariably mean that they occur in the initial position but that is the way to bet (and, probably, the way to teach them).
Common ones are:

accordingly, as a result, consequently, hence, so, therefore, thus

All bar so are more formal than conjunctions and they all introduce or interrupt the clause expressing the effect of something. For example:
    The train was delayed. Consequently, I missed the meeting
    I missed the meeting. Accordingly, I do not know what was decided
    The training was late and I missed the meeting. So, I don't know what was decided
    The train was late. I, therefore, missed the meeting.
    I missed the meeting. Hence, I don't know what was decided
    I missed the meeting. Thus, I don't know what was decided

Only the conjunct so is commonly used in informal speech and it must always be in the initial position in the clause. For example:
I don't need the car until tomorrow. So, if you like, you can borrow it.
It is, in fact, in spoken language almost impossible to tell by listening to a statement whether so is being used as a coordinating conjunction or a conjunct (and it probably doesn't matter).

Conjuncts often appear in a reinforcing role with coordinating conjunctions so we can have, for example:
    The train was late so I consequently missed the meeting
    The train was late and I therefore missed the meeting
This does not, however, occur with subordinators so
    *Because the train was late I consequently missed the meeting
    *I therefore missed the meeting since the train was late
are not acceptable.

Conjuncts are usually separated from the clause in which they appear by commas.

In written texts, especially formal or academic texts, these conjuncts are frequently used to make sure that the effect is separated from the cause and signalled clearly.
They also serve to emphasise the effect rather than the cause because they introduce a new theme into the discourse.

A note on performative adverbs

Usually, as we saw above, adverbs perform the function of conjuncts when expressing the result of an event. More rarely, they can be used within the clause as simple adjuncts and still perform the role of linking cause and effect.

Some adverbs may express what can be called a performative result, i.e., the result is part of the action. Examples of a performative speech acts are
   I name this ship the Venus
    I bet six Euros
    I object
in which the act of speaking performs the action. In other words, the utterance and its result are simultaneous.

There are four adverbs in particular which do this:

hereby: This adverb means as a result of this utterance or document. It is, deixically speaking, a reference to the here and now and occurs in clauses such as:
You are hereby informed that the transfer has been made according to your wishes
The undersigned hereby agrees to pay the sum required
and in both these cases, the acts of informing and agreeing are contained in, i.e., achieved by, the text.
herewith: This adverb also functions to mean with this document but it can carry the same meaning as hereby as in, e.g.:
You are herewith promoted to the position of Personnel Manager
I promise herewith to pay the sum of $200.
and again, the act of writing or speaking performs the resultant acts of promoting and promising.
thereby: This adverb means as a result of that or by that means. It is deixically speaking, a reference to the there and then and occurs in clauses such as:
The children attended the concert and thereby learned some appreciation of Mozart
We analysed the results and thereby discovered a disparity.
and in both these cases, the acts of attending and analysing are simultaneous with the learning and discovering.
therewith: Usually, this adverb carries the meaning of with that or immediately thereafter. It can, however, more rarely be used to express cause and result as in, for example:
He was therewith informed of his responsibilities
He inherited his grandfather's estate and therewith became rich

The four adverbs are formal and can be replaced by more conventional subordination, conjuncts, verbs or prepositional phrases. For example:
    By this we would like to inform you that ...
    Therefore, we require ...
    ... so they learned some appreciation ...
    Through analysing the data ...
    The letter meant he knew his responsibilities
    Because he inherited ...
    Thus, he became rich
etc.

There is also a small class of causal attitudinal disjuncts which includes terms such as inevitably, inexorably, predictably and unsurprisingly which signal the speaker's view of the effect of the cause.
They occur in, for example:
She argued her point too forcefully. Predictably, the committee rejected the idea.

Noun or prepositional phrases

A number of phrases serve to introduce nouns or nominalised clauses to show the relationship between cause and effect. These are really prepositional phrases acting to subordinate in most cases. They can be called simply noun phrases but it is more accurate to refer to them as prepositional phrases.
Here's a short list:

as a consequence of, as a result of, because of, by, by dint of, by means of, by reason of, by use of, by virtue of, due to, on account of, on grounds of, on the strength of, owing to, thanks to, through

By their nature, these phrases all introduce the cause of the effect, not, as we saw with conjuncts, the effect of the cause. In other words, they are a mirror image but they cannot act as conjuncts themselves. For example, using a conjunct we might have:
You have worked very hard. Accordingly, we have finished on time.
but with a noun-phrase introducer we can rephrase that as:
Thanks to your hard work, we have finished on time.

Other examples of these phrases are:
    Because of the snow, the train was delayed
    As a result of the delay, I missed the meeting
    On account of missing the meeting, I don't know what was decided
    Through missing the meeting, I don't know what was decided
    By virtue of the delay, I missed the meeting
which, incidentally, implies that the speaker wanted to miss the meeting
    Thanks to the delay, I missed the meeting
which implies sarcasm, and so on.
Normally, the phrases thanks to, by dint of and by virtue of introduce a positive outcome. For example:
    By dint of hard work and application, he passed all his examinations
    By virtue of the fact that it rained, the garden flourished that summer
    Thanks to his help, we got the job done.
The last of these, however, can be used sarcastically as in, e.g.:
    Thanks to your delaying me, I missed my bus
and also has a variant which comes terminally in the phrase and means its opposite, as in, e.g.:
    We got the job done, no thanks to you.

As with subordinating conjunctions, the clauses can be reversed:
    The train was delayed because of the snow
    I missed the meeting as a result of the delay
    I don't know what was decided on account of missing the meeting
    I don't know what was decided through missing the meeting
    I missed the meeting by virtue of the delay
    I missed the meeting thanks to the delay

We noted above that the useful phrase the fact that is frequently used to convert a clause into a noun phrase and, accordingly, it appears often with these phrases, too. For example:
I missed the meeting on account of the fact that the train was late
I don't know what was decided because of the fact that I missed the meeting
etc.

Because these fixed phrases introduce nominalised expressions or nouns, the non-finite gerund or perfect -ing form is frequent as in, for example:
    Through our having so little time, we didn't complete the project
    By dint of working so hard, he got everything done
    As a result of losing his money, he was obliged to walk home
    By virtue of having had such a good interview manner, he got the job

A note on owing to and due to:
Much energy has been expended since the 19th century to distinguish between these two phrases, the usual admonition being that due to is used with a noun phrase and owing to with a non-finite clause so
It was due to my lateness that I missed the meeting
Owing to being late, I missed the meeting
A related admonition is never to begin a sentence with due to because it should connect two noun phrases.
There are those that worry about such things but there is actually no reason at all to make this distinction. Revered writers, including Dickens and Austen, have used the phrases interchangeably. There seems little need to trouble yourself with the distinction and none to trouble your learners with it.

The ordering of the clauses is, as we saw, reversible but the choice will normally be made depending on whether the speaker / writer wishes to emphasise the cause or the effect. Whichever is fronted is likely to be where the stress lies.
If the noun phrase is in initial position, it is usually followed by a comma.

Abstract nouns

Nouns which represent a consequence are far more common in the subject position in a clause than they are as an object argument (Hoey, 2003). Therefore,
The consequence was that ...
is preferred over
This made the consequence that ...
which seems clumsy and unnatural.
Other nouns that fall into this category are:

result, effect, upshot, outcome, corollary, aftermath, product

That is quite a short list, teachable in a single lesson.
They have certain connotations and the choice is a semantically rather than structurally determined. In particular, aftermath implies a very negative consequence, upshot is informal and corollary implies a by-product rather than the main effect of something.
Otherwise, the words are close synonyms and are often used in the same text for variety and stylistic reasons rather than for any fundamental distinctions in meaning. The nouns generally are confined to separate clauses or sentences or the writing becomes unwieldy and unnatural. We might have, therefore:

The snow was particularly heavy and the effect was to delay all the trains. The consequence was that I was late getting to work and the outcome of that was that I missed the meeting. Anyway, the upshot is that I don't know what was decided.

As you can see, overuse of the nouns causes some stylistic infelicity.

The noun upshot, incidentally, although countable, has no plural form. All the other nouns in this section are count nouns.

Consequence nouns, because they are normally the subjects of verbs, stress the outcome over the cause.

	Result verbs
the yeast made the dough rise

Result verbs are a subset of verbs referring to material processes rather than, for example, mental or relational processes and they are generally ungradable and used dynamically. They are often used in conjunction with the limited range of nouns we have just identified.
They include:

affect, alter, cause, change, determine, effect, influence, initiate, instigate, lead to, make, modify, produce, result in, shape, trigger

and to that list we could add technical verbs such as polymerise, oxidise, force, deposit, reduce, bond, ionise, tarnish, corrode, rust and so on. Every academic domain will have its preferred process verbs.

The choice of verb, is, therefore, as with nouns, semantically determined. There are, however, some colligational and collocational issues to bear in mind when teaching the lexis.

While we can accept:
    The yeast made the dough rise
we cannot accept
    *The yeast caused the dough rise
    *The yeast initiated the dough rise
We can also accept:
    This led to the consequence
    That produced the outcome
but not
    *This instigated the outcome
or
    *That made the upshot

There are, however, many commonalities. All the verbs are monotransitive and occur in structures such as:

Subject noun phrase	Verb	Object noun phrase	Non-finite clause / adjunct
The small explosion	caused	the people in the area	to panic
The rise in temperature	resulted in	the reaction	proceeding more rapidly
The delay	led inevitably to	the cancellation of the meeting	immediately
The history of the nation	profoundly influences	people's willingness	to accept the changes
The subjects' emotional states	obviously shaped	their ability	to succeed in the task
The government's decision	made	the people	rebel
The extra energy	resulted in	the substance	melting
The bias of the researcher	modified	the outcomes	considerably
The results	may well affect	any decision	of the committee

and so on. Co-text is important when presenting the area for both structural and collocational reasons.

	Causative verbs
liquidized fruit drinks

Some verbs are formed by the affixation of suffixes (usually to adjectives) to make a causative sense of investing the object with the characteristics of the noun or adjective from which the verb is formed. Here are some examples with the four suffixes which allow this:

-ate	activate	authenticate	substantiate	facilitate
-ify	beautify	humidify	gentrify	codify
-ise/-ize	terrorise	containerise	nationalize	naturalize
-en	whiten	lengthen	stiffen	deafen

Some of these verbs are formed with bound bases which do not have an independent existence. Examples are:
    truncate (with no free morpheme trunc)
    deflate and inflate (with no free morphemes defl and infl)
    desiccate (with no free morpheme desicc)
    modify (with no free morpheme mod)
    clarify (with no free morpheme clar)
    plagiarise (with no free morpheme plagiar)
    exorcise (with no free morpheme exorc)
    enlighten (with no free morpheme enlight)
    embolden (with no free morpheme embold)

For a little more about these verbs, consult the guide to the causative, linked below.

Teaching cause and effect

The range of possible ways to link causes and effects is usually limited in the classroom to the use of a confined (and confining) set of conjunctions. As we have seen, there's a good deal more to it than that. Here are some classroom considerations.

Conjunction:

Conjunction is, however, a logical place to start, because until the direction of cause and effect is established and the concepts clarified, it's hard to go much further.
The simplest form of cause-effect linking is the use of subordinating conjunctions because, as we saw, the ordering of the clauses is not a constraint providing the direction of causations is clear.
There are a limited number of forms to deal with, generally confined to: as, because, if, in order (that), seeing that, since, so that, so as.

Moreover, of these because is the most common by far and has equivalents in many languages which also have parallel ways to express the idea of x because y happened. In European languages for example, we find the following parallels:

English	I am here	because	you invited me
Dutch	Ik ben hier	omdat	je me uitnodigde
German	Ich bin hier,	weil	du mich eingeladen hast
French	Je suis là	parce que	vous m'avez invité
Italian	Sono qui	perché	mi hai invitato
Spanish	Estoy aquí	porque	me invitaste
Norwegian	Jeg er her	fordi	du inviterte meg

Conceptually and structurally, there are few problems.
However, once we venture beyond European languages, the situation becomes more complex because some, such as the Chinese languages, have two-part conjunctions to achieve the meaning and may also distinguish structurally between events that happened simultaneously and those that followed in the course of time.
Japanese, on the other hand has parallels in distinguishing between cause and effect in the natural way of things and cause and effect relating to the actor's intended outcomes. The distinction between
I am late because the train was late
and
I am hurrying so that I can catch the train
will not, therefore, be conceptually difficult.
Nevertheless, the forms of conjunction used when expressing natural consequence and intended consequence need to be presented in clear contexts or you will encourage error and confusion.

A simple way to begin is with two sentences expressing natural consequence for the learners to practise combining so, once presented with:
    It was cold
    I took a coat
the learners can see the cause and the effect as distinct and be able to produce:
    I took a coat because it was cold
    Because it was cold I took a coat
    I took a coat as it was cold
and so on.
Later (and not at the same time), the same procedure can be used to express intended consequence with, e.g.:
    It was raining
    I had a new hat
    I took an umbrella
from which we can construct, with some help:
    It was raining so I took an umbrella in order that my new hat didn't get wet
A serious pitfall to avoid when presenting conjunctions for the first time or at lower levels is encouraging confusion by mixing subordinating and coordinating conjunctions. It is possible to see so and because as somehow connected and having opposite senses so we can convert, e.g.:
    I took an umbrella because it was raining
into
    It was raining so I took an umbrella
but that can also produce nonsense if we try the formula with:
    Because it was raining I took an umbrella
as that results in:
    I took an umbrella so it was raining
and that's nonsense because so is a coordinator and cannot be shifted around with its clause.
Conditionals which express cause and effect can be dealt with separately when they are the focus of the teaching. Focusing on cause and effect with if or but for phrases is, however, an interesting way to extend and revise the forms.

Conjuncts
1. Are another matter and a common error that learners make is to treat conjuncts as conjunctions and use them to combine two clauses in the same sentence. We get errors, then, such as:
  *He worked hard accordingly he passed his exams
  Conjuncts have to be distinguished from conjunctions by co-text and context.

Noun phrases, nouns and result verbs
Unless your learners are studying English for Academic Purposes or need otherwise to write formally and express cause and effect, the nouns and causal verbs we deploy are probably less useful.

Phrases which introduce noun phrases such as as a result of, due to etc. are best approached by distinguishing first between because and because of in a little exercise such as

I took an umbrella because it was raining	→	I took an umbrella because of the rain
Do the same:
I was uncomfortable because it was hot	→	I was uncomfortable because of __________
I was tired because I had been working	→	I was tired because of __________

Once the concept is clear in this way, it is safe to move on to the other common phrases such as as a result of, through, by virtue of and so on.

Collocation grids are usually helpful with verbs:

Mark these right or wrong. If they are wrong, can you suggest a correct form?
For example:
The heat made the reaction	X	The heat initiated the reaction
This made the upshot
The delay modified the people

and so on.

There is a short and simple test on this, here.

Related guides
subordination and coordination	for an overview of the area
coordination	for the guide dedicated to this area
subordination	for the guide dedicated to this area
the causative	for the guide to structures which signal causes (and effects)
syntax: clauses and phrases	for the index to allied areas
conjunctions	for more on the word class in general

Reference:
Hoey, M, 2003, What's in a word?, Macmillan, MED Magazine, Issue 10, August 2003