How much of our propensity to make causal statements depends on the language we use? In English, we structure sentences as either a question, answer, or comman

How much of our propensity to make causal statements depends on the language we use? In English, we structure sentences as either a question, answer, or command of causality. We have "independent clauses" but the moment a clause gains utility is when dependence is added to it. The only methods we have to express noncausal ideas are additive. Like an expansion pack for the English language, we just slap on some extra grammar and jargon, then call it good. It's a lot of messy boilerplate that we have to use every time we need abstraction. It's no wonder that we have ended up with doctor-speak and programmer jargon. This has me wondering: what if we did have first-class noncausal language? What would that even look like? How would we structure clauses? Is there even a way to do it, or is what I am proposing simply what one finds searching the antonym of causal itself: redundant, frivolous, irrelevant, or meaningless?