In a sentence like:
He had joined up for no other reason than to escape, [blank] hated army life.
I would use the conjunction and. In the equivalent Thai sentence, though, it seems that native speakers would use but.
For me, the first clause makes clear that he didn't really want to join up in the first place, and there's no opposition between that and hating army life.
At the same time, that clause does state that he joined up, and if you focus on that then there is the same opposition as there would be in he joined up but hated it.
I should mention that the sentence is in a context where it's definitely not news that the guy in question had joined the army, and isn't really news that he joined up because he felt he had to, not because he really wanted to.
How can I express this difference in more linguistic terms? Can I say that EN looks at the pragmatic meaning of the complex clause as a whole, whereas TH looks at the proposition that appears highest in its structure tree?
Are there other examples of this kind of difference, possibly between (other) European languages and other Asian languages?