Cover not available
Part of
Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 151–192

Chapter 6
A corpus-based comparative study of concessive connectives in English, German and Spanish

The distribution of although, obwohl and aunque in the Europarl corpus

| Friedrich Schiller University Jena
This contribution presents a comparative, corpus-based study of the arguably most common concessive connectives of English, German and Spanish, i.e., although, obwohl and aunque. Concessive connectives cover a broad range of contexts and the question arises to what extent prima facie equivalents such as the three connectives under analysis in this study differ with respect to parameters of concessivity identified in the relevant literature. The study shows that obwohl differs significantly from aunque and although in exhibiting a strong bias towards ‘canonical’ concessivity, while the latter connectives (aunque to a greater extent than although) are also commonly used in non-canonical, specifically ‘relativizing’ concessives. Some further distributional differences are identified (with respect to the level of linking, the givenness status and the topic-comment structure of the concessive), but they are largely consequences of the asymmetries in the ‘basic’ type of semantic relation (canonical, relativizing, adversative). As far as structural properties of the concessive clauses are concerned, obwohl-clauses differ from although- and aunque-clauses in that they rarely precede the main clause. This tendency cannot be explained in terms of length, or the functional parameters under investigation, and is thus regarded as a property of the connectives themselves.
Keywords: concessivity, adversative, relativizing, rich annotation, information structure, position of subordinate clause
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and annotation
  • 3.Theoretical background: Concessivity
    • 3.1A probabilistic definition of concessivity
    • 3.2Concessives vs. adversatives
  • 4.Functional types of concessives: Variables for the empirical analysis
    • 4.1Canonical vs. relativizing concessives
    • 4.2Levels of linking
    • 4.3The givenness status of the concession
    • 4.4The topic-comment structure of concessive sentences
    • 4.5Summary
  • 5.Quantitative analyses
    • 5.1Basic types: Canonical concessives, relativizing concessives and concessive adversatives
    • 5.2Levels of linking
    • 5.3The givenness status of the concession
    • 5.4The topic-comment structure of concessive sentences
    • 5.5Summary
  • 6.Structural properties of concessive clauses
  • 7.Combining functional and structural variables
  • 8.Discussion and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.06gas
References (66)
References
Aarts, Bas. 1988. “Clauses of Concession in Written Present-Day British English.” Journal of English Linguistics 21(1): 39–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atayan, Vahram. 2006. Makrostrukturen der Argumentation im Deutschen, Französischen und Italienischen. Mit einem Vorwort von Oswald Ducrot. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Atayan, Vahram, Bettina Fetzer, Volker Gast, Daniel Möller, and Tanja Ronalter. 2018. “Ausdrucksformen der unmittelbaren Nachzeitigkeit in Originalen und Übersetzungen: Eine Pilotstudie zu den deutschen Adverbien gleich und sofort und ihren Äquivalenten im Französischen, Italienischen, Spanischen und Englischen.” In Translation– Linguistik – Semiotik, ed. by Barbara Ahrens, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Monika Krein-Kühle, Michael Schreiber, and Ursula Wienen, 11–82. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar. 2003. Concession in Spoken English. On the Realization of a Discourse Pragmatic Relation. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2003. “On D-trees, Beans and B-accents.” Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5): 511–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “(Contrastive) topic.” In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, ed. by Caroline Féry, and Shinichiro Ishihara, 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carbonell-Olivares, María. 2009. “A Corpus-based Analysis of the Meaning and Function of although.” International Journal of English Studies 9(3): 191–208.Google Scholar
Cartoni, Bruno, and Thomas Meyer. 2012. “Extracting Directional and Comparable Corpora from a Multilingual Corpus for Translation Studies.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Istanbul: 2132–2137.
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of view.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra Thompson. 2000. “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” In Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crevels, Mily. 2000a. “Concession. A Typological Study.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
. 2000b. “Concessives on Different Semantic Levels: A Typological Perspective.” In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 313–340. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1996. “Processing Factors of Pre- and Postposed Adverbial Clauses.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley: 71–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 2004. “Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique.” In L’Argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation, ed. by Marianne Doury, and Sophie Moirand, 17–34. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Friendly, Michael. 1994. “Mosaic Displays for Multi-way contingency Tables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 89: 190–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2010. “Contrastive Topics and Distributed Foci as Instances of Sub-informativity: A Comparison of English and German.” In Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure, ed. by Carsten Breul, and Edward Göbbel, 15–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, and Johan van der Auwera. 2011. “Scalar Additive Operators in the Languages of Europe.” Language 87(1): 2–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, Lennart Bierkandt, and Christoph Rzymski. 2015a. “Annotating Modals with GraphAnno, a Configurable Lightweight Tool for Multi-level Annotation.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Workshop on Models for Modality Annotation, held in conjunction with IWCS 11, Strasbourg: 19–28.
. 2015b. “Creating and Retrieving Tense and Aspect Annotations with GraphAnno, a Lightweight Tool for Multi-level Annotation”. In Proceedings of the 11th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Annotation, ed. by Harry Bunt, 23–28. Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, Lennart Bierkandt, Stephan Druskat, and Christoph Rzymski. 2016. “Enriching TimeBank: Towards a more precise Annotation of Temporal Relations in a Text”. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari et al., 3844–3850. Portorož, Slovenia: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). ISBN: 978-2-9517408-9-1.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, Vahram Atayan, Julien Biege, Bettina Fetzer, Sophie Hettrich, and Anne Weber. forthcoming. “Unmittelbare Nachzeitigkeit im Deutschen und Französischen: Eine Studie auf Grundlage des OpenSubtitles-Korpus”. In Comparatio delectat III. Akten der VIII. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum romanisch-deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich, ed. by Christine Konecny, Carmen Konzett, Eva Lavric, and Wolfgang Pöckl. Fankfurt: Lang.
Günthner, Susanne. 2000. “From Concessive Connector to Discourse Marker: The Use of obwohl in Everyday German”. In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 439–486. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. “Questions in Montague English”. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Ekkehard König. 1998. “Concessive Conditionals in the Languages of Europe”. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, ed. by Johan van der Auwera, 563–640. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 1997. “Because and although: A Case of Duality?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 1–24.Google Scholar
. 1998. “The Meaning of although: A Relevance Theoretic Account”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 81–108.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Although Revisited”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 65–95.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. “The Dimensions of Topic-comment”. Linguistics 39(4): 641–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kassambara, Alboukadel, and Fabian Mundt. 2017. Factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R package Version 1.0.5. URL: [URL]
Kim, Yong-Beom. 2002. “Concession and Linguistic Inference.” Paper presented at the Language, Information, and Computation: Proceedings of the 16th Pacific Asia Conference, ed. by Lee Ik-Hwan, Kim Yong-Beom, Choi Key-Sun, and Lee Minhaeng, 187–194. The Korean Society for Language and Information.
Klein, Dan, and Christopher Manning. 2003. “Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 423–430.
Klein, Wolfgang, and Christiane von Stutterheim. 1987. “Quaestio und referentielle Bewegung in Erzählungen”. Linguistische Berichte 109: 163–183.Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair, and Ted Sanders. 1998. “The Classification of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers: an Exploration of two Languages”. Journal of Pragmatics 30(2): 135–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koehn, Philipp. 2005. Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. MT Summit X. Phuket: 79–86.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1985. “On the History of Concessive Connectives in English. Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence”. Lingua 66(1): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. “Conditionals, Concessive Conditionals and Concessives: Areas of Contrast, Overlap and Neutralization”. In On Conditionals, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott, Alice Ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly, and Charles A. Ferguson, 229–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. “Concessive Connectives and Concessive Sentences: Cross-linguistic Regularities and Pragmatic Principles”. In Explaining Language Universals, ed. by John Hawkins, 145–166. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Concessive Relations as the Dual of Causal Relations”. In Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, ed. by Dietmar Zaefferer, 190–209. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Concessive Clauses”. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Robert. E. Asher, and James M. Simpson, 679–681. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard, and Volker Gast. 2018. Understanding English-German Contrasts. 4th edition. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 2000. “Causal and Concessive Clauses: Formal and Semantic Relations”. In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 341–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latos, Agnieszka. 2009. “Concession on Different Levels of Linguistic Connection: Typology of Negated Causal Links”. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 82–103.Google Scholar
Lé, Sébastien, Julie Josse, and François Husson. 2008. “FactoMineR: A Package for Multivariate Analysis”. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization”. Text 8(3): 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David, Achim Zeileis, and Kurt Hornik. 2016. vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data. R package Version 1. 4–3.Google Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk. 1999. “Two Kinds of Concessives and their Inferential Complexities”. In Levels of Representation in Discourse. Working Notes of the International Workshop on Text Representation, ed. by Alistair Knott, Jon Oberlander, Johanna D. Moore, and Ted Sanders, 45–54. Human Communication Research Centre. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate. 1992. “Sind kausale und konzessive Konstruktionen Duale voneinander?“ Arbeiten der Sonderforschungsbereiches 282, Theorie des Lexikons 31. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität.Google Scholar
R Core Team, 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. URL: [URL]
Roberts, Craige. 2012. “Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics”. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6): 1–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 2016. “Givenness”. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, ed. by Caroline Féry, and Shinichiro Ishihara, 41–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Rosique, Susana. 2005. “Hipoteticidad, factualidad e irrelevancia: la elección del subjuntivo en las condicionales concesivas del español.” Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. by David Eddington, 31–41. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Elisabeth. 1996. Contrast. Adversative and Concessive Relations and their Expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Naranjo, Jeannette. 2014. “Interpretation and Grammar Interaction in the Spanish Subjunctive Adjuncts.” Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 3(1): 125–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, Deepayan. 2008. Lattice: Multivariate Data Visualization with R. New York: Springer. URL: [URL]. DOI logo
Schützler, Ole. 2017. “A Corpus-based Study of Concessive Conjunctions in Three L1-Varieties of English.” In Language Variation – European Perspectives VI: Selected papers from the 8th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig, May 2015. ed. by Isabelle Buchstaller, and Beat Siebenhaar. 173–184. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Concessive Conjunctions in Written American English.” In Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change, ed. by Richard J. Whitt, 195–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. “Givenness, AVOIDF and other Constraints on the Placement of Accent.” Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1976. “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. by Milton K. Munitz, and Peter Unger, 197–214. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2004. “Initial and Final Position of Adverbial Clauses in English: the Constructional Basis of the Discursive and Syntactic Differences.” Linguistics 42(4): 819–853. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel, and Elma Kerz. 2013. “The Positioning of Concessive Adverbial Clauses in English: Assessing the Importance of Discourse-pragmatic and Processing-based Constraints.” English Language and Linguistics 17(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deidre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela. 2013. “Adverbial eingeleitete Verbletztsätze.” In Satztypen des Deutschen, ed. by Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, and Hans Altmann, 301–316. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Hasselgård, Hilde
2024. Concessive subordination in English and Norwegian. Languages in Contrast 24:1 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Klumm, Matthias, Anita Fetzer & Evelien Keizer
2023. Continuative and contrastive discourse relations across discourse domains. Functions of Language 30:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Klumm, Matthias
2022. The Signaling of Continuative and Contrastive Discourse Relations in English Argumentative Discourse: Corpus-Based and Experimental Perspectives. Discours :30 DOI logo
Puhl, Maike & Remus Gergel
2022. Chapter 7. Final though. In Particles in German, English, and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series, 224], ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2021. The rise of a concessive “category reassessment” construction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 22:2 ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.