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)
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: 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 (4)

Cited by 4 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
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 28 june 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.