Cover not available
Part of
Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change
Edited by Richard J. Whitt
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 85] 2018
► pp. 195–218

Concessive conjunctions in written American English

Diachronic and genre-related changes in frequency and semantics

| University of Bamberg

Based on the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA; Davies 2010–), this chapter inspects the frequencies and semantics of the concessive conjunctions although, though and even though from the 1860s to the present day. In the data, although and though predominantly express what Sweetser (1990) has called speech-act concessives, while even though mainly expresses content concessives. However, there is a general development towards a higher proportion of speech-act concessives. Further, although and even though increase in frequency, while though decreases over time. Semantic properties and the double function of though (conjunction and conjunct) are proposed as explanations. Frequency changes progress equally through all genres, but the semantic change seems to have pervaded all genres only as far as although is concerned.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research background
    • 2.1Three semantic types of concessives
    • 2.2The stylistics of concessive conjunctions
    • 2.3Research questions
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Corpus examples
    • 4.2Frequencies
    • 4.3Semantics
  • 5.Summary and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 8 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.85.09sch
References
Aarts, Bas
1988 Clauses of concession in written present-day British English. Journal of English Linguistics 21(1): 39–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agresti, Alan & Finlay, Barbara
2009 Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Alexander, Marc & Davies, Mark
2015– Hansard Corpus 1803–2005. [URL]Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude
1989 Théorie de l’argumentation, topoï, et structuration discursive. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 18(1): 13–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azar, Moshe
1997 Concessive relations as argumentations. Text 17(3): 301–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Britain, David & Trudgill, Peter
2000 Migration, dialect contact, new-dialect formation and reallocation. In Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe, Klaus J. Mattheier (ed.), 73–78. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Burnham, Josephine M.
1911 Concessive Constructions in Old English Prose. New York NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Chen, Guohua
2000 The grammaticalization of concessive markers in Early Modern English. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Annette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 87–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crevels, Mily
2000 Concessives on different semantic levels: A typologocal perspective. In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 313–339. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
2010– The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. [URL]Google Scholar
Di Meola, Claudio
1998 Zur Definition einer logisch-semantischen Kategorie: Konzessivität als „versteckte Kausalität“. Linguistische Berichte 175: 329–352.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson & Kucera, Henry
1979 Manual of Information to Accompany A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Digital Computers. Providence RI: Brown University Department of Linguistics. [URL] (27 February 2015).Google Scholar
Hardie, Andrew
2012 CQPweb - combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(3): 380–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermodsson, Lars
1994 Der Begriff „konzessiv”. Terminologie und Analysen. Studia Neophilologia 66: 59–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan Th.
2009 Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4): 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1991 On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol I: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D., & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
1999 ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progess. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1985 On the history of concessive connectives in English: Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66(1): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2006 Twentieth-Century English. History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mollin, Sandra
2007 The Hansard hazard: Gauging the accuracy of British parliamentary transcripts. Corpora 2(2): 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online
Oxford: OUP. [URL] (22 February 2017).
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
2016 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version 3.2.4. [computer program]. [URL]Google Scholar
RStudio Team
2009–2015 RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Version 0.99.486. Boston MA: RStudio. [URL]Google Scholar
Sarkar, Deepayan
2014 lattice: Lattice Graphics. R-package version 0.20-29. [URL]Google Scholar
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 Eighth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig, 2015 [Studies in Language Varietion 19], Isabelle Buchstaller & Beat Siebenhaar (eds), 173–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik
2014 Syntactic stability and change in nineteenth-century newspaper language. In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 311–29. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik & Kytö, Merja
2015 English genres in diachronic corpus linguistics. In From Clerks to Corpora: Essays on the English Language Yesterday and Today, Philip Shaw, Britt Erman, Gunnel Melchers & Peter Sundkvist (eds), 117–33. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2013 Analysing aggregated linguistics data. In Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, Manfred Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds), 433–455. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
1986 Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Gast, Volker
2019. Chapter 6. A corpus-based comparative study of concessive connectives in English, German and Spanish. In Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 305], ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Schützler, Ole
2019. Variation and change at the interface of syntax and semantics. In Developments in English Historical Morpho-Syntax [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 346], ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.