Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Starting from the term “family of constructions”, the present article investigates lexical and syntactic variation in a subtype of German concessive conditionals which is marked by (‘what’) in combination with expressions of irrelevance like (‘no matter’). 12,894 examples from the DeReKo corpus () are analysed manually for seven variables. Both the quantitative and the qualitative results suggest that combinations of with an expression of irrelevance, or “[IRR ]” for short, form part of a recently entrenched constructional schema [IRR ] of concessive-conditional subordinators which are emerging into the family of concessive-conditional constructions in present-day German.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aarts, B.
    (2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baschewa, E.
    (1980) Der Konzessivsatz im Neuhochdeutschen. Synchronische und diachronische Untersuchungen zu seiner Syntax, Semantik und Stilistik. Doctoral dissertation, Leipzig University.
  3. Bossuyt, T.
    (2016) Zur Distribution von Irrelevanzpartikeln in was immer/auch-Konstruktionen: Positionelle und kombinatorische Varianz im Deutschen Referenzkorpus. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 42, 45–70. 10.33675/GM/2016/1/4
    https://doi.org/10.33675/GM/2016/1/4 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2022) Concessive conditionals beyond Europe: A typological survey. Studies in Language, published online14 February 2022. 10.1075/sl.20068.bos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20068.bos [Google Scholar]
  5. Bossuyt, T., De Cuypere, L. & Leuschner, T.
    (2018) Emergence phenomena in German W-immer/auch-subordinators. InE. Fuß, M. Konopka, B. Trawiński & U. H. Waßner (Eds.), Grammar and corpora 2016 (pp.97–120). Heidelberg University Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bücker, J.
    (2016) Focus, scales and concessive conditionals in German. Language Sciences, 58, 163–177. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  8. d’Avis, F.
    (2016) Satztyp als Konstruktion: Diskussion am Beispiel ‘konzessive Konditionalgefüge’. InR. Finkbeiner & J. Meibauer (Eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen (pp.267–295). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. [Duden-Grammatik (2016) =]: Wöllstein, A.
    (Ed.) (2016) Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (9th ed.). Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. [Duden-Zweifelsfälle (2016) =]: Hennig, M.
    (Ed.) (2016) Das Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle: Richtiges und gutes Deutsch (8th ed.). Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Duffley, P. & Larrivée, P.
    (2020) Whatever floats your boat: A corpus-based investigation of definiteness, quantification, modality, presuppositional content, scalarity and epistemic stance with wh-ever words. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(2), 206–245. 10.1163/18773109‑01202002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, O.
    (2008) On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 32(2), 336–382. 10.1075/sl.32.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
  13. (2013) An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization: On the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 515–533. 10.1075/sl.37.3.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.03fis [Google Scholar]
  14. Fujii, S. Y.
    (1994) A family of constructions: Japanese TEMO and other concessive conditionals. InProceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session dedicated to the contributions of Charles J. Fillmorei (pp.194–207). Url: https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/view/1433/1217. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1433
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1433 [Google Scholar]
  15. Geeraerts, D.
    (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gillmann, M.
    (2021) Analogy as driving force of language change: A usage-based approach to wo and da clauses in 17th and 18th century German. Cognitive Linguistics, ahead-of-print (, August 14, 2021). 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, S. Th.
    (2013) Statistik für Sprachwissenschaftler. 2nd ed. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, M.
    (1997) Indefinite pronouns: A typological study. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haspelmath, M. & König, E.
    (1998) Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. InJ. van der Auwera (Ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp.563–640). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110802610.563
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.563 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, P. J.
    (1991) On some principles of grammaticization. InE. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Vol. I, Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (pp.17–36). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  23. Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  24. Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W.
    (1985) Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. InRomanistisches Jahrbuch, 36, 15–43. 10.1515/9783110244922.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110244922.15 [Google Scholar]
  25. König, E.
    (1986) Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. InE. C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly & Ch. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp.229–246). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1988) Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. InJ. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp.145–166). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1992) From discourse to syntax: The case of concessive conditionals. InR. Tracy (Ed.), Who climbs the grammar tree (pp.423–433). Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111633824.423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111633824.423 [Google Scholar]
  28. König, E. & van der Auwera, J.
    (1988) Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. InJ. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp.101–133). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.07kon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.07kon [Google Scholar]
  29. Kupietz, M., Lüngen, H., Kamocki, P. & Witt, A.
    (2018) The German reference corpus DeReKo: New developments – new opportunities. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp.4353–4360). www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2018/pdf/737.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuteva, T.
    (Eds.) (2019) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316479704
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316479704 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lehmann, Ch.
    (1988) Towards a typology of clause linkage. InJ. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp.181–225). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.18.09leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.09leh [Google Scholar]
  32. (2015[1985]) Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  33. Leuschner, T.
    (2005) How to express indifference in Germanic: Towards a functional-typological research programme. InN. Delbeque, J. van der Auwera & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation: Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative (pp.291–317). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110909579.291
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110909579.291 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2006) Hypotaxis as building-site: The emergence and grammaticalization of concessive conditionals in English, German and Dutch. LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2020) Concessive conditionals as a family of constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 235–247. 10.1075/bjl.00049.leu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00049.leu [Google Scholar]
  36. Leuschner, T. & Segers, R.
    (2010) Sorry, aber das ist doch wohl völlig egal, oder? Zur Pragmatik der Indifferenz anhand des Partikelgebrauchs in Indifferenzausdrücken. InT. Harden & E. Hentschel (Eds.), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung (pp.327–344). Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Oppliger, R.
    (2018) Whatever the specific circumstances, …: A Construction Grammar perspective o[n] wh-ever clauses in English. InE. Seoane, C. Acuña-Fariña & I. Palacios-Martínez (Eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp.263–284). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110583571‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110583571-012 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rawlins, K.
    (2008) (Un)conditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
  39. Tagliamonte, S. A. & Baayen, R. H.
    (2012) Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. InR. T. Cacoullos & W. Labov (Eds.), Language variation and change, 24 (pp.135–178). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  40. Taylor, J. R.
    (2003) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vander Haegen, F.
    (2019) Die Emergenz irrelevanzkonditionaler Subjunktoren des Typs egal was. Variation und Grammatikalisierung anhand des Deutschen Referenzkorpus. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 45, 113–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wittgenstein, L.
    (2009[1953]) Philosophische Untersuchungen. Philosophical investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker und Joachim Schulte. Revised fourth edition by P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zaefferer, D.
    (1987) Satztypen, Satzarten, Satzmodi. Was Konditionale (auch) mit Interrogativen zu tun haben. InJ. Meibauer (Ed.), Referate anläßlich der 8. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg 1986 (pp.259–285). Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111560588‑014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111560588-014 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1991) Conditionals and unconditionals: Cross-linguistic and logical aspects. InD. Zaefferer (Ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics (pp.210–236). Foris. 10.1515/9783110870527‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110870527-011 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error