Volume 47, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present study is concerned with complex sentences known as concessive conditionals from a functional-typological perspective. It examines the coding strategies used in the protasis of the three subtypes of concessive conditionals – viz. scalar, alternative, and universal concessive conditionals – in a global sample of 17 languages, thus complementing a previous study of their formal properties in European languages (Haspelmath & König 1998). The results include some coding strategies which are unattested in European languages and suggest that Haspelmath & König’s division between languages which mark the three subtypes uniformly and languages which mark them differentially is too simplistic, there being at least four overall marking patterns rather than two. Although these results are only preliminary in nature, they do look promising for future research, which should be based on a larger and more strictly stratified sample.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. AnderBois, Scott
    2014 Unconditionals in Yucatec Maya. Proceedings of Form and Analysis in Mayan Linguistics21. 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berghäll, Liisa
    2015A grammar of Mauwake. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603339
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603339 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhat, D. N. S.
    2000 The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology51. 365–400.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2004Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bisang, Walter
    1998 Adverbiality: The view from the Far East. InJohan van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 641–812. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110802610.641
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.641 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bystrov, Igor’ S. & Nonna V. Stankevich
    2012 Concessive constructions in Vietnamese. InViktor S. Xrakovskij (ed.), Typology of concessive constructions, 330–343. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ciardelli, Ivano
    2016 Lifting conditionals to inquisitive semantics. Proceedings of SALT261, 732–752. 10.3765/salt.v26i0.3811
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3811 [Google Scholar]
  8. Creissels, Denis & Pierre Sambou
    2013Le mandinka: Phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. d’Avis, Franz
    2016 Satztyp als Konstruktion: Diskussion am Beispiel ‘konzessive Konditionalgefüge’. InRita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 267–295. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De Groodt, Sarah
    2002 Reanalysis and the five problems of language change: A case study on the rise of concessive subordinating conjunctions with ob- in Early Modern German. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung55(3). 277–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1992 The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language68(1). 81–138. 10.1353/lan.1992.0028
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028 [Google Scholar]
  12. Duffley, Patrick & Pierre Larrivée
    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 Pragmatics121. 206–245. 10.1163/18773109‑01202002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01202002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Forker, Diana
    2020A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fortescue, Michael
    1984West Greenlandic. London: Croom.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fujii, Seiko Y.
    1994 A family of constructions: Japanese temo and other concessive conditionals. Berkeley Linguistics Society201. 194–207. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1433
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1433 [Google Scholar]
  16. Haiman, John
    1978 Conditionals are topics. Language54(3). 564–589. 10.1353/lan.1978.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank
    2020Glottolog 4.3. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.   (Available online athttps://glottolog.org, accessed on10/04/2021.) 10.5281/zenodo.4061162
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4061162 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haspelmath, Martin
    1997Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, Martin. & Ekkehard König
    1998 Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. InJohan van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 563–640. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110802610.563
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.563 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hellenthal, Anneke Christine
    2010 A grammar of Sheko. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation.
  22. Hercus, Luise A.
    1982The Bāgandji language. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1994A grammar of the Arabana-Wangkangurru language, Lake Eyre Basin, South Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1999A grammar of the Wirangu language of the West Coast of South Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hutchison, John P.
    1981The Kanuri language: A reference grammar. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kibrik, Alexander
    (ed.) 1996Godoberi. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kieviet, Paulus
    2017A grammar of Rapa Nui. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, Minju
    2015 From choice to counter-expectation: Semantic-pragmatic connections of the Korean disjunctive, concessive, and scalar focus particle -na. Journal of Pragmatics801. 1–21. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  29. König, Ekkehard
    1985 Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive conditionals. InJacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics: Historical word-formation, 263–282. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110850178.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.263 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1986 Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. InElizabeth Closs Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), On conditionals, 229–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753466.013 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1988 Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. InJohn A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 145–166. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lehmann, Thomas
    1993A grammar of modern Tamil. Pondicherry: PILC.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Leuschner, Torsten
    2006Hypotaxis as building-site: The emergence and grammaticalization of concessive conditionals in English, German and Dutch. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2008 From speech-situation evocation to hypotaxis: The case of Latin quamvis ‘although’. InElena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 231–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.77.13leu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.13leu [Google Scholar]
  35. 2020 Concessive conditionals as a family of constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics341. 234–246. 10.1075/bjl.00049.leu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00049.leu [Google Scholar]
  36. Levshina, Natalia
    2015How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  37. Liljegren, Henrik
    2016A grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_611690
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_611690 [Google Scholar]
  38. Menz, Astrid
    2016 Concessive conditionals in Turkish. Turkic Languages20(1). 90–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nasilov, Dmitrij M., Xoršid F. Isxakova & Irina A. Nevskaya
    (2012) Concessive constructions in Turkic languages. InViktor S. Xrakovskij (ed.), Typology of concessive constructions, 387–412. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Olguín Martínez, Jesús F.
    2016 Adverbial clauses in Veracruz Huasteca Nahuatl from a functional-typological approach. Hermosillo: University of Sonora MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Oppliger, Rahel
    2018 Whatever the specific circumstances, …: A Construction Grammar approach of wh-ever clauses in English. InElena Seoane, Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Ignacio Palacinos-Martínez (eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 263–284. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110583571‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110583571-012 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rawlins, Kyle
    2008 Unifying if-conditionals and unconditionals. Proceedings of SALT181. 583–600. 10.3765/salt.v18i0.2512
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2512 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2013 (Un)conditionals. Nat Lang Semantics401. 111–178. 10.1007/s11050‑012‑9087‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rubino, Carl
    2013 Reduplication. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/27, accessed on10/04/2021.)
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sandman, Erika
    2016 A grammar of Wutun. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
  46. Song, Jae Jung
    2018Linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  48. van der Voort, Hein
    2004A grammar of Kwaza. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197280
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197280 [Google Scholar]
  49. Vander Haegen, Flor
    2019 Die Emergenz irrelevanzkonditionaler Subjunktoren des Typs egal was: Variation und Grammatikalisierung anhand des Deutschen Referenzkorpus. Germanistische Mitteilungen45(1–2). 113–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Weber, David J.
    1989A grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zaefferer, Dietmar
    1987 Satztypen, Satzarten, Satzmodi: Was Konditionale (auch) mit Interrogativen zu tun haben. InJörg Meibauer (ed.), Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik: Referate anläßlich der 8. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg 1986, 259–285. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111560588‑014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111560588-014 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1991 Conditionals and unconditionals: Cross-linguistic and logical aspects. InDietmar Zaefferer (ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics, 210–236. Berlin: Foris. 10.1515/9783110870527‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110870527-011 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): complex sentences; concessive conditionals; linguistic typology; subordination
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