Cover not available
Article published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 150–180

Emerging into your family of constructions

German [IRR was] ‘no matter what’

| Research Foundation – Flanders | Ghent University
| Research Foundation – Flanders | Ghent University
| Ghent University
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 was (‘what’) in combination with expressions of irrelevance like egal (‘no matter’). 12,894 examples from the DeReKo corpus (Deutsches Referenzkorpus) are analysed manually for seven variables. Both the quantitative and the qualitative results suggest that combinations of was with an expression of irrelevance, or “[IRR was]” for short, form part of a recently entrenched constructional schema [IRR w-] of concessive-conditional subordinators which are emerging into the family of concessive-conditional constructions in present-day German.
Keywords: concessive conditionals, construction grammar, grammaticalisation, corpus linguistics, family resemblance, family of constructions, prototypicality, desententialisation, intersective gradience, schematicity, lexical specification, German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Concessive conditionals between discourse and syntax
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Expressions of irrelevance: Frequencies
    • 4.2Matrix clause ellipsis
    • 4.3Expressions of irrelevance and degree particles
    • 4.4Use of commas
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The desententialisation cline, revisited
    • 5.2From entrenchment to secondary grammaticalization
  • 6.Conclusion and prospects
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00058.hae
References (46)
References
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baschewa, E. (1980). Der Konzessivsatz im Neuhochdeutschen. Synchronische und diachronische Untersuchungen zu seiner Syntax, Semantik und Stilistik. Doctoral dissertation, Leipzig University.
Bossuyt, T. (2016). Zur Distribution von Irrelevanzpartikeln in was immer/auch-Konstruktionen: Positionelle und kombinatorische Varianz im Deutschen Referenzkorpus. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 421, 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Concessive conditionals beyond Europe: A typological survey. Studies in Language, published online 14 February 2022. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossuyt, T., De Cuypere, L. & Leuschner, T. (2018). Emergence phenomena in German W-immer/auch-subordinators. In E. Fuß, M. Konopka, B. Trawiński & U. H. Waßner (Eds.), Grammar and corpora 2016 (pp. 97–120). Heidelberg University Publishing.Google Scholar
Bücker, J. (2016). Focus, scales and concessive conditionals in German. Language Sciences, 581, 163–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
d’Avis, F. (2016). Satztyp als Konstruktion: Diskussion am Beispiel ‘konzessive Konditionalgefüge’. In R. Finkbeiner & J. Meibauer (Eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen (pp. 267–295). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
[Duden-Grammatik (2016) =]: Wöllstein, A. (Ed.) (2016). Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (9th ed.). Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
[Duden-Zweifelsfälle (2016) =]: Hennig, M. (Ed.) (2016). Das Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle: Richtiges und gutes Deutsch (8th ed.). Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. (2008). On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 32(2), 336–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujii, S. Y. (1994). A family of constructions: Japanese TEMO and other concessive conditionals. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session dedicated to the contributions of Charles J. Fillmorei (pp. 194–207). Url: [URL]. DOI logo
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013). Statistik für Sprachwissenschaftler. 2nd ed. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns: A typological study. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. & König, E. (1998). Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (Ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp. 563–640). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Vol. I, Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 17–36). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. In Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 361, 15–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. (1986). Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In E. C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly & Ch. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 229–246). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988). Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 145–166). Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1992). From discourse to syntax: The case of concessive conditionals. In R. Tracy (Ed.), Who climbs the grammar tree (pp. 423–433). Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. & van der Auwera, J. (1988). Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 101–133). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupietz, M., Lüngen, H., Kamocki, P. & Witt, A. (2018). The German reference corpus DeReKo: New developments – new opportunities. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 4353–4360). [URL]
Kuteva, T. et al. (Eds.) (2019). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Ch. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 181–225). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015[1985]). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuschner, T. (2005). How to express indifference in Germanic: Towards a functional-typological research programme. In N. Delbeque, J. van der Auwera & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation: Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative (pp. 291–317). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Hypotaxis as building-site: The emergence and grammaticalization of concessive conditionals in English, German and Dutch. LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
(2020). Concessive conditionals as a family of constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 235–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuschner, T. & Segers, R. (2010). Sorry, aber das ist doch wohl völlig egal, oder? Zur Pragmatik der Indifferenz anhand des Partikelgebrauchs in Indifferenzausdrücken. In T. Harden & E. Hentschel (Eds.), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung (pp. 327–344). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Oppliger, R. (2018). Whatever the specific circumstances, …: A Construction Grammar perspective o[n] wh-ever clauses in English. In E. Seoane, C. Acuña-Fariña & I. Palacios-Martínez (Eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp. 263–284). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rawlins, K. (2008). (Un)conditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Tagliamonte, S. A. & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. In R. T. Cacoullos & W. Labov (Eds.), Language variation and change, 241 (pp. 135–178). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vander Haegen, F. (2019). Die Emergenz irrelevanzkonditionaler Subjunktoren des Typs egal was. Variation und Grammatikalisierung anhand des Deutschen Referenzkorpus. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 451, 113–138.Google Scholar
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
Zaefferer, D. (1987). Satztypen, Satzarten, Satzmodi. Was Konditionale (auch) mit Interrogativen zu tun haben. In J. Meibauer (Ed.), Referate anläßlich der 8. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg 1986 (pp. 259–285). Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Conditionals and unconditionals: Cross-linguistic and logical aspects. In D. Zaefferer (Ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics (pp. 210–236). Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar