Unconditionally conditional
A new look at English wh- concessive conditionals from a corpus-based discourse-pragmatic perspective
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Patrick Duffley in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Pierre Larrivée in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to assess from a corpus-based discourse-pragmatic perspective certain claims made in the literature concerning English wh- concessive conditional constructions (e.g. Whoever/No matter who comes to the party, it will be fun), namely that these utterance-types correlate with interrogative semantics, scalarity and potential modality. By means of an extensive investigation of corpus data these claims are shown to be largely unsupported by attested usage. Based on Dancygier and Sweetser’s classification of conditional constructions, it is found that potential modality is paradigmatic only of content-level concessive conditionals, and not of the epistemic, speech-act or metalinguistic varieties. Contrary to claims in the literature, scalarity is demonstrated to not be typical of wh- concessive conditionals. The lack of scalarity in most wh- concessive conditionals is argued to cast into doubt the category label “concessive conditional” applied to these constructions in a substantial part of the literature and to favour an alternative designation such as “irrelevance conditional.” The empirical data further reveals that wh- concessive conditionals practically never involve pure ignorance, and this is argued to be problematic on the discourse-pragmatic level for the claim that they have interrogative semantics.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Arnold, Doug and Robert D. Borsley. 2014. On the analysis of English exhaustive conditionals. In S. Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 27–47. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
-
Austin, John L. 1961. Ifs and cans. In J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds), Philosophical Papers of J.L. Austin, 153–180. London: Oxford University Press.
-
Baker, Carl Lee. 1989. English Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Bennett, Jonathan. 1982. ‘Even if’. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 403–418.
-
Biezma, Maria and Kyle Rawlins. 2015. Alternative questions. Language and Linguistics Compass 9: 450–468.
-
Bledin, Justin. 2020. Fatalism and the logic of unconditionals. Noûs 54: 126–161.
-
Bossuyt, Tom, Ludovic De Cuypere and Torsten Leuschner. 2018. Emergence phenomena in German W-immer/auch-subordinators. In E. Fuss, M. Konopka, B. Trawiński and U.H. Wassner (eds), Grammar and Corpora 2016, 97–120. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing.
-
Ciardelli, Ivano. 2016. Lifting conditionals in inquisitive semantics. Proceedings of SALT 26: 732–752.
-
D’Avis, Franz Josef. 2004. In front of the prefield—inside or outside the clause? In H. Lohnstein and S. Trissler (eds), The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, 139–177. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Davies, Eirlys E. 1979. Some restrictions on conditional imperatives. Linguistics 17: 1039–1054.
-
Duffley, Patrick J. 2021. Logical Form—not logical enough for logic, not linguistic enough for linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 182: 163–175.
-
Duffley, Patrick J. 2020. Linguistic Meaning Meets Linguistic Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Duffley, Patrick J. 2016. The role of do auxiliary in subject auxiliary inversion: Developing Langacker’s notion of existential negotiation. Cognitive Linguistics 27: 269–287.
-
Duffley, Patrick J. and Pierre Larrivée. 2010. Anyone for non-scalarity? English Language and Linguistics 14: 1–17.
-
Duffley, Patrick J. and 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 Pragmatics 12: 206–245.
-
Fava, Elisabetta. 1996. Questioning interrogative interpretation in some Indo-European languages. Language Sciences 18: 87–110.
-
Gawron, Jean Mark. 2001. Universal concessive conditionals and alternative NPs in English. In C. Condoravdi and G. Renardel de Lavalette (eds), Logical Perspectives on Language and Information, 73–106. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
-
Giannakidou, Anna. 2001. The meaning of Free Choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735.
-
Givón, Talmy. 1989. Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
-
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
-
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1997. Questions. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds), Handbook of Logic and Language, 1055–1124. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
-
Haiman, John. 1974. Concessives, conditionals, and verbs of volition. Foundations of Language 11: 341–359.
-
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564–589.
-
Hamblin, Charles L. 1958. Questions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 36: 159–168.
-
Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.
-
Haspelmath, Martin and Ekkehard König. 1998. Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, 563–640. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Hirsch, Aron. 2016. A compositional semantics for wh-ever free relatives. Sinn und Bedeutung 20: 341–358.
-
Hirtle, Walter H. 1997. DO auxiliary—a meaningful support and operator. Lingua 100: 111–149.
-
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Huddleston, Rodney. 1994. The contrast between interrogatives and questions. Journal of Linguistics 30: 411–439.
-
Huddleston, Rodney. 1993. On exclamatory-inversion sentences in English. Lingua 90: 259–269.
-
Izvorski, Roumyana. 2000. Free relatives and related matters. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
-
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.
-
König, Ekkehard. 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In E. Traugott, A.G.B. ter Meulen, J. Reilly and C. Ferguson (eds), On Conditionals, 229–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Kratzer, Angelika and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
-
Leuschner, Torsten. 1998. At the boundaries of grammaticalization: What interrogatives are doing in concessive conditionals. In A.G. Ramat and P. Hopper (eds), The Limits of Grammaticalization, 159–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Lin, Jo-Wang. 1996. Polarity licensing andwh-phrase quantification in Chinese. PhD dissertation, UMass Amherst.
-
Lohiniva, Karoliina. 2020. Two strategies for forming concessive conditionals: Evidence from disjunction. In M. Baird and J. Pesetsky (eds), Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society NELS 49, 231–244. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
-
Quer, Josep and Luis Vicente. 2009. Semantically triggered verb doubling in Spanish concessive conditionals. Paper at the 19th Colloquium on Generative Grammar.
-
Rawlins, Kyle. 2008a. An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
-
Rawlins, Kyle. 2008b. Unifying if-conditionals and concessive conditionals. Proceedings of SALT 18: 583–600.
-
Rawlins, Kyle. 2013. Unconditionals. Natural Language Semantics 21: 111–178.
-
Rubinstein, Aynat and Edit Doron. 2014. Varieties of alternative concessive conditionals. Proceedings of IATL 30: 101–114.
-
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
-
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2019. Concessive conditionals and free choice unified. Proceedings of SALT 29: 320–340.
-
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Tredinnick, Victoria. 2003. More on the semantics of free relatives with -ever. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 17: 159–168.
-
Tredinnick, Victoria. 2005. On the semantics of free relatives withever. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
-
Tsui, Amy. 1992. A functional description of questions. In R.M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, 89–110. London: Routledge.
-
Vlachou, Evangelia. 2003. Greek universal concessive conditionals. In G. Katsimali (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, 1–16. Rethymnon: University of Crete.
-
Zaefferer, Dietmar. 1987. Concessive conditionals. Paper at the Conference on Logic and Linguistics.
-
Zaefferer, Dietmar. 1990. Conditionals and unconditionals in Universal Grammar and Situation Semantics. In R. Cooper, K. Mukai and J. Perry (eds), Situation Theory and Its Applications, 471–492. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
-
Zaefferer, Dietmar. 1991. Conditionals and concessive conditionals. Cross-linguistic and logical aspects. In D. Zaefferer (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, 210–236. Berlin: Foris Publications.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 360 | 208 | 22 |
| Full Text Views | 12 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 87 | 26 | 0 |
Unconditionally conditional
A new look at English wh- concessive conditionals from a corpus-based discourse-pragmatic perspective
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Patrick Duffley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Larrivée in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to assess from a corpus-based discourse-pragmatic perspective certain claims made in the literature concerning English wh- concessive conditional constructions (e.g. Whoever/No matter who comes to the party, it will be fun), namely that these utterance-types correlate with interrogative semantics, scalarity and potential modality. By means of an extensive investigation of corpus data these claims are shown to be largely unsupported by attested usage. Based on Dancygier and Sweetser’s classification of conditional constructions, it is found that potential modality is paradigmatic only of content-level concessive conditionals, and not of the epistemic, speech-act or metalinguistic varieties. Contrary to claims in the literature, scalarity is demonstrated to not be typical of wh- concessive conditionals. The lack of scalarity in most wh- concessive conditionals is argued to cast into doubt the category label “concessive conditional” applied to these constructions in a substantial part of the literature and to favour an alternative designation such as “irrelevance conditional.” The empirical data further reveals that wh- concessive conditionals practically never involve pure ignorance, and this is argued to be problematic on the discourse-pragmatic level for the claim that they have interrogative semantics.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 360 | 208 | 22 |
| Full Text Views | 12 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 87 | 26 | 0 |
