Parallel corpora and semantic change 113
It is the development of adverbial uses and, in the period from 1950, of relational
uses, which accounts for the huge rise in the incidence of quand même which we
see in Table 1. This is demonstrated in the detailed breakdown of the evolution of
conjunctival and adverbial, adversative and relational usages of quand même in
Table 2.
Table 2. Number and rate of occurrences of quand mesme/quand même in the theatrical
works in the FRANTEXT Corpus from 1500 to 2000 (adapted from Beeching 2005: 166)
Period Conjunctions Adverbs
Concessive Temporal or
contrastive
Adversative RelationalN % N % N % N %
1500–1599 4 100 – – – – – –
1600–1699 47 92 1 2 – – – –
1700–1799 19 95 1 5 – – – –
1800–1899 14 54 – – 11 42 – –
1900–1949 9 8 – – 61 55 36 32
1950–2000 8 0.5 – – 64 44 72 50
It is, however, in the spoken corpora that we find the vast majority of the relational
uses and far higher rates of occurrence overall. These are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Rates of occurrence per 10,000 words of quand même in the ESLO Corpus
(1968–1971) and Beeching Corpus (1988–1991) (from Beeching 2005: 168)
Function Corpus ESLO Beeching Corpus
quand même (adversative) 5.16 (36%) 8.21 (36%)
quand même (relational) 9.22 (64%) 14.90 (64%)
Total 14.38 (100%) 23.10 (100%)
In seeking to differentiate between adversative and relational quand même in the
spoken corpora, I had to rely on my own intuitions or translation equivalents. I
adhered strictly to the following criteria:
- Explicit adversative.
Explicit adversative uses of quand même have two conjoined clauses in which
there is an explicitly expressed adversative opposition of the type (Not) P, (but)
quand même Q. - Implicit adversative/relational.
The logical two-part structure (Not) P (but) quand même Q is absent.