Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
Weitere Optionen …


An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.066

CiteScore 2018: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.409

Alle Formate und Preise
Weitere Optionen …
Band 57, Heft 6


Metalinguistic conditionals and the role of explicit content

Chi-Hé Elder
  • Korrespondenzautor
  • Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • E-Mail
  • Weitere Artikel des Autors:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Online erschienen: 20.11.2019 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0029


This paper aims to bridge the relationship between metalinguistic if you like as a non-propositional discourse marker and its conditional counterparts. This paper claims that metalinguistic if you like is polysemous between a hedge that denotes the speaker’s reduced commitment to some aspect of the main clause, and an optional yet potential conditional reading that interlocutors can legitimately draw on in interaction which is brought about due to the ‘if p, q’ sentence form. That is, although the metalinguistic reading is most likely obtained automatically by default, it also carries an available conditional reading that is akin to other metalinguistic conditional clauses such as if you see what I mean. Next, a semantic representation of metalinguistic if you like is developed that takes on board a characterization of conditionality that departs from lexico-grammatical conventions, such that conditionals of the form ‘if p, q’ no longer bear a one-to-one correspondence with “conditional” truth conditions. Employing a radical contextualist semantic framework in which the unit of truth-conditional analysis is not constrained to the sentence form, utterances employing metalinguistic if you like are given a semantic representation such that the if-clause does not contribute propositional content, yet they also maintain their status as conditionals as the sentence form gives rise to a potential conditional secondary meaning.

Keywords: if you like; metalinguistic conditionals; lexical meaning; explicit content; polysemy; radical contextualism


  • Aarons, Debra. 2012. Jokes and the linguistic mind. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Alan Ross. 1951. A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis 12(2). 35–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Austin, John Langshaw. 1956. Ifs and cans. Proceedings of the British Academy 42. 109–132.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Kent. 1995. Standardization vs. conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(6). 677–686.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Beltrama, Andrea. 2016. Exploring metalinguistic intensification: The case of extreme degree modifiers. In Christopher Hammerly & Brandon Prickett (eds.), Proceedings of the forty-sixth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 79–92. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Bocknak, Ryan & Eva Csipak. 2014. A new metalinguistic degree morpheme. In Todd Snider, Sarah D’Antonio & Mia Weigand (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Semantics and Linguistic Theory conference (SALT 24). 432–452. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/54 (accessed 20 May 2018).

  • Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Chen, Guohua. 1996. The degrammaticalization of addressee-satisfaction conditionals in Early Modern English. In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics, 23–32. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Csipak, Eva. 2016. Discourse-structuring conditionals and past tense. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 21. https://sites.google.com/site/sinnundbedeutung21/proceedings-preprints (accessed 20 May 2018).

  • Dancygier, Barbara. 1999. Conditionals and prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Declerck, Renaat & Susan Reed. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • DeRose, Keith & Richard E. Grandy. 1999. Conditional assertions and ‘biscuit’ conditionals. Noûs 33(3). 405–420.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Elder, Chi-Hé. 2019. Context, cognition and conditionals. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Elder, Chi-Hé & Kasia M. Jazczolt. 2016. Towards a pragmatic category of conditionals. Journal of Pragmatics 98. 36–53.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Evans, Jonathan & David Over. 2004. If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Francez, Itamar. 2015. Chimerical conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics 8. 1–35.Google Scholar

  • Franke, Michael. 2009. Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC) dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Fretheim, Thorstein, Stella Boateng & Ildikó Vaskó. 2003. Then – adverbial pro-form or inference particle? In Ken Turner & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), Meaning through language contrast, 51–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Giannakidou, Anastasia & Suwon Yoon. 2010. The subjective mode of comparison: Metalinguistic comparatives in Greek and Korean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(3). 621–655.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104(3–4). 235–260.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6). 1205–1247.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2010. Default Semantics. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 193–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2016. Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lauer, Sven. 2014. Biscuits and provisos: Conveying unconditional information by conditional means. In Eva Csipak & Hedde Zeijstra (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, 357–374. https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/proceedings/521400.html (accessed 20 May 2018).

  • Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49(2). 415–443.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Morzycki, Marcin. 2011. Metalinguistic comparison in an alternative semantics for imprecision. Natural Language Semantics 19(1). 39–86.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Morzycki, Marcin. 2012. Adjectival extremeness: Degree modification and contextually restricted scales. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(2). 567–609.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Nerlich, Brigitte & David D. Clarke. 2001. Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics 33(1). 1–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Recanati, François. 2010. Truth conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Siepmann, Dirk. 2005. Discourse markers across languages. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and content: Essays in intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar


Online erschienen: 20.11.2019

Erschienen im Druck: 18.11.2019

Quellenangabe: Linguistics, Band 57, Heft 6, Seiten 1337–1365, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0029.

Zitat exportieren

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Kommentare (0)