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.
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.
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Evans, Jonathan & David Over. 2004. If. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Francez, Itamar. 2015. Chimerical conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics 8. 1–35.
Franke, Michael. 2009. Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC) dissertation.
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.
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.
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104(3–4). 235–260.