Metalinguistic conditionals and the role of explicit content

Chi-Hé Elder 1
  • 1 Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, NR4 7TJ, Norwich, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Chi-Hé Elder
  • Corresponding author
  • Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Email
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar

Abstract

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.

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

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Austin, John Langshaw. 1956. Ifs and cans. Proceedings of the British Academy 42. 109–132.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Elder, Chi-Hé. 2019. Context, cognition and conditionals. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6). 1205–1247.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Morzycki, Marcin. 2012. Adjectival extremeness: Degree modification and contextually restricted scales. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(2). 567–609.

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

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Recanati, François. 2010. Truth conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

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

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Search