All Issue

2020 Vol.36, Issue 2 Preview Page

Research Article

August 2020. pp. 211-225
Abstract
Biscuit conditionals are peculiar in that the truth value of the consequent is always true, unlike indicative conditionals where the consequent’s truth value is contingent on the truth value of the antecedent. In Choi and Joh (2016), it is claimed that the peculiarity of the biscuit conditionals can be mitigated when the antecedent is interpreted as a question and the consequent as an answer through speech act metonymy. The metonymic analysis is based on the Question scenario that Panther and Thornburg (1999) suggest. However, some biscuit conditionals with an imperative and a question in their consequent clauses seem resistant to the analysis. In the paper, it is claimed that they are similarly explained if the Request or the Emotion scenario is applied on top of the Question scenario.
References
  1. Bach, K. 1999. The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 327-366. 10.1023/A:1005466020243
  2. Bach, K. and R. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  3. Boër, S. and W. Lycan. 1980. A Performadox in Truth Conditional Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 71-100. 10.1007/BF00351814
  4. Choi, Y. 2013. The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Korean. English21 26.4, 407-429. 10.35771/engdoi.2013.26.4.020
  5. Choi, Y. and Y.-K. Joh. 2016. Speech Act Metonymy in Biscuit Conditionals. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 24.4, 1-22. 10.24303/lakdoi.2016.24.4.81
  6. Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: A Typology. In E. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly, and C. A. Ferguson (eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77-99. 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.005
  7. DeRose, K. and R. Grandy. 1999. Conditional Assertions and Biscuit Conditionals, Noûs 33, 405-420. 10.1111/0029-4624.00161
  8. Dummet, M. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworsth.
  9. Ebert, C., C. Endriss, and S. Hinterwimmer. 2008. A Unified Analysis of Indicative and Biscuit Conditionals as Topics. In Proceedings of SALT XVIII. 266-283. 10.3765/salt.v18i0.2473
  10. Grice, H. P. 1967. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
  11. Horn, R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  12. Iatridou, S. 1991. Topics in Conditionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MIT. Boston, MA.
  13. Joh, Y.-K. 2011. Biscuit Conditionals as Disguised Conversations. KASELL 11.1, 243-268. 10.15738/kjell.11.1.201103.243
  14. Kövecses, Z. and G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic View. Cognitive Linguistics 9.1, 37-77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
  15. Lakoff, G. 1972. Linguistics and Natural Logic. In D. Davidson, and G. Harmon (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 545-665. 10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_19
  16. McCready, E. 2004. Two Japanese Adverbials and Expressive Content. A talk given at the Semantics and Linguistic Theory SALT conference 14, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, May 14-16. 10.3765/salt.v14i0.2910
  17. Panther, K.-U. and L. L. Thornburg. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Inferencing in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30.6, 755-769. 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9
  18. Panther, K.-U. and L. L. Thornburg. 1999. The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, and G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 333-357. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
  19. Panther, K.-U. and L. L. Thornburg. 2005. Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive- linguistic approach. In S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou, and E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century pp. 53-76. Berlin and New York: Mouton der Gruyter.
  20. Panther, K.-U. and L. L. Thornburg. 2007. Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 236-263.
  21. Peirsman, Y. and D. Geeraerts. 2006. Metonymy as a Prototypical Category. Cognitive Linguistics 17.3, 269-316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
  22. Portner, P. 2004. The semantics of imperatives: Within a theory of clause types. A talk given at the Semantics and Linguistic Theory SALT Conference 14, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, May 14-16. 10.3765/salt.v14i0.2907
  23. Radden, G. and Z. Kövecses. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, and G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17-59. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
  24. Ross, J. R. (1970). On Declarative Sentences. In R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn: Waltham, Mass, 222-277.
  25. Sadock, J. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
  26. Siegel, M. 2006. Biscuit Conditionals: Quantification over Potential Literal Acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 167-203. 10.1007/s10988-006-0003-2
  27. Thornburg, L. and K.-U. Panther. 1997. Speech Act Metonymies. In W.A. Liebert et al. (eds.), Discourse and Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 205-219. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
  28. Van der Auwera, J. 1986. Conditionals and Speech Acts. In E. C. Trauggot, A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly, and C. A. Ferguson (eds.), On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197-214. 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.011
Information
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 36
  • No :2
  • Pages :211-225