Philosophical Studies

, Volume 142, Issue 3, pp 293–305 | Cite as

Towards a semantics for biscuit conditionals

Article

Abstract

This essay proposes a semantic analysis of biscuit-conditionals, such as Austin’s classic example “there are biscuits in the cupboard if you want some”. The analysis is grounded on the ideas of contextual restrictions, and of non-character encoded aspects of meaning, and provides a rigorous framework for the widespread intuitions that (i) the if-clause in a biscuit-conditional is truth-conditionally idle, but (ii) it ‘qualifies’ the speech-act in question. In the concluding section of this essay, the analysis is also applied to the importantly similar phenomenon of speech-act adverbs.

Keywords

Biscuit conditionals Semantics Indexicals 

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1961). Ifs and cans. In J. L. Austin (Ed.), Philosophical papers (pp. 153–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Boer, S. E., & Lycan, W. G. (1980). A performadox in truth-conditional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davison, A. (1983). Linguistic or pragmatic description in the context of the performadox. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeRose, K., & Grandy, R. E. (1999). Conditional assertions and “biscuit” conditionals. Nous, 33(3), 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press (1989).Google Scholar
  9. King, J., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics and the role of semantic content. In Z. Szabo (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lakoff, G. (1972). Linguistics and natural logic. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Mittwoch, A. (1977). How to refer to one's own words: speech-act modifying adverbials and the performative hypothesis. Journal of Linguistics, 13, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rieber, S. (1997). Conventional implicatures as tacit performatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 51–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Siegel, M. E. A. (2006). Quantification over potential literal acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(2), 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Djik, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations