Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 167–203 | Cite as

Biscuit Conditionals: Quantification Over Potential Literal Acts

  • Muffy E. A. Siegel
Article

Abstract

In biscuit conditionals (BCs) such as If you’re hungry, there’s pizza in the fridge, the if clause appears to apply to the illocutionary act performed in uttering the main clause, rather than to its propositional content. Accordingly, previous analyses of BCs have focused on illocutionary acts, and, this, I argue, leads them to yield incorrect paraphrases. I propose, instead, that BCs involve existential quantification over potential literal acts such as assertions, questions, commands, and exclamations, the semantic objects associated with declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamative sentences, respectively. Such an existential interpretation of BCs requires only that we add potential literal acts to our inventory of individuals, and it produces reasonable paraphrases in which if has its normal meaning: If you’re hungry,[there’s a (relevant/salient) assertion that] there’s pizza in the fridge. These potential literal act variables are introduced into semantic interpretations and then undergo Existential Closure. Hence, we would expect to see similar interpretations in contexts other than BCs, that is, with other if constructions, with connectives other than if, with potential literal acts other than assertion, and in root sentences. This prediction is borne out, along with the parallel prediction that we cannot quantify over purely illocutionary acts like offers, but only over potential literal acts, those conventionally associated with a particular morphosyntactic shape.

Keywords

Main Clause Illocutionary Force Existential Closure Semantic Object Clause Type 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin J. L. (1961), ‘Ifs and Cans’, in Philosophical Papers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 153–180.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K. 1999‘The Myth of Conventional Implicature’Linguistics and Philosophy22327366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach, K. 2000‘Quantification, Qualification and Context’Mind and Language15262283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, K., Harnish, R. 1979Linguistic Communication and Speech ActsMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Boër, S.E., Lycan, W.G. 1980‘A Performadox in Truth Conditional Semantics’Linguistics and Philosophy471100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comrie, B. 1986‘Conditionals: A Typology’Traugott, E.ter Meulen, A.Snitzer Reilly, J.Ferguson, C.A. eds. On ConditionalsCambridge University PressCambridge7799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, R. 1995‘The Role of Situations in Generalized Quantifiers’Lappin, S. eds. Handbook of Contemporary Semantic TheoryOxford University PressOxford6586Google Scholar
  8. Copley B. (2002),The Semantics of the Future, PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Cresswell, M.J. 1973Logics and LanguagesMethuenLondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dancygier, B. 1990‘Conditionals: Sequence of Events and Sequence of Clauses’Fisiak, J. eds. Further Insights into Contrastive AnalysisJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam358373Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, D. 1968‘On Saying That’Synthese19130146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davison, A. 1983‘Linguistic or Pragmatic Description in the Context of the Performadox’Linguistics and Philosophy6499526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeRose, K., Grandy, R.E. 1999‘Conditional Assertions and ‘Biscuit’ Conditionals’Noûs33405420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dik, S.C. 1990‘On the Semantics of Conditionals’Nuyts, J.Bolkestein, A.M.Vet, C. eds. Layers and Levels of Representation in Language TheoryJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam233261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ducrot, O. 1972Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de semantique linguistiqueHermannParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Dummet, M. 1973Frege: Philosophy of LanguageDuckworthLondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Geis, M. 1995Speech Acts and Conversational InteractionCambridge University PressCambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geis, M. L. and Lycan W. G. (2001), ‘Nonconditional Conditionals’, Appendix to W. G. Lycan, Real Conditionals, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Ginzburg, J. 1996‘Interrogatives: Questions, Facts and Dialogue’Lappin, S. eds. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic TheoryBlackwellOxford385422Google Scholar
  20. Grice, H.P. 1967‘Logic and Conversation’Cole, P.Morgan, J.L. eds. Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech ActsAcademic pressNew York4158Google Scholar
  21. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1989), ‘Type-Shifting Rules and the Semantics of Interrogatives’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types, and Meaning, Volume II: Semantic Issues, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 21–68. Reprinted in P. Portner and B. H. Partee (eds): 2002, Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 421–456.Google Scholar
  22. Hardt, D., Romero, M. 2004‘Ellipsis and the Structure of Discourse’Journal of Semantics21375414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heim I. (1982), The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, L.R. 2001A Natural History of NegationCSLI PublicationsStanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Iatridou S. (1991), Topics in Conditionals,PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Johansson, I. 2003‘Performatives and Antiperformatives’Linguistics and Philosophy26661702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kartunnen, L. 1977‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’Linguistics and Philosophy1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krifka, M. (2004), ‘Semantics Below and Above Speech Acts’, handout of a talk given at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, April 9.Google Scholar
  29. Landman, F. 1992‘The Progressive’Natural Language Semantics1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lycan, W.G. 2001Real ConditionalsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Lakoff, G. (1972), ‘Linguistics and Natural Logic’, in D. Davidson and G. Harmon (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  32. McCready, E. (2004), ‘Two Japanese Adverbials and Expressive Content’, handout of a talk given at the Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) conference 14, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, May 14–16.Google Scholar
  33. Mittwoch, A. 1977‘How to Refer to One’s Own Words’Journal of Linguistics13177189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noh, E.-J. 1998‘A Relevance-Theoretic Account of Metarepresentative Uses in Conditionals’Rouchota, V.Jucker, A.H. eds. Current Issues in Relevance TheoryJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam271304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nouwen, R. 2003‘Complement Anaphoral and Interpretation’Journal of Semantics2073113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Partee, B. 1982‘Belief-Sentences and the Limits of Semantics’Peters, S.Saarinen, E. eds. Processes, Beliefs, and QuestionsD. ReidelNew York87106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Partee, B., Borschev, V. 2000‘Possessives,Favorite and Coercion’Riehl, A.Daly, R. eds. Proceedings of ESCOL99CLC PublicationsCornell University173190Google Scholar
  38. Partee, B. and V. Borschev (2001), ‘Some Puzzles of Predicate Possessives’, UMass ms, to appear in R. M. Harnish and I. Kenesei (eds.), Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 91–117.Google Scholar
  39. Parsons, T. 1989‘The Progressive in English’Linguistics and Philosophy12213242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Portner, P. 2003‘Exclamative Clauses : At the Syntax–Semantics Interface’Language793981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Portner, P. (2004), ‘The Semantics of Imperatives Within a Theory of Clause Types’, handout of a talk given at the Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) conference 14, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, May 14–16.Google Scholar
  42. Potts, C. and S. Kawahara (2004), ‘The Performative Nature of Japanese Honorifics’, handout of a talk given at the Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) conference 14, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, May 14–16.Google Scholar
  43. Rooth, M. and B. Partee (1982), ‘Conjunction, Type Ambiguity, and Wide Scope “Or”’, in D. Flickinger, M. Macken, and N. Weigard (eds.), Proceedings of the 1982 West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford university Department of Linguistics, Stanford.Google Scholar
  44. Ross, J. R. (1970), Constraints on Variables in Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Sadock, J. 1974Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech ActsAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Sadock, J. and A. Zwicky (1985), ‘Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax’, in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  47. Searle, J. R. (1975), ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.),Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3:Speech Acts,Academic Press, New York, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
  48. Stalnaker, R.C 1978‘Assertion’Cole, P. eds. PragmaticsAcademic PressNew York315332Google Scholar
  49. Stanley, J., Szabó, Z.G. 2000‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’Mind and Language15219261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sweetser, E. 1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic StructureCambridge University PressCambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van der Auwera, J. (1986), ‘Conditionals and Speech Acts’, in Traugott E. C., A. ter Meulen, Reilly J. S., and Ferguson C. A. (eds.), On Conditionals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  52. Vanderveken, D. 1990Meaning and Speech ActsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Dijk, T. 1979‘Pragmatic Connectives’Journal of Pragmatics3447456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. von Fintel, K. (1994), Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  55. Wakker, G. 1992‘Conditionals in the Layered Structure of Functional Grammar’Fortescue, M.Harder, P.Kristoffersen, L. eds. Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional PerspectiveJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam369386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ward, G. 2004‘Equatives and Deferred Reference’Language80262289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English 022-29Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations