대한언어학회 전자저널

Choi, Youngju & Joh, Yoon-kyoung. (2016). Speech Act Metonymy in Biscuit Conditionals. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 24(4), 81-102. Biscuit conditionals are distinguished from indicative conditionals in that their consequent clauses are not dependent on conditional clauses while they are in indicative conditionals. In the example of the biscuit conditionals, If you are hungry, there are biscuits on the sideboard, it is apparent that the existence of biscuits on the sideboard does not depend on one's hunger. This paper demonstrates that the conditional clause is metonymically interpreted as the question where can I find food? and the consequent clause as the answer there are biscuits on the sideboard. Then the conditional will be construed as If your question is, where can I find food, then my answer to you is, there are biscuits on the sideboard, leading to the conclusion that biscuit conditionals behave like indicative conditionals, with their consequent clauses having dependency on their conditional clauses: If the question is not "where can I find food?" the answer will not be "there are biscuits on the sideboard. How the conditional and consequent clauses of biscuit conditionals are interpreted as question-answer pairs will be explained based on speech act metonymy.

# biscuit conditionals # speech act metonymy # scenario for questions

• Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327-366.
• Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Boër, S., & Lycan, W. (1980). A peformadox in truth conditional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 71-100.
• Choi, Y. (2013). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Korean. English21, 26(4), 407-429.
• Comrie, B. (1986). Conditionals: A typology. In E. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 77-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• DeRose, K., & Grandy, R. (1999). Conditional assertions and biscuit conditionals, Noûs, 33, 405-420.
• Dummet, M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of language. London: Duckworsth.
• Ebert, C., Endriss, C., & Hinterwimmer, S. (2008). A unified analysis of indicative and biscuit conditionals as topics. In proceedings of SALT XVIII. 266-283.
• Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
• Horn, R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in Conditionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MIT. Boston, MA.
• Joh, Y.-K. (2011). Biscuit conditionals as disguised conversations. KASELL, 11(1), 243-268.
• Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37-77.
• Lakoff, G. (1972). Linguistics and natural logic. In D. Davidson, & G. Harmon (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 545-665). Dordrecht: Reidel.
• 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.
• Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755-769.
• Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333-357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2005). Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive-linguistic approach. In S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou, & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century (pp. 53-76). Berlin & New York: Mouton der Gruyter.
• Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236-263). Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269-316.
• 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.
• Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Sadock, J. (1974). Towards a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
• Siegel, M. (2006). Biscuit conditionals: Quantification over potential literal acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29, 167-203.
• Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W.A. Liebert et al. (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205-219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Van der Auwera, J. (1986). Conditionals and speech acts. In E. C. Trauggot, A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On Conditionals (pp. 197-214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.