CC BY
121
y#K 415.616.2
G.R. Vlasyan, E.A. Skorodumova
PRAGMATIC PECULIARITIES OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS-RESPONSES IN DIALOGUES
(in English fiction texts)
The article deals with structural and pragmatic peculiarities of rhetorical questions-responses. The research approach is based on the opposition between direct and indirect speech acts and hypothesis that rhetorical questions are indirect ones. The article contains the overview of structural types of rhetorical questions-responses, description of their pragmatic characteristics and the way they function in contexts.
Key words: pragmatics, speech act, transferred meaning, implicature.
Development of linguistics creates the particular scope of the problems, connected with the functions and the realization of the language units in connected speech. Special consideration is given to pragmatic qualities of a statement, its semantic and syntactic peculiarities.
Speech can be viewed as an activity which consists of speech acts. In the course of our work we found out that the classical theory of speech acts is based on the opposition of the direct and transferred meanings. It was J. Searle who stated that an indirect speech act implies more information than it conveys because in indirect speech act the meaning of the speaker's utterance and the meaning of the corresponding sentence structure may differ in many ways [Searle 1986: 183]. In our research special attention was paid to questions which we consider different from interrogative sentences
Since question is a type of speech action (type of communication unit via speech), an interrogative sentence is just a form of conveying a thought to another person. Therefore the notion of the question does not coincide with the notion of the interrogative sentence [Leech 1983: 33]. Many scientists stress the fact that quasi-interrogative sentences may imply supposition, surprise or doubt.
We believe that rhetorical questions (RQ) are indirect speech acts. RQ can be defined as formally interrogative statements. There are four main formal characteristics of an interrogative sentence:
1. Inverted word order
2. WH-words
3. Intonation
4. Question/exclamation mark
RQ usually correspond to the above mentioned characteristics but they are deprived of information request function and their main speech function consists in transmitting a message to the listener/reader. Thus the above mentioned opposition of direct and transferred meanings becomes obvious.
Since RQ as an indirect speech act has no function of requesting information it may acquire any meaning that the speaker needs to express in particular situation in the course of communication. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion about the person addressed rather than a genuine inquiry. Similarly, when someone responds to a tragic event by saying, "Why me?!" it is more likely to be an accusation or an expression of feeling than a realistic request for information.
Dialogue as one of the two language communication forms has a direct connection (unlike monologue) with people's behaviour, particular situation when they have to communicate, social context and psychological guidelines [Leech 1980: 90]. Specific character of human communication as a chain of social interactions can be revealed only in dialogues.
RQ are very often used in dialogues as responses to the previous remarks, statements, questions, offers etc. Rhetorical questions-responses (RQR) are mostly used as a means of avoiding the direct answer to the previous question/remark because it may seem inadequate or inappropriate to the speaker. It already implies an answer and helps involve the reader (listener) into the conversation.
"You think I'm just a bimbo?"
"What else are you?"
[Wells 1975: 166].
Pragmatic peculiarities of RQR
RQ are also one of the most popular means of emotional response to the previous remark in the dialogue. RQR are usually tightly connected with the shape and content of the previous remark and therefore may partially reproduce its wording.
"How do you suppose you could get around to thinking about it?"
He leaned forward gracefully and smiled between his teeth.
"How would you like a swift punch on your nose?" [Chandler 2000: 98].
The main function of rhetorical question is to attract attention, produce strong impression and raise emotional level. When the speaker addresses the interlocutor with an RQ he/she is not expecting any answer (because he/she either knows the answer beforehand or is convinced that no answer can be given, at least at the moment).
1.1. RQR in a context
As we have mentioned above RQ can very often be used as an answer to the preceding statement. Very often their rhetoric nature is obvious even beyond the given context. A large group of such RQR is constituted by RQ which contain universal truths. Under this term we understand indisputable fact which is based on natural laws, universal values, social order, social norms etc. The obvious and indisputable nature of the idea which is contained in RQ excludes any opportunity of such RQ to function as an interrogative sentence because it makes information request redundant [Belokolotskaya 2004: 77]. RQR of this category might contain assessment and therefore can be subjective to some extent. RQR are very often used to express some philosophical ideas, or attempts to comprehend the world, the meaning of life. Thus they involve universal laws of existence and a speaker's subjective approach.
"What are you talking about?"
"Life is very sweet, brother; who wouldn't wish to live?" [Hemingway 1973: 125].
There is a special group of context-independent RQR which can be called rhetorical clichés. Under this term we understand interrogative sentences which are used as RQR so often that their interrogative nature is not obvious any more. RQR with interrogative pronoun what (what's the use...? What difference...? What's wrong with.? etc.) very often show how unnecessary, redundant the message/action is.
"Do you know I'm married now?"
"What does it matter?"
or
"Why did you not come back?"
"What was the use? It was finished."
RQR can be also independent of the context when RQR is an extended, semantically full statement.
"Please calm down. I'm not against you after
all!"
"Doesn't the company have an obligation to fix the the problem when they're responsible for it?" [Christie 2004: 227].
Such RQR sometimes contain an allusion to an obvious fact and makes it close to RQR containing universal truths.
Thus RQR can be contextually independent if:
1. RQR contains universal truth, which cannot be questioned, thus interrogative nature of such RQR is minimal
2. RQR is a question-cliché which transmits rather than requests information
3. RQR is a semantically full statement and already contains information it is 'requesting' for.
However we should not forget that RQ is an indirect speech act and sometimes context should be used in order to fulfill and understand its meaning correctly and adequately. RQ without a context might be understood as an information request and it is only peculiarities of its use in speech which can help reveal its pragmatic meaning.
Such context may be limited to one sentence:
"Did they pursue him then or not?"
"Who could attempt to pursue him?" [Christie 2004: 227].
Or it can be extended and may include several statements:
"What'syour degree?"
"A Bachelor of Arts. In music," Marty said, in his reasonable tone.
"Mr. Barker, do you think that qualifies you to pass judgments about an aircraft? " [Crichton 1997: 366].
Information which is represented in the first two statements makes clear that a person who studied liberal arts and humanities cannot be an expert in technical problems. RQR in this case represents a statement which shows the speaker's point of view: That does not qualify you to judge aircraft. However sometimes context which reveals pragmatic meaning of RQR transcends the limits of a work of literature, so in order to understand the meaning of an RQR correctly one need to have some background knowledge. That includes information about historical situation, outstanding people, traditions and national peculiarities of a country, etc. In other words it is all necessary information about the world which one needs to know for adequate perception of the whole book and particular statements.
Every work of literature creates a scope of its own "universal truths", universal for this particular book.
"Are you against carpe diem approach? "
"Can a sane man believe in carpe diem?" [Shaw 1991: 97]
In the next example RQR contains a changed version of a famous proverb:
"Didn'tyou know that, dear?"
"How curious! Isn't the world small?" [Maugham 1997: 122]
1.2. RQR as a means of expressing agreement/disagreement
RQR can also be used to express agreement or disagreement with a preceding statement. Under agreement we understand positive reaction of an interlocutor towards the initial statement. This reaction consists in the affirmative answer, agreement to take a particular action or positive assessment of intentions or views of the speaker. Pragmatic function of agreement can be realized with the help of the word "yes" (which is the marker of agreement) and its equivalents (of course, sure etc) if their use in the sentence does not change its semantic structure [Be-lokolotskaya 2004: 77].
In some dialogues agreement realized by RQR shows how obvious the requested information is:
"Didyou see they were chasing him?"
"Why would I not see?" Pablo said. [Hemingway 1973: 125].
The answer can be expressed by a positive statement "There's no reason why I wouldn't see they were chasing him".
In RQR negation can be expressed by lexical means.
"Is it true, Pilar?" he asked me.
"Did I ever lie to you?" I told him. [Hemingway 1973: 161].
An affirmative statement for this RQR will be: I never lied to you.
Or, for example:
"You must have had your share of troubles."
"Sure, dear. What businesses doesn't? " [Fine 1990: 18] - meaning "Every business has troubles".
In the next example agreement is expressed explicitly:
In some dialogues RQR which doesn't contain negation can be a negative answer to a negative question:
"You didn't like her?"
"Could you expect me to?" [Christie 1990: 363].
So the speaker agrees with his interlocutor: "No, I didn't like her and you couldn't expect me to".
Let's take a look at the following example:
"If I'd only known..."
"How should you know?" [Christie 2004: 204].
The initial statement in the dialogue is realized as a part of a compound sentence with 3-d conditional (unreal condition in the past) and can be expressed by
a statement: You should not know. The positive form of the RQR which forms the answer implies the negative statement and therefore agreement with the interlocutor.
In the following example RQR expresses agreement not to take a particular action:
"No smoking with Allison in the car, right?"
"Do you see me or Allison smoking?" [Sheldon 1990: 15].
The indirect affirmative statement for this RQR will be: You do not see me or Allison smoking.
RQR can also be used to express disagreement. Under disagreement we understand speaker's negative reaction to the previous statement. Disagreement can be expressed as a negative answer to a question, protest, rejection, negative assessment of interlocutor's intentions and points of view. Pragmatic function is realized with the help of disagreement marker No and its semantic equivalents.
In some dialogues disagreement is expressed via negative answer to a positive yes/no question:
"Or is it that you're afraid we'll steal your secrets?"
"What secrets can a beginning artist have?" [Maugham 1977: 141].
Meaning of the RQR can be expressed in the following sentence: A beginning artist cannot have any secrets.
Or as in the following example:
"You could stab me in the back with it."
"Why should I stab you in the back?" [Hemingway 1996: 408]. Indirect statement of this positive RQR will be: There's no reason why I should stab you in the back. It shows disagreement with the previous statement.
Let's consider the following example:
"I'll pay the difference for you."
"How could I let a lady pay _ for me?" [Christie 2004: 201].
The implied statement looks like: I cannot let a lady pay for me, which opposes the initial statement and expresses speaker's disagreement with his interlocutor. Usually reactions which are expressed through RQR lose their interrogative nature for the sake of emotionality.
RQR which disagrees with the initial statement (containing grammatical negation) might contain lexical negation:
"I don't know."
"Oh, do you think you can fool me?" [Galsworthy 1974: 48].
In the next example RQR expresses disagreement (refusal) in a dialogue, in which the initial statement contains grammatical negation.
"Promise me, dear, you won't believe I made you an excuse."
"What else can I believe?" [Huxley 1996: 67]. The indirect statement can be expressed by the sentence: There's nothing else I can believe.
Thus RQR which is does not contain negation may be used to express disagreement.
"He finishes today. I thought we might take him back with us and give him a spot of lunch. He's quite a gentleman".
"Is that a sufficient reason to ask him to lunch?" [Maugham 2004: 37]
RQ being formally an interrogative sentence softens the implied animosity and provides the necessary but actually seeming politeness.
She laughed and stood up scornfully. "The whole thing is too ridiculous.
"And you think that I - I did it? What utter nonsense! Why on earth should I want to kill Linnet
Doyle? I don't even know her!" [Christie 2004:127]
In the next example the initial statements contains an offer to take a particular action. In dialogues of this type disagreement is expressed as a refusal to do something:
"I'd like yon to handle the picture while I'm
gone."
"What do I know about making a training film?" [Sheldon 1990: 173].
All above described ambiguity can only be observed if we deal with indirect speech acts, because only in this case can we observe the direct-indirect meaning opposition which not only softens the meaning of the original utterance or creates additional hidden meanings.
The next dialogue exemplifies how the offered services are rejected:
"What about clothes? Shall I ring up Badger to bring some along?"
Frankie looked doubtful.
"I don't want to insult your clothes, Bobby, or throw your poverty into your teeth or anything like that.
But will they carry conviction?" [Christie 2002: 134].
The implied idea is the following - They will not carry conviction.
In those dialogues which contain question(s) in the initial statement, disagreement is very often expressed by a RQR which contains grammatical negation:
"Oh, Constance? You are not going to divorce
him?"
"How can she go on living with a man for whom she has no respect?" [Maugham 1977: 253].
The initial statement is expressed by a negative yes/no question which contains grammatical negation not. The answer expressed by RQR contains lexical grammatical negation (no) and implies a statement which can be presented as a sentence with double negation: She cannot go on living with a man for whom she has no respect.
In some dialogues disagreement expressed by RQR is a refusal against a negative statement expressed in the initial sentence:
"But there is no problem..."
"Isn't there?" He was looking down now at the numbers. [Crichton 1997: 366].
In this case RQR is an elliptical question with grammatical negation not and it can be presented in the form o a full sentence Isn't there a problem? Rhetorical nature is affirmed by the sentence which follows RQR - the speaker does not agree with his interlocutor's opinion, because he is well informed about the subject of the conversation. The implied idea can be expressed in the sentence: There is (a problem).
In the framework of the present article we are not giving statistic analysis of the RQR being used to express agreement/disagreement, but it should be mentioned that RQR are mostly used to express a negative rather than a positive answer. We believe it happens due to the fact that people use rhetorical questions mostly as a means of avoiding the direct answer to the question/statement because it may seem inadequate or inappropriate to them [Dijk T. A. van 1977, p. 48]. Good breeding, manners and social norms do not allow a person to express his/her feelings directly with the help of a highly emotional exclamatory sentence.
It should be noted that emotional potential of rhetorical questions is not only limited to negative emotions. They very often express irony, surprise, jocularity and so on.
1.3. RQR as a means of emotional expressiveness
A wide range of emotional reactions can be expressed with the help of RQR: agreement, disagreement, doubt, support, hesitation. RQR has a great potential to express such emotions as anger, mistrust, surprise, interest, fear, annoyance, reproach, offence etc. For example:
Irony
"He finishes today. I thought we might take him back with us and give him a spot of lunch. He's quite a gentleman".
"Is that a sufficient reason to ask him to lunch?" [Maugham 2004: 113]
Surprise
"And how will dear Irene like living in the country?"
"Of course she'll like it; why shouldn't she? "
Mrs. Small grew nervous. [Galsworthy 1974:
110]
Disdain
"I'llgo with uncle Swithin."
"Uncle Swithin! What does he matter? You can throw him over!"
"I am not in the habit of throwing people over!" [Galsworthy 1974: 164].
Indignation
"Only water-colours; I can't say I believe in my work".
"Don't believe in it? Then how can you do it? Work's no use unless you believe in it!" [Galsworthy
1974: 173].
Annoyance
"I couldn't get home last evening," she said.
"Ah, Carrie," he answered, "What's the use saying that? I don't care. You needn't tell me that,
though." [Dreiser 1958: 261]
Jocularity
"You foolish boy, why have you been trying to make me miserable?"
His face lit up at her words and his eyes flashed.
"Isabel, you don't mean to say you'll wait for me?"
"Don't you think you're worth it?" [Maugham 1977: 120]
The framework of this article allowed to describe only some basic structural and pragmatic characteristics of RQR. As it was mentioned above the main function of any RQ is to attract attention, to produce a strong impression, to raise the emotional level. The answer is implied and helps involve the reader (listener) into the conversation, it may also imply estimation. The aims of the speaker showing his opinion towards the situation may be diverse.
RQR might acquire different roles which always vary according to the given situation, theme of the dialogue, emotional background of the members of the conversation, their knowledge, communicative intentions and aims.
References
Allwood J. Logic in Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Belokolotskaya S.A. Rhetorical questions in fiction literature.Voronezh, 2004.
Charleston B.M. Studies on the Emotional and Affective Means o Expression in Modern English.
Bern, 1960.
Dijk T.A. van. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London - N.Y.: Longman, 1976 (1977).
Leech G.A. Communicative Grammar of English. Moscow, 1983.
Leech G.A. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V., 1980.
Morris Ch.W. Writings on the General Theory of Signs. Berlin: Mouton, 1971.
A University Grammar of English / Quirk et al. M.: Visshaya shkola, 1982.
Veikhman G.A. New Look at English Syntax. M.: Moscow, 1989.
Searle J. Speech acts classification // Theory of speech acts. Moscow: Progress publishers, 1986. P.170-194.
Fiction
Bronte Ch. Jane Eyre. Moscow: Manager, 1990.
Crichton M. Airframe. Arrow Books, 1997.
Chandler R. Farewell, my lovely. Moscow: Manager, 2000.
Christie A. Death on the Nile. Moscow: Manager, 2004.
Christie A. Towards zero. Fontana/Collins,
1990.
Christie A. Why didn't they ask Evans? Moscow: Manager, 2002.
Dreiser T. Sister Carrie. Moscow: Foreign languages publishing house, 1958.
Galsworthy J. The man of property. Moscow: Progress publishers, 1974.
Galsworthy J. The white monkey. Moscow: Progress publishers, 1974.
Fine A. Alias Madame Doubtfire. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnie otnoshenya, 1990.
Fitzgerald F.S. The great Gatsby. Kiev: Dnipro Publishers, 1973.
Hailey A., Castle J. Flight into Danger. Moscow: Manager, 2002.
Hemingway E. For whom the bell tolls. Fontana / Collins, 1973.
Hemingway E. The torrents of spring. Moscow: Penguin books, 1996.
Hemingway E. To have or have not. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnie otnoshenya, 1979.
Hemingway E. True at first light. Arrow Books, 1999.
Huxley A. Herbert and Minnie. Moscow: Manager, 1996.
Mansfield K. The lady's maid. Oxford University Press, 1984.
Maugham W.S. Books, 2000.
Maugham W.S.
2004.
Maugham W.S. Rain and other short stories. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977.
Maugham W.S. The Razor's edge. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975.
Priestly J.B. Dangerous Corner. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1995.
Shakespeare W. Hamlet. Penguin Books, 1994. Shakespeare W. The Sonnets. Minsk: Tivali-Stil, 1995.
Shaw B. Four plays. Fontana / Collins, 1991. Sheldon S. The other side of midnight. Warner,
1999
Steinbeck J. The winter without discontent. Bantam Books, 1962.
Wells H.G. The Invisible Man. Moscow: Foreign languages publishing house, 1975.
Wilde O. The picture of Dorian Gray. Moscow: Manager, 2004.
Woolf V. Mrs. Dalloway. Moscow: Raduga,
1983.
A man of honour. Arrow Theatre. Moscow: Manager,
Г.Р. Власян, Е.А. Скородумова
ПРАГМАТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСОБЕННОСТИ РИТОРИЧЕСКИХ ВОПРОСОВ-РЕАКЦИЙ В ДИАЛОГАХ (на материале английской художественной литературы)
В статье рассматриваются структурные и прагматические особенности риторических вопросов-реакций. Особенностью исследовательского подхода является разграничение прямого и косвенного речевого акта и предположение о том, что риторические вопросы являются косвенными речевыми актами. В статье содержится обзор структурных типов риторических вопросов-реакций, описание их прагматических характеристик и особенности их функционирования в контексте.
Ключевые слова: прагматика, речевой акт, переносное значение, импликатура.
