French questions alternating between a reason and a manner interpretation
-
Lisa Brunetti
,
Lucia M. Tovena
Abstract
The French wh-word comment ’how’ may be used with a reason interpretation, that is in a question that inquires about how the situation described by the proposition that follows comment (the pseudo-prejacent) might occur or have occurred, which goes against the expectations of the speaker. In this paper, we report on a rating study whose goal was to understand the extent to which reason-comment questions – compared to manner-comment questions – are interpreted as having some questioning force or, conversely, as being rhetorical. We also test whether reason-comment questions express a certain degree of surprise and confirm our hypothesis that with reason-comment questions the speaker tries to recover from an expectation failure, while results concerning the questioning force show that reason-comment questions can be true questions (though questioning is not their sole function), and invalidate analyses that systematically treat them as rhetorical questions.
References
Brunetti, Lisa, Hiyon Yoo, Lucia M. Tovena & Rachel Albar. 2020. French reason-comment (how) questions: A view from prosody. In Andreas Trotzke & Xavier Villalba (eds.), Functional categories and expressive meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.10.1093/oso/9780198871217.003.0012Suche in Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano & Jon Sprouse. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung, vol. XI, 121–133. Barcelona: Gráficas Revenaque.Suche in Google Scholar
Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen 2019. Ordinal–regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019, 12–10. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org.Suche in Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1991. Why and how come. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 31–45.Suche in Google Scholar
Desmets, Marianne & Antoine Gautier. 2009. ‘Comment n’y ai-je pas songé plus tôt?’, questions rhétoriques en comment. Travaux de Linguistique 58(1). 107–125. https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.058.0107.Suche in Google Scholar
Fleury, Damien & Lucia M. Tovena. 2018. Reason questions with comment are expressions of an attributional search. In Proceedings of 22nd Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, 112–121. Aix-en-Provence, France: AixDial.Suche in Google Scholar
Freed, Alice F. 1994. The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 21(6). 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90101-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Halonen, Mia & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2012. Multi-functionality of interrogatives: Asking reasons for and wondering about an action as overdone. In Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 222–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139045414.015Suche in Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1975. The meaning of questions. Language 51(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/413148.Suche in Google Scholar
Kassambara, Alboukadel. 2019. Package ‘ggpubr’. ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots, version 0.2.1. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/.Suche in Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2019. This is not an interrogative: The prosody of ’wh-questions’ in Hebrew and the sources of their questioning and rhetorical interpretations. Language Sciences 72(1). 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.12.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Rohde, Hanna. 2006. Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. SDLP 2. 134–168.Suche in Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1971. Queclaratives. In Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 223–232. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description I: Clause structure, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Suche in Google Scholar
Steensig & Paul Drew. 2008. Introduction: Questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies 10(1). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085581.Suche in Google Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Left periphery and how-why alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17. 83–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-008-9021-0.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Non-canonical questions from a comparative perspective: Introduction to the special collection
- A comparative corpus study on a case of non-canonical question
- Interpreting high negation in Negative Interrogatives: the role of the Other
- French questions alternating between a reason and a manner interpretation
- The pragmatics of surprise-disapproval questions: An empirical study
- Non-standard questions in English, German, and Japanese
- Timing of belief as a key to cross-linguistic variation in common ground management
- The prosody of French rhetorical questions
- Surprise questions in spoken French
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Non-canonical questions from a comparative perspective: Introduction to the special collection
- A comparative corpus study on a case of non-canonical question
- Interpreting high negation in Negative Interrogatives: the role of the Other
- French questions alternating between a reason and a manner interpretation
- The pragmatics of surprise-disapproval questions: An empirical study
- Non-standard questions in English, German, and Japanese
- Timing of belief as a key to cross-linguistic variation in common ground management
- The prosody of French rhetorical questions
- Surprise questions in spoken French
