scholarly journals Nandao-Questions as a Special Kind of Rhetorical Questions

2015 ◽  
pp. 508
Author(s):  
Beibei Xu

This paper addresses the syntax and semantics of a special kind of Rhetorical Questions (RQs) in Mandarin, i.e. questions with nandao (nandao-Q). Nandao-Qs necessarily have rhetorical question readings. To derive this, I propose that nandao is a WH-word which takes a question denoting a single proposition and turns it into a set with the complement proposition. This analysis differs significantly from earlier proposals for deriving RQ meanings as asserting the negation of the proposition denoted by its IP (cf. Sadock 1979, Han 2002, a.o.). The degenerate question nature of nandao-Q can explain why nandao-Q unlike Ordinary Questions (OQs) cannot be embedded under [+wh] selecting words like wen and zhidao.

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 508
Author(s):  
Beibei Xu

This paper addresses the syntax and semantics of a special kind of Rhetorical Questions (RQs) in Mandarin, i.e. questions with nandao (nandao-Q). Nandao-Qs necessarily have rhetorical question readings. To derive this, I propose that nandao is a WH-word which takes a question denoting a single proposition and turns it into a set with the complement proposition. This analysis differs significantly from earlier proposals for deriving RQ meanings as asserting the negation of the proposition denoted by its IP (cf. Sadock 1979, Han 2002, a.o.). The degenerate question nature of nandao-Q can explain why nandao-Q unlike Ordinary Questions (OQs) cannot be embedded under [+wh] selecting words like wen and zhidao.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-140
Author(s):  
Zhou Mingqiang

Pragmatic function and cognitive characteristics of discourse markers of complaintsDiscourse markers of complaints, mainly including ‘zhēnshì/yě zhēnshì’ (‘really / is really’), ‘zhēnshìde /yě zhēnshìde’ (‘really / is really’), ‘hébì ne’ (‘why bother’), ‘hékǔ ne’ (‘why bother’), ‘zhìyù mā’ (‘need you …’), ‘nǐ kàn nǐ’ (‘look at you’), ‘bù shì wǒ shuō nǐ’ (‘I want to remind you’), ‘bù shì wǒ V nǐ’ (‘I want to VERB you’), ‘kàn / qiáo nǐ shuōde’ (‘well, listen to you’), ‘nǐ zhè ge / zhè zhǒng rén a’ (‘oh, the likes of you’), ‘zài zěnme shuō’ (‘anyway’), etc., express complaint feelings.The pragmatic frame of discourse markers of complaints includes WHOM, WHY and WHAT, among which WHOM and WHAT are two vital factors. People usually complain in three cases: first is to complain behind the back of an interlocutor, which is graver than the second, to complain face to face; third is to complain about oneself, which is usually in a light way or just to boast with sly humor. The cause of complaints is sometimes identical to the content to be complained about, including complaining interlocutors’ behavior and its consequences, interlocutors’ thought and speech, among which the complaints about interlocutors’ behaviors and its consequences are more common than the complaints about interlocutors’ thought and speech. Different discourse markers of complaints might intensify, weaken or even alleviate the complaining feelings. Depending on different complaining interlocutors and the content to be complained about, the speakers choose corresponding discourse markers of complaints to make the complaining content fit their feelings. The sentiments of complaints can be classified into following categories: the first is a self-compliment, a false complaint concealing actual praise; the second is caring displeasure, a tender complaint with sympathy, friendliness and affection to remind the addresser of inappropriateness; the third is blaming in different degrees, a complaint of criticism with an excuse in a stern tone, or that of disapproval with no excuse in the same tone, or that of mocking in a teasing tone, as well as that of self-reproach, of persuasion, of rejection, of marked ellipsis with no gist and ground of the blame, etc. The sentiments of complaint may be expressed with the marked speech with criticism and blame at the fore, while the marked speech is indispensible from the changeable context of complaints due to a wide variety of complainees.The objects to be complained about can be the interlocutors, the speaker him/herself and the facts. When the object to be complained about is the interlocutor, the speaker may complain to them face to face, or behind their back; when an object to be complained about is facts, the complaints will be with a lighter tone, and only with comments and descriptions on the facts; when the object to be complained about is the speaker him/herself, the complaints will be with lightest tone. The discourse markers of complaints are usually used in the negative contexts, mainly by 4 means: first is to use negative sentences, second is to use contrast expressions, third is to use rhetorical questions, fourth is to use some other special expression, such as Chinese idioms ‘duì niú tán qín’ (‘play the lute to a cow’), ‘diū rén xiàn yǎn’ (‘disgraced’) etc., or commentary adverbs, such as ‘chàdiǎner’ (‘almost’), ‘jiǎnzhí’ (‘simply’), ‘lǎoshì’ (‘always’), ‘hébì’ (similar to ‘why must...’),or sentence constructions with negative connotation, such as ‘lián…dōu’,‘gēnběn bù…’,‘yě tài…’ etc. When discourse markers are used in the negative contexts, the scale of complaining tone is like this (from heavy to light): rhetorical question sentence > negative sentence > contrast sentence > other sentence.To choose the right discourse markers of complaints, the speakers must correctly understand the functions of the corresponding discourse markers. Meanwhile, listeners can catch the speakers’ real implication by seizing the characteristics of the discourse markers of complaints.The discourse markers of complaints can be researched in terms of the following aspects: the impacts of contexts, the common and distinct functions of the complaint markers, and the convergence of cognition on the pragmatic function.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 713-739
Author(s):  
Hsuan-Hsuan Ku ◽  
Mei-Ju Chen

Purpose As an alternative to straight rhetorical questions, questions using analogies that invite the reader to think about the frame of reference to answer the target have been used in advertising to persuade. This paper aims to investigate consumer responses to the use of analogical questions in ads for incrementally new products and the important variables moderating those responses. Design/methodology/approach Four between-subjects experiments examined how product evaluations in response to analogical questions differ from non-analogical variants as a function of consumers’ persuasion awareness (Studies 1 and 2) and also tested if the effectiveness of an analogical question among potential consumers who are more aware of persuasion attempts might be enhanced only when it is proposed with a strong rather than a weak frame of reference (Study 3), and when the frame of reference and the target share underlying similarities (Study 4). Findings Analogical questions are more persuasive than non-analogical variants for participants who are more aware of persuasion attempts. Inferential fluency mediates the results. Furthermore, the positive impact of analogical questions for participants high in persuasion awareness is diminished when the frame of reference is weak or from a dissimilar domain. The same patterns are not evident for participants who are less aware of persuasion attempts. Research limitations/implications Drawing on the concepts of inferential fluency, this study offers an empirically-based view of how the analogical questions in advertising may bias the responses exhibited by individuals who demonstrate either a high or low level of persuasion awareness. Practical implications The inclusion of an analogy can lower consumers’ tendency to behave in a defensive manner by facilitating inferences about intended claims that are implicitly stated in a rhetorical question and achieve higher levels of persuasion. Originality/value This study contributes to prior study on rhetorical questions within a persuasion communication by adopting inferential fluency as an underlying mechanism for analyzing the impact of analogical questions and individual’s awareness of persuasion.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 509-522
Author(s):  
Ibrahim II Najjar ◽  
Soh Bee Kwee ◽  
Thabet Abu Abu al-haj

A rhetorical question has the form of a question but does not perform its function, i.e. does not seek any information but rather, is used to give a specific or rhetoric function such as denial, assertion, testing, equalization and negation. The present study investigates the two English translations that were used in the translation of the Quranic rhetorical questions. In a nutshell, this is a comparative study that aims to discover if the grammatical shifts that had occurred in the two English translations would have an effect on the denial, assertion, testing, and equalization and negation modes of the Quranic rhetorical questions. For this purpose, we had adopted the register theory of Halliday and Hassan (1985) as well as the translation shifts of Catford (1965) in the comparison of the two English translations, namely the Koran Interpreted that was authored by Arberry (1955) and the Noble Quran: English translation of the meanings and commentary as transcribed by al-Hilali and Khan (1996). According to the analyses, the occurrence of grammatical shifts between the two translations had in fact affected the mode of the ST rhetorical questions, their rhetorical meanings and consequently, issues on mode sustenance. Therefore, it can be said that the register theory of Halliday and Hassan (1985) had been a beneficial tool used in the analysis of the translation process.


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-455
Author(s):  
Rebecca S Watson

The interrogative sequence אִם‎ . . . הֲ‎ in Biblical Hebrew can be employed in two forms of disjunctive question. The first offers mutually exclusive questions and the second comprises a rhetorical pair. Close examination of the extant examples reveals no difficulty in distinguishing between these two forms and, further, that, when employed to express a rhetorical question, the double rhetorical sequence אִם‎ . . . הֲ‎ anticipates the answer ‘No’. Careful study of a debated example, Jer. 31.20, confirms that a negative answer is implied here, hence the evidence strongly favours this reading in the other contentious passage, Hab. 3.8. Here, triple rhetorical questions introduced by the interrogative particles אִם‎ . . . אִם‎ . . . הֲ‎ are employed in a motivated interrogative sentence, suggesting that a negative answer is therefore expected.


The article analyzes the types of linguistic means of influence in the election programs of candidates for the post of President of Ukraine in 2019, used to establish or retain power and manipulate public consciousness and voter behavior. The following types of linguistic means of influence are distinguished: evaluative vocabulary, phraseological units, ideological clichés, metaphors, precedent phenomena, paraphrases, repetitions, gradation, rhetorical questions. It has been proven that evaluative vocabulary occupies a leading place among linguistic means of influence, creates a positive or negative assessment of an event or person. They attract attention and accurately express an emotionally expressive thought phraseological units, of which they have been modified. Ideological clichés are a means of stereotyping the voter's thinking. The emotionality of the presentation is greatly enhanced by the political metaphor. In the election programs of 2019, the following types of metaphors are recorded: a metaphor of illness, a metaphor of collapse, a metaphor of a prison, a metaphor of space, a metaphor of welfare. Indirect names in the programs turned out to be solitary, descriptive names – periphrases, as well as precedent phenomena. Repetition is a useful means of persuading and instilling ideas in voters, used to highlight the main thesis of the program, the depiction of problems that threaten voters. The use of gradation helps the politician to highlight the complexity of the existing problem and convey to the electorate that only this politician can solve it. A rhetorical question is another means of activating voters' attention, the main function of which is to induce voters to think and search for an answer to the question posed. Among the graphic means, the abnormal use of a capital letter to underline the most important lexeme (lexemes) and the use of quotation marks to change the nature of the assessment were recorded. A characteristic feature of the linguistic content of election programs is the layering of several different types of linguistic means, which has an expressive manipulative effect, creates the desired impression, evokes appropriate thoughts and encourages voting.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2(36)) ◽  
pp. 29-31
Author(s):  
Irina Tamazievna Sanishvili

This article presents an overview of linguistic research of rhetorical question and describes its linguistic features. Different situations of use of rhetorical questions and their connection with syntactic structures and lexical composition of the statements are identified in this article. They are supported by examples from written and spoken German-language communication. It was found out in the research that linguistic structure of rhetorical questions is very diverse and not always is an indicator of the question being rhetorical.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 137-189
Author(s):  
Aurore Motte

"(Pseudo)-Interrogative Sentences and Associated Phrases in Speech Captions in Private Tombs": In this paper, I discuss the (pseudo)-interrogative phrases, both those that are introduced by an interrogative word as well as those that are not. My aim is to provide a synchronic and diachronic study of such sentences and to illustrate a few of their uses in the Reden und Rufe corpus. After a short introduction (section 1), the predicate questions jn and jn-jw are considered in section 2 and adjunct questions built with the interrogative pronouns jšs.t, zy, m and the interrogative adverb ṯn(y) in section 3. Section 3 will further discuss a couple of affirmative and exclamative sentences, which have to be linked with the rhetorical question jšs.t pw A. The fourth and last section before conclusions is devoted to three cases studies relevant for this investigation, i.e. the proclitic particle js, which allows the speaker to distance himself from his words through an ironic statement (4.1), interrogative phrases without interrogative words (4.2), and the particle ḫy hitherto known from letters only (4.3). As a result 50 examples from Old Kingdom mastabas to Late Period tombs have been considered. Even if real (or ordinary) questions (OQs) arose in a few cases, there is a clear majority of rhetorical questions (RQs), which are uninformative and assertive. Both OQs and RQs can be expressed by means of the same syntactic structure, be it predicate questions, adjuncts questions, or interrogative phrases without interrogative words. Some are however preferred for RQs, and vice versa. The RQs as adjunct questions, which are predominant in this text corpus, invoke a predetermined answer from the addressee, being either jnk pw or jnk + nominalized participle. As such they reveal a first rhetorical strategy in which the answer is the counterpart of the question with exactly the same syntactic structure jšs.t pw A – jnk pw, zy pw A – jnk pw, and (j)n-m + participle – jnk + participle). The jšs.t pw A and (j)n-m + participle patterns expose a further rhetorical strategy in which the speaker and/or the addressee is/are objectified.


2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas H. Snyman

1 Korintiërs 7–8 en 10:1–11:1 is deel van Paulus se antwoord op ’n brief wat hy van die Korintiërs ontvang het (7:1). Die twee gedeeltes handel oor die huwelik en afgodery, meer spesifiek die eet van vleis in heidense tempels. In sy antwoord gebruik hy ’n aantal vrae wat in kommentare bloot as retoriese vrae beskryf word. Die doel van hierdie artikel is om hierdie vrae fyner te onderskei aan die hand van ’n model wat uit die taalhandelingsteorie ontwikkel is. Die model word kortliks opgesom, gevolg deur ’n sistematiese ondersoek van al die vrae in hierdie twee gedeeltes. Die gevolgtrekking is dat die noemer ‘retoriese vraag’ ’n oorvereenvoudiging is, wat nie reg laat geskied aan die wyse waarop Paulus verskillende soorte vrae gebruik om die impak van sy antwoord aan die Korintiërs te verhoog nie. Deur die vrae te onderskei en binne ’n wetenskaplike raamwerk te beskryf, is ook ’n poging om ’n bydrae tot die vertaling en eksegese van die betrokke gedeeltes te lewer.1 Corinthians 7–8 and 10:1–11:1 form part of Paul’s response to a letter from the Corinthians, refered to in 7:1. These two sections deal with matters on marriage and idolatry, specifically that of eating meat in pagan temples. In Paul’s response he uses a number of questions, which all commentaries simply describe as rhetorical questions. The purpose of this article is to distinguish these questions more clearly on the basis of a model, developed from speech act theory. The model is briefly summarised, followed by a systematic examination of all the questions in these two sections. The conclusion is that the denominator ‘rhetorical question’ is an oversimplification that does not do justice to the way in which Paul uses various types of questions to enhance the impact of his response to the Corinthians. By distinguishing and describing these questions within a scientific framework, an attempt was also made to contribute to the translation and exegesis of the passages involved.


2014 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adina Moshavi

Abstract The rhetorical question is a sentence whose meaning is that of a question, but which is used to indirectly express an assertion. This paper examines content (“WH”) rhetorical questions in classical biblical prose, classifying them according to implications and communicative goals. Rhetorical questions have one of three types of implications: negative, specific, and extreme scalar implications. The content rhetorical question is found to be a versatile conversational device in the Bible, serving a variety of distinct communicative functions which operate on multiple levels. It is directly or indirectly connected to persuasion in most of its uses. The rhetorical question is in essence an intensifier, deriving its force on the higher-level of function from the implication of obviousness. In some cases, however, the choice of a persuasive form of communication rather than a more direct strategy has the effect of mitigation on the superordinate function level.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document