Explore the vast range of titles available.

Rhetorical questions (RQs), as a cross-breed of questions and statements, represent an effective tool in putting forward the Speaker's ideas, as well as influencing the ideas and opinions of other people. Because of their communicative effectiveness and multifunctionality, they are frequently used in different contexts and for different purposes, and, as such, they represent an interesting topic for further research. The aim of this paper is threefold: (i) to explore the nature of the implied answer to RQs, (ii) to offer a classification of RQs based on the Speaker's communication style, and (iii) to examine whether (or to what extent) the Speaker-Addressee relationship (peer-to-peer, superior-to-inferior, inferior-to-superior) influences the selection and frequency of use of different types of RQs. Using Stalnaker’s (2002) model of Common Ground and Caponigro and Sprouse’s (2007) concepts of Speaker's and Addressee's Beliefs, the author redefines the nature of the answers implied by RQs, claiming that they are imposed on the Addressee rather than mutually recognized as obvious. Based on the model of communication styles as defined by Yuan et al. (2018), RQs are classified into aggressive, friendly and sarcastic/ironical questions with imposed answers. The analysis of the corpus, which consisted of 275 RQs taken from ten American movie scripts, showed that friendly RQs are more common than the other two types, and that, in instances where one of the interlocutors is in a superior position, superior-to-inferior RQs are by far more common than vice versa. The finding that RQs asked by inferiors make up less than a third of RQs occurring between interlocutors with different social standing is in line with the view that answers to RQs are imposed on Addressees.

This study uses modern linguistic theory to analyze a frequently recurring syntactic phenomenon in the Hebrew Bible that has thus far resisted explanation: כי אם. The combination of the two particles כי and אם produces a construction that is notoriously difficult to describe, analyze syntactically, and translate. Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew offer a dizzying variety of translations for this construction, including “that if,” “except,” “unless,” “but,” “but only,” and “surely,” among other possibilities. In this book, Grace J. Park provides a new approach that strives for greater precision and consistency in translation. Park argues that כי אם is used in three patterns: the “full focus” pattern, the “reduced focus” pattern, and the less common “non-focus” pattern. Her syntactic analysis of all 156 occurrences of the כי אם construction in the Bible lends greater clarity to the contested passages. Drawing on recent linguistic research into the typology of clausal nominalization as well as previous work on contrastive focus, this innovative project provides important new insight into the syntax of Biblical Hebrew. It will be especially valuable for scholars seeking to translate כי אם more consistently and accurately.

One controversy in the study of the Chinese ‘what’-based rhetorical question -RQ for short) is how it takes on a negative interpretation. This paper attempts to apply enthymeme or rhetorical syllogism to the deduction of negative meaning of the -RQ. Triggered by the -RQ, or one of its words or phrases, the hearer extracts the explicit premise, fills in the premise that is implicit either in the context or in her or his encyclopedic knowledge, and deduces the conclusion, the negative meaning of the -RQ. According to what premises are left out, the paper also explores the deduction patterns of the negative meaning of -RQs and proposes a procedure for obtaining the negative interpretation. That said, the negative meaning of the -RQ will be entrenched in the mind of its users and conventionalized in the Mandarin Chinese community via repeated use.

This paper aims to explore whether some rhetorical questions contain certain linguistic elements or forms which would differentiate them from answer-eliciting and action-eliciting questions, and thereby hint at their rhetorical nature even outside the context. Namely, despite the fact that the same questions can be rhetorical in one context, and answer-eliciting in another, some of them are more likely to be associated with rhetorical or non-rhetorical use. The analysis is based on extensive data (over 1200 examples of rhetorical questions taken from 30 plays by two British and two American writers), and the results are expected to give an insight into whether we can talk about rhetorical questions or just a rhetorical use of questions.

Foreign branding—or using brand names that evoke foreign associations through, for example, spelling a brand name in a foreign language—is a popular means in both developed and emerging countries of suggesting a specific country of origin (COO) in the hope that it will evoke certain product qualities. As a result, consumers increasingly encounter products with brand names that imply a COO that differs from the actual COO (where the product is manufactured). In four experiments, the authors find support for the hypothesis that incongruence between the actual COO and implied COO decreases purchase likelihood asymmetrically. Incongruence backfires in hedonic categories but has hardly any effect in utilitarian categories. Furthermore, incongruence decreases purchase likelihood more if the actual COO is an emerging rather than developed country. The authors address the psychological process underlying the asymmetric effect of incongruence by showing that consumers apply different information-processing strategies to hedonic versus utilitarian products. These results have important implications for (foreign) branding decisions.

Recent research has shown that rhetorical questions (RQs) have certain prosodic characteristics in terms of voice quality, tempo, and intonation, which distinguish them from genuine, information-seeking questions (ISQs). This paper focuses on the interaction between prosodic cues to rhetorical meaning on the one hand, and lexical and morpho-syntactic means, on the other, in German. The production experiment reported on here addresses three research questions, in short: (i) do speakers prefer a specific syntactic construction for an RQ, (ii) do they make use of specific lexical and morpho-syntactic means to signal rhetorical meaning, and (iii) what is the interaction between those means and prosodic cues. The answers are: (i) yes (wh-questions), (ii) yes (especially discourse markers (DiPs)), and (iii) we find an additive effect enforcing the rhetorical message. When lexical (or morpho-syntactic) cues to rhetorical meaning are used, we do not observe a reduction in or lack of prosodic means at the same time. For example, when a DiP is present, an RQ will still have a typical nuclear accent and edge tone, i.e., cues are used in an additive, rather than an exclusive way. There are, however, RQs that are marked only in the prosody, without any lexical or morpho-syntactic cues present.

This paper investigates the deontic modal in Cantonese. I argue that is an NPI and a negative operator is induced at the sentence-initial position by the SFPs or in rhetorical questions. In SAI sentence, must syntactically agree with the negative operator for licensing, and minimality and locality effects are found in such agreement. This study may provide evidence of a syntactic approach to NPI licensing and rhetorical questions.

This article contributes to our knowledge about the prosodic realisation of rhetorical questions (RQs) as compared to information-seeking questions (ISQs). It reports on a production experiment testing the prosody of English wh- and polar RQs and ISQs in a Canadian variety. In previous literature, the contribution of prosody to the distinction between the two illocution types has often been limited to the intonational realisation of the terminus of the utterance, i.e. whether it ends in a rise or a fall. Along with edge tones, we tested other phonological and phonetic parameters. Our results are as follows: (i) The intonational terminus was distinctive only for polar questions (rise vs plateau), not for wh-questions (low throughout). (ii) Moreover, the semantic difference between RQs and ISQs is signalled by pitch accents. It is reflected in nuclear pitch accent type for wh-questions, and accent type and position for polar questions. (iii) Phonetically, RQs are produced with longer constituent durations and – for wh-questions – a softer voice quality in the wh-word. Taken together, several intonational categories and phonetic parameters contribute to the distinction between RQs and ISQs. A simple distinction between rising and falling intonation is in any case insufficient.

Rhetorical questions (RhQs) are a complex phenomenon at the interface of pragmatics, prosody and syntax, which requires reasoning on intentions and goals, and which involves a mismatch between literal and intended meaning. In Italian, RhQs can be marked by optional particles and verbal morphology. We investigated when children aged 6-9 acquire the relevant patterns of optional modification and exploit them in the appropriate pragmatic context. In an elicited production study with 84 monolingual and 88 Italian–German bilingual children, we found that development in monolinguals was determined by age with a progression between 6 and 9 years, while bilingual development was influenced by proficiency in the heritage language and dominance more generally. These results are in line with Tsimpli's (2014) proposal that “very-late-acquired phenomena”, especially interface domains, depend on their timing in acquisition. Unlike for other pragmatic phenomena, such as irony and conversational competence, there was no evidence for a bilingual advantage.

Rhetorical questions are used in a variety of ways in the Hebrew Bible. These questions, as found in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Judges, show a strong emotional component, often of anger, and are part of the linguistic structure of accusation and defense. Rhetorical questions are also used as part of diplomatic negotiations between individuals and groups. Such questions function within the narrative to provide momentum for the story and move the action forward. By carrying the emotional component of the text, rhetorical questions draw the reader into scripture and enhance the connection between the reader and the text. One particular format of the accusing rhetorical question is a variant of “what have you done?” This phrase serves to accuse and to imply the need for justification or restitution for the perceived wrong. “What have you done?” is not seeking information in these contexts, as the wrongdoing in question has already come to light for the speaker. This question is accompanied by additional rhetorical questions to form a linguistic cluster. This article proposes that rhetorical questions, and particularly the “What have you done?” format, were long-standing and common linguistic tools of Hebrew writers and speakers in the ancient world. Such questions served as cues for responsive interaction from the party addressed and signaled the opening for apology, negotiation, or further conflict.