THE DISCOURSE FUNCTION OF QUESTIONS*

Angeliki Athanasiadou

I - Introduction

One basis for classifying questions is in terms of the intentions oftheir speakers ( Ctr. Fil lmore, 0n Grammatical Constructions, 1986 ms).At the outset of a question, contextual and/or praSmatic information ispresent in the speaker's mind. The aim of the paper is f irst to examinefour categories of quest ions of interrogat ive structure and theirfunction in semantic and/or pragmatic 1eve1.I wil l then turn to theiruse in rea 1 discourse, uti ItztnQ data f rom three types of ora 1 corpus ofEnglish. It is observed that not only the different types of questionsare characterized by different functions, but the use of the differentmodes of questioning indicate the relationship that exists between thequestioner and the respondent (intimacy, social distarLce , authority). Isha11 therefore concentrate on the relationship between the variousfunctions question.s perform and the roles of the speakers involved inthe question act.

2. llodes of questioaiag

Questioning is a speech act which affects the way information isorganized. Since there is more than one kind of meaning conveyed bya speech act and verbal forms alone are not suff ic ient as a basis fordetermining meaning, then the meaning of questions must be partlydependent on rules governing social relationships. In the frameworkwhich wi l l enable me to explain the funct ions quest ions may ful f i1, Iaccount for speech situations in which there is a speaker and a hearer

I Thrs rs a revrseciAppiled Lrnguistrcs,

edrlion of a paper presenfed rrr 1-he glh world congress ofApr i l I5 -21 , 1990, Hatk rdrk r , Greece.

108 Angeliki Athanasiadou

who Ere engaged in a cooperat ive conversat ion. For e f fec t iveinteraction each must be ab 1e to predict the behaviour of the other.Predict ion is part 1y secured by norms which speci f y how f r iends,col leagues, academics.. . behave. Such norms set up models of otherfriends, co1 leagues, or academics...

But the standardizat ion of roles is not enough.One must alsoknow what others' intentions are. Understanding others' intentions iscentral for the successful planning of interact ion. Intent ions areidentif ied through the speech context as well as the speakers' att itudetowards what is said. \r/e thus judge how something is said and byw h o m . In o ther words, the meanings g iven to quest ions aredetermined by the status of the speakers involved in the question actand the way they convey intent ion . Modes of quest ion ing a r estrategies for conveying; certain kinds of intentions and not others.Question situations, according to speakers' intentions, can be classifiedin many different ways, but in the present study I restrict myself tofour types of question situation:

The first thing anyone thigks of when ref lecting on the purposeand f unct ion of a quest ion is that i t is a means of request inginformation. The chief motivation for information questions is to befound in a desire for knowledge; the speaker wants to know somethingand assumes that the hearer knows it. Questioning for information isthe traditional perspective which considers that a question is a requestto supply unknown information, and that what is linked to a question,i.e. a response, is the utterance which provides this information. Forexamp 1e:

( 1 ) Vhat do you know about him?( 2) Vhat goes into that paper now?

In contrast to the inf ormat ion -seeking quest ions, there arerhetor ical quest ions which are intended to provide informat ion. Forexamp le:

( S) no you know that i t is 1 2.30 ?

There are var ious k inds of rhetor ica 1 quest ions. First of a 1 1, thecommunicative function of do-yor:-know introductions, of the aboveexample, consists in capturing the interest of the hearer. The intentionof the speaker is to give emphasis to some particular point.

Second Iy, tn a rhetor ical quest ion, the speaker considers thepropositional content he is going to utter to be trivial or well-known.For examp le:

(+) Vtro else burns a cheque if not an idiot?

The discourse function of questions 109

Thirdly, in a rhetorical question a constituent is given emphaticprorninence and gets a uniyersally valid touch. For example:

( 5) \fnat cou 1d be more wonderfu 1 than the universe?

Fourthly, rhetorical questions express wonder in an exclamativeway, as:

(6) Isn't she Prettyr

(J.ttrmidt-Radefeldt, 1 977,0n so-ca 1led Rhetorical Questions).Generally, in rhetorical questions the speaker does not expect an

answer from the hearer, since the answer is given by the speakerhimself . In certain cases even, the hearer is prevented from answeringihcause of social or institutional conventions. For example:

( ?) I ask you, carr such a man be innocent?

So, rhetorical questions require flo answer, but even if they do theinformation channel is empty. \r/hich means that, in contradistinctionwith the requestinS information questions, they mlnLmLze the emphasison the information channel and stress the social relationships involved(E.N.Goody, Questions and Poli teness, p.30). From this point of view, Iconsider rhetorical questions as opposites to information questions,since the former minimize the emphasis on information, while thelatter stress the securing of information.

I f request inEf or g iv ing inf ormat ion is a parameter thatdistinguishes the previous two modes of questioning, then dominanceof questioner or respondent is another parameter that distinSuishesthe foliowing two types of questions.

The third type of questions, according to speakers' intentions, isexamination questions. In this type, one asks a question not becausehe assumes that you have some information that he needs, butbecause he wants to f ind out whether you know the answer. Forexample:

(A) Vnat time is it? (tfre big hand is on twelve andthe 1it t1e hand is on three)

Here, the speaker knows the answer but he is not sure if the hearerknows i t or not. So, the questioner is test ing the knowledge of therespondent. There are two kinds of exarnination questions. First, theyare used for didactic purposes by teachers or teaching-inclined parentsand superiors. For example:

(9) How many syllables does the word Y contain?

1 1 0 Angeliki Athanasiadou

Secondly, for interrogat ion purposes, where quest ioning aims atestabl ishins a fact and pinning down responsibi l i t ies. Used in thissense to quest ion is to test , to chal lenge and to contro 1. Som einterrogat ion quest ions may be conducive to a posi t ive (10a) or to anegative answer ( 1 0b). For example:

(10a) \d 'eren' t you at the scerre of the cr i rne at 10 o'c lock?

(10b) You weren' t at the scene of the cr ime, were you?

Although exam and interrogation questions imply the dominanceof the speaker when requirinli an answer, there is a crucial differencebetween them in that in exam questions the questioner knows theanswer, whereas in interrogat ion guest ions the quest ioner doesn' talways know i t . But in both cases, the one who asks the quest ionimplies the authority to require an appropriate answer. He is thus in adominant position, whereas the respondent is at a disadvantaSe, sincehe is presumed to deserve sanctions of a sort i f i t turns out that hisansv/er is not appropriate. In this type of questions, we have stress onthe command function of questions on the part of the questioner.

In contradistinction to examination questiofls we have indirectrequests characterized by ignorance by the questioner of the answerand his avoidance taking the dominant role. in indirect requests thequestioner is asking a question to induce the respondent to act, inother words, they are requests for action ( that is why sometimes noverbat response is required). Tfrey are polite requests

( I 1 ) Cou ld you comment on my paper?

(12) Can you help me?

indirect sugQestions

(13) \/ould you mind not making so much noise?

invitations

(14) Vould you like to come and have sorne wine?

A11 guestions of indirect requests leave the initiative with therespondent . They are ut i l ized to p lace the respondent, n ot thequestioner, at an advantage, since the questioner emphasizes therespolldent's power to choose and wishes his agreement to what isbeing asked- So, the dominant role is transferred to the respondent,

The discourse function of questions 1 1 1

since he doesn' t deserve any sanct ions for his answer, but on thecontrary he is induced by the questioner to make a decision.

Therefore, what the speaker intends to do when an especial lypol i te form is chosen for the request to agree is to deem a speci f icanswer. His purpose is not to have his knowledge confirmed but to getthe hearer's explicit agreement to the assumption expressed.One couldargue that acts of th is type of quest ioning express the quest ioner 'sdependence on the answerer. The speaker behaves as if he is inferiortothehearer, s ince he expresses his doubt as to the feasibi l i ty of hisassumption; the hearer is apparently granted an option because he isinduced to make a decision.

I assume that the speech si tuat ions in which the above fourmodes of questioning, according to speakers' intentions, are uttered,are suff iciently specified. However, other speech situations are equallypossible. Not ice that I by no means want to suggest that the l ist isexhaust ive. Nor do i want to c laim that thecateSories are dist inct ive;over lapp ings are qu i te poss ib le ( f o r examp le , examinat ion andrhetor ica 1 quest ions are known inf ormat ion quest ions ) . \ f hat isimportant is to recal1 that questions may have various functions andthat information asking and givin$, as well as dominance of questioneror respondent, are only two of them.

3- The Use of the Four llodes of Questioning

I have so f ar t r ied to examine the condi t ions under whichvarious modes of questioning in English are possible. The classif icationof questions was based on the speakers' intentions when utterin$ aquestion and on the functions that questions perform. i have tried toshow that quest ioning invo lves not on ly ask ing f or and giy inginformation but it also carries a dominance function on the part of thequestioner or the respondent. As it wil i be seen from the analysis ofcorpus, different modes of questioning exist in the types of corpus, dueto di f ferent funct ions quest ions perform but also due to di f ferentkrnds of relationships between the speakers.

Thus, on the one hand, I am concerned wi th the funct ionsquest ions perform and, on the other hand, with the ef fect of socialstatus (in the sense of hierarchy or posit ion in a social system) on themeaning assigned to the act of asking a quest ion. I a lso examine theconstraints imposed by status on the use of questions. So, the demandfor an answer has quite different implications from an academic to aprospect ive student, between fr iends or between co l leaSues. Thesemodes of quest ioning const i tute a l ist of avai lable interrogat ivestrate{ies.

I1y conc lusions are based on the resu l ts of an ana lys is ofauthentic conversations taken from A Corpus of English Conversation

r12 Angeliki Athanasiadou

by J.Svartvik and R.Quirk 1980. The major advantage of such corpus isnatural language dialogues. It has also the main virtue of dealing withlongler pragmatic units than utterances. Three specimens of the corpusof this edi t ion were selected, each of 5000 words of genuine face-to-face conversat ion by nat ive Br i t ish speakers. The three specimensunder investigation were selected, because they presented differentrelat ionships between the speakers involved in the conversat ion(between rnale col leagues, female fr iends and between an academicand a prospective undergraduate).

In each corpus, the four main modes of questioning are identif iedas we1l as the functions they perform; finally the relationship betweenthese functions and the roles of the speakers.

Start ins with examinat ion quest ions, of corpus S.3 5. , where wehave an o f f i c i a l academic i n te rv iew o f a ma le p rospec t i veundergraduate of 18 years old by two members of facul ty; they areboth male academics o f 40 years o1d.Out o f 550 propos i t ions,4 l arequest ions. 34 of them are examinat ion quest ions, 4 are informat ionseeking questions and 3 are rhetorical questions.

The academics'role (or generally the teachers') in our society, incases of of f ic ia l interviews, carr ies the r ight to test the students 'knowledge, and to eventually impose sanctions or advise them in casesof inappropriate responses. Communication with people in such roles isstructured by control l in! intent ions. I t is th is control factor whichdetermines the meanings of their questions. The questions from theacademics to the student are perceived as "exarnif lation " questiorls,because they hold the student responsible for knowing the correctan swer _

The use of quest ions in this s i tuat ion is character ized by thedifferent roles speakers play. The intentions of the two academics areto test the underSraduate's knowledge, seeking to control him. Theconversat ional goal is to check i f h is knowledge is appropr iate forenter ing the course. indeed, in the speci f ic corpus, they put him ontrial asking mainly examination questions one after the other. Thereare two inforrnation questions in the beginning of the corpus whichare used to maniputate the student into acceptin€ a view:

( 1) Is that your f avourite form f or modern readingor modern entertainment in English literature?

( B) And what do you like reading novels or poetrymost?

They seem to be pure information seeking questions but in real i tythey are a lso contro l or iented. They int roduce the examinat ionquestions that fol1ow. The other two information questions are on

The discourse function of questions 113

general matters, and are found in the end of the cofpus, a way ofsomehow ending the interview.

( 510) Are there any questions fou want to ask?

( 51 B) Do people have to see the tutor?

The academics-student relationship is def ined in terms of statusinequality with superiority to the academics' role; they are the oneswho possess knowledge and to possess knowledge is to have power.The power and the superior i ty of the role of the two academics to theundergraduate are shown by the heavy command load carried by thetrquestions. For examp le:

(140) Have you any comment to make uponthe conc lusion?

(IJZ) Can you remember what the off icer says?

( 166) \ fhy do you praise this book so highly, notjust because of its structure?

(18?) \ ' r /hat do you mean by dramatic?

Ve have, though, tv/o instances of an inversiou of the relationship. Theprospect ive undergraduate student asks two rhetor ical quest ions,holding the instructor responsible for the difficulty or the ambiguity ofthe question.

(45) !/e11, after Murder in the Cathedralhe wrote a preface, didn' t he?

(470) He's using the the word f iguratively, isn't he?

Here, the quest ion i tse 1f imp l ies the student 's r ight to ho 1d theacademics responsible in respect to the informat ion content of thequestion - an inversion of the prescribed status relationship.One canalso see how very caut ious he is on the mode of his quest ioningi ,thinking obviously of the implications of his questioning.

Terms l ike "authority", "powef " or "dominance " of the questioneron the respondent underlie the planning of a social interaction like theone represented in this corpus. Dominance, which is the abi l i ty tocontrol others, is closely l inked to hierarchy and status. That is whythe academics are recognizd to have the right to control the studentsthrough their quest ions.One has the impressron that a high controlcomponent pers is ts , regard less o f the mode adopted. The t wo

r74 Angeliki Athanasiadou

academics who are in h igh -s ta tus ro les use set rera l modes o fquest ioning to send messages about their author i ty. They open theinterview with two information questions on very Seneral matters inwhich the student answers with no diff iculty. Then they become morespeci f ic asking detai led descr ipt ions and cr i t ic ism. This high controlmode runs the greatest part of the interact ion in which rnany t imesthe student needs to defend himself or to admit he doesn' t know. inthis part, the social distance between the academics and the student isevident-

As i t is known l inked to "author i ty" is "degirees of distance "imposed by the questioner to the respondent. It is this fact which dresnot a11ow the student to ask but a very l imited number of questions ininteractions like the above.

The next corpus (S.e.12.) is between a fernale EFL teacher of. 25years and a f ema le medica l nurse of 23 years o ld. Out of I I 44propositions 33 questions are identif ied . I4 of. them are informationquest ions, I 1 are indirect requests, 5 are rhetor ica 1 and 3 areexaminati on questions.

The intimacy factor, the cooperation and the informal characterof the discussion are evident; there is no status inequality as in theprevious corpus, but an int imate relat ionship between two femalefriends. They discuss practically everything (personal problerns, workrelated problerns,. .) Iluch is left unspoken in their discussion becausefamil iar i ty a11ows each person to ant ic ipate what the other means byallusive phrases. So, parts of their speech can be unintelligible. But theinterest ing th ing about this corpus is when on e of the speakersnarrates a speci f ic experience of her own.. I t 's an interact ion betweenherself , who is lookingl for a part-t ime job and an employer. However,the narrat ion of the event i tsel f which is a t ransi t ion to anothersi tuat ion, is character ized by formal i ty. In these cases, quest ions ofindirect requests are used more readi ly than asking direct ly forinformation.

The conversat ional Soal of the narrated event is to mock thesi tuat ion experienced by one of the speakers. The dialogue betweenone of the girls and the eventual employer is vividly presented with a1ot of details. Questions of indirect requests are asked from both parts,the employer 's par t as wel l as the employee 's , but f rom a d i f fe rentperspect ive. The employer, who is in a superior status, uses mainlyquestions of indirect requests, as

(5BB) Vould you l ike to come and meet us?

(684) Vould that be possible?

( ?32) Vhat about uniform?

The discourse function of quesnons 115

(836) 'Would i s tar t the next day?

This elaborate questioning is employed to mask his power in order toallow the employee to interact effectively. So, he masks his power andplaces the respondent a t an advantag le because he seeks heragreement to what is being asked. In al l these cases, the quest ioner(the employer) leaves the decision for certain actions to be taken bythe respondent. Although they seem to ask for information, in realitythey are requests for action. The questioner wants the respondent todo something and this is asked in a f orma 1 way as it is seen in thecorpus. The prospective employee, on the other hand, uses a questionof indirect request to ask politely about the nature of the job:

( 649) Could you te11 me what the job is?

but for the same purpose she also uses an information question;

(Z0t) \fnat does the nursing involve?

Since she is given by the questioner the advantage to choose, she asksaquestion of indirect request whose function is to make suSsestions tothe employer, because she disa{rees with his proposals:

(876) \fhy didn't you have a district nurse inand get a proper domestic in?

Something that should be emphasized is the distance between indirectquestions, which is due to intermediate comments of the speakers orto other types of questions which intervene. So it takes a long time forthe speaker to f inish the narration of her experience.

It has been maintained that the purpose of questions is to elicitinformat ion (we ask quest ions to get answers). However, the impl ic i tmeanins of a sentence may be quite different from that conveyed byi ts over t fo rm. Thus, in ask ing quest ions wi th cer ta in k inds o fintentions, a person intends not only to communicate mearring but alsoto act ively inf luence the hearer in some way. Here, the employerintends to secure the employee's alireement and cooperation to whathe asks. The employee, on the other hand, who rejects the employer 'sproposals intends to make suggestions and possibly to annoy him byusing questions of indirect requests.

The next corpus (S 1.1) is between two male academics of 44 and60 years old. They are colleagues in the same institution and discusseyery possib le top ic concerning the organization of the department(examinat ions, undergraduate and postgraduate students, othercolleagues). The setting is very cooperative. it is neither friendly, sinceno personal matters are discussed, nor compet i t ive, as one would

L76 Angeliki Athanasiadou

expect to be between co 1leagues. The rhetor ica 1 quest ions of th iscorpus are al l quest ions asked with no interr t ion of obtaining anarr.swer. Nameiy, the corrversational goal is to provide each other withthe ind icated in format ion and to secure cooperat ion in fu tureenterprises.

Dut of I210 proposi t ions, 31 quest ions are ident i f ied. 17 of themare informat ion quest iorr .s, 10 are rhetor ical , 3 are indirect requestsand 1 is examination question. The rhetorical questions of this corpus( jus t as the examinat ion quest ions o f the f i rs t corpus) are notconsidered genuine quest ions, because the quest ioner in any caseknows the answer. The funct ion of these quest ions is to hold theattention of the l isterrer. Sometimes the intention of the speaker is togive prominence to a particular argument, as:

(545) Was i t . d id you say you were geing to B.?

(356)'Wouldn't advertising be just as good or ortesting these people with lexical sets andsemantic f ie lds?

The above rhetorical questions are used to emphasize the particularnature o f the message, the main in tent ion be ing to enhance theinterest and attention of the hearer in (856) an obvious conclusion isdrawn from the co-part ic ipant 's previous ut terances without everhaving been doubted by both the speaker and hearer.

Rhetorical questions may express reproach or wonder, as:

(354) And he might say wel l why does he wantto come from LN. to B.?

(356) \ , r /hat advantage does he getz

( 360) And if he's not happy there. is there anychance that he'd be any happier at B.?

In (360) as well as in ( 856) the propositional content is presented forratif ication in a negatively formulated sentence. The negation drawsa t ten t i on to the speake r ' s a f f i rma t i ve a t t i t ude towards theproposi t ional content and to his expectat ion of rat i f icat ion by thehearer.

Rhetorical questions may also express an immediate concern, inother words the questioner is personally engaged or concerned withthe situation:

(998) l/hy should we test the two things together?

The discourse function of questions tL7

( 1000) Then why introduce paraphrase?

Thus, the speaker of a rhetorical question does not expect the hearerto answer, and what is more, he would in certain situations not evenvant the hearer to answer for fear of not getting the answer that is inaccordance with the presupposed truth of the opposite proposition ofh is quest ion t (856), (354), (gf 0) , (ggB), ( t oo0)1. rnese quest ions nolonger demand the hearer to agree to or contradict the truth of theproposit ion, but are confirmation-seeking questions. The speakerintends to ascertain that the propos i t ion is known, fam i l iar andpresent to the hearer's mind.

Vhen they function as exclamations t$+5), (1000)1, they also setup 0r ascertain a state of agreement between speaker and hearer. Thesurprise exhibited in exclamations is a result of the discrepancybetween the speaker's expectations and the actual occurrence. Thismay indicate as we1l a change from the old to the new assumption. Inexclamations, the assumptions do not concern the event or state itself(its content or truth-value) but the extent and degree of its change ormodif ication.

As a feneral remark one could say that in rhetorical questionsthe speaker is unmistakably aff irrnative towards the proposition, i.e.the sentence is assertory. Semantically, the rhetorical question is "aquestion which functions as a forceful statement" (Quirk et a1 1973,p.200). Accordingly, a speaker using a rhetorical question anticipatesratif ication by the hearer, and thus, also anticipates consensus betweenhimself and the hearer.

Fina1ly, information seeking1 questions, often named genuinequestions since the intention of the speaker is to elicit information.The questioner does not know the answer to his question and heassurnes that his interlocutor knows the answer. For this mode ofquestioningl, no extra corpus was analysed. My observations are basedon the information seeking questions of the three previous types ofcorpus, where in total we have ZgA4 propositions from which 105 arequestions. 35 of them are information questions. Through this mode ofquestioningl, information is secured and orgianized; questioning is aboutinformation:

S.1 .1 . (+47) How much are they?

( lOt) How do I take them?

(503) Do I take them in a glass of water?

Requests for inforrnation also express an immediate concern (asrhetor ica 1 quest ions) :

118 Angetiki Athanasiadou

S.1.1. (SB) But how are you going to be p laced?

(t O+0) How do you get on with this fel low?

S.2.1 Z. (496) \fhat was the interview?

( t Ogg) So what sort's this f lat you're inat the mornent?

SeekinS to extract rules for the use of information questions inthe three types of corpus, i t is the status which is signif icant.Information is most readily obtained from persons in an equivalentstatus (the two male academics, the two female fr iends). That is,people ask information questions most readi ly of those in a simitarstatus. So, information questions carry the least po\der when they areaddressed to status equals. According to the results of the corporainvmtigated, information is rarely obtained from persons of differentstatus, and if it is, it is obtained only indirectly:

S.3.5 (:t 0) - Right we11, are there any questions you wantto ask us I1r Blake?No, I don't think so, o.o.

AlthouSh the prospective undergraduate student is urged by one ofthe academics to ask questions, he denies to do so.

Apart from hierarchy of status based on age, sex, posit ion, thereare also other factors which intervene between status and questioningfor informat ion. First ly, necessi ty to secure informat ion quickly incases of int imacy-This factor is met in corpus S.2.12 (between the twofemale friends) which consists of two parts. In the f irst part, wherethey discuss var ious personal rnatters, rnost of the informat ionquestions Ere identif ied. In the second part, where one of the speakersnarrates her conversation with a stranger (prospective employer), wehave the use of questions of indirect requests than askingdirectly forinformation. So, the contrast between the two parts of the parts is dueto different status relationships.

Secondly, cooperat ion in a process between col leagues met incorpus S.1.1. In this case, the two academics may not be close fr iendsbut they need cooperation, since they work together and face the sameproblems - parameters which justify the use of information questions(apart from rhetorical). This dimension miSht be described as intimacy/ cooperativity at one extreme, and casual public relations / formalityat the other.

The discourse function of questions

4- Concludiag Rernarks

Questions are not only about information. Looking at dif ferenttypes of corpus (different from the point of view of people involved ini t and the kinds of interact ion), or le is led to wonder about thecomplex nature of questions. This led me to set out the multipl icity ofmeanings at tached to quest ions and to show how c lose ly statusrelations are l inked to meanings of questions. i thus concentrated onsett ing out the mult ip l ic i ty of meanings at tached to quest ioning interms of speakers' intentions, under four main kinds of questions. inasking a question, a speaker intends not only to get information or tocommunicate an experience or an event, but also to impose hisinf luence orr his hearer or to undergo the hearer's inf luence.

Questions have a number of functions. According to the data ofthe speci f ic corpora, when informat ion is requested we have theexpression of immediate concern, when giv ing of informat ion isperformed by rhetorical questions, we have emphasis and prominencetoa particular message in order to hold the attention of the hearer.

The funct ion o f examinat ion quest ions is to cont ro l theresponderit's knowledge, while questions of indirect requests functionas requests for action taken by the respondent.

Any of the above functional features may motivate questioning.But questions carry messages about relationships (about status, i.e.assertions of status and challenges to status). So, questioning carries acommand function apart from asking for information. Vhat is then therelationship between the messages questions carry in a given corpusand constraints on questioning. Examining the relationship between themodes of questions and the status of the speakers involved in thequestion act, one sees that the different modes of questioning are notequal ly avai lable to everyon.e. Informat ion is easi ly obtained byfriends or by speakers of equal status, while it is rarely or indirectlyobtained by a student to an academic for example.0n the other hand,the social distance between an academic and a student is functional fortes t ing or cha l lens ing purposes, a l though the author i ty o f thequest ioner is heav i ly imposed on the respondent . Formal i tycharacter izes the use of quest ions of indirect requests and socialrelationships the use of rhetorical questions.

179

120 Angeliki Athanasiadou

REEERENCES

Baumert, 11, ( 1 9?7) Classif ication of English Question -AnswerStructures. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 85 -92.

Bublitz, V'. (1 981 ) Conducive yes-no questions in English.Linguist ics 1Q: 851 -70

Engdahl, E. ( 1 985) Interpreting questions. In D.R.Dowty,L.Karttunen and A.l1 .Zwtcky (eds), Natural languaggparsin€. CUP.

Fauconnier, G. (t gA0) Pragmatic entailment and questions. InJ.R.Searle, F.Kiefer and }l.Bierwisch (eds), Speech Act Theoryand Pragmatics. D.Reidel Publishins Company.

Fillmore, Ch. (t gA6 ms) 0n Grammatical Constructions. Departmentof Linguistics, University of California, Berketey.

Goody, E.N. ( 1 I78) Questions and Politeness. CUP.

Harris, A. (1 98Z) Towards the universals of Q-word questionformation. In R.Schneider, K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papersfrom the Parasession on Nondeclaratives. Chicago Linf,uisticSoc iety,

Hintikka, J. (1 982) Questions with outside quantifiers. In R.Schneider,K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers from the Parasession onNondec lara tives .Ch icago L ingu istic Society.

Htz, H. ( 1 97 8) Questions. D.Reidel Pub lishinS Company.

Hudson, R.A. (1975) The meaning of questions. Language 51, 1.

Hu11, R.D. ( 1 975) A semantics for superf icial and embedded questionsin natural languaf,e. In E.L.Keenan (eo), Formal semantics ofnatural langu4e. CUP.

Huntley, 11. ( 19BZ) imperatives and infinitival embedded questions.In R.Schneider, I(.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers from theParasess:ton on Nondec laratives. Chicaglo L inguistic Soc iety.

I(eenan, E.L., R.D.Hu 11 ( 1 I73) The logical presuppositions of questionsand ansv/ers. In J.S.Petof i, D.Franck (ed), Prasuppositionen in

The discourse function of questions 127

Philosophie und Linguistik. Athenbum Vorlag.

Kiefer,F. (1980) Yes-no questions as wh-questions. In J.R.Searle,F.I(iefer and Il.Bierwisch (eds), Speech Act Theory andPragmatics D.Reidel Publishing Company.

Kiefer, F (t gB1) Questions and Attitudes. In \,rl.I(lein and V.J.m.Levelt (eds), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics. D.ReidelPublishing Company.

Kiefer, F (t 983) Questions and Answers. D.Reidel Publishing Company

Kiefer, F. (1987) Two studies on Questions. In Studies in Lan€uage.1 I -2 ,4 59 -6 g .

Kim, A.H. (t gA Z) A universal of wh-questions and its parametricvariants. In R.Schneider, K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers frornthe Parasession on Nondeclaratives. Chicago Linguistic Srciety.

Kuno, S (t 9BZ) The focus of the question and the frcus of the answer.in R.Schneider, K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers from theParasess ion on Nondec laratives. ch icagp LinSu istic Srciety .

Lakoff , R. (1 973) Questionable answers and answerable questions.In B.B.Kachru, R.Lees, Y.Xalkie1, A.Pietrangeli and S.Saporta(eds), Issues in Linguistics. Papers in Honor of H.and RKahane.University of Illinois Press.

Lyons, J ( 1 9? ?) Semantics II. CUP. ?4 5- 68.

llathiot, 11. (1 9BZ) Book review, E.N.Goody (ed) Questions andPoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 6,1.

Ilittwoch, A. ( 1g?9) Final parentheticals with English questions - theirillocutionary function and grarrmar. Journal of Pragmatics_1,401 -412.

Iloeschler, J. ( 1 g86) Review article. Answers to questions aboutquestions and answers. Journal of Pra€matics tO,227-2J3.

Paduceva, E.V. (t ggb) Question-answer correspondence and thesemantics of questions. In J.L.lley (ed), Linguistic and literarystudies in eastern Europe, vol.1Q. LanguaEle and discourse. Testand protest. A Festschrift for Petr Sgal1. John BenjarrrinsPublishing Company.

lZZ Angeliki Athanasiadou

Pavlidou, Th (1 98b) Sha11 I ask something? Questions in thesubjunctive. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 233-249.

Quirk, R. and S.Greenbaum ( 1 973). A University Grammar of English.Longman.

Rakic, S. (1984) Serbo-croatian yes/no questions and speech acts.Journal of Pragmatics B, 693 -713.

Schmidt-Radefeldt, J. (1977) 0n so-called rhetorical questions.Jouroel of Pra€matics I ,37 5-392.

Schmidt-Radefeldt, J., Gunter Todt ( t gAt ) noot review. N_DBelnap, Jrand Th.B. Stee1, Jr. The logic of questions and answers. Journalof Pragmatics 5, I.

Scotton, C. and H.0wsley (1gBZ) \fhat about powerful questions. InR.Schneider, K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), PaFrs from theParasess ion on Nond ec lara ti ves. Ch ica go Lingu is tic Society.

Vunderlich, D (t 9S1) Questions about questions. In \f .Klein and \d'.ry.Levelt (eds), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics=D.ReidelPub lishing Comparry.

Yadugiri, 11.A. (1986) Some pragmatic implications of the use of YESand N0 in response to YES-N0 questions. Journal of Pragmatics1 0 , 1 gg-21 0-