Rhetorical vs. nonrhetorical allo-repetition: The case of Romanian interrogatives

ELSEVIER

Journal of Pragmatics 26 (1996) 321-354

Rhetorical vs. nonrhetorical allo-repetitionThe case of Romanian interrogatives Domni[a Dumitrescu* Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, CaliJbrnia State University Los Angeles, 5 1 5 1 Store U n i v e r s i t y D r i v e , L o s A t t g e l e s , C A 9 0 0 3 2 , U S A

Received April 1994; revised version July 1995

Abstract This article provides a functional description of the main types of Romanian interrogative allo-repetitions, and attempts to place dialogic echoicity into the general perspective of current conversation analysis. In section 2, eight different forms of interrogative allo-repetitions are identified on the basis of their syntactic and intonational patterns, and are further classified into three main functional types: Echo Questions, Rhetorical Questions, and Rhechorical Questions. I n s e c t i o n 3, a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f e a c h t y p e ' s d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n i s p r o v i d e d , w i t h the emphasis being placed on the rhetorical values of certain "marked' structures which have not received attention so far. In the fourth section of the article, the three main types of interrogative allo-repetitions are considered from the viewpoint of the turn-taking system and the adjacency p a i r s s t r u c t u r e s w i t h w h i c h it i s c u s t o m a r y to operate in conversation analysis. The conclusion of the study is that echo questions serve a dual purpose in dialogue: they are repair mechanisms, as well as rhetorical devices. From the point of view of the conversation structure, the former are part of an insertion sequence whose main frame is composed of a question--answer pair. From the viewpoint of the turn-taking system, they select prior speaker as next. By contrast, the latter kind of echo questions represent dispreferred second parts of a three-part structure in which current speaker self-selects as next within his own conversational turn. Rhetorical allo-repetitive questions serve an exclusively rhetorical purpose in dialogue, and represent dispreferred second parts of an adjacency pair whose first part is non-rhetorical. By contrast, rhechorical questions, which also serve a rhetorical purpose in dialogue, represent dispreferred second parts to an adjacency pair whose first part is rhetorical, or dispreferred third parts of a three-part structure whose first part is non-rhetorical but its second is. From the view point of the turn-taking system, rhechorical questions appear to invite the selection of the prior speaker as next, while rhetorical questions, by virtue of their illocutionary point, seem, on the contrary, to discourage such a selection.

* E-mail: 2670.

ddumit~calstatela.edu;

Office phone (voice-mail):

+1 2 1 3 - 3 4 3 - 4 2 3 5 ;

0378-2166/96/$15.00 Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSDI 0378-2166(95)00052 6

Fax: +I 213-343-

322

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l

q['Pragmatics 26 (1996) 321-354

1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The study of the functions of questions in discourse provide an excellent illustration of the "'one-to-many nature of the form-function relation that is pervasive in language use" (Green, 1989: 154). In the last ten or fifteen years, there has been an increased interest in the study of the form and/or function not only of 'traditional" but also of "non-traditional' (sometimes called 'minor') types of questions (Baciu, 1983; Carlson, 1983; Chisholm, 1984; Diller, 1984; Escandell Widal, 1984; Ilie, 1994; Sobin, 1990; Stenstr6m, 1984; Tsui, 1992, 1994, among others), as well as in t h e m o r e g e n e r a l i s s u e o f w h a t a q u e s t i o n i s , i n f a c t , a n d w h a t it c a n e x p e c t t o g e t a s an answer (see for instance in this respect Mey, 1993:25 1 and ff.) One of the most intriguing situations, which is not uncommon in dyadic interaction in general and in every-day conversation (or talk-in-interaction, as certain scholars prefer to call it) in particular, is t h e o n e i n w h i c h a q u e s t i o n is followed by another question, as if the latter were the answer to the former. Nevertheless, the discourse function of such questions used in response to other questions has received proportionally less attention so far (but see Chafe, 1970; Chang, 1982; Merritt, 1976; Wunderlich, 1986; and works by this author, cited in the list of references~). The most familiar case appears to be the one represented by the so-called rhetorical questions, such as the (b)--(d) sentences below: (1) Speaker A : (a) Does Sam like pizza? Speaker B : (b) Do horses like grass? (c) How should I know? (d) Who doesn't?

(taken

from

E. Norwood

Pope,

1976)

It is customary to state that questions such as (b)--(d) are rhetorical in the sense that they are interrogative in form, but have the illocutionary force of assertions, and, therefore, generally do not expect an answer. As Schmidt-Radefeldt points out, "there is general agreement about the fact that questions are to be considered as requests for information, whereas rhetorical questions are intended to provide information" (1977: 377). Consequently, "rhetorical questions can be used as answers to genuine questions since they are pseudo-statements" (ibid.: 387). (More on rhetorical questions follows.) There are also situations in which a question is used in response to another for different purposes. Take for instance questions (b)--(d) in 2 (adapted from Mey, 1993): (2) Speaker A: (a) What's the time? t The present article is a c o m b i n e d and e x p a n d e d version o f three different p a p e r s ( D u m i t r e s c u , 1992, 1993a and 1995b) d e a l i n g with R o m a n i a n d a t a o f the a l o r e m e n t i o n e d kind. I wish to thank D e b b i e G i l l for her editorial h e l p and the translation into E n g l i s h o f s o m e R o m a n i a n e x a m p l e s .

D. Dumitrest'u / Journal of Pragmatics 26 (1996) 321~54

323

Speaker B : (b) Why do you ask? (c) What did you say? (d) What do you mean? It c a n b e s a i d t h a t q u e s t i o n s ( b ) - - ( d ) , a l t h o u g h o b v i o u s l y n o n r h e t o r i c a l , a r e , w i t h r e s p e c t t o q u e s t i o n (a), " p e r f e c t l y g o o d a n s w e r s " , i n t h e s e n s e t h a t , a s it h a s b e e n noted, they appear to deal with the content of the initial question by addressing not o n l y its i l l o c u t i o n a r y f o r c e , b u t a l s o its p r a g m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e y m a k e s e n s e as an a n s w e r in a given context, d e m o n s t r a t i n g o n c e a g a i n that " a n y q u e s t i o n c a n h a v e n u m e r o u s ' a n s w e r s ' , all o f t h e m r e l e v a n t t o t h e ( p o s s i b l y h i d d e n ) point of the question" (Mey, 1993: 247--248), including, 1 should say, another quest i o n , b e it r h e t o r i c a l o r n o t . On the other hand, conversation has been found to contain a large amount of repetition that, according to Tannen (1989), serves simultaneously a variety of purposes related to production, comprehension, connection and interaction, the congruence of w h i c h p r o v i d e s a n o v e r - a r c h i n g f u n c t i o n in t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f c o h e r e n c e a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t ( s e e a l s o J o h n s t o n e e t al., 1 9 9 4 ) . 2 A s T a n n e n h a s p o i n t e d o u t , t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l c r i t e r i a a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h o n e c a n c l a s s i f y f o r m s o f r e p e t i t i o n in conversation : "'First. one may distinguish self-repetition and allo-repetition (repetition of others). Second. instances of r e p e t i t i o n m a y b e p l a c e d a l o n g a s c a l e o f f i x i t y in f o r m . r a n g i n g f r o m e x a c t r e p e t i t i o n ( t h e s a m e w o r d s u t t e r e d in t h e s a m e r h y t h m i c p a t t e r n ) t o p a r a p h r a s e ( s i m i l a r i d e a s in d i f f e r e n t w o r d s ) . M i d w a y o n t h e s c a l e , a n d m o s t c o m l n o n , is r e p e t i t i o n w i t h v a r i a t i o n , s u c h a s q u e s t i o n s t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o s t a t e m e n t s . statements changed into questions, repetition with a single word or phrase changed, and repetition with change of person or tense.'" (1989: 54)

O n e a d d i t i o n a l c a s e o f r e p e t i t i o n w i t h v a r i a t i o n , n o t m e n t i o n e d in the a b o v e p a s s a g e , is t h a t o f a q u e s t i o n t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n , m o s t o f t h e t i m e s ( b u t by no means always) for rhetorical purposes. In other words, the case of questions u s e d in r e s p o n s e t o o t h e r q u e s t i o n s a s in ( l b - c ) ( a n d ( 2 b - d ) ) , b u t w h i c h , u n l i k e ( l b - c ) ( a n d ( 2 b ~ l ) ) , a r e a l s o i n s t a n c e s o f ( i m m e d i a t e ) a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n s . T h i s is i l l u s t r a t e d in ( l ' b - c ) , b e l o w ( n o t i c e t h a t ( l d ) is p a r t i a l l y r e p e t i t i v e , a s i t u a t i o n t h a t w i l l be discussed later on): (1") S p e a k e r A : (a) D o e s S a m l i k e p i z z a ? Speaker B : (b) Does Sam like pizza? o n t h e last w o r d ]

[uttered with a high-rising

intonation and high pitch

2 It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t r e p e t i t i o n p l a y s a c r u c i a l r o l e a l s o in t h e r a p e u t i c d i s c o u r s e . A c c o r d i n g t o F e r r a r a ( 1 9 9 4 : 8 2 ) , e c h o i n g ( w h i c h is t y p i c a l l y c l i e n t - g e n e r a t e d a n d s i g n a l s e m p h a t i c a g r e e m e n t ) a n d m i r r o r i n g ( w h i c h is t y p i c a l l y t h e r a p i s t - g e n e r a t e d a n d s e r v e s a s a n i n d i r e c t r e q u e s t f o r e l a b o r a t i o n ) " ' r e p r c s e n t s t r a t e g i c u t i l i z a t i o n o f r e p e t i t i o n ( f u l l o r p a r t i a l ) a n d c o n t i g u i t y , t w o a s p e c t s o f c o h e s i o n , a n d ... t : o n s t i l u t e d i s c o u r s e r e s o u r c e s w h i c h s p e a k e r s c a n d r a w u p o n to c r e a t e s o c i a l i r l e a n i n g " .

324

D. Dumitrescu

(c)

Does heavy

Sam like stress on

/Journal

of Pragmatics

WHAT'?! [also the wh-word]

uttered

26 (1996) 321--354

with

a

high-rising

intonation

and

The Danish linguist O. Jesperson was the first, to the best of my knowledge, to comment upon the phenomenon illustrated in (l'b), which he calls a "'question raised to a second power" or a "'retorted question". His example is as follows: "'One person asks 'Is that true?' but instead of answering this the other returns "Is that true?' meaning 'How can you ask?" "' ( 1 9 2 4 : 304). Jespersen describes the discourse function of such "'retorted questions" in the following terms: " ' A s t h e r e t o r t e d q u e s t i o n g e n e r a l l y i m p l i e s t h a t it w a s s u p e r f l u o u s t o a s k , it a m o u n t s t o t h e s a m e t h i n g as a n a f f i r m a t i o n : " D o I r e m e m b e r it?" = C e r t a i n l y I r e m e m b e r it, a n d t h e c u r i o u s c o n s e q u e n c e is t h a t it o f t e n d o e s n o t m a t t e r w h e t h e r t h e r e is a n e g a t i v e o r n o t in t h e q u e s t i o n , a s ' D o n ' t I r e m e m b e r it'?' is a l s o e q u i v a l e n t t o an a f f i r m a t i o n . ' " ( 1 9 2 4 : 3 0 4 ) In example (1"), (b) and (c) are indeed such instances of retorted questions, which may imply that the original question is pointless and "amount to the same thing" as a statement concerning Sam's taste, which should he obvious to both speakers; hence the previously mentioned use of (l'b~) in discourse for rhetorical purposes. On the other hand, it is not impossible to think of (l'b--c), uttered with a slightly different intonation though, 3 as true requests for (a complete or partial) repetition of (l'a), in which c a s e it w o u l d be inappropriate to speak of a rhetorical use of these questions in discourse. (I will address this issue in more detail later on.) This article focuses on the interface between the syntactic form, the semantic function, and the pragmatic setting 4 of rhetorical and non-rhetorical allo-repetitive questions in spoken Romanian, within an eclectic framework of conversation and discourse analysis as basis for a typology of the phenomenon under discussion. The

T h a t is to s a y , w i t h a r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n (as i f ( l ' b ) w e r e h e a d e d b y a q u e s t i o n s u c h a s " D i d y o u s a y ..,'?'), n o t w i t h a h i g h - r i s i n g o n e . 1 b o r r o w t h e s e r o u g h d e s c r i p t i v e l a b e l s f r o m C h a n g ( 1 9 8 2 ) , w h o m a k e s tile d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n n e u t r a l a n d i n c r e d u l i t y " l o o k - a l i k e " e c h o q u e s t i o n s in K o r e a n in t e r l n s o f t h e i n t o national contours typically associated with each functional meaning. For (rather sporadical) comments o n t h e i n t o n a t i o n o f s u c h r e q u e s t s f o r r e p e t i t i o n o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n in ( v a r i e t i e s o f ) E n g l i s h ( s u c h as A m e r i c a n a n d S c o t t i s h ) , s e e B o l i n g e r ( 1 9 5 7 , 1 9 8 9 ) ; P a r k e r a n d P i c k e r a l ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; a n d B r o w n e t al. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . In t h e l a t t e r s t u d y , it is c l a i m e d t h a t (in E d i n b u r g h S c o t t i s h E n g l i s h ) c o n d u c i v e e c h o q u e s t i o n s (in w h i c h t h e s p e a k e r is q u e s t i o n i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f w h a t e v e r w a s s a i d in t h e p r e v i o u s u t t e r a n c e ) are c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a f a l l - t o - l o w i n t o n a t i o n , w h i l e n o n c o n d u c i v e o n e s (i,e., m e r e c h e c k s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g ) are m a r k e d b y a r i s e - t o - h i g h t o n e , w h i c h is in f r e e v a r i a t i o n w i t h a f a l l - t o - m i d o n e . 4 I u s e t h i s t r i p a r t i t e d i s t i n c t i o n in t h e s e n s e it is u s e d in F i l l m o r e ( 1 9 8 1 : 144): " ' S y n t a x , in s h o r t , c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e g r a m m a t i c a l f o r m s t h a t o c c u r in a l a n g u a g e , w h e r e a s s e m a n t i c s p a i r s t h e s e f o r m s w i t h t h e i r p o t e n t i a l c - o m m u n i c a t i v e f u n c t i o n s _ P r a g m a t i c s is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e t h r e e - t e r m e c l r e l a t i o n t h a t u n i t e s ( a ) l i n g u i s t i c f o r m a n d (/9) t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e f u n c t i o n s t h a t t h e s e f o r m s a r c c a p a b l e o f s e r v i n g , w i t h (c) t h e c o n t e x t s o r s e t t i n g s in w h i c h t h o s e l i n g u i s t i c f o r m s c a n h a v e those communicative functions. Diagrammatically, Syntax Semantics Pragmatics

[f o r m ] [form, function] [form, function, setting]"

D. Dumitrescu

/ Journal

of Pragmatics

20 (1996) 321-354

325

choice of Romanian is relevant because this language exhibits a particularly rich array of syntactic devices in conveying the implied meaning of interrogative allorepetitions in conversational discourse, comparable -- I b e l i e v e -- among Romance languages, only to the strategies used by Spanish for similar purposes. 5 Section 2 describes the most common forms of interrogative allo-repetition in Romanian. Section 3 concentrates itself on the various functions of interrogative allo-repetitions in discourse, with special attention paid to their rhetorical value, which is the one least studied so far. 6 Section 4 proposes a typology of interrogative allo-repetitions within the parameters of current conversation analysis. Finally, section 5 contains a few concluding remarks.

2. F o r m s o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e

alio-repetition:

Description

and classification

According to the variation that shows up in the interrogative allo-repetition of one speaker's utterance by another, it is possible to distinguish several types of 'retorted questions', which, for the sake of brevity, I will designate with the all-embracing term of 'echoic' interrogatives, as opposed to the more narrowly focused one of echo questions, which I reserve for just one subset of allo-repetitive questions, as will be shortly shown. Let me begin with Speaker B's different forms of allo-repetition of Speaker A's question in examples (3) and (4) below, and later on, turn to the analysis of Speaker C's allo-repetitions in the same examples: (3)

Speaker A: (a) Ce-d spus? [falling intonation] 7 what-has said "What did she say?' [falling intonation]

5 S e e , in t h i s r e g a r d , D u m i t r e s c u ( 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 9 3 b ) , w h e r e e q u i v a l e n t s t r a t e g i e s are a n a l y z e d in S p a n i s h . O n e s u c h s t r a t e g y , f o r i n s t a n c e , is t h e u s e o f v e r b a l p e r i p h r a s e s ( l i k e it" + a / h a b e r d e + I n f i n i t i v e ) as illoc u t i o n a r y m a r k e r s o f r h e t o r i c i t y in i n t e r r o g a t i v e a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n s . C f . A : g C o n q u i ~ n s e c a s 6 ? [ W h o m d i d ( s ) h e m a r r y ? ] ; B : ~-Con q u i d n s e i b a a / h a b i a d e c a s a r ? [ W h o m w a s ( s ) h e s u p p o s e d t o m a r r y ? ] , where B's reply strongly suggests that A should know the answer by him/(her)self. B e s i d e s t h e w o r k s b y D u m i t r e s c ' u l i s t e d in t h e b i b l i o g r a p h y , t h e o n l y s y s t e i n a t i c s t u d y o f r e p e t i t i v e q u e s t i o n s i n R o m a n i a n is, as f a r as I k n o w , C o m o r o v s k i ( 1 9 8 9 , 1 9 9 6 ) , w h e r e e m p h a s i s is p l a c e d o n multiple and wh-echo questions and their syntactic generation. Also, Dasc~lu (1985), studies the intonation of Romanian echo questions. 7 I h a v e i n t e n t i o n a l l y k e p t t o a m i n i m u m p r o s o d i c i n f o r m a t i o n , s i n c e i n c l u d i n g t o o m u c h o f it w o u l d distract attention from the main line of argument, and would be of no immediate interest to readers f o c u s i n g o n t h e f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t o f t h i s a r t i c l e . T h a t is w h y , i n s t e a d o f m o r e a c c u r a t e b u t a l s o m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d n o t a t i o n a l s y s t e m s , I c h o s e to " d e s i g n " a n a d a p t e d v e r s i o n o f t h e s i m p l e a n d c o n v e n i e n t m a r k i n g s y s t e m f-or i n t o n a t i o n a n d s t r e s s u s e d i n Q u i r k a n d al. ( 1 9 8 5 ) , w h e r e b y 1 r e p r e s e n t r i s i n g a n d failing tones by means of iconic accent marks (which should not be confused with the Roinanian alphab e t d i a c r i t i c s ) , a b o v e n u c l e a r s y l l a b l e s ; n u c l e a r s y l l a b l e s a r e u n d e r l i n e d ; a n d c a p i t a l i z a t i o n is r e s e r v e d for heavy/contrastivc stress.

326

D. Dumitresctt / Jottrnal o f P r a g m a t i c s 20 (1996) 321--354

Speaker B : (b) Ce-a spl~s? [high-rising intonation] what-has said 'What did she say?' [high-rising intonation] (b') Cam ce-a ~pus ? how what-has said 'What do you mean, what did she say?' ( c ) CO (era) s6 spun6 ? what (was-imperfect-3s.) SUB J-marker say-3 'What could she have said?" Speaker C : (d) Ce (era) sd sptind ? [high-rising intonation] what (was-imperfect-3s) SUB J-marker say-3. 'What could she have said'?' [high-rising intonation] (d') Ct~m ce (era) sd spundt ? how what (was-imperfect-3s) SUB J-marker say-3 "What do you mean, what could she have said?" (4) Speaker A: (a) Ti-e te6m6 ? to-you-is fear "Are you afraid?' Speaker B : (b) Dacd mi-e te6md ? whether to-me-is fear 'Am I afraid?' (b') C~m dacd mi-e team~ ? how whether to-me-is fear "What do you mean am I afraid? (c) C ~ t m ( o ) sd-mi ,fie team~? how (Future-marker) SUB J-marker-to-me be-3 fear "How could I be afraid?" (c') De c) s~-mi fie teamd ? of what Subj-marker-to-me be-3 fear "Why should I be afraid? ( c " ) CO team,5 s~-mi fie ? what fear Subj-marker-to-me be-3 'Afraid of what?' Speaker C(d) Cum o s6-li fie te6m6? [high-rising intonation] how (Future-marker) SUB J-marker-to-you be-3 fear "How could you be afraid?" [high-rising intonation] (d') Cfim cum o sa-fi fie teamd? how how (Future-marker) SUB J-marker-to-you be-3 fear "What do you mean, how could you be afraid?'

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 321--354 (e)

De

ce

s~i-ti

fie

of what Subj-marker-to-you 'Why should you be afraid?'

(e')

C~tm

de

ce

s~-]i

how of what "What do you (t)

Ce

teamci

Subj-marker-to-you mean why should

st~-,ti

what fear Subj-marker-to-you "Afraid of what?' thigh-rising

(f')

Cgtm

ce

te6md?

be-3 fear thigh-rising

teamd

fie

thigh-rising

327

intonation]

intonation]

teamd?

be-3 fear be afraid?' f_~e ? t h i g h - r i s i n g be-3 intonation] you

sc~-fi

how what fear Subj-marker-to-you "What do you mean afraid of what?

intonation]

fie? be-3 ,8

First of all, notice that the difference between Speaker A's utterances in the examples above is that while (3a) is a wh-genuine question, (4a) is a yes--no genuine question. Nonetheless, the repetition of these triggering utterances by Speaker B takes place, in both examples, within certain fixed syntactic and intonational patterns 9 which are essentially similar in spite of the different nature of the trigger. Moreover, as will be shown in section 3, each repetitive pattern, in either example, is able to signal clearly different discourse functions of the resulting allo-repetition, depending on the context in which said repetition takes place. As far as the syntactic and intonational patterns are concerned, notice that (3b) and (b') maintain practically unchanged the syntactic structure of the trigger, the variation consisting, respectively, in (3b), in the use of an opposite terminal contour of intonation, and in (3b'), in the addition of the interrogative word cum 'how' in sentence-initial position, while preserving, this time, the originally falling intonational pattern of the trigger.

B o t h i n (3) a n d in (4), S p e a k e r B ' s a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n s c a n b e u t t e r e d e i t h e r s u c c e s i v e l y ( i n s o m e s o r t o f c r e s c e n d o ) o r e a c h f o r m i n g a p a i r w i t h S p e a k e r A ' s i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n . T h e s a m e is t r u e f o r S p e a k e r C ' s u t t e r a n c e s in (3). H o w e v e r , in t h e c a s e o f S p e a k e r C ' s u t t e r a n c e in ( 4 ) , o n l y t h e p a i r - g r o u p i n g is p e r m i t ted, w h e r e b y e a c h S p e a k e r C ' s u t t e r a n c e is s y m m e t r i c a l l y c o u p l e d w i t h its c o u n t e r p a r t in S p e a k e r B ' s "triggering turn', so to speak. T h e r e is n o d o u b t t h a t i n t o n a t i o n is i m p o r t a n t in d i s c o u r s e (of. C o u l t h a r d , 1 9 9 2 . a n d J o h n s - L e w i s , 1 9 8 6 , a m o n g o t h e r s ) , a n d t h a t it m a y b e c r u c i a l f o r t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f m a n y k i n d s o f r e p e t i t i o n s . E s s e n t i a l l y , as S i m p s o n ( 1 9 9 4 : 4 8 ) p o i n t s o u t , " ' i n t o n a t i o n is a n e c e s s a r y p a r t o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e n l e a n i n g o f r e p e t i t i o n s . . . . A c h a n g e in t h e i n t o n a t i o n c o n t o u r o f a r e p e t i t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r s t h e meaning and interpretation of that repetition. Without the intonation, hearers may not be able to determ i n e t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e p e t i t i o n " . S h e c o n c l u d e s t h a t -- in h e r d a t a -- r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n s i g n a l s r e p e t i t i o n s as q u e s t i o n s , w h i l e r i s i n g - f a l l i n t o n a t i o n is a s i g n o f e m p h a t i c s t r e s s . I n d e e d , " t h e r e is a w e l l - e s t a b lished history of terminal-rising intonation being primarily associated with marking question function in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f E n g l i s h " ( B r o w n e t at., 1 9 8 0 : 168). T h i s l o n g - s t a n d i n g a s s o c i a t i o n h a s b e e n c h a l lenged by certain linguists who believe that, ultimately, "'no particular intonation pattern can regularly b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r s p e e c h f u n c t i o n " ( i b i d . ) . N o n e t h e l e s s , as f a r as I a m c o n c e r n e d , 1 b e l i e v e t h a t , at l e a s t in R o m a n i a n , t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n i n t o n a t i o n p a t t e r n s t h a t can r e g u l a r l y b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n s o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n s , a n d t h a t is w h a t I h a v e t r i e d to s h o w , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , in t h i s s e c t i o n o f m y a r t i c l e .

328

D. D u m i t r e s c u /.lotcrnal o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 321--354

In considering further (4b) and (4b'), one can notice basically the same variation, with the following two additional features: the introduction of the word dacd 'whether'in front of (4b), as well as its maintenance in second position in (4b'); and t h e c h a n g e o f p e r s o n a l d e i x i s , w h i c h is a g e n e r a l f e a t u r e o f e c h o i c s e n t e n c e s i n v o l v ins dialogue participants (i.e, 1 and 2 person pronouns). However, unlike (3b), (4b) i n v o l v e s n o d i r e c t i o n a l c h a n g e o f t h e o r i g i n a l i n t o n a t i o n a l p a t t e m , a l t h o u g h it m a y well be spoken on a higher pitch than the trigger (see Dasc~lu, 1985, for a more detailed account of intonation in Romanian questions of this type). Interrogative allo-repetitions involving the kinds of variation exemplified in (3b--b') and (4b-b') have been known as (sentential) echo questions. I will maintain this terminology and refer, from now on, to questions such as (3b) and (4b) as sentential echo questions of the recapitulatory type (SEQR), and to questions such as (3b') and (4b') as sentential echo questions of the explicatory type (SEQE) (for more details regarding this distinction, see Dumitrescu, 1990, 1991).~° In the Appendix to t h i s a r t i c l e , II e x a m p l e s ( I V ) , ( V I I ) , ( I X ) a n d ( X ) c o n t a i n S E Q R s i n c o n t e x t , w h e r e a s examples (III), (XVI), (XVII) and (XIX) contain SEQEs in context. Let us consider now Speaker B's remaining echoic interrogatives. In (3c) the main variation consists in the change of the verb mood from the indicative (in the trigger) to the subjunctive (in the allo-repetitive interrogation/. The auxiliary verb form in parentheses is o p t i o n a l , a n d w o r k s , in c o n j u n c t i o n with the subjunctive of the main verb, as a marker of past tense. In (4c) we find the same variation, with the differe n c e t h a t , d u e t o t h e t e m p o r a l o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e t r i g g e r , t h e o p t i o n a l e l e m e n t is i n this case a marker of the non-past tense. As for (4c') and (4c") they also are characterized, primarily, by the verb mood change, accompanied, this time, by different interrogative w o r d s , n a m e l y d e c e " w h y ' i n 4 c "12 a n d c e " w h a t ' f u n c t i o n i n g as a determinative element in (4c"). Since all the allo-repetitive questions referred to as (3-4c), and (4c'--c") share the feature of the mood change from the eliciting sentence t o i t s e c h o i c c o u n t e r p a r t , a n d s i n c e -- a s w i l l b e s h o w n i n s e c t i o n 3 they all have an unmistakable rhetorical interpretation, I will call them Rhetorical Repetitive Subjunctive Questions (RRSQ). In the Appendix, examples (I), (V), (VI), (VIII), (XIII), (XVI), (XVII), (XVIII), (XX) and (XXII) contain such RRSQs in context. Finally, let us consider Speaker C's questions in (3) and (4), which are, all of them, allo-repetitions of Speaker B's RRSQs (cf. footnote 8). Notice that (3d) repeats (3c) in the same way in which (3b) repeats (3a), and that (3d') repeats (3c) in t h e s a m e w a y i n w h i c h ( 3 b ' ) r e p e a t s ( 3 a ) . T h e s a m e is t r u e o f ( 4 d ) a n d ( 4 d ' ) , w h i c h repeat in two different, but consistent ways, (4c); likewise, (4e) and (e') similarly m The distinction b e t w e e n recapitulatory and explicatory echo questions is borrowed from Quirk et al. (1985). with the proviso that what I have called Sentential Echo Questions of the Explicatory Type appear to have no syntactically (or otherwise formally) m a r k e d counterpart in English. t The e x a m p l e s given in this A p p e n d i x come from a variety of sources (most of them written), which are listed in the bibliographical section, before the scholarly references. Echoic interrogatives of the types discussed in this article (as well as some n o n echoic rhetoricat questions, which serve for c o m p a r ison) are u n d e r l i n e d and 'labeled" in parentheses. A rtmgh English Iranslatit,n is pr¢,vided in each case. L2 For the a r g u m e n t a t i v e discourse function of e q u i v a l e n t questions in French (that is. "polemical" questions b e g i n n i n g with p o u r q u o i ) , see Milner and Milner (1975).

D. Dumitrescu

/ Journal of Pragmatics 26 (1996) 321-354

329

repeat (4c'); and (4f) and (f') similarly repeat (4c"). Since Speaker C's allo-repetitions of Speaker B's RRSQ follow the pattern of SEQR (the case of (3d), (4d), (4e) and (4f)), or of SEQE (the case of (3d'), (4d'), (4e') and (4f')), they qualify for rhechorical status, appearing to be special instances of Rhechorical Q u e s t i o n s , i.e., " e c h o q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d t o a s e c o n d p o w e r in r e s p o n s e t o t h e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s " ( C h a n g , 1 9 8 2 : 1 6 9 ) . T h i s h y b r i d t e r m -- ' r h ( e t o ) r i c a l + e c h o q u e s t i o n s ' - is m e a n t t o c a p t u r e t h e v e r y e s s e n c e o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h a r e e c h o e s o f r h e t o r i c a l o n e s ; in t h i s p a p e r , I w i l l a d o p t it a s s u c h f r o m C h a n g ( 1 9 8 2 ) . M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , I w i l l r e f e r to q u e s t i o n s s u c h as (3)--(4d), a n d (4e--f) as R h e c h o r i c a l Q u e s t i o n s o f the R e c a p i t u latory Type (RCQR), and to questions such as (3--4d'), and (4e'--f') as Rhechorical Questions of the Explicatory Type (RCQE). In the Appendix, example (VII) contains a RCQR, whereas example (XXII) contains a RCQE. While capturing the most frequent phenomena, the above description and classific a t i o n o f a l l o - r e p e t i t i v e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s in R o m a n i a n is f a r f r o m b e i n g e x h a u s t i v e . O t h e r m o r e o r l e s s c o m m o n f o r m s o f s u c h i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e w h - e c h o q u e s t i o n s , as w e l l as r h e t o r i c a l r e p e t i t i v e q u e s t i o n s o f o t h e r t y p e s . E x a m p l e s o f e a c h o f t h e s e newly introduced forms of allo-repetition follow. Consider first Speaker B's interrogative allo-repetitions of Speaker A's questions in ( 5 ) a n d ( 5 " ) : (5) S p e a k e r A : (a) Vrei bore ? want-2s beer "Do you want beer?" Speaker B : (b) CO sd vreau? [rising intonation] what Subj-marker w a n t - 1s "Do 1 want what'?' [rising intonation] (c) Ce sd vrO~u?! [high-rising "circumflex' intonation on the last word, with doubling of the syllabic a] what Subj-marker want-I s 'Do I want WHAT?!" [high-rising intonation with heavy stress on the whword] (d) C~ s~ vreau, t [falling intonation] what Subj-marker want-ls 'Forget it!' (5") S p e a k e r A : (a) Vrei? want-2s "Do you want?' Speaker B : (b) CIE s~ vreau? [falling intonation and heavy stress on the whword] what Subj-marker want-ls ' ( D o I) w a n t W H A T ? ' [failing intonation and heavy stress on the wh-word]

330

D. Dumitrescu

(c) C~ s~ what Subj-marker ' F o r g e t it ! "

/ Journal

[falling

vreauY

want-1

of Pragmatics

26 (1996) 321--354

intonation]

s

(5b) is a standard wh-echo question, which asks for the repetition of a lexical constituent in the trigger by replacing it w i t h a w h - c o n s t i t u e n t . In the literature on English echo questions, this has long been considered the echo question par excellence, and its main interest for syntacticians has been found in the fact that it forces the whecho word to remain in situ (cf. Sobin, 1990, among others). Although the in situ position for the wh-echo word(s) in Romanian wh-echoes i s a l s o p e r m i t t e d , 13 it i s according to my native speaker's i n t u i t i o n -- f a r f r o m b e i n g p r e f e r r e d . Rather, unlike English or Spanish, Romanian typically fronts its wh-echo constituents (which maintains, nonetheless, its stress) and, most remarkably, such fronting triggers a change of the verbal mood from indicative to subjunctive, as illustrated in example (5b) under discussion, a n d a l s o in ( 5 " b ) , w h i c h is a n o t h e r t y p e o f w h - e c h o question. The difference between these two examples lies mainly in the fact that in the latter the wh-echo word corresponds to no overt constitutent in the trigger, while in the form e r , it d o e s . T o k e e p i n l i n e w i t h m y p r e v i o u s work on the topic, I will refer to sentences like (5b) as Wh-Echo Questions of the Recapitulatory Type (WEQR), and to sentences like (5"b) as Wh-Echo Questions of the Explicatory Type (WEQE).14 As I will show in section 3, the allo-repetitive interrogative sentence pattern found in (5b) may also fulfill (with a slight change in intonation and pitch) a rhetorical function, as suggested by (5c--d) and (5"c). In the Appendix, example (II) contains a WEQR, while example (III) contains a WEQE. Now consider Speaker B's interrogative allo-repetitions of Speaker A's questions in (6) and (6"):

~3 It s e e m s that a variant o f (5b) as in (5b') is not fully a c c e p t a b l e to all s p e a k e r s o f R o m a n i a n . a l t h o u g h it is fine in m y i d i o l e c t and in that o f s e v e r a l ( R o m a n i a n - b o r n ) friends o f m i n e : ( 5b ' ) D a c d vreau c e ? [rising intonation] w h e t h e r w a n t - I s what ' D o I want what?" N o t i c e that in S p a n i s h such a w o r d o r d e r w o u l d be the o n l y p o s s i b l e o n e in this case. Cf. gQue

si

quiero

qud?

that i f w a n t - l s what O n the o t h er hand, w h - c c h o w o r d s in situ are p e r f e c t l y a c c e p t a b l e w h e n it c o m e s to s e n t e n t i a l e c h o q u e s tions o f all types not o n l y in E n g l i s h and S p a n i s h , but also in R o m a n i a n (of. i a l l i n s o n , 1986; C o m o r o v s k i , 1989; D u m i t r e s c u , 1990). t~ N o r w o o d P o p e (1976) calls the last type o f q u e s t i o n s R E F ( e r e n t ) q u e s t i o n s , since their m e a n i n g i n v o l v e s the r eq u es t for c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f an u n d e r s p e c i f i e d c o n s t i t u e n t in the trigger, as in: A: H e d i d it! B : H e d i d W H A T 7 In R o m a n i a n and Spanish, w h i c h are "pro-drop" l a n g u a g e s , this type o f q u e s t i o n r e q u e s t s in m o s t cases that an e m p t y c a t e g o r y in the t r i g g e r be "spelled out" for c l a r i f i c a t i o n p u r p o ses. Cf. S p a n i s h : A : g C 6 m o e s ? [ H o w is ...7]; 13: g C 6 m o e s Q U I E N ? ] H o w is w h o ] ; A : £ C 6 r n o e s ~ t ? [ H o w is h e ? ] ; and R o m a n i a n : A : U n d e e ? [ W h e r e i s . . . ] ; B: U n d e e C E 7 [ W h e r e is w h a t ] ; V n d e e t a r a asta, Romania? {Where is this c o u n t r y , R o m a n i a ] ( T h e a b o v e are actual e x c h a n g e s , d i s c u s s e d in D u m i t r e s c u , 1995a.)

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 321--354

331

(6)

Speaker A : (a) Cd-ai beaut ? what-have-2s drunk 'What have you been drinking?' Speaker B : (b) Ce-am b~t~t, c e - a m bc~t! what-have-1 s drunk what-have- Is drunk 'What have I been drinking, what have I been drinking!' (c) ~tiu eu ce-am bc~t~t ? know-ls 1 w h a t - h a v e - 1s d r u n k "1 w o n d e r w h a t I h a v e b e e n d r i n k i n g ? " (d) Ce N-AM bdut ? ! what not-have-Is drunk "What have I NOT been drinking?!' (6") S p e a k e r A : (a) Vrei bere? want-2s beer 'Do you want beer?' Speaker B : (b) Dacc~ vreau b~re. dacc~ v r e a u bdre! if w a n t - 1s b e e r if w a n t - 1s b e e r 'Do I want beer, do I want beer!' (c) ~ t i u eu dacd vreau b___~re? k n o w - 1s I if w a n t - 1s b e e r 'I wonder if I want beer?' (d) Cine vrea bere ? who want-3s beer 'Who wants beer'?" (d') Cine N~I vrea bere? who not want-3s beer 'Who DOESN'T want beer?' These are examples of allo-repetitions typically used with rhetorical purposes, but w h i c h d o n o t f o l l o w the a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d s t r a t e g y o f r e p l a c i n g the i n d i c a t i v e in the m o d e l w i t h t h e s u b j u n c t i v e i n its e c h o i c r e n d i t i o n . F o r i n s t a n c e , in ( 6 b ) a n d (6"b) w e f i n d a t w i n S E Q R w h i c h is p r o n o u n c e d i n a n e x c l a m a t o r y t o n e , w i t h s y m m e t r i c a l f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n a t t h e e n d o f e a c h o n e o f t h e t w o s e g m e n t s it c o n s i s t s o f , w h i c h leads to an interpretation different from the one associated with the single high-risi n g i n t o n a t i o n S E Q R it d u p l i c a t e s . I n t h e A p p e n d i x , e x a m p l e s ( X I ) , ( X I I ) a n d ( X l W ) contain this particular type of "twin' allo-repetition. I n ( 6 c ) a n d ( 6 " c ) t h e a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n is e m b e d d e d i n t o a n i n t e r r o g a t i v e m a i n c l a u s e w h o s e f o r m u l a i c m e a n i n g is e q u i v a l e n t t o a p l e a o f i g n o r a n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e a n s w e r . Examples ( V I I ) a n d ( I X ) in t h e A p p e n d i x are of this type. Likewise, (6d) and ( 6 " d - - d ' ) r e p r e s e n t a w e l l - k n o w n t y p e o f r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s ( o r w h - e x c l a m a t i o n s , as B o l i n g e r , 1 9 8 9 , p r e f e r s t o c a l l t h e m ) , in w h i c h t h e w h - w o r d , in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e

332

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 2 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 3 2 1 - 3 5 4

n e g a t i o n ( o r t h e l a c k o f it) p l a y s t h e r o l e o f a u n i v e r s a l o r n u l l q u a n t i f i e r , e q u i v a l e n t to, respectively, "everybody'/'everything' vs. 'nobody'/'nothing'. ~5 F o r i n s t a n c e , (6d) conveys the idea of the speaker confessing that he/she drunk not only beer, but a l s o ' e v e r y t h i n g " e l s e a v a i l a b l e to h i m / h e r . A s f o r t h e ( 6 " d - - d ' ) p a i r , t h e r e a d i n g is as follows: (6"d), which has no apparent negation, implies a negative universal quantif i e r -- " n o b o d y " -- w h i l e ( 6 " d ' ) , w h i c h d o e s h a v e o n e , i m p l i e s o n t h e c o n t r a r y t h a t "everybody' -- i n c l u d i n g , o f c o u r s e , t h e s p e a k e r -- i s w i l l i n g t o h a v e a b e e r . I n t h e Appendix, examples (XV) and (XXI) are of this type. In spite of this variety conceming their form, I will refer in block to allo-repetitions like (6b--d) and (6"b-~') as O t h e r R e p e t i t i v e R h e t o r i c a l Q u e s t i o n s ( O R R Q ) , 16 s i n c e a l l I n e e d s o f a r is a " l a b e l ' to set aside such questions (which are likely to be found cross-linguistically) from what I believe to be a specific Romanian type based on the Subjunctive as illocut i o n a r y m a r k e r , t o w h i c h I p r a c t i c a l l y c o u l d n o t f i n d a n y r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . 17 To summarize, I have identified and exemplified eight different forms of interrogative allo-repetitions in Romanian, which are listed in the Appendix and whose discourse function I proceed to examine in the following section.

3.

Functions rhetorical

of interrogative use

allo-repetition

in discourse:

Rhetorical

vs.

non-

The main pragmatic d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t n e e d s to b e m a d e at t h i s p o i n t is t h e o n e between interrogative allo-repetitions which may be interpreted as rhetorical and the ones which must be interpreted as such. Roughly speaking, echo questions of all types belong to the first category, while rhetorical questions of all types (as their n a m e c l e a r l y s u g g e s t s ) b e l o n g t o t h e s e c o n d . A s f o r t h e r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s , it h a s already been said that they represent a mixed type, blending together in a sui-generis way, the rhetorical component of the latter with the echo component of the former. I will begin with the Rhetorical Repetitive Questions, which, like rhetorical nonrepetitive questions in general, are "'meant to be heard as questions and understood as statements" (llie, 1994: 223). In order to further clarify this idea, I adopt this author's definition of the rhetorical question, as being "'a question used as a challenging statement to convey the addresser's commitment to its implicit answer, in order to induce the addressee's mental recognition of its obviousness and the acceptance, verbalized or non-verbalized, of its validity" (ibid.: 128). The five distinctive features which Ilie (1994) considers to be shared by all rhetorical questions are the f o l l o w i n g : (i) T h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e f o r m o f t h e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s 15 S o m e interesting considerations in this regard are to be f o u n d in N o r w o o d Pope (1976). For other references to polarity shifts in rhethorical questions, see Escandell Vidal (1984), S c h m i d t - R a d e f e l d t (1977), Diller (1984), and also Q u i r k et al. (1985). A c o m p r e h e n s i v e treatment of the topic is Ilie (1994) (see below). 16 In the A p p e n d i x , exanlples (X) and (XII) c o n t a i n still another type of Rhetorical Repetitive Question, also referred to as O R R Q . J7 Incidentally, it m a y well turn out that also the t w i n - S E Q R p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d is a distinctive echoic interrogative type of this language, but for the m o m e n t 1 d i d n ' t make inquiries in this respect.

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n u l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 3 2 1 - 3 5 4

333

tion and its communicative function as a statment; (ii) The polarity shift between the rhetorical question and its implied statement; (iii) The implicitness and the exclusiveness of the answer to the rhetorical question; (iv) The addresser's commitment to the implicit answer; (v) The multifunctionality o f t h e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n , w h i c h is d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t , " ' a p a r t f r o m i t s p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n a s a c h a l l e n g e . . . . [it] is i n t e n d e d to fulfill at the same time one or several more discursive functions, such as a reproach, a warning, an objection, a promise, a self-exculpation, an accusation, etc.'" ( I l i e , 1 9 9 4 : 4 6 ) . Is The above-mentioned features of rhetorical questions in g e n e r a l a p p e a r t o b e fully shared by the Romanian rhetorical repetitive questions as well. For instance, in the case of the typical RRSQs, the polarity of the assertion such questions imply is unmistakably encoded in their syntactic form. Basically, affirmative RRSQ are equivalent to a strong negative statement, and vice-versa, negative RRSQ are equivalent to a strong affirmative statement. In the examples discussed before, this is c l e a r l y t h e c a s e i n ( 3 c ) a n d ( 4 c - - c ' ) , w h i c h a r e , a l l o f t h e m , e q u i v a l e n t t o a n e g a tive statement like: "She said nothing" or, respectively "I a m n o t a f r a i d ' . I n ( 4 ) ( w h i c h is t h e a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n o f a y e s - - n o q u e s t i o n ) , i f w e r e v e r s e t h e p o l a r i t y o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e s e n t e n c e , w e a l s o r e v e r s e t h e p o l a r i t y o f t h e s t a t e m e n t it i m p l i e s . F o r instance, the use of (4"c--c') implies a negative assertion (equivalent t o "I a m afraid'). Notice, however, that there seems to be no acceptable negative counterpart (4"c") to (4c'): (4") S p e a k e r A " (a) Ti- e tedm~ ? to-you-is fear 'Are you afraid?' Speaker B : (c) Cfim sd nu-mi fie teamd? how SUBJ-marker-not-to-me be-3 fear 'How could I not be afraid?" ( c ' ) D e c__O0 sd nu-mi fie team~ ? of what Subj-marker-not-to-me be-3 fear 'Why should I not be afraid?" (c") *Ck team~ sd nu-mi fie? what fear Subj-inarker-not-to-me be-3 *'Not afraid of what?'

~x F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e R N R Q ( = R h e t o r i c a l N o n - R e p e t i t i v e Q u e s t i o n ) in e x a m p l e ( X V ) i n t h e A p p e n d i x , in addition to implying that nobody but the person under discussion comes to that house, conveys the s u r p r i s e a n d / o r i r r i t a t i o n o f the s p e a k e r f o r h a v i n g b e e n a s k e d s u c h a "silly" q u e s t i o n o n the p a r t o f h i s i n t e r l o c u t o r . A s f o r t h e R N R Q in e x a m p l e ( X X I I I ) , it b a s i c a l l y t r a n s l a t e s a s : " Y e s , (1 w i l l ) . ( B e c a u s e ) y o u a r e m y s t u d e n t ' , b u t it a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s p e a k e r is r e p r o a c h i n g t o h e r i n t e r l o c u t o r t h e f a c t t h a t she could have doubts about her good intentions.

334

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 321--354

Likewise, it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o c o n s t r u c t a negative in order to convey an affirmative a n s w e r : ~9 (3") Speaker A: (a) Ce-~ spus? [falling intonation] what-has said 'What did she say?' [falling intonation] Speaker B : (c) *Cd (era) s~ nu what (was-imperfect-3s) SUB J-marker *'What could she have not said?' This restriction appears to hold only in the case tive (non-subjunctive) question of the type (3"c')

Ce

N-/t

spus

counterpart

spund

o f ( 3 c ) -- a s i n ( 3 " c ) --

?

say-3

of RRSQ,

since

a rhetorical

repeti-

? .t

what NOT has said 'What did he NOT say?' (with heavy stress on the negative) is p e r f e c t l y a c c e p t a b l e with the intended reading: "He/she said a lot of things' or 'He/she said everything that he/she could possibly have said', therefore with the additional meaning of a universal quantifier in the affirmative statement it implies. In the case of the ORRQs, their implied basic meaning is also transparent from their syntactic form. The assertions underlying (6d) and (6d--d') have already been mentioned in section 2 (as has been the meaning of (3"c') above as well), and all that needs to be pointed o u t n o w is t h a t t h e y a l s o f o l l o w t h e c o n v e n t i o n of expressing their polarity by means of an interrogative pattern of opposite sign. As for the other repetitive rhetorical questions in (6) and (6"), their implied basic meaning is also clear, in the sense that both (6b~) and (6"b--c) are equivalent to a denial of any definite answer. More exactly, (6c) and (6"c) amount to a plea of ignorance ('I don't ~9 F u r t h e r m o r e , n o t i c e that it is not a l w a y s the c a s e that an a f f i r m a t i v e R R S Q t r i g g e r e d by a w h - q u e s tion is e q u i v a l e n t to a strong n e g a t i v e assertion. F o r instance, w h e n a null u n i v e r s a l q u a n t i f i e r is not a p p r o p r i a t e in the a n s w e r , the r e a d i n g o f the i n t e r r o g a t i v e a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n m u s t be o n e i n v o l v i n g the dism i s s a l o f the t r i g g e r i n g q u e s t i o n itself, for the o b v i o u s n e s s o f its a n s w e r . F o r instance, in the f o l l o w i n g d i a l o g u e , (ib) can o n l y h a v e such a r e a d i n g , since it is not p o s s i b l e to a s s u m e a n e g a t i v e a n s w e r o f the t ype : ~There is n o X o ' c l o c k t i m e ' . (i) (a) C ~ t e ceasul? h o w - m u c h is c l o c k - t h e ' W h a t t i m e is i t ? ' (b) C ~ t sd fie? Tu nu vezi ? h o w - n a u c h S U B J - m a r k e r be y o u n o see-2s ' * N o n e ! (Or: *No t i m e !)" ' W h a t t i m e ? C a n ' t y o u see (by y o u r s e l f ) ? ' It a pp ears t h e r e f o r e that R o m a n i a n is s i m i l a r to o t h e r l a n g u a g e s in this regard, in the s e n s e that the nega t i ve i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f an a f f i r m a t i v e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n is the u n m a r k e d r e a d i n g , but not the o n l y o p t i o n .

D. Dumitrescu

/ Journal

of Pragmatics

26 (1996) 321-354

335

know'), while (6b) and (6"b) (which, incidentally, may very well precede (6c) and (6"c) in the same speaker's turn) are rebuttals of the illocutionary point of the interlocutor's question, which the speaker is unwilling to answer for a variety of reasons. This unwillingness is clearly signalled by means of the twin allo-repetitive pattern characteristic of (6b) and (6"b), a particular type of echoic interrogatives marked in section 2 as being a subset of the more encompassing ORRQs group. However, the difference between the type of rhetorical repetitive question illustrated in (6b) and (6"b) and all the others discussed so far lies in the fact that (6b) and (fib) cannot be considered a true answer to the interlocutor's question, while all the others can. In other words, this particular type of Romanian interrogative allo-repet i t i o n is n o t a n a n s w e r , b u t r a t h e r j u s t a r e p l y ( i n t h e s e n s e o f S t e n s t r 6 m , 19842°) to the question it echoes. Recall at this point that what rhetorical allo-repetitive questions like (6b) and (6"b) duplicate is actually a sentential echo question of the recapitulatory type. And echo questions are also replies, but not answers, to a previous speaker's question. I will address now the discourse function of echo questions in more detail. Echo questions are primarily dialogue c o n t r o l a c t s , i n t h e s e n s e o f B u n t ( 1 9 g 1), aiming at the prevention and/or correction of potential or actual misunderstandings, checking moves, in the sense of Stenstr6m (1984), or, as Levinson (1983) has d e f i n e d t h e m , " n e x t t u r n r e p a i r i n i t i a t o r s ' . 2J T h i s m e a n i n g is clear, for instance, in ( 5 b ) a n d ( 5 " b ) : t h e f o r m e r is a r e q u e s t f o r r e p e t i t i o n , t h e l a t t e r is a r e q u e s t f o r c l a r i fication. The distinction between requests for repetition and requests for clarification (which are discussed in Tsui, 1992, 1994, as instances of metadiscoursal elicitat i o n s 22) c o r r e s p o n d s closely to what I refer to in this article as echo questions of the recapitulatory type and echo questions of the explicatory type. (5b) and (5"b) are such typical wh-echo questions. There are also sentential echo questions which may constitute requests for repetit i o n -- a s i n ( 3 b ) a n d ( 4 b ) , o r r e q u e s t s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , as in (3b') and (4b') (cf. also examples (II) and (III) in the Appendix). I n t h i s d i a l o g u e c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n , it is o b v i -

20 B a s i c a l l y , a c c o r d i n g to Stenstr0m, r e s p o n s e is a c o v e r term for any verbal reaction to an utterance, and can be further s u b d i v i d e d in reply and answer. T h e a n s w e r is linguistically appropriate, w h i l e the reply n e e d not be. In o th e r words, a n s w e r s address the p r o p o s i t i o n a l content o f the questions, w h i l e replies address their i l l o c u t i o n a r y function. 21 F o r the c o n c e p t o f m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , see D a s e a l (1985). F o r a m o r e g en er al t r eat m en t o f repair m e c h a n i s m s , see M c L a u g h l i n (1984, c h a p t e r on " P r e v e n t i v e s and r e p a i r s ' ) and S c h e g l o f f et al. (1977). 22 By elicitation, T s u i (1992: 101, also 1994) m e a n s a d i sco u r se c a t e g o r y used "'to d e s c r i b e any utterance ... w h i c h f u n c t i o n s to elicit an o b l i g a t o r y [italics in original] verbal r e s p o n s e or its n o n - v e r b a l surr o g a t e " . C o u l t h a r d and Brazil (1992) also use the t e r m "eliciting m o v e s " f o r questions, and ' i n f o r m i n g m o v e s ' f o r statements. ( N o t i c e that, a c c o r d i n g to this distinction, S p e a k e r B ' s replies in the f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e : A. W o u l d y o u l i k e t o c o m e r o u n d f o r c o f f e e ? B: W h o w o u l d n ' t ? / A r e y o u k i d d i n g ? o u g h t to be c o n s i d e r e d i n f o r m i n g m o v e s w h i c h assert polarity i n f o r m a t i o n . ) T s u i (1992) m e n t i o n s that C o u l t h a r d , w o r k i n g on c l a s s r o o m d i s c o u r s e analysis, uses the terms Return for w h - i n t e r r o g a t i v e s s e e k i n g clarification o f the p r e c e d i n g utterance, and the term L o o p f o r w h - i n t e r r o g a t i v e s s e e k i n g repetition o f that turn. A n e x a m p l e o f the f o r m e r is: "What do you m e a n ? ' ; an e x a m p l e o f the latter is: ' W h a t did y o u s a y ? ' In R o m a n i a n , t y p i cal L o o p s w o u l d be: C e ( - a i s p u s ) ? or P o f t i m ? , and typical Returns w o u l d be: C u r e a d i c d ? or C e v r e i s ~ s p u i ? Cf. e x a m p l e ( X I V ) in the A p p e n d i x .

336

D. D u m i t r e x c u / J o u r n a l ~/" P r a g m a t i c s 2 0 ( 1 9 9 0 ) 3 2 1 - - 3 5 4

OUS t h a t e c h o q u e s t i o n s o f e i t h e r t y p e h a v e n o r h e t o r i c a l v a l u e , s i n c e t h e y d e f i n i t e l y expect an answer in order to restore proper communication between the two interlocutors. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it h a s b e e n r e p e a t e d l y n o t i c e d t h a t s u c h e c h o q u e s t i o n s c a n f u l fill a variety of other discourse functions, related to expressing a certain propositional attitude, which is many times one of surprise and/or incredulity, often mixed with irritation and protest. Other times, they may perform a speech act of showing of politeness or concern, they play the role of a cohesive device, they ensure topic continuity, or they sitnply stall for time. For instance, the SEQR in exemple (IV) expresses surprise, and so does the SEQE in (XVII); the SEQR in (VII) expresses incredulity, and the SEQE in (XIX) appears to stall for time (while a plausible answer is worked out). Typically, 'incredulity' or "protest' echo questions receive no response from the interlocutor, but may, very often, have follow-ups from the same s p e a k e r , w h o c l a r i f i e s , i n t h i s w a y , t h e r e a s o n s w h y h e o r s h e is s u r p r i s e d a n d / o r i r r i tated by the question. In other words, "attitudinal' echo questions, so to speak, usually combine in discourse with addresser's replies. On the contrary, 'non-attitudinal" or "true" echo questions usually combine in discourse with addressee's answers (as in example (II)). More about this follows. A challenging propositional a t t i t u d e is n o t a b s e n t f r o m R h e t o r i c a l R e p e t i t i v e S u b j u n c t i v e e i t h e r , w h i c h c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d -- l i k e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n g e n e r a l - s t y l istic devices characteristic of argumentative discourse. In other words, both rhetorical repetitive questions and echo questions that are not used as dialogue control acts may serve the discourse function of rejecting or dismissing a previous conversational turn. In this regard, there appears to be a gradual increase in the rejection, on a continuum that begins with an incredulity question such as, for instance, (3b), continues in (3b') and culminates in (3c), which, depending on the situation, may express a strong negative assertion or a rejection of the question as inappropriate, due to the fact that the answer should be obvious to both speakers and consequently should not be made explicit. Consider also the case of (5c), which has the syntactic pattern of a WEQR, a n d c a n f u n c t i o n b o t h w a y s i n d i s c o u r s e , i n t h e s e n s e t h a t it c a n b e i n t e r preted, depending on the situation, as a surprise/incredulity question whose answer should be obvious, or as a strong rejection of the offer. (A contemptuous r e j e c t i o n is also built in the intonation with which (Sd) and (5"c) are uttered.) Other examples in context from the Appendix, which illustrate this point, are discussed later on in this section. Consider also the RRSQs in examples ( X V I I I ) ( P O i c__~Os O a m ? ) and (XX) (fine putea s-ofacO?); both allo-repetitions function as rebuttals of the illocutionary point of the question they echo. In addition, the rebuttal in (XVIII) appears to serve the purpose of downplaying the importance of the obvious answer, as a conventionalized d e v i c e f o r s h o w i n g d e f e r e n c e t o w a r d a n i n t e r l o c u t o r o f h i g h e r s t a t u s . ~3

23 I was m a n y times intrigued by a similar u n d e r l y i n g m e a n i n g of ritualized allo-repetitions, in conversations in R o m a n i a with people who were trying to be not hostile, but on the contrary, polite and h u m b l e when speaking to a "superior'. For instance in the sequence: C e m a i j k t c i Y C e sci f a c . t B i n e ? M u l t u m e s c cle f n t r e b a r e (How are you'? How should I be? Fine! T h a n k s for asking), C e s 6 f i t c ! conveys, in my view, the message that the speaker is d o w n p l a y i n g the importance of his/her true feelings and

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 3 2 1 - 3 5 4

337

However, it i s w o r t h m e n t i o n n i n g that, unlike echo questions used for rhetorical purposes, which only convey a propositional attitude, but do not provide in themselves any sort of definite answer, RRSQs, in addition to conveying a propositional attitude, do indeed provide an answer by means of the strong assertion they underlyingly contain. As already mentioned, t h e p o l a r i t y o f t h i s a s s e r t i o n is e n c o d e d i n t h e syntactic form of the allo-repetition, which is, in this sense, transparent to the listener. For instance, the negative RRSQs in examples (I), (XVI), and (XWlI) are to be read as affirmative statements (respectively, ~tiu; Te iau; Pot). The affirmative RRSQs in examples (VI), (VIII), (XIII), (XXII), are to be read as negative statements (respectively Nu i-am fnapoiat-o; Nu pl6ng; Nu mi-e teamed; Nu am argumente). By contrast, echo questions are never answers to their stimulus. In their dialogue control function, they expect an answer from the addressee. In their rhetorical (i.e., non dialogue control) function, they do not expect an answer, but this does not mean that they automatically acquire, like true rhetorical questions, the illocutionary force of an assertion. Typically answerless echo questions are, as I said, replies that only suggest an assertion, whose polarity however is i m p o s s i b l e t o b e d e t e r m i n e d on the sole basis of the syntactic form of the allo-repetition. In this respect, one can say that by themselves they are semantically opaque, and need to undergo a process of recontextualization (in the sense of Ilie, 1994) in order to be correctly understood by the listener. This is illustrated in (7), which contains an extensive list of possible allo-repetitive responses of Speaker B to Speaker A. The implied meaning of each response, in terms of acceptance or denial of the offer expressed i n t h e ' t r i g g e r i n g " u t t e r a n c e is indicated in boldface. The interpretation that does not apply is marked with an asterisk; when both interpretations are possible alternatives, neither is marked as inappropriate; when both are ruled out, both are marked with an asterisk. Notice that the implied meaning of the allo-repetition may (although need not) be made explicit by the speaker in a follow-up whose wording would then take the form of the 'correct interpretation" in example (7).

(7) (a)

(b)

A:

Vrei bdre? "Do you want beer?' B : "Vreau/Nu vreau" 'I do/don't." A: Vrei b~re ? B: Dacd vreau bdre ?/Cum dac6 vreau bere ? '(What do you mean) do I want beer?' {Sigur c~ vreau/Sigur cd nu vreau]. "OF course I do/don't'

is trying to create the i m p r e s s i o n that he/she is j u s t fine and happy with his/her c o n d i t i o n . In other words, it seems to m e that Ce s d f a c ! Bine! in certain contexts (where politeness and/or f a c e - s a v i n g are at stake) m e a n s s o m e t h i n g different than s i m p l y Bine, which risks to be interpreted as an u n w e l c o m e , too direct a n d too "sincere', answer.

338

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 321--354

(c) B:

A:

Vrei C~m/De

b__Ore? ~'~ s~i n u v r e a u

'How

bere ?

could/should

C__ilne n u v r e a

'Who

I not want

doesn't

want

beer?'

{Sigur c~ vreau/*Sigur (d)

A: B:

c~ nu vreau}

'Of course I do/*don't.' V r e i b__~re? Cfim/De c_~Os ~ v r e a u h e r e ? C i n e v r e a b e r e ? How could/should I want beer? Who wants

{Sigur c6 nu vreau/*Sigur (e)

(f)

A: B:

A:

B:

beer?'

bere ?

beer?"

c6 vreau}

'Of course I don't/*do." Vrei bere? C~m o s~ vreau bere?/C~ bere s~ vreau? "How could I want beer?/What beer (am I supposed {Sigur c~ nu vreau/*Sigur c~ vreau} 'Of course I don't/*do.' V r e i b_~re? Ce s~ vr~au ? [rising intonation] 'Do I want what?' [rising intonation]

to want)?"

{*Nu vreau/*Vreau} 'I *don't/*do." A : Bere.

' Beer." (g)

A:

V r e i b__~dre ? B : Ce s~ vrdglu ? ! (pron

"Do I want

(h)

A: B:

vrec~-du ? !) [high-rising

WHAT?!"

{Nu vreau/*Vreau} "I d o n ' t / * d o . ' Vreibdre? CO sd vreauY

'Forget {Nu

it ! '

vreau/*Vreau}

"I don't/*do." (i)

A:

Vrdi?

B:

Ci~ sD v r e a u ?

'Do

you

'Want

want'?'

WHAT?"

[*Nu vreau/*Vreau} "I * d o n ' t / * d o . ' A : Bere.

"Beer." (j)

A: B:

Vrei bare? ~'tiu e u d a c d

"I w o n d e r

vr6au ?

if I want

beer?'

'circumflex'

intonation

...]

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 321--354

339

{ * N u v r e a u / * V r e a u / N u ~tiu} (k)

'I *don't/*do/l am not sure." A : V r e i b__~re ? B. Dac~ vreau, dac6 vre~u? "Do

1 want,

do

I want?'

{Sigur

(1)

A:

B.

c~ vreau/Sigur c~ nu 'Of course I do/don't.' V r e i b___~re? Dacd vreau b~re ? 'Do

I want

vreau}

beer?"

{*Vreau/*Nu vreau} *I do/*don't.' A : O a . V r e i b_~re ? 'Yes. (m)

A:

B.

Do

you

'What

do

you

{*Vreau/*Nu '*I

A:

want

Vrei b~re ? C~m dacd vreau

beer?'

bere ?

mean

do

I want

beer?"

vreau}

do/*don't.'

Vreau "I m e a n ,

sd spun, preferi would

you

b(re

rather

fn Ioc de vin ? have

beer

instead

of wine?"

Strong assertions expressed through rhetorical (either repetitive or non repetitive) questions, especially when associated with falling intonation and used in verbal arguments, are in principle, so to speak, closing -- o r b e t t e r s a i d d i s m i s s i v e -- moves. However, as Schmidt-Radefeldt pointed out, "pragmatically it can be up Io the addressee whether he accepts a rhetorical question as an assertion (as it is intended by the speaker) or, contrary to the speaker's expectation, takes up the interrogative element in the rhetorical question as an opportunity for intervention" (1977:38 1). The intervention, in the case under consideration, may take the form of a rhechorical question, which appears to be a perfect example of what Ilie (1994) would call an acknowledging addressee reply to a rhetorical question, conveying disagreement. 24 Indeed, it has been claimed that rhechorical questions 'undo" the effect of the strong assertion encoded in the rhetorical question they repeat, canceling its presupposition by questioning its validity in the particular setting of the exchange that generates it. And we know that "every presupposition can be undone, given time and

~,4 l l i e ( 1 9 9 4 ) e l a b o r a t e s o n t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n e x p l i c i t a n s w e r s a n d r e p l i e s as o v e r t v e r b a l i z e d r e s p o n s e s to r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s . F o r h e r , " ' a n e x p l i c i t a n s w e r is a r e s p o n s e to a q u e s t i o n a n d is m e a n t to s u p p l y a v a l u e f o r t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e v a r i a b l e " , w h e r e a s "'a r e p l y is a r e s p o n s e to t h e i m p l i c i t a n s w e r o f t h e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n " , t h a t is, a r e s p o n s e t o a s t a t e m e n t ( 1 9 9 4 : 104). S h e t h e n e x a m i n e s in d e t a i l b o t h a d d r e s s e r a n d a d d r e s s e e ' s a n s w e r s as w e l l as r e p l i e s t o r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s , a n d n o t i c e s t h a t a d d r e s s e e ' s replies are either acknowledgments or non-acknowledgments of the rhetorical force of their interlocutor's question. In the case of an acknowledging reply, an argumentative addressee would convey either agreement or disagreement with the implicit answer of the rhetorical question.

340

D. Dumitres,'u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 321--354

c o n t e x t " ( M e y , 1 9 9 3 : 2 0 1 ). A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , t h e u n d e r l y i n g m e s s a g e c o n v e y e d b y t h e r h e c h o r i c a t q u e s t i o n s l i s t e d i n ( 3 d - - d ' ) a n d ( 4 d - - - d ' ) , ( 4 e - - e ' ) a n d ( 4 f - - f ' ) is a p p r o x imately the following: 'I am surprised to hear you say that, because I hold an opposite opinion. I believe you are wrong'. In order to correctly understand the meaning o f e a c h p a r t i c u l a r r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n in c o n t e x t , o n e n e e d s t o r e c o n t e x t u a l i z e it f o r a d o u b l e p u r p o s e : f i r s t , to c o r r e c t l y a s s e s s t h e p o l a r i t y o f t h e a s s e r t i o n i m p l i e d in its " t r i g g e r ' , a n d s e c o n d , t o s u c c e s s f u l l y r e v e r s e it in o n e s e l f ' s a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n . It is indeed in this reconstruction process of the original presupposition of one's own utterance that the role of "time and context" proves itself to be crucial. The intended meaning of all of the above allo-repetitive questions can be further clarified through the addition of an appropriate follow-up statement within the same conversational tuna. Indeed, notice that in a coherent dialogue exchange, RRSQs, by virtue of their being strong assertions of a definite polarity, cancel the possibility of an opposite follow-up from the part of the addresser. On the contrary, echo questions used rhetorically, by virtue of their not being transparent assertions of either polarity, yield in principle for any type of addresser's follow-up appropriate to the situation, and aiming at the clarification of the speaker's reaction. As for the rhechorical questions, they can have tollow-ups which reconstruct the original presupposition of t h e t r i g g e r i n g s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n is t r y i n g t o ' d e m o l i s h ' . Here are some examples. (8)

Possible follow-ups (3b) and (4b): Pared

from Speaker

B to:

tu nu #tii ?

"Don't you know?' (3b') and (4b'): Ce

vorb6

'What (3c):

e aia ? Nu 'nfeleg!

kind of question

is t h a t ?

I don't

understand!'

or: C e S l ) u n e m e r e u , nirrli6" n o u ! "Nothing ! " "What she has always said, nothing (4c), (4c') and (4c'):

Nimic/

Nu

new'

reti-e d e l o c !

"Not at all!" (8") P o s s i b l e f o l l o w - u p s (3d) and (3d'): E#ti sigur?

Credeam

from

Speaker

c-a spus

C to:

c'eva (nou).

"Are you sure? I thought (4d--d'), (4e--e'), (4f--f'):

she did (say something

Spui

c6-Ji este, dar

drept ? Am

intpresia

"Are you telling the truth?

new).'

nu recunoyti?

1 think you are afraid, but you don't

want to say so.'

Before concluding this section, I would like to illustrate the interplay between various forms of interrogative alio-repetitions with their specific function in conversat i o n in t h e f o l l o w i n g d i a l o g u e , w h i c h I m a d e u p b a s e d o n m y n a t i v e c o m p e t e n c y in

341

D. D u m i t r e s c u / . l o u r n a l ~ f P r a g m a t i c s 2 0 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 3 2 1 - 3 5 4

Romanian, and then submitted for review and/or double-checking to other native s p e a k e r s o f t h e l a n g u a g e ( w h o a l s o r e a d it a l o u d f o r m e , t o c o n f i r m m y i n t u i t i o n s about its appropriate intonation): [YES--NO QUESTION] (9) A : 0 cundUi? "Do you know her?' B: Pe C]NE sd cunosc ? [WEQE] *Oo I know WItOM?" A: Pe Sdnda. •S a n d a . ' B: Pe cine sd cun6sc? [SEQEJ 'Do I know whom?" A: Pe cine [i-am spus: pe Sanda. 'Whom I told you: Sanda.' B: D a c 6 o c t t H o s c ' . ) [ S E Q R ] 'Do I know her?' A: Da. 0 cund,~ti? [YES--NO QUESTION] 'Yes. Do you?' B: D a c 6 o c u r e ) s o , d a c d o c u m ) s c ! [ORRQ] C6m dacd o cunosc? [SEQE] Cfim s - o c u n o s c ? [ R R S Q ] D e c__~Ps - o c u n o s c ? [ R R S Q ] I n . f o n d , c_ilne o c u n o a ~ t e ? [ORRQ] Nimeni. ~What do you mean. do I know her? How could I? Why should I? Actually, who knows her? Nobody.' A: Cine o cunoa~ste? [RCQR] Cgtm cine o cunoa~'te? [RCQE] Credeam c(5 o cunoui

tu.

~Who knows

B:

A:

B:

her? What do you mean. who knows her? [RRSQ] Cl)nt o s-o cunosc? [RRSQ[ "Me, know her? How could I?' Oeci n-6 cunoUi? [RCQR] "So, you don't know her?' CO s-o cunosc! [RRSQ] Sigur cO n-o cunosc, t " F o r g e t it! O f c o u r s e I d o n ' t ! ' Eu,

s-o

4. I n t e r r o g a t i v e

I thought

YOU

did."

cundsc?

allo-repetition

and conversation

analysis:

A discourse

typology

S i n c e i n t e r r o g a t i v e a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n i s a f r e q u e n t f e a t u r e o f i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n , it is m y i n t e n t i o n , i n t h i s s e c t i o n , t o e x p l o r e its p l a c e a m o n g t h e v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r e s t h a t conversation a n a l y s t s h a v e f o c u s s e d o n in w o r k r e g a r d i n g t h i s t o p i c ( s e e e s p e c i a l l y Coulthard and Brazil, 1992; McLaughlin, 1984; Sacks et al., 1978; Sacks, 1987). The most relevant concepts for my purpose appear to be the turn-taking systen~ and the notion of adjacency pairs. Conversation a n a l y s t s a g r e e o n t h e i d e a t h a t " a c o n v e r s a t i o n is a s t r i n g o f a t l e a s t two turns [italics in originall" (Coulthard and Brazil, 1992:51), and that some turns are more closely related to others. A class of sequences of closely related turns that

342

D. Dumitrescu

/ Journal of Pragmatics

26 (1990) 321--354

has been privileged in Conversation Analysis are the so-called adjacency pairs, which have the following features: they are two utterances long, the utterances are produced successively by different speakers, they are related, and they are ordered. T h e f i r s t u t t e r a n c e is c a l l e d t h e f i r s t p a i r p a r t ; t h e s e c o n d is c a l l e d t h e s e c o n d p a i r part. As Coulthard and Brazil point out (1992: 51), "'the first pair part often selects n e x t s p e a k e r a n d a l w a y s s e l e c t s n e x t a c t i o n -- it t h u s s e t s u p a t r a n s i t i o n relevance [italics in original], an expectation which the next speaker fulfills, in other words, the first part of a pair predicts the occurrence of the second". A typical example of an adjacency p a i r is c o n s i d e r e d to be a question and its answer (but see an interesting discussion of what should count as a question and its answer in an analytical fratnework that goes "beyond local organization" in Mey, 1993:245 a n d ff.25). Within the analysis of adjacency p a i r s , it h a s b e c o m e customary to distinguish between preferred and dispreferred responses (for features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes, see Pomeranz, 1984), based on the idea that "'not all the potential second parts to a first part of an adjacency pair are of equal standing" (gevinson, 1983: 307). Preference, in this framework, is a s t r u c t u r a l n o t i o n w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s closely to the linguistic concept of markedness. "'In essence, preferred seconds are unmarked -- t h e y o c c u r a s s t r u c t u r a l l y simpler turns: in contrast, dispreferred seconds are marked by various kinds of structural complexity" (Levinson, 1983: 307). In the case of a question--answer pair, the preferred second part would be the expected answer, and the dispreferred, an unexpected answer or a non-answer. In light of the above considerations, one can think of Rhetorical Repetitive Questions of various types as dispreferred second parts of an adjacency pair. They qualify for second part status by virtue of their atlo-repetitive nature, and they qualify for dispreferred status by virtue of their unexpectedness or their representing non answers (in the cases in which the true answer is considered too obvious to be spelled out). Moreover, Rhetorical Repetitive Questions have additional features considered by Levinson to be typical of dispreferred parts, such as greater structural complexity, indirectness, and displacement over a number of intermediate turns. Indeed, the elaborated syntactic pattern such questions follow (with the change of the verbal mood and the addition of the negation and/or other interrogative markers) is, i n m y v i e w , a f o r m o f s t r u c t u r a l c o m p l e x i t y . At the same time, as I pointed out in section 3, they constitute indirect answers in the sense that the strong statement they communicate is "disguised' in an interrogative form, and, last but not least, they can b e d e l a y e d o v e r a n u m b e r o f t u r n s v i a u s e o f r e p a i r i n i t i a t o r s , t h a t is, v i a u s e o f s u r prise/incredulity echo questions (as in examples ( 3 ) a n d ( 4 ) a b o v e ) . 26 I n t h e A p p e n dix, example (IX) contains a Rhetorical Repetitive Question (~_LL'u e u c a n e s O f f e ? ) 2s A c c o r d i n g to this author. "'[i]n the case o f q u e s t i o n s , w h a t e v e r is answered, is "the' a n s w e r , and it is the c o n v e r s a t i o n a n a l y s t ' s task to find out what this a n s w e r m e a n s , rather than to rule a p a r t i c u l a r a n s w e r ' o u t o f o r d e r ' . H e n c e . a n y t y p o l o g y o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l pairs (if i n d e e d we can operate with this c o n c e p t ) is d e t e r m i n e d , not in a c c o r d a n c e with the s p e a k e r ' s p r o d u c t i o n o f the utterance only, but by the cooperative work that s p e a k e r and hearer put into the p r o d u c t i o n of the entire c o n v e r s a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g this particular p a i r " (p. 252). 26 P o m e r a n z ( 1 9 8 4 : 7 0 ) c l a i m s that " ' i n c o r p o r a t i n g d e l a y d e v i c e s constitutes a t y p i c a l turn shape for d i s a g r e e m e n t s w h e n a g r e e m e n t s are i n v i t e d " and she includes repair initiators a m o n g delay devices.

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 321--354

343

preceded by a rhetorical Sentential Echo Question of the Recapitulatory Type (Cine s~ f i e ? ) e x p r e s s i n g s u r p r i s e , w h i c h is u s e d a s a d e l a y d e v i c e b e f o r e t h e o b v i o u s l y d i s p r e ferred answer (in fact a non-answer) encoded in the Rhetorical Repetitive Question. T h e s t r u c t u r a l c o m p l e x i t y o f t h i s n o n - a n s w e r m a k e s it, s o t o s p e a k , e v e n m o r e d i s p r e ferred that, for instance, a straightforward assertion of ignorance like Nu ~tiu ('I don't k n o w ' ) , w h i c h is a l s o a d i s p r e f e r r e d r e s p o n s e , b u t , a t l e a s t , is a t t i t u d i n a l l y n e u t e r . A q u i t e s i m i l a r p a t t e r n is f o u n d i n e x a m p l e ( X ) , w h e r e t h e S E Q R C e s d f f e ? is used rhetorically to delay the Rhetorical Repetitive Question Tu nu vizi ce sd fie? w h i c h i m p l i e s a n a f f i r m a t i v e s t a t e m e n t l i k e V e z i #i t u c e e s t e ( ' Y o u c a n s e e b y y o u r self what's happening') conveying a strong reproach toward the interlocutor's asking an unnecessary, and therefore "silly', question. Only after this insertion sequence c o n v e y i n g t h e i r r i t a t i o n o f t h e s p e a k e r t o w a r d h i s i n t e r l o c u t o r , is t h e ' t r u e " a n s w e r t o the initial question provided: eevolulie, bdtdlie mare. We can say that in this case we have a perfect example of insertion of a minor adjacency pair (the echo question and the rhetorical repetitive question which answers it) into a major adjacency pair formed by the genuine wh-question and its neutral answer. Interestingly enough, the whole insertion sequence is dependent upon the first part of the main pair insofar as it e c h o e s i t t w i c e . S o t h a t u l t i m a t e l y , o n e c a n t h i n k o f t h i s s i t u a t i o n a s b e i n g a c a s e in which a first part adjacency pair receives two types of responses, coherently related in meaning, but structurally very different: an allo-repetitive 'attitudinal" r e p l y ( w h i c h is a n o n - a n s w e r ) followed by the correct answer, which is non allorepetitive and attitudinal-neuter. Compare, on the other hand, the two examples just discussed, with example (V), in w h i c h t h e s e c o n d p a r t o f t h e p a i r is a R h e t o r i c a l R e p e t i t i v e S u b j u n c t i v e Q u e s t i o n , equivalent to a straightforward rejection of the interrogative value of the first part: C__i~ne s a f i e ? h a s t o b e r e a d a s : C i n e e s t e t o t d e a u n a a c o l o ( ' W h o is a l w a y s t h e r e ' ) , that is, the school teachers by the names of lonescu and Popescu. Notice that the SEQR Cine sa fie ? in (IX) has a rising intonation, with the rise occurring after the n e x t t o t h e l a s t s y l l a b l e , a n d it i s l i k e l y t o b e s p o k e n a t a h i g h e r p i t c h t h a n t h e R R S Q Cine sdfie ? in (W), which has a falling intonation, with the fall occurring on the first syllable. This prosodic contrast mirrors the functional contrast between these two 'look-alike' repetitive questions: the one in (W) prefaces an obvious answer, the one in (IX) delays a non-answer. In other words, in (V), the RRQS signals that the speaker does know the true answer, whereas in (IX) the structurally identical SEQR signals that the speaker does not know the true answer. Rhechorical Questions are similar to Rhetorical Repetitive Questions in the sense that they too ultimately represent unexpected replies to the rhetorical question they echo. Moreover, they convey disagreement with the previous speaker's assertion, and by doing so, they become, so to speak, doubly dispreferred, since disagreement is c o n s i d e r e d t h e d i s p r e f e r r e d s e c o n d p a r t o f a n a s s e s s m e n t . I n s h o r t , a r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n is a n u n e x p e c t e d r e p l y t o a r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n w i t h w h o s e a s s e s s m e n t t h e s p e a k e r d i s a g r e e s . 27 27 Johnstone et al. (1994: 7) claim that "the closer the repetition is to identical, the closer it often is to direct disagreement". I believe that it is their closeness to the trigger that makes allo-repetitive questions excellent candidates for expressing conversational disagreement.

344

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f ' P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1990) 321 3 5 4

If the Rhetorical

Question

is n o t r e p e t i t i v e ,

as in (10a):

(10)

Speaker A: (a) Cine auzise de Bill Clinton acum c~tiva 3ni ? 'Who had heard of Bill Clinton a few years ago?' (the implied meaning " N o b o d y k n e w h i m ! ") Speaker B : (b) Cine auzfse de Bill Clinton acum c~tiva ~ni? [rising intonation] Eu,

is

de pild~/

'Who had heard of Bill Clinton 'Me, for instance ! "

a few years ago'?'

[rising intonation]

o n e c a n s a y t h a t t h e r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n is a d i s p r e f e r r e d second part of an adjac e n c y p a i r w h o s e f i r s t p a r t is r h e t o r i c a l . By contrast, one can define a rhetorical repetitive question as a dispreferred second part in an adjacency pair whose first part is non rhetorical. There are abundant examples of this situation in the Appendix. For instance, in example (Xl), the second part to the genuine question: Dar din a cui2 is a rhetorical repetitive question of the twin-type: D i n a c ~ i , d i n a c___&~i? w h i c h is equivalent to a non-answer. Indeed, the speaker makes explicit his denial of the answer when he adds: ~tii dumneata din a cui, which amounts to saying 'You know the answer, don't ask me'. Obviously, this is not what the questioner had been expecting. A similar situation can be found in e x a m p l e (Xll), where the speaker of the twin-SEQR expresses his amazement at being asked such a question, through a rhetorical question strongly charged with reproach: rl'U m a f n t r e b i p e n t r u ce v ('YOU ask me "'why"?') Consider also examples (XV) and (XXI), which contain structurally very colnplex rhetorical repetitive questions used as responses to non-rhetorical questions. Ct'ti era s~-i dea?, in (XV), has the intended rhetorical reading: Nu putea sa-i dea decor lui ('They couldn't h a v e g i v e n it t o a n y o n e b u t h i m ' ) , a n d P ~ i a c__~i mamO sO f l u ? , in (XXI), has the intended rhetorical reading: N t t p o t ft" d e c ~ t mama lui ('l cannot be anybody's but his mother'). Clearly, these are dispreferred second pair parts. In (V), the preferred second part would have been an explanation of why the speaker believes what he believes, and in (XXI), a simple Da ('Yes'). H o w e v e r , i f t h e r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n f o l l o w s a r h e t o r i c a l r e p e t i t i v e q u e s t i o n , a s in example (10"), then one should probably speak of a dispreferred third part of a threepart structural unit, consisting of a genuine question (10"a), a dispreferred answer to the genuine question (10"b) and a dispreferred reply to the dispreferred answer ( I 0 " c ) , w h i c h , t u r n o u t t o b e t h e e x p e c t e d a n s w e r t o (1 0 " a ) : (10")

Speaker A: (a) ('ine auzise de Bill Clinton acunt c~tiva ani ? 'Who had heard of Bill Clinton a few years ago?' ( t h i s is a g e n u i n e i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g question)

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 3 2 1 - 3 5 4 Speaker (b) Cine 'Who Speaker (c) Cine 'Who

B : s~ fi auzit? is going to C: sd fi auzit ? is g o i n g t o

Nimeni! have heard!

345

Nobody!"

Eu auzisem, e bine ? have heard'?. I had, O.K.?"

One can also think of a rhechorical question and its answer as forming a postsequence, in the sense of McLaughlin (1984: 184), where post-sequencing is defined as "placement of a subordinate adjacency pair following a second pair part of a dominant adjacency pair". The usual implication of the first pair part in a post-sequence McLauglin e x p l a i n s -- is t h a t t h e s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e p r e f e r r e d second are in doubt. Indeed, the main role of a rhechorical question, as I have shown, is to cast doubts about the sincerity (or appropriateness) of the statement implied in the immediately preceding rhetorical question. See for instance example ( V I I ) i n t h e A p p e n d i x , w h i c h s h o w s t h a t t h e r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n N u ~£t£i u n d e l - a i pierddt? questions the sincerity of the negative statement conventionally implied in the rhetorical question ~Jfu eu unde 1-am pierd~t? Structurally speaking, the rhechorical question and its answer form a.post-sequence to the main adjacency pair consisting of the genuine wh-question: Unde l-ai pierdut? and the rhetorical question which serves as its answer. Incidentally, notice that the rhechorical question in (WlI) is an echo not of the interrogative form, but of the assertive meaning of its trigger. On the contrary, in example (XXII), the rhechorical question Cftm ce argumente s~ ai? echoes the interrogative form o f t h e r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n t h a t t r i g g e r s it ( C d argumente s~ am?), questioning however the sincerity of its implied meaning. The speaker then provides a follow-up which overtly expresses disbelief in her interlocut o r ' s s i n c e r i t y : g u s e p o a t e s ~ n u a i n i c i u n u l , t, a n d it is i n t h i s f o l l o w - u p t h a t t h e n e g ative statement implied in the rhetorical question is echoed. This example provides a good illustration of a rhechorical question being used as a dispreferred third part in a t h r e e - p a r t s t r u c t u r a l u n i t s i m i l a r t o t h e o n e i n (10"a---c). In fact, more than two parts conversation structural units are not at all unusual. Conversation analysts have noticed the existence of at least two kinds of sequence, main and subordinate or major and minor, with a further distinction within subordinate sequences being made between insertion and side sequences (Coulthard and Brazil, 1992: 57). In insertion sequences, the strict adjacency requirement is relaxed, in the sense that, for instance, one question--answer pair is embedded -- o r ' s a n d wiched' (McLaughlin, 1 9 8 4 ) -- w i t h i n a n o t h e r . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , s i d e s e q u e n c e s typically occur when "the general drift of conversation is ... h a l t e d a t a n u n p r e dictable point by a request for clarification and then the conversation picks up again w h e r e it l e f t o f f " ( C o u l t h a r d a n d B r a z i l , 1 9 9 2 : 5 2 , e l a b o r a t i n g o n w o r k b y J e f f e r s o n , 1972). Misapprehension s e q u e n c e s -- a s t h e y h a v e a l s o b e e n c a l l e d -- b e g i n w i t h a questioning repeat and, unlike insertion sequences, contain a compulsory third element, which indicates that the missapprehension was solved and participants can return to their initial exchange. More specifically, a request for repair represents a f i r s t p a r t t o t h e r e m e d y , w h i l e t h e r e m e d y ( i . e . , t h e r e p a i r ) is a s e c o n d p a r t t o t h e -

-

346

D . D u n t i t r e s ~ ' u / J o u r n g d ~4f P r u g m a t i c s

26 (1996) 321

354

request, and also a first part to the acknowledgment, which expresses a satisfactory termination of the misapprehension (McLaughlin, 1984:213). W h a t is t h e p l a c e o f e c h o q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f s u b o r d i n a t e s e q u e n c e s ? It a p p e a r s t h a t e c h o q u e s t i o n s t r i g g e r e d b y a s s e r t i o n s ( w h i c h a r e n o t t h e f i r s t p a r t o f an a d j a c e n c y p a i r ) u s u a l l y are side s e q u e n c e s (as in e x a m p l e (II) in t h e A p p e n d i x ) , while echo questions triggered by questions (which, as a rule, are the first part of an adjacency pair) are insertion sequences. Since this article has concerned itself exclus i v e l y w i t h i n t e r r o g a t i v e a l l o - r e p e t i t o n s u s e d as r e s p o n s e s to q u e s t i o n s , I will e l a b o rate briefly on the status of echo questions triggered by other questions. The role of the insertion sequence formed by the minor adjacency pair composed o f t h e e c h o q u e s t i o n a n d its r e s p o n s e c l e a r l y p l a y s t h e r o l e o f a r e p a i r d e v i c e w h i c h , a s L e v i n s o n ( 1 9 8 3 ) h a s p o i n t e d o u t , s e l e c t s p r i o r s p e a k e r a s n e x t . F o r i n s t a n c e , in (7f), S p e a k e r B a s k s a W E Q R , r e c e i v e s f r o m his i n t e r l o c u t o r the a n s w e r ( w h i c h , in t h i s c a s e , is t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f a n u n h e a r d c o n s t i t u e n t in t h e t r i g g e r ) a n d o n l y t h e n is s u p p o s e d to p r o c e e d to a n s w e r b y Y e s o r N o S p e a k e r A ' s q u e s t i o n . H o w e v e r , in the c a s e o f s e n t e n t i a l e c h o q u e s t i o n s u s e d f o r r h e t o r i c a l p u r p o s e s ( t h a t is t o s a y , N O T a s next turn repair initiators), the echo questioner does not select prior speaker as next; h e r a t h e r s e l e c t s h i m s e l f as n e x t s p e a k e r , b y c h o o s i n g to c l a r i f y , in the s a m e t u m ' s follow-up, the reasons behind his verbal reaction before giving his interlocutor the a n s w e r . S i n c e t h i s a n s w e r is d e l a y e d a n d u p t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t , p o l e m i c a l ( b e c a u s e o f t h e e c h o s p e a k e r ' s r e a c t i o n ) , t h e r h e t o r i c a l e c h o q u e s t i o n a l s o q u a l i f i e s as a d i s p r e ferred reply to the genuine question. In other words, the sequence consisting of a genuine question followed by a rhetorical echo question and same speaker's followup appears to be an interesting variant of a three-part structural unit involving only t w o p a r t i c i p a n t s in c o n v e r s a t i o n , in w h i c h S p e a k e r B s e l f - s e l e c t s in o r d e r t o p e r f o r m the return to the main conversation point. F o r i n s t a n c e , in t h e c a s e o f ( 7 b ) , a f t e r h a v i n g c o n v e y e d t o S p e a k e r A h i s s u r p r i s e at t h e q u e s t i o n j u s t h e a r d , S p e a k e r A is l i k e l y t o p r o d u c e a f o l l o w - u p in w h i c h t o a c c e p t o r d e n y t h e o f f e r . If, in o r d e r t o s t a l l f o r t i m e , S p e a k e r B d o e s n o t p r o d u c e t h i s f o l l o w - u p , h e f o r c e s S p e a k e r A to r e p e a t his q u e s t i o n , s e l e c t i n g h i m as n e x t s p e a k e r a s i f a t r u e r e q u e s t f o r r e p e t i t i o n w e r e i n v o l v e d . F i n a l l y , it m u s t b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t w h e n t h e s p e a k e r o f a W E Q w h i c h is a s k e d o n l y f o r r h e t o r i c a l p u r p o s e s s e l f - s e l e c t s t o c l o s e t h e e x c h a n g e , h e m a n d a t o r i l y h a s t o i n c l u d e in h i s f o l l o w - u p t h e a n s w e r t o h i s o w n e c h o q u e s t i o n . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f S p e a k e r B in ( 7 f ) w e r e n o t t o s e l e c t S p e a k e r A a s n e x t , h e w o u l d h a v e t o i n c l u d e t h e a n s w e r t o h i s q u e s t i o n in h i s o w n follow-up before accepting or denying the offer: (7f') A : Vrei b4re ? "Do you want beer?" B: Ce s~ vre6u ? [rising intonation] Bdre

? Sigur

c6

da/nu.

"Do I want what'? Did you say beer'? 1 do/don't." A n i n t e r e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n is f o u n d WEQE Cdre scrisoare ? is a r e q u e s t

in e x a m p l e ( I I I ) i n t h e A p p e n d i x , for clarification. This (unexpected)

where the request for

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l o f Pragrnatics 26 (1996) 3 2 1 - 3 5 4

347

c l a r i f i c a t i o n is t h e t r i g g e r f o r a S e n t e n t i a l E c h o Q u e s t i o n o f t h e E x p l i c a t o r y T y p e (Cftm care scrisoare?) T h i s S E Q E r h e t o r i c a l l y c o n v e y s t h e s p e a k e r ' s s u r p r i s e at h e a r i n g t h e c l a r i f i c a t i o n r e q u e s t , w h i c h is n e v e r t h e l e s s g r a n t e d in t h e f o l l o w - u p t o the SEQE (Scrisoarea becherului . . . ) . A f t e r t h e w h - e c h o q u e s t i o n (i.e., t h e W E Q E ) is a n s w e r e d , t h e i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n ( w h i c h is a n o n - e c h o wh-question) is f i n a l l y answered: Am pierdut-o. So, we clearly have here a major question--answer adjacency pair: Unde-i scrisoarea ? Am pierdut-o, between the first and second part of w h i c h a t h r e e - p a r t i n s e r t i o n s e q u e n c e is ' s a n d w i c h e d ' . The insertion sequence contains a minor adjacency pair: Care scrisoare? Scrisoarea becherului, between the f i r s t a n d s e c o n d p a r t o f w h i c h a s i d e s e q u e n c e is e m b e d d e d : C~m care scrisoare? T h e i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g a b o u t t h i s m o r e d e e p l y e m b e d d e d s i d e s e q u e n c e is t h a t in f a c t it r e p r e s e n t s a l s o t h e s e c o n d p a r t o f a n e w l y c r e a t e d a d j a c e n c y p a i r b e t w e e n t h e r e q u e s t f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n a n d its r h e t o r i c a l a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n : C a r e s c r i s o a r e ? Cftm care scrisoare?, s o t h a t in f a c t w e c a n s a y t h a t in e x a m p l e ( I I I ) w e h a v e a m a j o r a d j a c e n c y p a i r in the m i d d l e o f w h i c h t w o m i n o r a d j a c e n c y pairs o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s (rhetorical allo-repetitive vs. non-rhetorical non-repetitive) are 'blended' into a bifurcated insertion sequence consisting of one first part and two consecutive second parts o r d e r e d as side s e q u e n c e s to e a c h other. A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n h a s a l r e a d y b e e n d i s c u s s e d in e x a m p l e (X), a b o v e . To summarize, echo questions triggered by non-echo and non-rhetorical questions, and used as next turn repair initiators are insertion sequences into a main adjac e n c y p a i r f o r m e d b y a g e n u i n e q u e s t i o n a n d its e x p e c t e d a n s w e r . B y c o n t r a s t , e c h o questions triggered by non-echo and non-rhetorical questions that are not used as n e x t t u r n r e p a i r i n i t i a t o r s r e p r e s e n t ( d i s p r e f e r r e d ) s e c o n d parts to a t h r e e - p a r t s e q u e n c e in w h i c h t h e f o l l o w - u p is p r o d u c e d b y t h e s a m e s p e a k e r t h a t p r o d u c e s t h e d i s p r e f e r r e d c e n t r a l part. T h e i r m a i n d i s c o u r s e role, in this p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n , s e e m s to be to challenge the presupposition or sincerity of the preceding question, or to d e n y its r e l e v a n c e in a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t .

5. C o n c l u d i n g

remarks

I n c o n c l u s i o n , t h i s a r t i c l e is a n a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e a f u n c t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e main types of Romanian interrogative allo-repetitions, and to place the phenomenon into the general perspective of current conversation analysis. Three main types of interrogative allo-repetitions have been found to be relevant for the analysis: Echo Questions, Rhetorical Questions, and Rhechorical Questions. Echo questions serve a d u a l p u r p o s e in d i a l o g u e : t h e y a r e r e p a i r m e c h a n i s m s , as w e l l a s r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e s . From the point of view of the conversation structure, the former are part of an insert i o n s e q u e n c e w h o s e m a i n f r a m e is c o m p o s e d o f a q u e s t i o n - - a n s w e r p a i r . F r o m t h e v i e w p o i n t o f t h e t u r n - t a k i n g s y s t e m , t h e y s e l e c t p r i o r s p e a k e r as n e x t . B y c o n t r a s t , t h e latter kind of echo questions represent dispreferred second parts of a three-part struct u r e i n w h i c h c u r r e n t s p e a k e r s e l f - s e l e c t s as n e x t w i t h i n h i s o w n c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t u r n . Rhetorical Allo-Repetitive Questions, as their name suggests, serve an exclusively r h e t o r i c a l p u r p o s e in d i a l o g u e a n d r e p r e s e n t d i s p r e f e r r e d s e c o n d parts o f an a d j a -

348

D. Durnitrescu

/Journal

of Progmati,'s

26

(1996)

321--354

c e n c y p a i r w h o s e f i r s t p a r t is n o n - r h e t o r i c a l . By contrast, rhechorical questions, which also serve a rhetorical purpose in dialogue, represent dispreferred second parts to an adjacency pair whose first part is rhetorical, or dispreferred third parts of a three-part structure whose first part is non-rhetorical b u t its s e c o n d is. F r o m t h e viewpoint of the turn-taking system, rhechorical questions appear to invite the select i o n o f t h e p r i o r s p e a k e r a s n e x t ( a s it h a p p e n s i n e x a m p l e (VII)), while rhetorical questions, by virtue of their illocutionary point, seem, on the contrary, to discourage s u c h a s e l e c t i o n ( f o r i n s t a n c e , i n ( X X I ) , it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e s p e a k e r w h o a s k e d f o r t h e identity of her interlocutor cannot continue on the same topic after having been rebuked the way she was.) Although the syntactic patterns of the above-mentioned allo-repetitive questions are likely to be, up to a certain point, language-specific, the discourse mechanism involved in echoic interrogation may well turn out to be valid cross-linguistically. The rhetorical and non-rhetorical interrogative allo-repetitions analyzed in this article aim at being a first step in the direction of such a cross-linguistic study.

Appendix A b b r e v i a t i o n s ( u s e d to i d e n t i t y t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e t y p e s o f a l l o - r e p e t i t i o n s in t h i s a r t i c l e ) SEQR SEQE WEQR WEQE RRSQ ORRQ RCQR RCQE RNRQ Examples

O)

= = = = = = = = =

S e n t e n t i a l E c h o Q u e s t i o n o f the R e c a p i t u l a t o r y T y p e S e n t e n t i a l E c h o Q u e s t i o n o f the E x p l i c a t o r y T y p e Wh-Echo Question of the Recapitulatory Type Wh-Echo Question of the Explicatory Type Rhetorical Repetitive Subjunctive Question Other Types of Rhetorical Repetitive Question R h e c h o r i c a l Q u e s t i o n of the R e c a p i t u l a t o r y T y p e R h e c h o r i c a l Q u e s t i o n of the E x p l i c a t o r y T y p e Rhetorical Non-Repetitive Question of

interrogative

-- Mai

~tiu

-- Dar -- Cum

#tii ce sd nu

allo-repetitions

~i altceva: gnseamnd ~tiu, fat~,

in

context

... ? ce-s

p r o s t ? [ R R S Q ] (L. C e m e ~ ) "I k n o w s o m e t h i n g e l s e . B u t d o y o u k n o w w h a t it m e a n s ? How could I not know, honey? Do you think I am stupid?"

(II)

-- Tii, am uitat Ce-ai uitat? --Veioza_ (L.

veioza.

[WEQR] Cerne~) "Gee, I forgot the night light! You forgot what? The n i g h t light."

(III)

- - ... U n d e - i scrisoarea ? -- C a r e scrisoare ? [WEQE] -- C u m care scrisoare ? [SEQE]

Scrisoarea

becherului

... d a

... p e r s o a n ~

fnsemnat~

...

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l

(IV)

--

(V)

-

(VI)

-

(vii)

-

(VHI)

-

(ix)

-

(X)

o f P r a g m a t i c s 26 (1996) 3 2 1 - 3 5 4

349

Am pierdut-o. (N. Manea) '... w h e r e is t h e l e t t e r ? What letter? What do you mean, what letter? The bachelor's l e t t e r ... y e s ... s u c h a n i m p o r t a n t p e r s o n ... I h a v e l o s t it." Oumneata vrei s~ pied? Daca vreau s~ olec? [SEQR] Dar a fost visul meu de-o via]a fntreaga. (M. Sebastian) 'Do you want to leave? Do I want to leave? It's been my life's dream." Cine era ? Cine sa fie ? [RRSQ] Dascalimea: Ionescu, Popescu. (Ion Luca Caragiale) "Who was there? Who was going to be there? The schoolteachers: Ionescu, Popescu." S c r i s o a r e a ... N u i - a ! ~ n a p o i a t - o p e r s o a n e i ? (Cu mirare) Cure s-o gnapoiez ? [RRSQ] (Ion Luca Caragiale) ' T h e l e t t e r ... D i d n ' t y o u r e t u r n it t o t h e p e r s o n ' ? (Surprised) How could I have returned it?' Unde mi-e biletul? Arat~ biletul. Pesemne ca 1-am pierdut. L-a! pierdut? [SEQR] Unde l-a! pierdut? ~tiu eu unde 1-am pierdut ? [ORRQ] Data ~tiam ca-I pierz, fire~te ca nu-I pierdeam. Nu stii uncle I-a! oierdut? [RCQR] N u ... ( I o n L u c a C a r a g i a l e ) " W h e r e is m y n o t e ? S h o w m e m y n o t e . I m u s t h a v e l o s t it. You lost it? Where did you lose it? H o w d o I k n o w w h e r e I l o s t it'? I f 1 k n e w t h a t 1 w o u l d l o s e it, I w o u l d n ' t h a v e l o s t it, o f c o u r s e . You don't know where you lost it? No...' Ta[o, ce ai, pl~ngi ? (~'tergandu-se la ochi) Eu? De ce sa plang ? [RRSQ] Mri doare capul, mi-e cam rau. (Ion Luca Caragiale) " S i s t e r , w h a t is it? A r e y o u c r y i n g ? (Wiping hcr eyes) Me? Why should I be crying'? I have a headache, I don't feel well." Cine sa fie ? C i n e s d f i e ? [ S E Q R ] ~ t i u e u c i n e so, f i e ? [ O R R Q ] D a c c ~ a s y t i , n u t e - a ~ i n t r e b a ! ( I o n Luca Caragiale) " W h o c o u l d it b e ? W h o c o u l d it b e ? H o w d o I k n o w w h o it c o u l d b e ? I f I k n e w , I w o u l d ' t a s k y o u . " E primejdie mare, domnule! Ce safie ? Ce sa fie ? [SEQR] Dumneata nu vezi ce sa fie ? [ORRQ] Revulutie, batalie mare. Leon!do! (Ion Luca Caragiale) ' I t ' s v e r y d a n g e r o u s , m a n . W h a t w o u l d it b e ? W h a t w o u l d it b e ? C a n ' t y o u s e e w h a t it w o u l d b e ' ? R e v o l u t i o n , b i g b a t t l e . "

350 (XI)

D. Dumitrescu

/ Journal

of Pragmatics

-- ... d a r n o u 6 . . . . n o u ~ i n e e f r i c ~ d e t r ~ d a r e . -- N u d i n p a r t e a d u m i t a l e . --Nu din a dumitale -- D a r d i n a c u i ? Din a cui din a cui? [ORRR] ~tii dumneata

h u t w e ... w e f e a r t r e a s o n . Not from you. Not from you. Then from whom? From whom, from whom? You know •

(XII)

din a cui. (Ion Luca

Caragiale)

. . .

from

whom."

--... Cum ti-a venit s~ faci unu ca asta? Pentru ce ai f~cut-o? --Pentru ce ? Pentru ce ? [ORRQ] Tu md ~ntrebi oentru ce? care ai fdcut-o tu. ( I o n L u c a C a r a g i a l e )

'How Why, (XIII)

26 (1996) 321--354

could why?

[ORRQ]

Pentru

nerozia

you do such a thing? Why did you do it? You are asking me why? Because of the foolish thing you did."

-- A m a u z i t c ~ p l e c i l a P . E a d e v ~ r a t ? -- E a d e v 6 r a t _ -- ~ i n u l i - e t e a m d ? --De ce sd-mi fie team~? [RRSQ] (L. Cernet)

"I h e a r d t h a t y o u a r e l e a v i n g f o r P . I s it t r u e ? It is t r u e . And you're not afraid'? Why should I be afraid?" (XIV)--Buun? Deci ti-aminte~ti ! Sinucidere, crim6,

accident, a m i n t e ~ t i ? A v e a i a l t n u r n e ... t o a t e a v e a u a l t n u m e . -- C u m a d i c ~ ? Ce vrei s~ spui? [SEQE] --Cure adic~ cure adicd? [ORRQ] Uite-a~a? In sJ~r#it, s6

ce-a

fost ?

Sau

nu-[i

nu relu6m detaliile. (N. Manea) 'O.K. So, now you remember! Suicide, murder, accident, what was it? Or you don't remember? Y o u h a d a n o t h e r n a m e , a l l t h i n g s h a d d i f f e r e n t n a m e s ... How was that? What do you mean? How was that, how was that'? Like that! Well, let's not go again into details.'

(XV)

-- D e u n d e #tisti c ~ i a d a t l u i A n i c e t ? Cui era s6-i dea? [ORRQ] Cine altul

dec6t

[NRRQ] (M. Eliade) " H o w d o y o u k n o w s h e g a v e it t o A n i c e t ? Whom w a s s h e g o i n g t o g i v e it t o ' ? W h o (XVI)

-- U n c h i u l e , -- Ei

am

auzit

c~ pleci

pe

el intr6

fn c a s a

else but him

asta

comes

de

nebuni?,

t ...

to this madhouse'?'

la Bucure#ti.

#i ?

--M~ --De

i e i ~i p e m i n e ? ce s~ nu te iau ? [ R R S Q ] ,

se mire

Moromete.

Ce,

(M. Preda) • Uncle, I heard that you are going to Bucharest. So what? Can you take me? Why shouldn't I take you? he asked surprised. My b e c a u s e o f it. I ' l l t a k e y o u . " ( X V I I ) -- P o t i Cure

sd vii pe la mine sd nu! [RRSQ]

?

fmi

toce~ti

wagon's

c~ruIa ? Te iau

not going

to wear

...

out

D. Dumitrescu

/ Journal

-Stai departe! Cu ce vii? --Cure cu ce ? [SEQE] Per

pedes

of Pragmatics

(XVIII)--~i

fn bocceaua --P~i ce s6 am

c e a i ? ... [RRSQ] r6spunse

(M. Preda)

apostolorum.

"Can you come by ? Of course. You live far away. How do you come? How do I come? Per pedes apostoiorum

(Lat. for "on foot')

asta

muierea,

hainele

" W h a t d o y o u h a v e i n t h i s s a c k ' ? ... What should I have, answered the woman. (XlX)

351

26 (1996) 321--354

--... ce-ai fi vrut s~ fac~, -Cum de ce m-ant leeat.

nu te-ai

My

mele

good

bune.

(M. Preda)

clothes.'

legat tu de el? De ce te-ai legat, bolborosi el furios .... (M. Preda)

m~,

[SEQE] "What would you have expected him to do? Wasn't it you who prodded did you prod him, huh, Paraschiv? What do you mean why did I prod him? he furiously mumbled."

(XX)

him?

?

Why

--Doamne Dumnezeule/ murmur~i el. Cine a f6cut asta? -- C i n e p u t e a s - o f a c c i ? [ R R S Q ] C i v i l i i d e a i c i ... ! ( M . P r e d a )

'My goodness, he sighed. Who did this? Who could have done it? The local civilians (XXI)

Paraschive

... ! '

--in primul r6nd, nu #tiu cure v6 cheam6. --Eu sunt doamna nripsime Kelerian. --E#ti mama lui Oicran Kelerian ? --Pdi a cui mam~ s~ fiu ? [ORRQ] (Diradurian)

'First of all, I don't know your name. I am Mrs. Hripsime Kerelian. Are you Dicran Keleriam's mother? Whose mother could I be?" (XXII)

-- C e a r g u m e n t e ai ? - - P 6 i ... c e a r 2 u m e n t e -- C u m c e a r g u m e n t e

s6 am ? [RRSQ] s~ ai? [RCQE] Nu

(heard in a conversation) 'What arguments do you Well, what arguments am What do you mean, what you don't have any.' (XXIII)--Oumneavoastr~ personal --De --Am

se poate

sd nu ai niciunulY

have? I going to have'? arguments are you going

to have?

It's not possible

that

v6 veli ocupa de mine ? ce nu? Nu esti tu eleva mea? [RNRQ] observat lacrimi fn ochii ei alba#tri. (Diradurian)

'You are going to take care of me personally? Why not? Aren't you my student? I noticed tears in her blue eyes.'

References Baciu, lleana, 1983. The function of minor questions in conversation. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique: Cahiers de Linguistique Th6orique et mppliqu6e 20:15--19. Bolinger, Dwight, 1957. Interrogative structures of American English: The direct question. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

352

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l

of Pragmatit's 26 (1996) 321

354

B o l i n g e r . D w i g h t . 1989_ I n t o n a t i o n a n d i t s u s e s : M e l o d y in g r a n n n a r a n d d i s c o u r s e . S t a n f o r d , C A : S t a n ford University Press. Brown, Gillian, Karen L. Currie and Joanne Kenworthy, 1980. Questions of intonation. Baltimore. MA: University Park Press. Bunt, Harry, 1981. Conversational p r i n c i p l e s in q u e s t i o n a n s w e r d i a l o g u e s . In: O. Krallmann and G. Stickcl, cds., Zur Theorie der Frage, i 19-141. Tiibingcn: Narr. Carlson, Laura, 1983. Dialogue games: An approach to discourse analysis. Dordrecht: Reidel. Chafe, Wallace t., 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago, Ig: The University of Chicago Press. Chang, Suk-Jin, 1982. Non-standard q u e s t i o n s : P o l a r i t y a n d c o n t r a s t . L a n g u a g e R e s e a r c h 18 : 1 5 7 - - 170. Chisholm, William, Jr., Louis T. Millic and John A.C. Greppin, eds., 1984. Interrogativity: A colloq u i u m o n t h e g r a m m a r , t y p o l o g y , a n d p r a g m a t i c s o f q u e s t i o n s in s e v e n d i v e r s e l a n g u a g e s . A m s t e r dam: Benjamins. Comorovski, Ileana, 1989. Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent questions. Dissertation, Cornelt University, New York. Comorovski, lleana, 1996. Interrogative phrases and tile syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Coulthard, Malcom, 1992. The significance of intonation in discourse. In: m. Coulthard, ed., Advances in s p o k e n d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s , 3 5 ~ 9 _ I ~ o n d o n a n d N e w Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e . Coulthard, Malcolm and David Brazil, 1992. Exchange structure. In: M. Coulthard, ed., Advances in spoken discourse analysis, 50-78. London and New York: Routtedge. Dascai, Marcelo, 1985. The relevance of misunderstanding. In: Marcelo Pascal and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., Dialogue: An interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. D a s c ~ l u , g a u r e n t , i a , 1 9 8 5 . I n t r e b h r i l e e c o u ~i i n t o n a I i a l o t i n l i m b a r o m R n ~ . . S t u d i i ~i C e r e e t g t r i g i n g v i s Lice 3 6 : 2 9 9 - 3 0 6 . Diller, Anne-Marie, 1984. La pragnmtique des questions et des rdponses. Tiibingen: Narr. Dumitrescu, Domnila, 1990. The grammar of echo questions in Spanish and Romanian: Syntax, semant i c s . p r a g m a t i c s . U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a d i s s e r t a t i o n . [ T o a p p e a r , in a r e v i s e d v c r s i o n , at Peter Lang, New York. I Dumitrescu, Domnila, 199l. General considerations a b o u t e c h o q u e s t i o n s in S p a n i s h a n d i o m a n i a n : T o w a r d s d e f i n i n g t h e c o n c e p t . R e v u e R o u m a i n e d e L i n g u i s t i q u e 3 ~ - : 1 4 1 - - 1 6 7 ( P a r t I); 5 - - 6 : 2 7 9 - - 3 1 5 ( P a r t II)_ Dumitrescu, D o m n i I , a, 1 9 9 2 . O n t h e d i s c o u r s e f u n c t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s r e p e a t i n g q u e s t i o n s in R o m a n i a n . Paper presented at the Modern Language Association of America Convention (Discussion Group on Conlparative Romance Linguistics), New York_ Dumitrescu, D o m n i l ~ a , 1 9 9 3 a . T h e r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n i n R o m a n i a n . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at t h e L i n g u i s t i c Socicty of America Annual Mccting, Los Angeles, Ca. Dumitrescu, Domnila, 1993b. FuncitSn pragma-discursiva d e la i n t e r r o g a c i 6 n ecoica usada cored respuesta en espafiol. In: Henk Haverkate, Kees Hengeveld and Gijs Mulder, eds., Aproximaciones p r a g m a l i n g i . i i s t i c a s al e s p a f i o l , 51 8 5 . A m s t e r d a m / a t l a n t a , C A : R o d o p i ( D i ~ i l o g o s h i s p ~ i u i c o s 12). Dumitrescu, Domnila, 1995a. On the syntactic structure and discourse function of multiple constituent repetitive and nonrepetitive questions in Romanian. In: Coman Lupu and Lorenzo tenzi, eds., Studi rumeni e romanzi. Ommaggio a Florica Dimitrescu e Alexandn Niculescu, 86-114. 3 Vols. Padova: Wnipress. Dumitrescu, Domnila. 1 9 9 5 h . T h e r o l e o f c o n t e x t in t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r h e c h o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at t h e C o l l o q u i u m : Q u e s t i o n s in C o n t e x t , o r g a n i z e d at t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n association for applied Linguistics, Long Beach, CA. Escandell Vidal, Maria Victoria, 1984. La interrogaci6n ret6rica. Dicenda 3:9 37. F e r r a r a , K a t h l e e n , 1 9 9 4 . R e p e t i t i o n a s r e j o i n d e r in t h e r a p e u t i c d i s c o u r s e : E c h o i n g a n d m i r r o r i n g . I n : Barbara Johnstone, ed., Repetition in d i s c o u r s e : Interdisciplinary perspectives, Volume 2:6(z~83 (advances in discourse processes). Norwood, N J: Ablex. Fillmore, Charles, 1981. Pragnratics and the description of discourse. In: Peter Cole, ed., Radical pragmatics, 143--166. New York: Academic Press. G r e e n , G e o r g i a M . , 1 9 8 9 . P r a g m a t i c s a n d n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e u n d e r s t a n d i n g . H i l l s d a l e , N J: E r l b a u m .

D. D u m i t r e s c u / J o u r n a l

o f P r a g r n a t i c s 2 6 (1996~ 3 2 1 - 3 5 4

353

Ilie, C o r n e l i a , 1 9 9 4 . W h a t e l s e c a n I t e l l y o u ? A p r a g m a t i c s t u d y o f E n g l i s h r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s a s d i s cursive and argumentative aels. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. J e f f e r s o n ~ G a l l , 1 9 7 2 . S i d e s e q u e n c e s . I n : D . S u d n o w , e d . , S t u d i e s in s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , 2 9 4 - - 3 3 8 . N e w York: The Free Press. Jespersen, J.O., 1924. The philosophy of gratnmar. London: Allen and Unwin. [Reprinted by the Norton L i b r a r y in 1965.1 J o h n s - L e w i s , C a t h e r i n e , e d . . 1 9 8 6 . I n t o n a t i o n in d i s c o u r s e . L o n d o n a n d S a n D i e g o : C r o o m H e l m a n d College-Hill Press, Inc. J o h n s t o n e , B a r b a r a et al., 1 9 9 4 , R e p e t i t i o n in d i s c o u r s e : A d i a l o g u e . I n : B a r b a r a J o h n s t o n e , e d . , R e p e t i t i o n in d i s c o u r s e : I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y p e r s p e c t i v e s , Wol. 1 : 1--20 ( A d v a n c e s in d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s e s ) . N o r wood, NJ: mblex. L e v i n s o n , S t e p h e n C., 1983. P r a g m a t i c s . C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press. Mallinson, Grahatn, 1986. Runlanian. London: Crooni Helm. M c L a u g h l i n , M a r g a r e t , 1 9 8 4 . C o n v e r s a t i o n : H o w t a l k is o r g a n i z e d (Wol. 3 o f S a g e S e r i e s in I n t e r p e r s o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . B e v e r l y H i l l s , L o n d o n a n d N e w D e h l i : Sage_ M e r r i t , M a r y l i n , 1 9 7 6 . O n q u e s t i o n f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n in s e r v i c e e n c o u n t e r s . L a n g u a g e in S o c i e t y 5: 315--357. M e y , J a c o b , 1994. P r a g m a t i c s : A n i n t r o d u c t i o n . O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l . [ 1994 third r e v i s e d printing.] M i l n e r , J. a n d J . C . M i l n e r , 1 9 7 5 . I n t e r r o g a t i o n , r e p r i s e , d i a l o g u e . I n : J u l i a K r i s t e v a , J. M i l n e r a n d N i c o l a s R u w e t , e d s . , L a n g u e , d i s c o u r s , sociGt6: P o u r E m i l e B e n v e n i s t e , 1 2 2 - - 1 4 8 . P a r i s : S c u l l . N o r w o o d P o p e , E m i l y , 1 9 7 6 . Q u e s t i o n s a n d a n s w e r s in E n g l i s h . T h e H a g u e : M o u t o n . P a r k e r . F r a n c k a n d J o h n P i c k e r a l , 1 9 8 5 . E c h o q u e s t i o n s in E n g l i s h . A m e r i c a n S p e e c h 6 0 : 3 3 7 - - 3 4 7 . Pomeranz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispref e r r e d t u r n s h a p e s . I n : M a x w e l l J. A t k i n s o n a n d J o h n H e r i t a g e , e d s . , S t r u c t u r e s o f s o c i a l a c t i o n : S t u d i e s in c o n v e r s a t i o n a n a l y s i s , 5 7 - - 1 0 1 . C a m b r i d g e a n d P a r i s : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s a n d E d i t i o n s d e la M a i s o n d e s S c i e n c e s d e l ' H o m m e . Q u i r k , R a n d o l p h , S i d n e y G r e e n b a u m , G e o f f r e y L e e c h a n d Jan S v a r t v i k , 1985. A c o m p r e h e n s i v e g r a m mar of the English language. New York: Longman. S a c k s , H a r v e y , 1 9 8 7 . O n t h e p r e f e r e n c e f o r a g r e e m e n t a n d c o n t i g u i t y in s e q u e n c e s in c o n v e r s a t i o n . I n : Graham Button and John R.E. Lee, eds., Talk and social organisation. 54~59. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. S a c k s , H a r v e y , E m a n u e l A. S e h e g l o f f a n d G a l l J e f f e r s o n , 1978. A s i m p l e s t s y s t e m a t i c s for the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t u r n - t a k i n g in c o n v e r s a t i o n . I n : J i m S c h e n k e i n , e d . , S t u d i e s in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f c o n v e r s a tional interaction, 7-55. New York: Academic Press. S c h e g l o f f , E m a n u e l , G a l l J e f f e r s o n a n d H a r v e y S a c k s , 1 9 7 7 . T h e p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l L c o r r e c t i o n in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f r e p a i r in c o n v e r s a t i o n . L a n g u a g e 5 3 : 3 6 1 - 3 8 3 . Schmidt-Radefeldt, JUrgen, 1977. On so-called "rhetorical" questions. Journal of Pragmatics t: 375--392. S i m p s o n , J o E l l e n M . , 1 9 9 4 . R e g u l a r i z e d i n t o n a t i o n in c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e p e t i t i o n . I n : B a r b a r a J o h n s t o n e . e d . , R e p e t i t i o n in d i s c o u r s e : I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a l 2 ¢ p e r s p e c t i v e s , V o l . 2 : 4 1 - - 4 9 ( A d v a n c e s in d i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s e s ) . N o r w o o d , N J: A b l e x . Sobin, Nicholas, 1990. On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua 81: 141--167. S t e n s t r G m , A n n a - B r i t a , 1 9 8 4 . Q u e s t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s e s in E n g l i s h c o n v e r s a t i o n . M a i m 0 : L i b e r F O r l a g . T a n n e n , D e b o r a h , 1 9 8 9 . T a l k i n g v o i c e s : R e p e t i t i o n , d i a l o g u e , a n d i m a g e r y in c o n v e r s a t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. T s u i , A m y , 1 9 9 2 . A f u n c t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s . I n : M . C o u l t h a r d , e d . , A d v a n c e s in s p o k e n d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s , 8 9 - - I 10. L o n d o n a n d N e w Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e . Tsui, Amy B.M., 1994. English conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. W u n d e r l i e h , Dieter, 1986. E c h o f r a g e n . S t u d i u m L i n g u i s t i k 20: 44--62.

S o u r c e o f the e x a m p l e s C a r a g i a l e , I o n L u c a , 1 9 6 4 . T e a t r u . E d . i n g r i j i t ~ , p r e f a ~ ~i n o t e d e A c a d . A l . R o s e t t i ~i L i v i u C a l i n . Bncure~ti: Editura Tineretului. Cerne~, Laurenl~iu, 1979, Mic dic~ionar de subiecte cornice. Timi~oara: Facla.

354

D. Dumitrescu

/ Journal of Pragmatics

20 (1996) 321~54

D i r a d u r i a n , E l i z a . n . d , A m i n t i r i l e u n e i d i r e c t o a r e d e la ~ c o a l a a r m e a n ~ i d i n (1950--1955). n.p [ R o m a n i a ] : n.p. [The author]. E l i a d e , M i r c e a , 1991. H u l i g a n i i . B u c u r e ~ t i : E d i t u r a R u m - I r i n a . M a n e a , N o r m a n , 1986. P l i c u l N e g r u . B u c u r e ~ t i : C a r t e a R o m g m e a s c a . P r e d a , M a r i n , 1987, D e l i r u l , E d . 3. B u c u r e ~ t i : C a r t e a R o m f i n e a s c a . S e b a s t i a n , M i h a i l , 1968. J o c u l d e - a v a c a n ~ a . B u c u r e ~ t i : M i n e r v a .

Bucure~ti,

Romgtnia