Content uploaded by Džemal Špago
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Džemal Špago on Jan 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
ExELL (Explorations in English Language and Linguistics)
8.1 (2020): 68-82
DOI: 10.2478/exell-2020-0014
Original scientific article
Rhetorical questions as aggressive,
friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
Džemal Špago
Džemal Bijedić University of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Abstract
Rhetorical questions (RQs), as a cross-breed of questions and statements, represent an effective
tool in putting forward the Speaker's ideas, as well as influencing the ideas and opinions of
other people. Because of their communicative effectiveness and multifunctionality, they are
frequently used in different contexts and for different purposes, and, as such, they represent an
interesting topic for further research. The aim of this paper is threefold: (i) to explore the nature
of the implied answer to RQs, (ii) to offer a classification of RQs based on the Speaker's commu-
nication style, and (iii) to examine whether (or to what extent) the Speaker-Addressee relation-
ship (peer-to-peer, superior-to-inferior, inferior-to-superior) influences the selection and fre-
quency of use of different types of RQs. Using Stalnaker’s (2002) model of Common Ground
and Caponigro and Sprouse’s (2007) concepts of Speaker's and Addressee's Beliefs, the author
redefines the nature of the answers implied by RQs, claiming that they are imposed on the
Addressee rather than mutually recognized as obvious. Based on the model of communication
styles as defined by Yuan et al. (2018), RQs are classified into aggressive, friendly and sarcas-
tic/ironical questions with imposed answers. The analysis of the corpus, which consisted of 275
RQs taken from ten American movie scripts, showed that friendly RQs are more common than
the other two types, and that, in instances where one of the interlocutors is in a superior posi-
tion, superior-to-inferior RQs are by far more common than vice versa. The finding that RQs
asked by inferiors make up less than a third of RQs occurring between interlocutors with dif-
ferent social standing is in line with the view that answers to RQs are imposed on Addressees.
Key words: rhetorical question; imposed answer; aggressive rhetorical question; friendly rhe-
torical question; sarcastic/ironical rhetorical question; peer-to-peer rhetorical questions; superi-
or-to-inferior rhetorical questions; inferior-to-superior rhetorical questions.
1. Introduction
Rhetorical questions (henceforth, RQs) represent a cross-breed of questions
and statements, simultaneously containing and lacking some elements of
both categories. Due to their dual nature, multifunctionality and persuasive
power (Frank, 1990; Ilie, 1994), they are frequently utilized by all types of
69
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
language users in everyday conversations and on social networking sites, as
well as in different professional contexts, including marketing, politics, jour-
nalism, and many other areas of life. While they can get answered by both
the Speaker and Addressee (Ilie, 1994), they are generally viewed as ques-
tions that do not seek a verbalized answer,1 but instead serve to fulfill other
communicative goals, which can sometimes even seem conflicting, such as
mitigating criticism and emphasizing statements (Frank, 1990).They can also
serve as successful and legitimate answers to standard (answer-eliciting)
questions, as elaborated by Schaffer (2005).2 Furthermore, RQs often incor-
porate irony and sarcasm (Ilie, 1994; Oraby et al., 2016).
Considering their widespread use, function-form dichotomy, and com-
municative effectiveness, it is no wonder that, for many researchers, RQs
have been an appealing and riveting topic, yet the one that always seems to
elude any comprehensive and all-encompassing account, and leaves room
for further research.
The goals of this paper are the following: (i) to show that, contrary to the
accounts of some previous studies (Rohde, 2006; Caponigro & Sprouse,
2007), the implied answers to RQs are not necessarily shared and obvious to
both the Speaker and Addressee, but rather imposed on the latter; (ii) to
provide a classification of RQs based on different communication styles uti-
lized by the Speaker, and the implications of the imposed answer; and (iii) to
explore the use of the different types of RQs (aggressive, friendly, and sar-
castic/ironical) between interlocutors with different social standing (peer-to-
peer, superior-to-inferior, and inferior-to-superior), based on a corpus that
consists of RQs taken from ten movie scripts.
2. Background
A common approach to the analysis of RQs is to treat them as questions that
are semantically equivalent to assertions of opposite polarity (Sadock, 1974;
Han, 2002):
What has John ever done for Sam? (is equivalent to John has never done any-
thing for Sam.)
1 While most researchers agree that RQs require no answer, Ilie (1994: 82) notes that they ask for
a mental response, i.e., “the addressee’s recognition of the implicit answer to the rhetorical
question.”
2 The obvious answer to an RQ simultaneously provides clear answer to the preceding standard
question:
A: How reliable is he? B: How shallow is the ocean? (The ocean is not shallow, and, therefore, the
logical answer to the preceding questions is that he is not reliable. The example was taken from
Schaffer, 2005: 436).
70
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
What hasn’t John done for Sam? (is equivalent to John has done everything for
Sam.)3
The indirect assertion derived from an RQ is based on a single, usually nega-
tive, answer in the case of yes-no RQs, or an empty answer set when there is
a wh RQ:
Is that what a good friend does? (Single negative answer: No.)
What has he ever done for me? (Empty answer set: Nothing.)
Sadock (1974) provides a test for determining if a question is rhetorical: if it
can be preceded by the expression after all, followed by a yet-clause, or if it
includes a strong negative polarity item (NPI),4 such question can only have
rhetorical interpretation. This approach provides a convincing explanation
why (unlike standard questions, and just like ordinary statements) RQs can
receive responses that show agreement (You’re right; I agree; etc.), as well as
why they are compatible with words or expressions that introduce state-
ments (after all, because, otherwise), and incompatible with expressions which
are indicative of asking for information (by any chance). However, the fact
that both the Speaker and the Addressee can opt to take an RQ at the literal
level and answer it, just like any other question, presents a challenge to this
approach.
Van Rooy (2003) offers a different, and somewhat unexpected, account of
RQs, treating them as questions which, just like standard questions, are in-
formation-seeking, but have a constrained set of possible answers. Elaborat-
ing on RQs that incorporate strong NPIs, he claims that different answers
are possible (A: Did he lift a finger to help? B: No/Yes), but they make little
difference (He did nothing or next to nothing).
Rohde treats RQs as uninformative and redundant interrogatives, as they
have “a very predictable, obvious answer to which all participants are com-
mitted” (2006: 250). According to her, RQs do invoke a set of answers5, just
like standard questions, but the answer is already known to everyone, and
that is what makes them redundant.
3 Examples taken from Han (2002: 202). However, it is possible that an RQ and the equivalent
indirect assertion implied by it have the same polarity: the RQ Who fed you and gave you the
proper education? (when asked by a parent) is equivalent to I fed you... (Han, 2002: 218).
4 Polarity items (PIs) are linguistic units that can only be used in negative (NPIs) or positive
sentences (PPIs). They can be weak (any, some, etc.) or strong (lift a finger, give a damn, etc.)
(Zwarts 1996; Han 2002; and others). Whenever strong NPIs appear in questions, they allow for
only one answer, which makes such questions rhetorical in any context.
5 Rohde (2006: 135) lists four types of answers to RQs: a negative answer (Who lifted a finger to
help?/Nobody!); a positive answer (Has the educational system been so watered down that anybody
who’s above average is now gifted?/Yes!); a non-null answer (Who always shows up late for class?/
You!); and multiple answers (What is going to happen to these kids when they grow up?).
71
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
Caponigro and Sprouse (2007) offer an account according to which RQs
are semantically the same as standard questions, and the only real difference
between the two is at the pragmatic level (the conditions that stipulate their
use in a particular context).6 They also point out that the answer to an RQ
has to be a part of the Speaker and Addressee's common knowledge (of
which they are both aware), whether they verbalize it or not. Therefore, un-
der this approach, the purpose of RQs is to put emphasis on something that
is already known to both the Speaker and Addressee.
3. Methodology
The present research focuses on three points: the nature of the implied an-
swers to RQs, the classification of RQs according to the communication style
utilized by the Speaker, and the use of the different types of RQs in different
communicative situations, with special focus on the Speaker-Addressee rela-
tionship (peer-to-peer, superior-to-inferior, and inferior-to superior).
As for the first point, Stalnaker’s (2002) model of Common Ground,7
along with the notions of Speaker’s Beliefs and Addressee’s Beliefs (as pre-
sented by Caponigro & Sprouse, 2007) will be used to counter the claim that
implied answers to RQs (invariably) fall within the scope of the interlocu-
tors' common knowledge. These three concepts (Common Ground, Speak-
er's and Addressee’s Beliefs) are convenient for this analysis as they offer a
solid basis for handling the Speaker’s and Addressee’s individual and
shared knowledge, which is crucial for determining the nature of the im-
plied answers.
A new classification of RQs will be proposed, with some modifications,
on the basis of the model of communication styles as defined by Yuan et al.
(2018). Their interpretation, which essentially limits communication styles to
only two (the aggressive and polite one), offers a good basis for classifying
RQs into those that are used to put down, criticize or verbally attack the
Addressee (or his/her views), and those that represent attempts to draw the
Addressee's attention to something, persuade, or affect his/her opinion in a
friendly way. Additionally, the third type of RQs will be introduced to ac-
6 While it is often the case that rhetorical and non-rhetorical questions share the same form and
semantic content (What's the difference? can be a rhetorical or information-seeking question), a
potential problem for this approach is the fact that certain RQs have a specific form which
differentiates them from standard questions. For instance, semantic incompatibility may indi-
cate the rhetorical nature of some questions, such as Does a fool know what's good for him? (see
Špago, 2017).
7 The concept of Common Ground (in reference to shared background knowledge) was originally
introduced by Paul Grice (Stalnaker, 2002: 701), and it was used by Stalnaker in his previous
work.
72
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
count for those instances when irony or sarcasm is incorporated into such
questions, whether with friendly or aggressive implications.
The corpus for the analysis of aggressive, friendly, and sarcastic/ironical
RQs consists of 275 examples of RQs identified in the scripts of ten American
movies. As movies reflect real-life events and conversations, the selected
examples are expected to offer a reliable insight into the use of different
types of RQs in English. The selection of this corpus is motivated by the
intention to include diversified communicative situations and different roles
and/or relationships of participants in the analysis of the above types of
RQs. The criterion used for labeling questions as rhetorical in this study has
been that, as suggested by Sadock (1974), they can be preceded by the phrase
after all and/or followed by a yet-clause. Additionally, questions that show
the Speaker’s shock or surprise (Are you crazy? and its equivalents) have also
been included.8 The identified RQs have been classified into the above types
(aggressive, friendly, and sarcastic/ironical) with the help of 10 respondents.
The respondents were fluent English speakers with university degrees in
language/linguistics. While blatant examples of aggressive and friendly RQs
have been classified by the author (for instance, What the hell does it matter
how much money I make? - aggressive; Who could resist his charm? - friendly),
the respondents' answers were used to identify all sarcastic/ironical RQs, as
well as those aggressive and friendly RQs that might be treated as border-
line cases. The respondents were presented with those RQs as used in a par-
ticular context, accompanied with preceding and following content. In case
of the difference of opinion, the majority opinion has been taken as valid.
The identified RQs have been further analyzed based on the Speaker-
Addressee relationship (peer-to-peer, superior-to-inferior, and inferior-to-
superior) in order to explore whether (and, if yes, to what extent) the roles of
interlocutors affect the frequency and selection of the different types of RQs.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. RQs as questions with imposed answers
One of the key differences between rhetorical and standard questions is the
expectance of an answer. While standard questions seek to elicit an (in-
formative) answer, RQs already imply an answer which seems obvious to
everyone. Therefore, as noted above, Rohde (2006) and Caponigro and
Sprouse (2007) claim that answers implied by RQs are a part of the Speaker’s
8 They cannot be accompanied by the expression or not, which is another indicator that a ques-
tion is rhetorical, according to Sadock (1974).
73
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
and Addressee’s Common Ground,9 which Stalnaker (2002: 704) defines as
“mutually recognized shared information” between the participants. How-
ever, the assumption that Speaker’s and Addressee’s Beliefs are shared in
regard to a specific RQ is taken by the Speaker. Therefore, a potential chal-
lenge to interpreting implied answers to RQs as a part of the shared
knowledge of the participants is the fact that, as noted by Stalnaker (2002),
the Speaker may just pretend or presume that something is a part of the
Common Ground when it is not. In the case of RQs, it means that the im-
plied answer is just presented as obvious by the Speaker, whether it is a part
of the Addressee's Beliefs or not. For instance, the following (invented) ex-
ample of an RQ implies an answer which would not be shared by most peo-
ple:
a) Who can say with certainty that global warming is an imminent threat? Yet
we hear about it all the time. (The implied answer: Nobody. The Address-
ee's Belief: Many people./Everybody.)
Or, if we consider a more likely example:
b) You know you can always count on me. After all, have I ever let you down?
(The implied answer: No. The Addressee's Belief: No./Yes./Couple of
times./Many times.)
The following RQ from the corpus (a prison guard is addressing a prisoner)
also implies an answer (the Speaker should not believe the Addressee) which is
not shared by both interlocutors:
(1) HADLEY: You’re the smart banker what shot his wife. Why should I believe
a smart banker like you? So's I can wind up in here with you? (The
Shawshank Redemption)
According to Rohde’s (2006) approach, the examples in which the Ad-
dressee’s Beliefs are different from the implied answer would count as failed
RQs, along with questions that were intended as rhetorical, but understood
and answered as information-eliciting by the Addressee. However, there is a
number of reasons why such interpretation does not seem convincing:
‐ the Speaker often goes on talking, and leaves no room for the Ad-
dressee to reject the implied answer if it is not shared (we would nev-
er find out if such RQs are failed or not);
‐ the Addressee may choose not to counter the implied answer for dif-
ferent reasons (not to hurt or anger the Speaker, because it seems ir-
relevant, etc.) even if the implied answer is not a part of the Common
Ground;
9 “[E]ach participant knows the answer and they each know that they both know the answer”
(Rohde, 2006: 136); RQs “serve only to reiterate information already in the Common Ground”
(Rohde, 2006: 152).
74
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
‐ when directed to multiple Addressees (such as on Twitter, or in public
talks), the implied answer may be shared by some, but rejected by
others (it would mean that the same RQ is failed and successful at the
same time), etc.
Therefore, instead of the claim that the implied answer needs to be a part
of the Speaker’s and Addressee’s Beliefs, and thereby their Common
Ground (or else it is a failed RQ), I will propose a different view based on
Stalnaker’s (2002) remarks on the Speaker’s pretense or wrong assumptions
in regard to the Common Ground: an RQ is a biased question which implies
an answer imposed by the Speaker as obvious, whether indeed shared by
the Addressee or not. This view allows for a difference of opinion - some-
thing that seems obvious to one interlocutor may be completely or partly
unacceptable to another. The nature of the imposed answer may vary:
‐ it may indeed be obvious to any competent language user (Is the sky
blue?),
‐ the Speaker may think that it is obvious to everybody (What can be
more important than family?),
‐ the Speaker may intentionally present something as obvious in order
to manipulate the Addressee’s opinion, which is particularly conven-
ient in marketing or politics (Where else can you find such a great offer?),
‐ the imposed answer may reflect the Speaker’s anger or annoyance
with the Addressee, in which case the intention may be to express
negative feelings and hurt the Addressee, rather than to emphasize a
mutually recognized fact (What do you know about anything?).
4.2. Aggressive, friendly and sarcastic/ironical RQs
One of the goals of this research is to offer a classification of RQs based on
the Speaker’s communication style, i.e., his/her attitude towards the Ad-
dressee or a third party. De Vries et al. (2009: 179) define a communication
style as “the way a person sends verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal signals in
social interactions denoting a) who s/he is or wants to (appear to) be, b) how
s/he relates to interactants, and c) in what way his/her literal messages
should usually be interpreted.” Therefore, it relates to the way in which a
message, along with the Speaker’s feelings towards the Addressee, is ex-
pressed. While different types of communication styles might be identified,10
they all, as noted by Yuan et al. (2018) boil down to two basic ones: the ag-
gressive (dominant and forceful), and polite style (friendly and peaceful).11
10 For instance, Norton (1983) identifies a number of attributes which define different communi-
cation styles: dominant, friendly, contentious, relaxed, dramatic, animated, etc.
11 Yuan et al. (2018) also note that different terminology is used by different researchers, such as
dominance vs. affiliation/supportiveness.
75
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
The former is characterized by verbal aggression (attacking a person’s char-
acter rather than his/her views), language intensity (showing intense emo-
tions), and/or incivility (lack of respect), while the latter is based on a re-
spectful, friendly approach and showing consideration for others. Both of
these styles can produce positive or negative communicative effects. The
aggressive communication, which is often found in political discourse, can
be more powerful and entertaining, and it can attract attention, as well as
help the Speaker damage the reputation of the opponents, but, on the other
hand, it can also bring into question the Speaker’s credibility. In a similar
vein, while the polite style can be persuasive and help build closeness with
the Addressee, it can potentially be vague and thereby cause some ambigui-
ty (Yuan et al., 2018). They also allow for the third, neutral style, which is
neither aggressive nor polite.
I will offer a new classification of RQs which is, with some modifications,
based on the two primary communication styles presented above, as they
reflect two opposing aspects of RQs which can be utilized in communication
- the aggressive and friendly one. While they may still be less forceful than
outright statements, aggressive RQs are used to verbally attack (accuse, criti-
cize, put down, or even insult) the Addressee or a third party, and they re-
flect the Speaker’s dominant attitude and lack of consideration for the Ad-
dressee’s (or a third party’s) feelings. An aggressive RQ is emotionally
charged and often presented in a forceful way. Its imposed answer is either
biased and subjective, or, if indeed a part of the Common Ground, discon-
certing and unpleasant to the Addressee. Therefore, aggressive RQs are par-
ticularly convenient in political communication, online forums, or any other
context where the Speaker’s intention is to discredit or criticize someone:
(2) HOWARD: Who told you you could tell me to shut up? (The Butler)
The second category, which I will name friendly RQs, is based on either
polite or neutral communication style, and it includes instances of RQs
whose implied answers are not threatening to the Addressee, and which do
not express the Speaker’s negative attitude. While they can be used to
thoughtfully rebut the Addressee’s arguments or express disagreement,
friendly RQs are never disrespectful, nor charged with negative emotions
(anger, annoyance, impatience, etc.). Friendly RQs are particularly conven-
ient in any context that requires respectful attitude towards the addressee,
such as advertisement, counseling, friendly talk, etc.
(3) RED: Relax. What are you so nervous about?She's just a woman. (The
Shawshank Redemption)
76
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
Finally, the third type, sarcastic/ironical RQs,12 includes those instances
where such questions incorporate irony, either with friendly (example 4) or
aggressive undertones (example 5):
(4) SYDNEY: I've gotta nip this in the bud. This has catastrophe written all
over it.
BETH: In what language?! Sydney, this man is the leader of the free world.
He’s brilliant, he's funny, he's handsome, and he's an above-average dancer.
(The American President)
(5) RUSSELL: Burton says it’s a flesh wound --
RICHMOND: -- when did you become such an expert, Bill?-- Ever been
wounded? --
(Absolute Power)
According to Roberts &Kreuz (1994), out of seven other figurative language
forms (understatement, metaphor, irony, simile, idiom, indirect request), the
highest likelihood of overlap is between RQs and irony, which indicates that
sarcastic/ironical RQs are commonl used. While examples in which irony is
used in a friendly way can be found, it is much more likely for such RQs to
incorporate sarcasm, and thereby to adhere to the aggressive communica-
tion.
4.3. Use of aggressive, friendly, and sarcastic/ironical RQs in the
selected movie scripts
In this section, I will analyze the use of the above three types of RQs in the
corpus that included ten American movie scripts, while focusing on the na-
ture of the relationship between the interlocutors (peer-to-peer, superior-to-
inferior, and inferior-to-superior) and its potential impact on the type and
frequency of use of different RQs.
Altogether, 275 examples13 of RQs have been identified in the corpus and,
according to the obtained results, the most common type is friendly RQs,
followed by aggressive and sarcastic/ironical, as shown in Table 1.14
12Gibbs (2000) lists RQs as one of the subtypes of irony, along with sarcasm (which represents
an aggressive type of irony meant to mock something or someone), jocularity, hyperbole, and
understatements.
1335 of them were strings of two or more questions. As each string includes RQs of the same
type, they were treated as one example in this research.
14Table 1 does not include RQs from monologs (7 examples). The same applies for Table 3.
77
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
Table 1: Frequency of occurrence of different types of RQs in the selected
corpus.
Type of RQs Frequency of occurrence in the corpus
Friendly 140 (52.23%)
Aggressive 89 (33.2%)
Sarcastic/ironical 39 (14.55%)
The aggressive RQs have been used to carry out different sorts of face-
threatening acts,15 including:
‐ criticizing - When do the rest of us stop paying off your debts? (Nixon),
‐ accusing - Who has given the Russians the atomic bomb?!(Nixon),
‐ threatening- You want me to report you to your warden? Is that what you
want? (The Shawshank Redemption),
‐ insulting - Who are you talking to like this, you insignificant shit? (Nixon),
etc.
While the use of foul language and expletives has not been prevalent, a
significant number of such RQs included it (32 examples, 36.78% of the ag-
gressive RQs).16 Almost a quarter of the aggressive RQs from the corpus
referred to a third party (22 examples / 24.71%), such as in the following
example:
(6) LOU: Correct me if I’m wrong. I thought we were on the same side. What the
hell business is it of theirs to say that?(JFK)
As for sarcastic/ironical RQs, most examples from the corpus (27 exam-
ples / 69.23%) represent instances of sarcasm being used in order to put
down the Addressee or a third party. Surprisingly, only one sarcas-
tic/ironical RQ included the use of expletives (F-word). Common patterns for
such RQs included the use of ironic compliments when criticizing someone
(genius, expert, mind-reader, etc.) and providing a ridiculous answer to the
RQ, as shown in the following example:
(7) MOSS: I was in Nam.
WELLS: So was I.
MOSS: So what does that make me? Your buddy? (No Country for Old
Men)
15Those (speech) acts that can be threatening to the face (self-image) of either the Speaker (apolo-
gizing, thanking, etc.) or Addressee (criticizing, accusing, etc.). The concept was introduced by
Brown &Levinson (1987) within their politeness theory.
16The most commonly used expletives were the hell (used in 15 examples), F-word (5),
shit/bullshit (4), goddamn/God damned (3), etc.
78
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
In line with previous studies (Ivanko et al., 2004), individual differences
in the use of sarcasm and irony have been noted, as multiple sarcas-
tic/ironical RQs from the corpus were asked by the same speaker.17
As for the roles of interlocutors, most of the identified examples occur in
peer-to-peer interactions, which can be explained by the fact that most con-
versations in the selected corpus are conducted by participants who have
equal social status. However, when it comes to those instances in which one
of the participants is in a superior position, the use of RQs is much more
common in superior-to-inferior communication than vice versa, as shown in
Table 2.
Table 2: Frequency of occurrence of RQs in the selected corpus based on the
Speaker-Addressee relationship
Speaker-Addressee
relationship
Frequency of occurrence of RQs in the corpus
Peer-to-peer 157 (57.09%)
Superior-to-inferior 82 (29.81%)
Inferior-to-superior 29 (10.54 %)
Monolog 7 (2.54%)
If we just focus on those RQs that were used between participants of dif-
ferent social status, superior-to-inferior RQs make up 73.87% of such exam-
ples. We can conclude that the prevalent reason for this discrepancy is that
friendly RQs are the most convenient in inferior-to-superior communication,
and the other two types can occur only if they relate to a third party, or if the
Speaker is openly defying the Addressee’s authority.
Table 3 shows the frequency of use of the three types of RQs in regard to the
Speaker-Addressee relationship.
Table 3: Frequency of occurrence of the three types of RQs based on the
Speaker-Addressee relationship.
Speaker-Addressee
relationship
Friendly RQs
Aggressive
RQs
Sarcastic/ironical
RQs
Superior-to-inferior
(82) 29 (35.36%) 39 (47.56%) 14 (17.07%)
Inferior-to-superior
(29) 20 (68.96%) 4 (13.79%) 5 (17.24%)
Peer-to-peer (157) 91 (57.96%) 46 (29.29%) 20 (12.73%)
17American President - 5 examples of sarcastic/ironical RQs by the same speaker; Independence
Day - 4 examples; Absolute Power - 3 examples; The Program - 2 examples.
79
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
A noteworthy result from the above data is that aggressive RQs were
more commonly used than friendly ones in the superior-to-inferior interac-
tion, which can be explained by the fact that the Speaker who is in a superior
position generally does not have to worry too much about the Addressee’s
feelings or reactions.
Another interesting finding is that, even when it comes to friendly RQs, it
is more likely that RQs are posed by a superior rather than an inferior,
which can correspond with the previously presented view that implied an-
swers to RQs are imposed on the Addressee. Therefore, it seems logical that
RQs are less commonly asked by someone who is in an inferior position, as
asking RQs (and, thereby, imposing one’s view on one’s superior) may
sometimes look inappropriate, if not disrespectful.
5. Conclusion
Unlike standard questions, RQs do not seek to elicit an answer, but rather
perform other communicative functions. While such questions are formulat-
ed in a way that makes answers to them seem obvious to everyone, the true
nature of those implied answers is more complex. Namely, the Speaker may,
intentionally or due to a wrong assumption or difference of opinion, pose
RQs implying answers which are not (or may not be) a part of the Address-
ee’s Beliefs, and thereby of the Common Ground. Instead of treating implicit
answers to RQs as obvious to everyone (and labeling RQs whose implied
answers are not shared by the Addressee as failed ones), the approach pre-
sented in this paper redefines the nature of such implied answers, treating
them as imposed rather than shared.
Based on the Speaker’s communication style and his/her attitude to-
wards the Addressee or a third party, RQs can be classified into three
groups: aggressive (characterized by the Speaker’s dominant attitude and
forceful approach, and, as such, a convenient tool for attacking opponents
and/or their views), friendly (those in which the persuasive effect is achieved
in a way that is not threatening nor upsetting to the Addressee or a third
party, and, as such, convenient for any communication that requires respect-
ful approach), and sarcastic/ironical RQs (those that incorporate irony or sar-
casm, whether with aggressive or friendly implications).
The analysis of the corpus, which included RQs from ten American mov-
ie scripts, showed that friendly RQs (52.23%) outnumber the other two types
(aggressive 33.2%, and sarcastic/ironical 14.55%), indicating that the use of
RQs is more often associated with respectful rather than with an aggressive
attitude. With respect to interlocutors’ relationship, peer-to-peer RQs ap-
peared to be most common, which can be attributed to the fact that most
conversations in the selected corpus occur between peers. As for those in-
80
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
stances where one of the interlocutors is in a superior position, superior-to-
inferior RQs make up almost three quarters (73.87%) of RQs that occur in
such interactions. While such huge discrepancy is mainly due to the preva-
lent use of aggressive and sarcastic/ironical RQs by superiors, even when it
comes to friendly RQs it is more likely that RQs are posed by superiors ra-
ther than inferiors (59.18% of friendly RQs that occur between people of
different social status are asked by superiors). This finding is in line with the
view of RQs as questions with imposed answers, as imposing one’s view is
less likely if the Speaker is in an inferior position.
Exploring the use of the above types of RQs in a specific context, such as
online forums or political discourse, could be a topic of future research in
this area.
References
Brown, Penelope, Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caponigro, Ivano, Jon Sprouse (2007). Rhetorical questions as questions. Puig-
Waldmüller, Estela, ed. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (11). Barcelona:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 121–133. Retrieved from https://ojs.ub.uni-
konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/635/570
De Vries, Reinout E., Angelique Bakker-Pieper, Robert Alting Siberg, Kim van
Gameren, Martijn Vlug (2009). The content and dimensionality of communica-
tion styles. Communication Research 36(2): 178–206. Retrieved from https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/249683210
Frank, Jane (1990). You call that a rhetorical question? Forms and functions of rhetor-
ical questions in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 723–738.
Gibbs, Raymond W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol 15(1):
5–27.
Han, Chung-hye (2002). Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua
112: 201-–229.
Ilie, Cornelia (1994). What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical
Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wik-
sell International.
Ivanko, Stacey L., Penny Pexman, Kara M. Olineck (2004). How sarcastic are you?
Individual differences and verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychol-
ogy 23: 244–271. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
247744086
Norton, Robert (1983). Communicator Style: Theory, Applications and Measures. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Oraby, Shereen, Vrindavan Harrison, Lena Reed, Ernesto Hernandez, Ellen Riloff,
Marilyn Walker (2016). Creating and characterizing a diverse corpus of sar-
casm in dialogue. Fernandez, Raquel, Wolfgang Minker, Giuseppe Carenini,
Ryuichiro Higashinaka, Ron Artstein, Alesia Gainer, eds. Proceedings of the
81
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. Los
Angeles: Association for Computational Linguistics, 31–41.
Roberts, Richard M., Roger J. Kreuz (1994). Why do people use figurative language?
Psychological Science 5: 159–163.
Rohde, Hannah (2006). Rhetorical questions as redundant interrogatives. San Diego
Linguistics Papers 2: 134-168.
Sadock, Jerrold M. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Schaffer, Deborah (2005). Can rhetorical questions function as retorts? Is the Pope
Catholic? Journal of Pragmatics 37: 433–460.
Stalnaker, Robert C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701-721.
Špago, Džemal (2017). Rhetorical questions or rhetorical uses of questions? Explora-
tions in English Language and Linguistics 4.2: 102–115.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ exell-2017-0009
Van Roy, Robert (2003). Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance.
Journal of Semantics 20: 239–273.
Yuan, Shupei, John C. Besley, Wenjuan Ma (2018). Be mean or be nice? Understand-
ing the effects of aggressive and polite communication styles in child vaccina-
tion debate. Health Communication 34: 1–10. Retrieved from https://www. re-
searchgate.net/publication/325027290_
Zwarts, Frans (1996). A hierarchy of negative expressions. Wansing, Heinrich, ed.
Negation: A notion in focus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter , 169–194.
Corpus
(Movie scripts, retrieved December 19, 2019):
Absolute Power (https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Absolute_Power.PDF)
Independence Day (https://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Independence-Day.html)
JFK (https://sfy.ru/?script=jfk)
Nixon (https://sfy.ru/?script=nixon1995)
No Country for Old Men (https://www.scripts.com/script-pdf/175)
The American President (http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/american_president.
html)
The Butler (https://www.scripts.com/script-pdf/24131)
The Program (https://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Program,-The.html)
The Shawshank Redemption (http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/shawshank.html)
13 Days (https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/13_days.html)
Author's address:
Džemal Špago
Vrapčići 76, 88000 Mostar
Bosnia and Herzegovina
E-mail: dzemal.spago@unmo.ba
82
ISSN 2303-4858
8.1
(
2020
)
: 68-82
Džemal Špago: Rhetorical questions as aggressive, friendly or sarcastic/ironical questions
with imposed answers
Received: April 13, 2020
Accepted for publication: July 21, 2020
