In traditional grammar books question types as well as spoken (or written) interaction are explained very theoretically, far from being practically orientated and therefore often not applicable to interaction in practice. While in grammar books sentence structure is always precisely ordered, in naturally occurring spoken language we often deal with syntactically incomplete utterances which are not exactly arranged as described in grammar books Furthermore, the most important difference between theory and real life is that grammar books focus on form is described rather than function. (see Weisser, 2002:3). From these differences several problems arise which I will examine in this paper.
In the first section I will give a general definition of the term question as well as a classification of question types according to Quirk et al. (1985). In the second part I will analyse each question type by working out the differences between the theory of Quirk et al. (1985) and Tsui (1992). On the one hand, I will always compare the theory of Quirk et al. with the contrastive, more practically orientated theory of Tsui. On the other hand, I will substantiate Tsui’s theory with examples from the trainline corpus in order to demonstrate that her analysis is correct. Further, I will analyse to which extent the trainline examples are applicable to the theories.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Questions: A defintion and classification
3. Yes/No Questions
4. Wh – Questions
5. Alternative Questions
6. Exclamatory Questions
7. Question and Illocutionary Act
8. Conclusion
9. Bibliography
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the differences between traditional, form-based linguistic theories, represented by Quirk et al., and functionally-oriented approaches, specifically those of Tsui, by analyzing how questions are classified and used in naturally occurring dialogue.
- Comparison of form-based versus function-based linguistic theories regarding questions.
- Analysis of Yes/No, Wh-, Alternative, and Exclamatory question types.
- Evaluation of theoretical models against real-life "trainline" corpus dialogues.
- Investigation of illocutionary acts in the context of question-response sequences.
- Critique of consistency in linguistic classification systems.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Yes/No Questions
According to Quirk et al. (op. cit.:807), yes/no questions are characterised by several features. Firstly, they are “usually formed by placing the operator before the subject and giving the sentence a rising intonation”:
(4) Has the boat LÉFT?
(5) Is Ann writing a PÁPer?
In this connection, Quirk et al. (ibid.) emphasise that “rising intonation is the norm for yes – no questions, but falling intonation occurs quite frequently”.
As also stated by Quirk et al. (ibid.), the operator do is introduced “if there is no item in the verb phrase.” But the main verbs be and have also function as operators:
(6) Do they live in Sydney?
Secondly, Quirk et al. (op. cit.:808) divide the class of yes/no questions into four subtypes. The first subtype, positive yes/no questions, is characterised by usually containing nonassertive forms such as any, ever etc. similar to negative statements (see ibid.). Quirk et al. (ibid.) also point out that “the question containing such forms is generally neutral, with no bias in expectation towards a positive or negative response”. In other words, “neutral polarity […] leaves open whether the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’” (Tsui, 1992:90). In addition, neutral questions are not conducive (see Quirk et al., 1985:808). In the following examples of questions, taken from Quirk et al. (ibid.), nonassertive forms are always used:
(7) Did anyone call last night?
(8) Has the boat left yet?
(9) Do you live anywhere near Dover?
(10) Do you suppose any of the class will ask any boring questions?
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The chapter identifies the discrepancy between theoretical grammar books and real-world spoken interaction, setting the stage for a comparative analysis of question theories.
2. Questions: A defintion and classification: This section contrasts the formal semantic definition of questions by Quirk et al. with the functional discourse-based approach proposed by Tsui.
3. Yes/No Questions: An in-depth analysis of polar questions, exploring how different intonation patterns and syntactic markers influence whether a speaker expects agreement, confirmation, or information.
4. Wh – Questions: This chapter examines questions starting with wh-words, challenging the formal rule-based classification of Quirk et al. by demonstrating their diverse functions in discourse.
5. Alternative Questions: Discusses questions offering specific choices and evaluates whether they should be classified as a distinct category or subsumed under information-seeking questions.
6. Exclamatory Questions: Investigates the function of exclamatory questions, focusing on whether they invite agreement or simple acknowledgement from the hearer.
7. Question and Illocutionary Act: Explores the intersection of syntactic form and discourse function, criticizing the inconsistencies found in models that attempt to combine both.
8. Conclusion: Summarizes the finding that functional approaches, such as Tsui's, offer a more practical and coherent explanation of naturally occurring speech than traditional formal models.
9. Bibliography: A list of academic sources and linguistic corpora referenced throughout the paper.
Keywords
Pragmatics, Question Types, Yes/No Questions, Wh-Questions, Alternative Questions, Exclamatory Questions, Illocutionary Act, Discourse Analysis, Quirk et al., Tsui, Intonation, Trainline Corpus, Linguistic Theory, Functionalism, Syntactic Form.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on comparing two different linguistic theories regarding question classification: the form-based approach of Quirk et al. and the functional approach of Tsui, particularly how they apply to real-world spoken language.
What are the main question categories analyzed in the paper?
The paper analyzes Yes/No questions, Wh-questions, Alternative questions, and Exclamatory questions.
What is the main objective of the author?
The objective is to demonstrate that functionally-oriented theories better explain how questions function in natural, spoken interaction compared to traditional, form-based grammatical theories.
What scientific method does the author employ?
The author employs a contrastive analysis method, comparing theoretical assertions from linguistic literature with practical examples taken from the "trainline" dialogue corpus.
What is covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body systematically breaks down specific question types, evaluates the rules proposed by Quirk et al., highlights contradictions in these rules, and supports alternative functional explanations using corpus data.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Pragmatics, Question Types, Discourse Analysis, Functionalism, and Illocutionary Act.
How does the paper differentiate between Yes/No questions seeking information versus confirmation?
The paper argues that while formal grammar may label them identically, their function depends on the expected answer: information-seeking questions expect new data, whereas confirmation-seeking questions expect the hearer to validate the speaker's existing assumption.
Why does the author argue that Quirk et al.'s classification of alternative questions is problematic?
The author argues that Quirk et al. focus too heavily on syntactic form and intonation, whereas the functional reality is that alternative questions simply serve the broader purpose of information-seeking, making a separate class redundant.
What role does the "trainline" corpus play in the author's argument?
The corpus provides authentic, naturally occurring speech data that acts as a testing ground to prove that theoretical rules about intonation and syntactic structure often fail to account for the complexities of real-life conversation.
- Quote paper
- Corinna Roth (Author), 2007, Question Types and Functions, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/82248
