A Study of the Pragmatic Prototypical Categories of Rhetorical Questions

A Study of the Pragmatic Prototypical Categories of Rhetorical Questions Hongbo Chen (ivy_lucky@163.com) Department of English, 169#, Shiying Street Jinzhou, Liaoning, 121001 CHN Abstract Rhetorical questions (RQs), which are widely used and studied, are a special use of questions. A review of the literature shows that most of the previous studies are description of the pragmatic functions of RQs and are limited to the study of written data, while the cognitive factor has been relatively neglected. This study proposes a cognitive research of RQs under the Prototype Theory of Categorization, aiming to provide a systematic analysis of RQs. In the first part, I suggest that a cognitive analysis of RQs under the Prototype Theory of Categorization can perfect the analyzing system of RQs. In the second part, the proposed theoretical frame and some colloquial data collected from the situation comedy Everybody Loves Raymond are employed to analyze the pragmatic prototypical categories of RQs. The last part is the conclusion. Major findings and limitations are showed. Keywords: rhetorical questions; the Prototype Theory of Categorization; the pragmatic prototypical category Introduction RQs, first emerging as one of the figures of speech, have caught great interests of pragmaticians. Extensive examination and profound contributions have been made over the years. Ilie (1994) analyses the “distinctive features” and “discursive functions” of RQs from the pragmatic perspective and defines a RQ as “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”. He stresses that RQs, at least in arguments, can be used to “induce, reinforce, or alter assumptions, beliefs, or ideas in the addressee’s mind”. Brown and Levinson (1978) regard RQs as off-record communicative acts such as criticizing, making excuses and commenting sarcastically, which are indirect use of language. Slot (1993) distinguishes between a simple indirect speech act and a multiple indirect speech act. In his opinion, a simple indirect speech act is the indirect speech act which performs only a primary speech act and a secondary speech act; while a multiple speech act is the indirect speech act which is embedded in another indirect speech act. Based on the Principle of Communication developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992) (Rule 1: Perform no incomprehensible speech acts; Rule 2: Perform no insincere speech acts; Rule 3: Perform no unnecessary speech acts; Rule 4: Perform no pointless speech acts; Rule 5: Perform no new speech acts that are not an appropriate sequel or relation to preceding speech acts.), Slot produces a scheme for the reconstruction of both simple and multiple indirect speech acts, which can be described as following: (1) Speaker/ writer S has performed utterance U. (2) Given the literal meaning of utterance U, S has performed speech act 1, which has communicative force 1 and propositional content 1. (3) Given the context, speech act 1 violates rule (s) for communication 1 and/ or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5. (4) Given the context, speech act 2 rectifies the violation (s) in step 3. (5) Speech act 1, speech act 2 and the context can be connected via rule for communication i (=1, 2, 3, 4 or 5), and in the case of RQs via […], and in the case of ironic utterance via […]. (6) Therefore, speech act 2 is a correct interpretation of speech act 1. (7a) Given the context, speech act 2 (3, 4…n) is in accordance with all rules for communication. (8a) Therefore, speech act 2 (3, 4…n) is a correct interpretation of U. Or: (7b) Given the context, speech act 2 (3, 4…n) violates rule for communication 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 (different types of violation as in step 3). (8b) Given the context, speech act 3 (4, 5…n) rectifies the violation (s) in step 7b. (9) Speech act 2 (3, 4…n), speech act 3 (4, 5…n) and the context can be connected via rule for communication i (=1, 2, 3, 4 or 5), and in the case of RQs via […], and in the case of ironic utterance via […]. (10) Therefore: speech act 3 (4, 5…n) is a correct interpretation of speech act 2 (3, 4…n). (11) Back to step 7. In fact, other researches such as Schmidt-Radefeldt (1977) and Frank (1990) have analyzed RQs. However these studies are generally based on pragmatic criteria and the cognitive perspective has been considered relatively. This paper, aiming to analyze the pragmatic categories of RQs, is designed to conduct from the cognitive angle and takes the Prototype Theory of Categorization as the theoretical framework. What I suggest in this paper is that all linguistic categories should be prototypical categories, and they fall into a prototypical category of syntax, a prototypical category of semantics, and a prototypical category of pragmatics. In my opinion, a prototypical category of syntax is a category of different semantic meanings and pragmatic functions