1887
Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study considers sarcasm as a linguistic genre, and explores the use of constructions to capture conventions of sarcastic speech. It does so by examining the English Split Interrogative (SI), e.g., , We argue that lexical, syntactic and semantic idiosyncrasies of SI require us to recognize it as a distinct grammatical construction with two related conversational functions. In its basic, or sincere, function, SI is a collateral-track signal in terms of Clark & Fox Tree 2002: it comments on ongoing performance by (a) indexing the user’s effort to attach the right value to a property variable in a contextually salient open proposition and (b) proposing the result of that effort. In its secondary, or sarcastic, function, SI expresses a dissociative , or double judgment. Just as topic-comment utterances involve two communicative acts — acknowledging a particular entity as a locus of inquiry and attributing a property to that entity — sarcastic SI makes a judgment about the present situation — it’s the inverse of the expected one — and offers an assessment of what makes it so: the value of the -variable (a variable over people, places, things, reasons, etc.) is extreme on some contextually available scale. We postulate that the sarcastic function is a conventionalized (or short-circuited) conversational implicature (in terms of Morgan 1978). Certain divergent syntactic properties support the view that SI is ambiguous with respect to sincere and sarcastic senses. We thus view SI as a case in which what started as a rhetorical gambit has become conventionalized into a rhetorical figure (Kay 1997).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
2015-12-30
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arregi, K
    (2007) Syntax and semantics of split questions. In J. Camacho , N. Flores Ferrán , L. Sánchez , V. Déprez , & M.J. Cabrera (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (pp. 15–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.287.03arr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.287.03arr [Google Scholar]
  2. Bai, Y
    (2014) A Usage-based study of the just me construction. In A. Stefanowitsch (Ed.), Yearbook of the German cognitive linguistics association, Vol. 2 (pp.126–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, M
    (1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D
    (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. , Connor, U. , & Upton, T.A
    (2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  6. Camp, E
    (2012) Sarcasm, presence and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Nous, 46, 587–634. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0068.2010.00822.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00822.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Cieri, C. , Miller, D. , & Walker, K
    (2004) The Fisher corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (pp.69–71), Lisbon.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, H.C. , & Fox Tree, J.E
    (2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, H.C. , & Gerrig, R
    (1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.1.121
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coupland, N
    (2007) Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511755064
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755064 [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, M
    (2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/.
  12. Fillmore, C.J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M.C
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64, 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, M.H
    (1996) Shifting frame. In D. Slobin , J. Gerhardt , A. Kyratzis , & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context and language: Essays in honor of Susan Irvin-Tripp (pp.71–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, H.P
    (1975/1989) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3. Academic press. Reprinted as ch. 2 of Grice 1989, Studies in the way of words (pp. 22-40). Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kay, P
    (1997) Constructional modus tollens and level of conventionality. In P. Kay , Words and the grammar of context (pp. 171–188). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 75, 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kay, P. , & Michaelis, L.A
    (2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn , K. von Heusinger , & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 3 (pp.2271–2296). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumon-Nakamura, S. , Glucksberg, S. , & Brown, M
    (1995) How about another piece of pie? The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3–21. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.124.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lambrecht, K
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lambrecht, K. , & Michaelis, L.A
    (1998) Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 477–544. doi: 10.1023/A:1005327212709
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005327212709 [Google Scholar]
  21. López-Cortina, J
    (2007) The Spanish left periphery: Questions and answers. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Michaelis, L.A
    (2012) Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 31–69). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Michaelis, L.A. , & Francis, H.S
    (2007) Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. In N. Hedberg & R. Zacharski (Eds.), Topics in the grammar-pragmatics interface: Papers in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp. 19–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.155.04mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.155.04mic [Google Scholar]
  24. Michaelis, L.A. , & Lambrecht, K
    (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. doi: 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  25. Morgan, J
    (1978) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 261–280). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Norrick, N
    (1992) Wh-Questions with guesses in tag position. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 85–95. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90111‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90111-N [Google Scholar]
  27. Rampton, B
    (1995) Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. New York & London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sag, I.A
    (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–202). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Thompson, S.A. , & Hopper, P.J
    (2001) Transitivity, clause structure and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 28–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Construction Grammar , conversation , corpus syntax , diglossia , information structure , interrogatives , irony and sarcasm
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error