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., What are you, a senior?, What is this, Spain? 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 Doppelurteil, 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 wh-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).
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.
Bai, Y. (2014). A Usage-based study of the just me construction. In A. Stefanowitsch (Ed.), Yearbook of the German cognitive linguistics association, Vol. 21 (pp. 126–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Camp, E. (2012). Sarcasm, presence and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Nous, 461, 587–634.
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.
Clark, H.C., & Fox Tree, J.E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 841, 73–111.
Clark, H.C., & Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1131, 121–126.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 641, 501–538.
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.
Grice, H.P. (1975/1989). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 31. Academic press. Reprinted as ch. 2 of Grice 1989, Studies in the way of words (pp. 22-40). Harvard University Press.
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.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 751, 1–33.
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. 31 (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: de Gruyter.
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, 1241, 3–21.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, K., & Michaelis, L.A. (1998). Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy, 211, 477–544.
López-Cortina, J. (2007). The Spanish left periphery: Questions and answers. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
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.
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.
Michaelis, L.A., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 721, 215–247.
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.
Norrick, N. (1992). Wh-Questions with guesses in tag position. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 85–95.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. New York & London: Longman.
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.
2020. A CONSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE <i>THERE SPEAK</i> EXPRESSION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CONTEXT. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 36:2 ► pp. 145 ff.
Dong, Chengru & Dawei Jin
2019. An Enthymematic Account of the Deduction of the Negative Meaning of the Chinese Shenme-based Rhetorical Question Construction. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 40:1 ► pp. 47 ff.
Põldvere, Nele & Carita Paradis
2019. Motivations and mechanisms for the development of the reactive what-x construction in spoken dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 143 ► pp. 65 ff.
PÕLDVERE, NELE & CARITA PARADIS
2020. ‘What and then a little robot brings it to you?’ The reactivewhat-xconstruction in spoken dialogue. English Language and Linguistics 24:2 ► pp. 307 ff.
Alm, Maria, Janina Behr & Kerstin Fischer
2018. Modal particles and sentence type restrictions: A construction grammar perspective. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173 ► pp. 189 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.