THE DISCOURSE FUNCTION OF QUESTIONS*

Angeliki Athanasiadou

I - Introduction

Onebasis for classifying questions is in terms of the intentions of theirspeakers ( Ctr.Fillmore, 0n GrammaticalConstructions, 1986 ms). At the outset of a question, contextual and/or praSmatic information is presentin the speaker'smind. The aim of the paper is first to examine four categoriesof questions of interrogative structure and their functionin semantic and/or pragmatic 1eve1.Iwill then turn to their usein rea1 discourse, uti ItztnQ data f rom three types of ora 1corpus of English.It is observed that not only the different types of questions arecharacterized by different functions, but the use of the different modesof questioning indicate the relationship that exists betweenthe questionerand the respondent (intimacy, social distarLce, authority). I sha11therefore concentrate on the relationship betweenthe various functionsquestion.s perform and the roles of the speakers involved in thequestion act.

2. llodes of questioaiag

Questioningis a speechact which affects the way information is organized.Since there is more than one kind of meaning conveyed by a speechact and verbal forms alone are not sufficient as a basis for determiningmeaning, then the meaning of questions must be partly dependenton rules governing social relationships. In the framework whichwill enableme to explain the functions questions may fulf i1, I accountfor speechsituations in which there is a speaker and a hearer

I Thrsrs a revrseciedrlion of a paper presenfed rrr 1-heglh world congress of Appiled Lrnguistrcs,April I5-21, 1990,Hatkrdrkr, Greece. 108 Angeliki Athanasiadou who Ere engaged in a cooperative conversation. For effective interaction each must be ab 1eto predict the behaviour of the other. Prediction is part 1y secured by norms which specify how f riends, colleagues,academics... behave. Such norms set up models of other friends, co1leagues, or academics... But the standardization of roles is not enough.One must also know what others' intentions are. Understanding others' intentions is central for the successful planning of interaction. Intentions are identif ied through the speechcontext as well as the speakers'attitude towards what is said. \r/e thus judge how something is said and by w h om . In other words, the meanings given to quest ions are determined by the status of the speakers involved in the question act and the way they convey intention . Modes of question ing ar e strategies for conveying; certain kinds of intentions and not others. Question situations, according to speakers'intentions, can be classified in many different ways, but in the present study I restrict myself to four types of question situation: The first thing anyone thigks of when ref lecting on the purpose and f unction of a question is that it is a means of request ing information. The chief motivation for information questions is to be found in a desire for knowledge; the speaker wants to know something and assumesthat the hearer knows it. Questioning for information is the traditional perspective which considers that a question is a request to supply unknown information, and that what is linked to a question, i.e. a response, is the utterance which provides this information. For examp1e:

( 1) Vhat do you know about him? ( 2) Vhat goesinto that paper now?

In contrast to the inf ormat ion -seeking questions, there are rhetorical questions which are intended to provide information. For example:

( S) no you know that it is 12.30 ?

There are various k inds of rhetorica 1 questions. First of a1 1, the communicative function of do-yor:-know introductions, of the above example,consists in capturing the interest of the hearer. The intention of the speakeris to give emphasisto someparticular point. SecondIy, tn a rhetorical question, the speaker considers the propositional content he is going to utter to be trivial or well-known. For example:

(+) Vtro else burns a cheque if not an idiot? The discoursefunction of questions 109

Thirdly, in a rhetoricalquestion a constituentis given emphatic prorninenceand getsa uniyersally valid touch.For example:

( 5) \fnat cou1d be morewonderfu 1 than the universe?

Fourthly,rhetorical questions express wonder in an exclamative way,as:

(6) Isn't shePrettyr

(J.ttrmidt-Radefeldt,1977,0n so-ca 1led Rhetorical Questions). Generally,in rhetoricalquestions the speakerdoes not expectan answerfrom the hearer, since the answer is given by the speaker himself. In certaincases even, the hearer is preventedfrom answeringi hcauseof socialor institutional conventions.For example:

( ?) I ask you, carrsuch a man be innocent?

So,rhetorical questions require flo answer,but even if they do the informationchannel is empty.\r/hich meansthat, in contradistinction withthe requestinS information questions,they mlnLmLzethe emphasis onthe information channel and stress the socialrelationships involved (E.N.Goody,Questions and Politeness, p.30). From this point of view,I considerrhetorical questions as oppositesto information questions, sincethe former minimize the emphasison information,while the latterstress the securingof information. If requestinEfor giv ing inf ormation is a parameter that distinguishesthe previous twomodes of questioning,then dominance ofquestioner or respondentis another parameterthat distinSuishes thefoliowing two typesof questions. Thethird type of questions,according to speakers'intentions, is examinationquestions. In this type, one asksa questionnot because heassumes that you have some information that he needs, but becausehe wants to f ind out whether you know the answer.For example:

(A)Vnat time is it? (tfrebig hand is on twelveand the 1itt1ehand is on three)

Here,the speaker knows the answerbut he is not sure if the hearer knowsit or not. So,the questioneris testing the knowledgeof the respondent.There are twokinds of exarninationquestions. First, they areused for didacticpurposes by teachersor teaching-inclinedparents andsuperiors. For example:

(9) Howmany syllables doesthe word Y contain? 110 Angeliki Athanasiadou

Secondly, for interrogation purposes, where questioning aims at establishins a fact and pinning down responsibilities. Used in this sense to question is to test, to chal lenge and to contro 1. Some interrogation questions may be conducive to a positive (10a) or to a negative answer ( 10b). For example:

(10a) \d'eren'tyou at the scerreof the crirne at 10 o'clock?

(10b) You weren't at the sceneof the crime, were you?

Although exam and interrogation questions imply the dominance of the speaker when requirinli an answer, there is a crucial difference between them in that in exam questions the questioner knows the answer, whereas in interrogation guestions the questioner doesn't always know it. But in both cases,the one who asks the question implies the authority to require an appropriate answer. He is thus in a dominant position, whereas the respondent is at a disadvantaSe,since he is presumed to deserve sanctions of a sort if it turns out that his ansv/er is not appropriate. In this type of questions, we have stress on the commandfunction of questions on the part of the questioner. In contradistinction to examination questiofls we have indirect requests characterized by ignorance by the questioner of the answer and his avoidance taking the dominant role. in indirect requests the questioner is asking a question to induce the respondent to act, in other words, they are requests for action ( that is why sometimesno verbat responseis required). Tfrey are polite requests

( I 1) Could you comment on my paper?

(12) Canyou help me? indirect sugQestions

(13) \/ould you mind not making so much noise? invitations

(14) Vould you like to comeand havesorne wine?

A11guestions of indirect requestsleave the initiative with the respondent. They are ut i l ized to p lace the respondent,n ot the questioner,at an advantage,since the questioneremphasizes the respolldent's power to chooseand wishes his agreementto what is being asked-So, the dominantrole is transferred to the respondent, The discoursefunction of questions 111 sincehe doesn't deserve any sanctions for his answer, but on the contraryhe is induced by the questioner to make a decision. Therefore,what the speaker intends to do when an especially politeform is chosen for the request to agree is to deem a specific answer.His purpose is not to have his knowledgeconfirmed but to get thehearer's explicit agreementto the assumption expressed.Onecould arguethat acts of this type of questioning express the questioner's dependenceon the answerer. The speaker behavesas if he is inferior tothehearer,since he expresseshis doubt as to the feasibility of his assumption;the hearer is apparently granted an option becausehe is inducedto make a decision. I assumethat the speech situations in which the above four modesof questioning, according to speakers' intentions, are uttered, aresuff iciently specified. However,other speechsituations are equally possible.Notice that I by no means want to suggestthat the list is exhaustive.Nor do i want to claim that thecateSoriesare distinctive; overlappings are quite possible (f or example, examination and rhetorica1 questions are known inf ormation questions ). \f hat is importantis to recal1 that questions may have various functions and thatinformation asking and givin$, as well as dominance of questioner or respondent,are only two of them.

3-The Use of the Four llodes of Questioning

I have so f ar tried to examine the conditions under which variousmodes of questioning in English are possible.The classification of questionswas basedon the speakers' intentions when utterin$ a questionand on the functions that questions perform. i have tried to showthat questioning invo lves not on ly asking f or and giying informationbut it also carries a dominancefunction on the part of the questioneror the respondent. As it wili be seen from the analysis of corpus,different modesof questioning exist in the types of corpus, due to different functions questions perform but also due to different krndsof relationships betweenthe speakers. Thus, on the one hand, I am concerned with the functions questionsperform and, on the other hand, with the effect of social status(in the senseof hierarchy or position in a social system) on the meaningassigned to the act of asking a question. I also examine the constraintsimposed by status on the use of questions. So,the demand for an answer has quite different implications from an academicto a prospectivestudent, between friends or between colleaSues. These modesof questioning constitute a list of available interrogative strate{ies. I1y conclusions are based on the resu lts of an analys is of authenticconversations taken from A Corpus of English Conversation r12 Angeliki Athanasiadou by J.Svartvik and R.Quirk 1980.The major advantageof such corpus is natural languagedialogues. It has also the main virtue of dealing with longlerpragmatic units than utterances. Three specimensof the corpus of this edition were selected,each of 5000 words of genuine face-to- face conversation by native British speakers.The three specimens under investigation were selected,because they presented different relationships between the speakers involved in the conversation (between rnale colleagues,female friends and between an academic and a prospective undergraduate). In each corpus, the four main modesof questioning are identif ied as we1l as the functions they perform; finally the relationship between these functions and the roles of the speakers. Startins with examination questions,of corpus S.3 5., where we have an official academic interview of a male prospective undergraduate of 18 years old by two membersof faculty; they are both male academicsof 40 years o1d.Outof 550 propositions,4l are questions. 34 of them are examination questions, 4 are information seeking questions and 3 are rhetorical questions. The academics'role(or generally the teachers')in our society,in casesof official interviews, carries the right to test the students' knowledge,and to eventually imposesanctions or advise them in cases of inappropriate responses.Communication with people in such roles is structured by controllin! intentions. It is this control factor which determines the meanings of their questions. The questions from the academicsto the student are perceived as "exarniflation" questiorls, becausethey hold the student responsible for knowing the correct answer _ The use of questions in this situation is characterized by the different roles speakersplay. The intentions of the two academicsare to test the underSraduate's knowledge,seeking to control him. The conversational goal is to check if his knowledge is appropriate for entering the course. indeed, in the specific corpus, they put him on trial asking mainly examination questions one after the other. There are two inforrnation questions in the beginning of the corpus which are used to maniputate the student into acceptin€ a view:

( 1) Is that your f avourite form f or modernreading or modernentertainment in English literature?

( B) And what do you like readingnovels or poetry most?

They seemto be pure informationseeking questions but in reality they are also control oriented.They introduce the examination questionsthat fol1ow.The other two information questionsare on The discoursefunction of questions 113

generalmatters, and are found in the end of the cofpus, a way of somehowending the interview.

( 510)Are thereany questionsfou want to ask?

( 51B) Dopeople have to seethe tutor?

Theacademics-student relationship is defined in terms of status inequality with superiority to the academics'role; they are the ones whopossess knowledge and to possessknowledge is to have power. Thepower and the superiority of the role of the two academicsto the undergraduateare shown by the heavy command load carried by thetr questions.For example:

(140) Have you any commentto makeupon the conclusion?

(IJZ) Can you remember what the officer says?

( 166) \fhy do you praise this bookso highly, not just becauseof its structure?

(18?) \'r/hatdo you mean by dramatic?

Ve have,though, tv/o instances of an inversiou of the relationship. The prospectiveundergraduate student asks two rhetorical questions, holdingthe instructor responsible for the difficulty or the ambiguity of thequestion.

(45) !/e11,after Murder in the Cathedral he wrote a preface,didn't he?

(470) He'susing the the word f iguratively, isn't he? 's Here,the question itse1f imp lies the student r ight to ho 1d the academicsresponsible in respect to the information content of the question- an inversion of the prescribed status relationship.One can alsosee how very cautious he is on the mode of his questioningi, thinkingobviously of the implications of his questioning. Termslike "authority", "powef" or "dominance" of the questioner onthe respondent underlie the planning of a social interaction like the onerepresented in this corpus. Dominance,which is the ability to controlothers, is closely linked to hierarchy and status. That is why theacademics are recognizd to have the right to control the students throughtheir questions.One has the impressron that a high control componentpersists, regard less of the mode adopted. The t wo r74 Angeliki Athanasiadou academicswho are in high -status roles use setreral modes of questioning to send messagesabout their authority. They open the interview with two information questions on very Seneral matters in which the student answers with no difficulty. Then they becomemore specific asking detailed descriptions and criticism. This high control moderuns the greatestpart of the interaction in which rnany times the student needs to defend himself or to admit he doesn't know. in this part, the social distance betweenthe academicsand the student is evident- As it is known linked to "authority" is "degireesof distance " imposed by the questioner to the respondent. It is this fact which dres not a11owthe student to ask but a very limited number of questions in interactions like the above. The next corpus (S.e.12.) is between a fernale EFL teacher of.25 years and a f emale medical nurse of 23 years old. Out of I I 44 propositions 33 questions are identif ied . I4 of.them are information questions, I 1 are indirect requests, 5 are rhetorica 1 and 3 are examination questions. The intimacy factor, the cooperationand the informal character of the discussion are evident; there is no status inequality as in the previous corpus, but an intimate relationship between two female friends. They discuss practically everything (personal problerns,work related problerns,. .) Iluch is left unspoken in their discussion because familiarity a11owseach person to anticipate what the other meansby allusive phrases.So, parts of their speechcan be unintelligible. But the interest ing th ing about this corpus is when one of the speakers narrates a specific experienceof her own..It'san interaction between herself , who is lookinglfor a part-time job and an employer. However, the narration of the event itself which is a transition to another situation, is characterizedby formality. In these cases,questions of indirect requests are used more readily than asking directly for information. The conversational Soal of the narrated event is to mock the situation experienced by one of the speakers.The dialogue between one of the girls and the eventual employer is vividly presented with a 1otof details. Questionsof indirect requests are askedfrom both parts, the employer's part as well as the employee's,but from a different perspective.The employer, who is in a superior status, uses mainly questions of indirect requests,as

(5BB)Vould you like to comeand meet us?

(684)Vould that bepossible?

( ?32)Vhat aboutuniform? Thediscourse function of quesnons 115

(836)'Would i start the next day?

Thiselaborate questioning is employed to mask his power in order to allowthe employeeto interact effectively. So,he maskshis power and placesthe respondent at an advantaglebecause he seeks her agreementto what is being asked.In all these cases,the questioner (theemployer) leaves the decision for certain actions to be taken by therespondent. Although they seemto ask for information, in reality theyare requests for action. The questioner wants the respondent to dosomething and this is asked in a f orma 1 way as it is seen in the corpus.The prospective employee,on the other hand, uses a question of indirect request to ask politely about the nature of the job:

( 649) Could you te11me what the job is? but for the samepurpose she also uses an information question;

(Z0t) \fnat doesthe nursing involve?

Sinceshe is given by the questioner the advantageto choose,she asks aquestionof indirect request whosefunction is to makesuSsestions to theemployer, because she disa{rees with his proposals:

(876) \fhy didn't you have a district nurse in and get a proper domestic in?

Somethingthat should be emphasizedis the distance between indirect questions,which is due to intermediate comments of the speakersor toother types of questions which intervene. So it takes a long time for thespeaker to f inish the narration of her experience. It has been maintained that the purpose of questions is to elicit information(we ask questions to get answers).However, the implicit meaninsof a sentence may be quite different from that conveyed by its overt form. Thus, in asking questions with certain kinds of intentions,a person intends not only to communicatemearring but also toactively inf luence the hearer in some way. Here, the employer intendsto secure the employee's alireementand cooperation to what heasks. The employee,on the other hand, who rejects the employer's proposalsintends to make suggestionsand possibly to annoy him by usingquestions of indirect requests. The next corpus (S 1.1) is betweentwo male academicsof 44 and 60years old. They are colleaguesin the sameinstitution and discuss eyerypossib le top ic concerning the organization of the department (examinations,undergraduate and postgraduate students, other colleagues).The setting is very cooperative.it is neither friendly, since no personal matters are discussed, nor competitive, as one would L76 Angeliki Athanasiadou expect to be between co1leagues. The rhetor ica1 questions of th is corpus are all questions asked with no interrtion of obtaining an arr.swer.Nameiy, the corrversationalgoal is to provide eachother with the indicated information and to secure cooperation in future enterprises. Dut of I210 propositions, 31 questions are identif ied. 17 of them are information questiorr.s,10 are rhetorical, 3 are indirect requests and 1 is examination question. The rhetorical questions of this corpus (just as the examination questions of the first corpus) are not considered genuine questions, becausethe questioner in any case knows the answer. The function of these questions is to hold the attention of the listerrer. Sometimesthe intention of the speaker is to give prominence to a particular argument, as:

(545) Wasit. did you say you were geingto B.?

(356)'Wouldn't advertising be just as goodor or testing these people with lexical sets and semanticf ie lds?

The above rhetorical questions are used to emphasizethe particular nature of the message,the main intention being to enhance the interest and attention of the hearer in (856) an obvious conclusion is drawn from the co-participant's previous utterances without ever having been doubted by both the speakerand hearer. Rhetorical questions may express reproach or wonder, as:

(354) And he might say well why doeshe want to comefrom LN. to B.?

(356) \,r/hatadvantage does he getz

( 360) And if he's not happy there. is there any chancethat he'd be any happier at B.?

In (360) as well as in ( 856) the propositional content is presented for ratif ication in a negatively formulated sentence.The negation draws attention to the speaker's aff irmat ive att itude towards the propositional content and to his expectation of ratif ication by the hearer. Rhetorical questions may also express an immediateconcern, in other words the questioner is personally engagedor concerned with the situation:

(998) l/hy should wetest the two things together? The discoursefunction of questions tL7

( 1000)Then why introduceparaphrase?

Thus,the speakerof a rhetorical questiondoes not expectthe hearer toanswer, and what is more,he would in certain situations not even vantthe hearer to answer for fear of not getting the answerthat is in accordancewith the presupposedtruth of the oppositeproposition of hisquestion t(856), (354), (gf 0), (ggB),(t oo0)1.rnese questions no longerdemand the hearer to agreeto or contradict the truth of the proposition,but are confirmation-seekingquestions. The speaker intendsto ascertainthat the proposition is known, fami liar and presentto the hearer'smind. Vhen they function asexclamations t$+5), (1000)1,they alsoset up0r ascertaina stateof agreementbetween speaker and hearer.The surpriseexhibited in exclamationsis a result of the discrepancy betweenthe speaker'sexpectations and the actual occurrence.This mayindicate as we1la changefrom the old to the new assumption.In exclamations,the assumptionsdo not concernthe event or stateitself (itscontent or truth-value) but the extent and degreeof its changeor modification. As a feneral remark one could say that in rhetorical questions thespeaker is unmistakablyaff irrnative towards the proposition,i.e. thesentence is assertory.Semantically, the rhetorical questionis "a questionwhich functions as a forceful statement"(Quirk et a11973, p.200).Accordingly, a speakerusing a rhetorical questionanticipates ratification by the hearer,and thus, alsoanticipates consensus between himselfand the hearer. Fina1ly,information seeking1questions, often namedgenuine questionssince the intention of the speakeris to elicit information. Thequestioner does not know the answer to his question and he assurnesthat his interlocutor knows the answer. For this modeof questioningl,no extra corpus wasanalysed. My observationsare based onthe information seekingquestions of the three previous types of corpus,where in total we have ZgA4propositions from which 105are questions.35 of them are information questions.Through this modeof questioningl,information is securedand orgianized;questioning is about information:

S.1.1 . (+47)How much are they?

(lOt) Howdo I takethem?

(503) Do I take them in a glassof water?

Requestsfor inforrnation also express an immediateconcern (as rhetorica 1 quest ions) : 118 Angetiki Athanasiadou

S.1.1.(SB) But howare you goingto beplaced?

(t O+0)How do you geton with this fellow?

S.2.1Z. (496) \fhat wasthe interview?

( t Ogg)So what sort's this f lat you're in at the mornent?

SeekinSto extract rules for the use of informationquestions in the three types of corpus, it is the status which is signif icant. Information is mostreadily obtainedfrom personsin an equivalent status (the two male academics,the two female friends). That is, peopleask informationquestions most readily of thosein a simitar status.So, information questions carry the leastpo\der when they are addressedto status equals. According to the results of the corpora invmtigated, information is rarely obtainedfrom personsof different status,and if it is, it is obtainedonly indirectly:

S.3.5(:t 0) - Rightwe11, are there any questionsyou want to ask us I1r Blake? No,I don't think so,o.o.

AlthouSh the prospective undergraduate student is urged by one of the academicsto ask questions, he denies to do so. Apart from hierarchy of status basedon age,sex, position, there are also other factors which intervene between status and questioning for information. Firstly, necessity to secure information quickly in casesof intimacy-This factor is met in corpus S.2.12(between the two female friends) which consists of two parts. In the f irst part, where they discuss various personal rnatters, rnost of the information questions Ere identified. In the secondpart, where one of the speakers narrates her conversation with a stranger (prospective employer), we have the use of questions of indirect requests than askingdirectly for information. So,the contrast betweenthe two parts of the parts is due to different status relationships. Secondly, cooperation in a process between colleaguesmet in corpus S.1.1.In this case,the two academicsmay not be closefriends but they need cooperation, since they work together and face the same problems - parameters which justify the use of information questions (apart from rhetorical). This dimension miSht be described as intimacy / cooperativity at one extreme,and casual public relations / formality at the other. The discoursefunction of questions 179

4- Concludiag Rernarks

Questionsare not only about information. Looking at dif ferent typesof corpus (different from the point of view of people involved in it and the kinds of interaction), orle is led to wonder about the complexnature of questions. This led me to set out the multiplicity of meaningsattached to questions and to show how c losely status relationsare linked to meanings of questions. i thus concentratedon settingout the multiplicity of meanings attachedto questioning in termsof speakers'intentions, under four main kinds of questions. in askinga question, a speaker intends not only to get information or to communicatean experience or an event, but also to impose his inf luenceorr his hearer or to undergo the hearer's inf luence. Questionshave a number of functions. According to the data of thespecific corpora, when information is requested we have the expressionof immediate concern, when giving of information is performedby rhetorical questions, we have emphasisand prominence toaparticular messagein order to hold the attention of the hearer. The function of examination questions is to control the responderit'sknowledge, while questions of indirect requests function asrequests for action taken by the respondent. Any of the abovefunctional features may motivate questioning. Butquestions carry messagesabout relationships (about status, i.e. assertionsof status and challenges to status). So,questioning carries a commandfunction apart from asking for information. Vhat is then the relationship between the messagesquestions carry in a given corpus andconstraints on questioning. Examining the relationship betweenthe modesof questions and the status of the speakers involved in the questionact, one seesthat the different modesof questioning are not equally available to everyon.e.Information is easily obtained by friendsor by speakersof equal status, while it is rarely or indirectly obtainedby a student to an academicfor example.0n the other hand, thesocial distance betweenan academicand a student is functional for testingor challensing purposes, although the authority of the questioner is heavi ly imposed on the respondent. Formality characterizesthe use of questions of indirect requests and social relationshipsthe use of rhetorical questions. 120 Angeliki Athanasiadou

REEERENCES

Baumert,11, ( 19?7) Classif ication of EnglishQuestion -Answer Structures.Journal of Pragmatics1: 85-92.

Bublitz,V'. (1 981) Conduciveyes-no questions in English. Linguistics1Q: 851 -70

Engdahl,E. ( 1985) Interpreting questions. In D.R.Dowty, L.Karttunenand A.l1.Zwtcky (eds), Natural languagg parsin€.CUP.

Fauconnier,G. (t gA0)Pragmatic entailment and questions.In J.R.Searle,F.Kiefer and }l.Bierwisch(eds), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics.D.Reidel Publishins Company.

Fillmore, Ch.(t gA6ms) 0n GrammaticalConstructions. Department of Linguistics,University of California,Berketey.

Goody,E.N. ( 1I78) Questionsand Politeness. CUP.

Harris, A. (1 98Z)Towards the universals of Q-wordquestion formation.In R.Schneider,K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers from the Parasessionon Nondeclaratives.Chicago Linf,uistic Society,

Hintikka,J. (1 982)Questions with outsidequantifiers. In R.Schneider, K.Tuite,R.Chametzky (eds), Papers from the Parasessionon Nondeclara tives .Chicago L ingu istic Society.

Htz,H. ( 197 8) Questions.D.Reidel Pub lishinS Company.

Hudson,R.A. (1975) The meaning of questions.Language 51, 1.

Hu11,R.D. ( 1975) A semanticsfor superficial and embeddedquestions in natural languaf,e.In E.L.Keenan(eo), Formal semantics of natural langu4e.CUP.

Huntley, 11.( 19BZ)imperatives and infinitival embeddedquestions. In R.Schneider,I(.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers from the Parasess:tonon Nondeclaratives. Chicaglo L inguistic Society.

I(eenan,E.L., R.D.Hu 11 ( 1I73) The logicalpresuppositions of questions and ansv/ers.In J.S.Petofi, D.Franck(ed), Prasuppositionen in The discoursefunction of questions 127

Philosophieund Linguistik.Athenbum Vorlag.

Kiefer,F.(1980) Yes-no questions as wh-questions.In J.R.Searle, F.I(ieferand Il.Bierwisch(eds), Speech Act Theoryand PragmaticsD.Reidel Publishing Company.

Kiefer,F (t gB1)Questions and Attitudes. In \,rl.I(leinand V.J.m. Levelt(eds), Crossing the Boundariesin Linguistics.D.Reidel PublishingCompany.

Kiefer,F (t 983)Questions and Answers. D.Reidel Publishing Company

Kiefer,F. (1987) Two studies on Questions.In Studiesin Lan€uage. 1I -2,459 -6 g.

Kim,A.H. (t gAZ) A universal of wh-questionsand its parametric variants.In R.Schneider,K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers frorn theParasession on Nondeclaratives.Chicago Linguistic Srciety.

Kuno,S (t 9BZ)The focus of the questionand the frcus of the answer. in R.Schneider,K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives. ch icagpLinSu istic Srciety.

Lakoff, R. (1973) Questionable answers and answerablequestions. In B.B.Kachru,R.Lees, Y.Xalkie1, A.Pietrangeli and S.Saporta (eds),Issues in Linguistics.Papers in Honorof H.andRKahane. University of Illinois Press.

Lyons,J ( 19? ?) SemanticsII. CUP.?4 5- 68. llathiot,11. (1 9BZ) Book review, E.N.Goody (ed) Questions and Politeness.Journal of Pragmatics6,1.

Ilittwoch,A. ( 1g?9)Final parentheticalswith Englishquestions - their illocutionary function and grarrmar.Journal of Pragmatics_1, 401-412.

Iloeschler,J. ( 1g86) Review article. Answersto questionsabout questionsand answers. Journal of Pra€maticstO,227-2J3.

Paduceva,E.V. (t ggb)Question-answer correspondence and the semanticsof questions.In J.L.lley(ed), Linguistic and literary studiesin easternEurope, vol.1Q. LanguaEle and discourse.Test andprotest. A Festschriftfor Petr Sgal1.John Benjarrrins PublishingCompany. lZZ Angeliki Athanasiadou

Pavlidou,Th (1 98b)Sha11 I ask something? Questions in the subjunctive.Studies in GreekLinguistics, 233-249.

Quirk, R. and S.Greenbaum( 1 973). A University Grammarof English. Longman.

Rakic,S. (1984) Serbo-croatian yes/no questions and speech acts. Journalof PragmaticsB, 693 -713.

Schmidt-Radefeldt,J. (1977)0n so-calledrhetorical questions. Jouroelof Pra€maticsI ,37 5-392.

Schmidt-Radefeldt,J., Gunter Todt ( t gAt) noot review.N_DBelnap, Jr and Th.B.Stee1, Jr. The logicof questionsand answers.Journal of Pragmatics5, I.

Scotton,C. and H.0wsley(1gBZ) \fhat aboutpowerful questions. In R.Schneider,K.Tuite, R.Chametzky (eds), PaFrs from the Parasession on Nondec lara ti ves.Ch ica go Lingu istic Society.

Vunderlich, D (t 9S1)Questions about questions. In \f .Kleinand \d'.ry. Levelt (eds),Crossing the Boundariesin Linguistics=D.Reidel Publishing Comparry.

Yadugiri,11.A. (1986) Some pragmatic implications of the useof YES and N0 in responseto YES-N0questions. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 1gg-21 0-