Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T21:23:21.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The contrast between interrogatives and questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2009

Rodney Huddleston
Rodney Huddleston*
Affiliation:
The University of Queensland
*
Department of English, The University of Queensland, Australia4072. E-mail: rodney@au.oz.uq.cltr.lingua
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the relation between interrogative, a category of grammatical form, and question, a category of meaning. Interrogative contrasts with declarative, imperative, etc., in the system of clause type (not sentence type); a question defines a set of answers. Two kinds of interrogative are distinguished, closed and open -though in some languages they may be distinct primary classes. Three kinds of question are distinguished according to the way the set of answers is defined: polar, alternative and variable questions; another dimension distinguishes information from direction questions. Mismatches between interrogatives and questions are found in the areas of coordination, parentheticals, echoes and questions signalled only prosodically. Mismatches between interrogative phrases and questioned elements are also investigated.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , September 1994, pp. 411 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baker, C. L. (1989). English syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bollinger, D. (1978). Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In Hiż, H. (ed.) Questions. Dordrecht: Reidel. 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1984). Russian. In Chisholm, W. S. Jr. (ed.) Interrogativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 7–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. (1991). A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1991). A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, D. E. (1971). The grammar of emotive and exclamatory sentences in English. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 8. viii–110.Google Scholar
Elliott, D. E. (1974). Toward a grammar of exclamations. Foundations of Language 11.231–246.Google Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1987). Intonation and speech act type: an experimental approach to rising intonation in queclaratives. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 483–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1988). On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1991). An introduction to English grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1979). Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 279–326.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1987). Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. (1985). The syntax and semantics of wh-Constructions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1993 a). On exclamatory-inversion sentences. Lingua 90. 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1993 b). Remarks on the construction You won't believe who Ed has married. Lingua 91. 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntley, M. (1982). Imperatives and infinitival embedded questions. In Chametzky, R., Schneider, R. & Tuite, K. (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 93–106.Google Scholar
Jacobson, S. (1987). Is Am I happy! an exclamatory question? Studier i Modern Språkvetenskap 8. 42–45.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Robinson, J. J. (1972). Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 463–487.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 181–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, N. (1973). Boy! Is syntax easy? Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 366–377.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. (ed.) Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 261–280.Google Scholar
Ohlander, S. (1986). Question-orientation versus answer-orientation in English interrogative clauses. In Kastovksy, D. & Szwedek, A. (eds.) Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 963–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onions, C. T. (1971). Modern English syntax. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B. (eds.) The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 98–129.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1928). A grammar of Late Modern English. (Part I.) Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. M. & Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Shopen, T. (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description. (Vol. I.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155–196.Google Scholar
Scheurweghs, G. (1959). Present-day English syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 59–82.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.-in-chief). (1990). Collins Cobuild English grammar. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1990). On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua 81. 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1890). A new English grammar. (Part I.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Urmson, J. O. (1952). Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61. 480–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1988). Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Dancy, J., Moravczik, J. & Taylor, C. (eds.), Human agency: language, duty and value. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. (1969). A handbook of English grammar. (5th edn.) London: Longmans.Google Scholar