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).
(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.
(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 1 july 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.