Strengthening the antecedent, concessive conditionals, conditional rhetorical questions, and the theory of conditional elements

Ortiz, Héctor Hernández; Fulda, Joseph S.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.002

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4, No. 1;2014 information from the hearer in posing rhetorical questions. Instead, he or she is making statements by asking rhetorical questions; second, on the basis of the theory of speech act metonymy put forward by Thornburg and Panther (1997), Thornburg (1998, 1999), the RQ scenario was established.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hyun-Oak (2011) analyzed a lexical item ketun in modern Korean, showing that rhetorical questions play an intriguing catalyst role in the grammaticalization process. Ortiz and Fulda (2012) demonstrates how the problem of strengthening the antecedent which is both formally valid and yet frequently intuitively invalid, concessive conditionals and conditional rhetorical questions fit into the theory of conditional elements. It goes without saying that these productive studies done so far do benefit our understanding of rhetorical questions in various aspects; however, there still exists some room for further exploration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…4, No. 1;2014 argumentative non-standard questions: expository questions, rhetorical questions and echo questions. She concludes that among the three types, rhetorical questions are more argumentative, because they imply that the speaker is firmly committed to their implied answer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Cognitive Pragmatic Study of Rhetorical Questions

Wang¹

2014

ELLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the previous researches on rhetorical questions are quite extensive, the inherent mechanism of rhetorical questions is yet to be explored. This study established the scenario of rhetorical questions making statements (called the RQ scenario) which is composed of three components: the BEFORE-the speaker disagrees with the hearer, considering the hearer's utterance or action as unreasonable, inappropriate and the like and wants the hearer to accept his or her opinion or perform the required action; the CORE-the speaker challenges the hearer to agree with him or her or do the required action and its immediate RESULT-the hearer is challenged to agree with the speaker or do something as is required; and the AFTER-the hearer will agree with the speaker or do the action as required. It is held that in the RQ scenario, each component bears a metonymic relationship to the other components and to the whole. So, by highlighting one of the three components of the scenario, the speaker is making statements when asking rhetorical questions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Cognitive Pragmatic Study of Rhetorical Questions

Wang¹

2014

ELLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Implicit deixis

Ruthrof

2015

Language Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncivil Twitter

Terkourafi

Catedral²,

Haider

et al. 2018

JLAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using four tweets by Steven Salaita about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that resulted in the retraction of his academic job offer in September 2014 as our case study, we investigate the role of Twitter in the shaping and reception of the controversial messages. Our analysis combines Gricean pragmatics with im/politeness and hate-speech research to reveal a complex layering of potential meanings stemming from what is linguistically encoded in each tweet. Their construal as hate speech, in particular, depends on which of these potential meanings critics chose to focus upon. We account for this finding by considering the diversity of potential audiences of a tweet and suggest that the effects of context collapse on implicated meanings can be especially detrimental. Competition for attention among incoming tweets, Twitter’s central affiliative function and applicable length restrictions can, nevertheless, place a premium on communicating such meanings.

show abstract

Strengthening the antecedent, concessive conditionals, conditional rhetorical questions, and the theory of conditional elements

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

A Cognitive Pragmatic Study of Rhetorical Questions

A Cognitive Pragmatic Study of Rhetorical Questions

Implicit deixis

Uncivil Twitter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About