 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
122
In the pronominal ("special") question, the nucleus of inquiry is expressed by an interrogative pronoun. The
pronoun is immediately connected with the part of the sentence denoting the object or phenomenon about
which the inquiry ("condensed" in the pronoun) is made. The gaping pronominal meaning is to be replaced in
the answer by the wanted actual information. Thus, the rheme of the answer is the reverse substitute of the
interrogative pronoun: the two make up a rhematic unity in the broader question-answer construction. As for
the thematic part of the answer, it is already expressed in the question, therefore in common speech it is usually
zeroed. E.g.:
"Why do you think so?" - "Because mostly I keep my eyes open, miss, and I talk to people" (A. Hailey).
The superpositional rhematic test for the pronominal question may be effected in the following periphrastic-
definitional form: > The question about your thinking so is: why?
For the sake of analytical convenience this kind of superposition may be reduced as follows: > You think
so - why?
Compare some more pronominal interrogative superpositions:
What happens to a man like Hawk Harrap as the years go by? (W. Saroyan). >To a man like Hawk Harrap,
as the years go by-what happens? How do you make that out, mother? (E.M. Forster)
>
You make that out,
mother,-how? How's the weather in the north? (D. du Maurier) >The weather in the north-how is it? What's
behind all this? (A. Hailey) >Behind all this is-what?
The rheme of non-pronominal questions is quite different from the one described. It is also open, but its
openness consists in at least two semantic suggestions presented for choice to the listener. The choice is
effected in the response; in other words, the answer closes the suggested alternative according to the
interrogative-rhematic programme inherent in it. This is clearly seen in the structure of ordinary, explicit
alternative questions. E.g.: Will you take it away or open it here? (Th. Dreiser)
The superposition of the utterance may be presented as follows: >You in relation to it-will take (it) away,
will open (it) here?
The alternative question may have a pronominal introduction, emphasizing the open character of its rheme.
Cf.:
In which cave is the offence alleged, the Buddhist or the Jain? (E.M. Forster)
The superposition: > The offence is alleged - in the Buddhist cave, in the Jain cave?
Thus, in terms of rhematic reverse substitution, the pronominal question is a question of unlimited
substitution choice, while the alternative question is a question of a limited substitution choice, the substitution
of the latter kind being, as a rule, expressed implicitly. This can be demonstrated by a transformation applied to
the first of the two cited examples of alternative questions: Will you take it away or open it here? >Where will
you handle it - take it away or open it here?
The non-pronominal question requiring either confirmation or negation ("general" question of yes-
response type) is thereby implicitly alternative, though the inquiry inherent in it concerns not the choice
between some suggested facts, but the choice between the existence or non-existence of an indicated fact. In
other words, it is a question of realized rhematic substitution (or of "no substitution choice"), but with an open
existence factor (true to life or not true to life?), which makes up its implicitly expressed alternative. This can
be easily shown by a superposition: Are they going to stay long? > They are going to stay - long, not long?
The implicit alternative question can be made into an explicit one, which as a rule is very emphatic, i.e.
stylistically "forced". The negation in the implied alternative part is usually referred to the verb. Cf:. >Are they
going to stay long, or are they not going to stay long?
The cited relation of this kind of question to interrogative reverse substitution (and, together with it, the
open character of its rheme) is best demonstrated by the corresponding pronominal transformation: > How
long are they going to stay - long (or not long)?
As we see, the essential difference between the two types of alternative questions, the explicit one and the
implicit one, remains valid even if the latter is changed into an explicit alternative question (i.e. into a
stylistically forced explicit alternative question). This difference is determined by the difference in the
informative composition of the interrpgative constructions compared.
In general terms of meaning, the question of the first type (the normal explicit alternative question) should
be classed as the alternative question of fact, since a choice between two or more facts is required by it; the
question of the second type (the implicit alternative question) should be classed as the alternative question of
truth, since it requires the statement of truth or non-truth of the indicated fact. In terms of actual division, the
question of the first type. should be classed as the polyperspcctive alternative question (bipcrspective,
tripcrspcctive, etc.), because it presents more than one informative perspectives (more than one actual