here - 5th International Conference on Bantu Languages

Functions of Rhetorical Questions in Rangi (F.33)
Oliver Stegen, SIL <strong>International</strong>, oliver_stegen@sil.org
Abstract for 5 th <strong>International</strong> Bantu Language <strong>Conference</strong> at Paris, June 12-15, 2013
The study described in this paper grew out of a particular concern in a project of translation and
literature development for the Rangi language. It had been observed that the project’s Rangi
translators, when encountering rhetorical questions (RQs) in the source text, often translated
these as RQs into Rangi, claiming that RQs were both natural in Rangi and common in all
contexts. To verify that claim, an investigation of RQs in the project corpus was undertaken
which includes a primer, a story booklet, 71 texts collected during writer’s workshops in
2005/2006, and 15 texts collected for a discourse workshop in 2010.
A survey of the literature on RQs reveals a gap that should be filled: RQs are often defined
only negatively as “question[s] for which the speaker does not request an answer from the
addressee” (Hackstein 2004: 167), a definition w<strong>here</strong>by various functionally quite dissimilar
phenomena are joined into a single category. Most existent typologies of RQs do not seem to
comprehensively differentiate RQ functions. Correspondingly, studies of RQs in Bantu
languages (e.g. Zerbian 2006) also do not sufficiently distinguish the functions of RQs. This
paper aims to contribute both to a functional typology of RQs and to the application of such a
typology to Bantu languages.
In addition to a primary distinction between RQs with discourse functions and RQs with social
functions (Hackstein 2004), all RQs in the Rangi corpus have been categorised with regard to
medium, length and genre of the text in which they occur, speaker and addressee(s), and
question form and question words used.
RQs are indeed not an infrequent feature in Rangi; 37 of 106 texts contain at least one RQ.
However, the functional range of RQs found in the corpus is not as broad as claimed by the
Rangi translators in general. The absolute majority of RQs occurring in dialogue expresses
rebuke (cf. example 1) w<strong>here</strong>as most RQs occurring in monologue express uncertainty or doubt
(cf. example 2).
1. sà tɕɛ́ ʊ̀lʊ́ːᵑgʊ́ɾî:ɾʲɛ̀ íbǎːⁿdɛ̀ ráːnɪ ́
for what 2sg:burn:PRF:CAUS 5:grasshopper 5:1sg:POSS
‘Why have you burned my grasshopper?’ implying: You should not have burned it.
2. kɔ̀ːnɪ ̀ sìːᵐbà jʊ̌ːdʑìɾɛ̀ ⁿdʊ̀ːsɛ́ tɕɛ́
when 9:lion 9:come:PRF 1sg:say:SBJV what
‘When the lion comes what should I say?’ implying: I don’t know what to say.
Apart from showing this typologically relevant distinction between RQs in dialogue and RQs in
monologue, the paper also discusses the role of the speaker (e.g. narrator versus participant)
and the role of genre (narrative versus hortatory). The paper concludes with an outline of
distinguishing factors for a functional typology of RQs and with a summary which of the
established categories occur specifically in Rangi.
References
Hackstein, O. 2004. Rhetorical questions and the grammaticalization of interrogative pronouns
as conjunctions in Indo-European. In A.Hyllested, A.R. Jørgensen, J.H. Larsson & T. Olander
(eds.). Per Aspera Ad Asteriscos. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 167-186.
Zerbian, S. 2006. Questions in Northern Sotho. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: 257-280.
GS