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: - В»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? p align="justify"> 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? p align="justify"> 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 program 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? p align="justify"> The alternative question may have a pronominal introduction, emphasising 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? p align="justify"> 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? p align="justify"> The non-pronominal question requiring either confirmation or negation ("generalВ« question of yes-no 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 realised 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? p align="justify"> The implicit alternative question can be made into an explicit one, which as a rule is very emphatic, ie 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? p align="justify"> 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)? p align="justify"> 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 (ie into a stylistically forced explicit alternative question). This difference is determined by the difference in the informative composition of the interrogative constructions compared. p align="justify"> 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 s...
