Article published In: On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 148–180
What is this, sarcastic syntax?
Published online: 24 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
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).
References (29)
Arregi, K. (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.
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T.A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
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.
Thompson, S.A., & Hopper, P.J. (2001). Transitivity, clause structure and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 28–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (20)
Cited by 20 other publications
Michaelis, Laura A.
2024. Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive. Constructions and Frames 16:2 ► pp. 278 ff.
Michaelis, Laura A.
Seraku, Tohru
Lehmann, Claudia
2023. Multimodal markers of irony in televised discourse. In Multimodal Im/politeness [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 333], ► pp. 251 ff.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko & Shoichi Iwasaki
Lehmann, Claudia & Alexander Bergs
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
Tobin, Vera
Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
2022. Intersubjectification in constructional change. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 95 ff.
MINO, TAKASHI
Dong, Chengru & Dawei Jin
Põldvere, Nele & Carita Paradis
PÕLDVERE, NELE & CARITA PARADIS
Alm, Maria, Janina Behr & Kerstin Fischer
Celle, Agnès
2018. Questions as indirect speech acts in surprise contexts. In
Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 197], ► pp. 213 ff.
Nikiforidou, Kiki
Nikiforidou, Kiki
Vergaro, Carla
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 1. Exploitingwh-questions for expressive purposes. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 18 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.
