A functional description of questions 103is not giving B a piece of information but rather seeking information. It
is equivalent to ‘Where is this address?’. Finally, E’s utterance in (35) is
a declarative plus a questioning particle. This kind of surface form commonly
realizes a confirmation-seeking Elicitation. But in this particular context,
its function is obviously not to seek confirmation since what it appears to
seek confirmation of has already been given in the preceding utterance
and there does not appear to be any hitch in communication between E
and F. E’s utterance is therefore seeking further information about obtaining
the book from New York. Hence we can say that the arrowed utterances
in (31)–(35) all realize the same discourse function. Let us call them
‘Elicit:inform’.
There is a kind of Elicit:inform which needs discussion here: that in
which the addressee is invited to supply a piece of information which the
speaker already possesses. It is the kind of Elicitation performed in the
classroom where the teacher checks to see if the pupils know the answer.
The function of this type of Elicit:inform is very different from that in
social discourse. A comparison of the following three exchanges will highlight
the difference:
36 T: What is the time?
P: It’s ten o’clock.
T: Well done.
37 A: What’s the time?
B: Ten o’clock.
?A: That’s right.
38 (Coulthard and Brazil 1981:90)
A: What time did you come in last night?
B: About midnight.
A: No, you didn’t.
(36) is a typical classroom exchange: the evaluative third part indicates to
the pupil whether his answer is right or wrong. Its absence would be considered
odd or a clue that the answer is wrong (see Coulthard and Brazil this
volume, Chapter 3). (37) is considered odd because of the presence of the
evaluative third part since it is part of the pragmatic presupposition that the
speaker does not know the answer (see also Searle’s felicity conditions for
‘questions’ in Searle 1979).
As for (38), A’s evaluative utterance is often heard as aggressive. This is
because part of the pragmatic presupposition of B’s response is that the
information provided by B is true and/or is believed by B to be true. By
saying ‘No, you didn’t’ A is challenging this presupposition. When the
context of situation makes it clear that A is not only challenging the presupposition
that the information provided is true, but also the presupposition that B
believes it to be true, then A is in fact challenging B’s sincerity. A’s evaluative
utterance is therefore very face-threatening.