語言的產出與解讀並非一對一的關係，同一句話可以對應到的解讀有很多，反問句在形式上是疑問句，在功能上卻能傳遞發話者的情緒。受話者在解讀時需要釐清發話者在反問句中所傳遞的真實內容，並且依照發話者的期待給予合適的回應。因此分析反問句不能僅限於討論句型本身，應該從語境著手，本文運用關聯理論（Relevance Theory）的核心模式「明示─推理」（ostensive-inferential process）分析反問句（rhetorical question）與上下文的制約關係，期望能發現反問句的言談模式。
前人研究多以白話小說為語料，分析反問句的形式、語意及功能，本文希望能從不同的媒體做為語料來源，從中英訪談節目收集中英語料共200筆。選用訪談節目的理由為最接近日常生活的對話模式，訪談節目是一種半制式化（semi-institutional）的言談，主持人與來賓不需要按照一問一答的話論順序，交際雙方有較多的自由討論不同的主題。這種訪談節目的特色為具有自發性及活力感（Tolson, 2006），可做為觀察母語者語料的媒體。
本文將反問句的上文、反問句以及回應視為一個完整的言談結構，因此分析反問句需要由這三方面同時探討，首先討論反問句的主題，兼談主題中有助於判斷發話者情緒的語言表現。反問句主題分為私人生活、事業表現、他人消息以及現場語境四種。其次討論反問句形式與功能，形式限定為特指問句以及是非問句，其功能分為表達反駁以及尋求認同。最後是反問句的回應則依據前人的分類加以修正後分為「實際答案」、「表面答案」兩類。「實際答案」類就是針對反問句的隱含意義給予回應；「表面答案」類是針對反問句的疑問句形式給予回應。
研究結果顯示反問句的上下文制約具有跨語言的相似性，典型的反問句言談模式是「以特指問句表達反駁得到實際答案」，中英母語者討論私人生活、事業表現兩主題皆偏好使用此組言談模式；現場語境與他人消息可視為次要主題，在私人生活與事業表現兩種主題交替出現，因此現場主題與他人消息出現筆數較少，且反問句的功能傾向尋求認同。由研究結果得出的言談模式可以運用於教學中，讓英語學習者觀察中文母語者在不同主題下使用反問句言談情況再利用自身語言的經驗，進行後設認知學習。

The use of language and its meaning do not always correlate. Under given context, speech can convey various meanings to the addressee. Conversational rules have been derived from verbal interaction by previous researchers, the “Cooperative Principle” described by Grice (1975) being one of the most frequently cited. However, Grice’s principle has certain limits when applied on the process of language production and comprehension. Therefore, Relevance Theory, which is based on psychological theory, could provide a new perspective to analyzing conversation.
In this research, Relevance Theory is used to explain why the speakers use rhetorical questions. “Ostensive-inferential Process”, described by the Relevance Theory, divides a conversation into two parts: “ostensive behavior”, where the addresser uses different forms of language to arouse the addressee’s attention; and “inferential process”, in which the addressee needs to combine new information with cognitive context to understand the underlying implication of the sentences.
This study analyzes 200 rhetorical questions used in Chinese and English talk shows. Talk shows were chosen as resource data, as they share many common features with daily conversation - both are lively and come from spontaneous talks (Tolson, 2006).

The aim of the study is to describe discursive features of rhetorical questions in Chinese and English. Results show that both Chinese and English share four identical features. First, native speakers of both languages prefer to use “past experience” as the context of rhetorical questions, and tend to use “modest tone” in the context. Second, “wh-questions” is preferred to “yes-no questions”. Third, speakers use rhetorical questions to express contradiction rather than seek agreement. Last, in response to rhetorical questions, speakers tend to use “reply” instead of “answer”. Based on results, pedagogical implications are derived.

于天昱（2004）。典型有標記反問句研究兼及對外漢語中的反問句教學（未出版之碩士論文）。東北師範大學，長春市。
于根元（1984）。反問句的性質和作用。中國語文，6，1-7。
王穎（2011）。留學習者特指問反問句運用情況研究（未出版之碩士論文）。華東師範大學，上海市
朱淑儀（2007）。中高級留學習者漢語反問句習得情況考察（未出版之碩士論文）。北京語言大學，北京市。
何自然、冉永平（1998）。關聯理論：認知語用學基礎。現代外語，3，92-107。
何自然、冉永平（2009）。新編語用學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。
何自然、謝朝群、陳新仁（2007）。語用三論︰關聯論、順應論、模因論。上海：上海教育出版社。
吳豔華（2011）。中文電視脫口秀節目中的衝突話語分析（未出版之碩士論文）。山東大學，濟南市。
李宇明（1997）。疑問標記的複用及標記功能的衰變。中國語文，2，97-103。
邵敬敏（1996）。 現代漢語疑問句研究。上海：華東師範大學。
胡孝斌（1999）。反問句的話語制約因素。世界漢語教學，1，46-51。
胡德明（2010）。從反問句產生機制看其核心語用功能。雲南師範大學學報，8（1），55-59。
殷樹林（2006）。反問句的性質特徵和定義。阜陽師範學院學報，6，10-12。
殷樹林（2008）。論現代反問句的語用價值。求是學刊，35（1），120-125。
張卿卿、羅文輝（2007）。追求知識、認同或娛樂？政論性談話節目的內容與閱聽眾收視動機的探討。新聞學研究，93，83-139。
許皓光（1985）。試談反問句語義形成的諸因素。遼寧大學學報，3，66- 68.
許皓光（1985）。試談反問句語義形成的諸因素。遼寧大學學報，3，66-68。
郭繼懋（1997）。反問句的語意語用特點。中國語文，2，111-121。
陳懷萱（2004）。漢語反問句的形式與意義分析（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
董付蘭（2000）。談反問句以其教學。首都師範大學學報，3，101-105。
熊學亮（2007）。語言使用中的推理。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
劉松江（1993）。反問句的交際作用。語言教學與研究，2，46-49。
劉欽榮（2004）反問句的句法、語義、語用分析。河南師範大學學報，4，107-110。
蔣嚴（譯）（2008）。關聯：交際與認知（原作者：D. Sperber., & D. Wilson.）。北京：中國社會科學出版社。（原著出版年：1986）
韓師斯（2009）。初中級水平留學習者漢語反問句習得研究（未出版之碩士論文）。廈門大學，廈門市。

Anzilotti, G. I. (1982). The rhetorical question as an indirect speech device in English and Italian. Canadian Modern Language Review, 38, 290-302.
Brown, P., & Levinson, C. S. (1978). Universal in language usage: “Politeness” phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Question and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Dickinson, C., & Givon, T. (1997). Memory and Conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (pp. 91-132). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Frank, J. (1990). You call that a rhetorical question? Form and functions of rhetorical questions in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 723-738.
Givon, T. (1984). Interrogativity in use. In C. William, T. M. Louis, & J. A. C. Greppin (Eds.), Typology studies in language (pp. 215-244). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givon, T. (1994). Coherence in text, coherence in mind. Pragmatics and Cognition, 1(2), 171-227.
Goodwin, C. (1982). Conversational organization. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech act (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Guillem, S. M. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: Organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727-746.
Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hutchby, I. (1997). Building arguments in public debate: A case study from British
Ilie, C. (1998). Questioning is not asking: The discursive functions of rhetorical question in American talk shows. Texas Linguistic Forum, 39, 122-135.
Ilie, C. (1999). Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 975-999.
Ilie, C. (2001). Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 209-254.
Ilie, C. (2006b). Talk shows. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd Ed., Vol.12, pp. 489-494). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
Krause, A. J., & Goering, E. M. (1995). Local talk in the global village: An intercultural comparison of American and German talk shows. Journal of Popular Culture, 29(2), 189-207.
Lauerbach, G. (2007). Argumentation in political talk show interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1388-1419.
Leonard, H. S. (1957). Principles of reasoning. An introduction to logic, methodology, and the theory of signs. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Dover.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Linebarger, M. C. (1987). Negative polartity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Pholosophy, 10(3), 325-387.
Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London, England: Routledge.
Llewelyn, J. E. (1964). What is a question? The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 42, 67-85.
Lyon, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Provogac, L. (1993). Negative polarity: Entailment and binding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(2), 149-180.
questions as discursive and argumentative act. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Longman Inc.
Sachs, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simple systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Sadock, J. M. (1971). Queclaratives. Chicago Linguistics Society, 7, 223-232.
Sadock, J. M. (1974). Towards a linguistic theory of speech act. New York: Academic Press.
Scannell, P., & Cardiff, D. (1991). Serving the nation: A social history of British broadcasting. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Schiffer, S. (1972). Meaning. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Schmidt-Radefeldt, J. (1977). On so-called ‘rhetorical question’. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 357-392.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication & cognition. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication & cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Tao, H.-Y. (2000). Adverbs of Absolute Time and Assertiveness in Vernacular Chinese: A corpus based study. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 2000(3), 53-73.
Talbot, M. (2007). Media discourse: Representation and interaction. Edinburgh, England: Edinburgh University Press.
Thornborrow, J. (1997). Having their say: The function of stories in talk show discourse. Text, 17(2), 241-262.
Thornborrow, J. (2001). Authenticating talk: Building public identities in audience participation broadcasting. Discourse Studies, 3(4), 459-479.
Thornborrow, J. (2007). Narrative, opinion and situated argument in talk show discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1436-1453.
Tolson, A. (2001). Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tolson, A. (2006). Media talk: Spoken discourse on TV and radio. Edinburgh, England: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
TV. Text, 17(2), 161-179. Ilie, C. (1994). What else can I tell you? A pragmatics study of English rhetorical
van Rees, M. A. (2007). Discourse analysis and argumentation theory: The case of television talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1454-1463.