Refashioning Chinese búshì (不是) rhetoricals

Two communication types of the Chinese [búshì … ma] patterning can be found in earlier studies in which Type 1 is understood as a yes-no question (default form) and Type 2 a rhetorical question carrying a negative semantic prosody, both types taking place in a “2-party” dialogue. This research has further identified an emergent “construction” (Croft, 2001) that figures also as a rhetorical question (Type 3) except in a “3-party” conversation setting. This Type 3 is found to serve a primary communicative purpose, that is, for “positive interpersonal bonding.” Other findings discussed include: (a) that [búshì … ma] has defaulted from Type 1 to Type 2 in today’s Mandarin Chinese, (b) that there exist subjectivity-based variations in interpreting the thematic agents of a Type 2 expression, (c) that Type 3 expressions have emerged on the grounds of “intersubjectivity,” and (d) that while both Types 2 and 3 are rhetorical questions, they indeed require very different sets of pragmatic competence for implementing an intended illocutionary force. The study looks particularly at how Type 2 and Type 3 [búshì … ma] constructions differentiate themselves from each other and how the [búshì … ma] patterning reflects linguistic economy and efficiency in real-life language use through grammaticalization (grammatical constructionalization).