The Magic of Q and A: Interrogative and Declarative Statements

In the elaboration of the Grammar Cruncher concept, it is suggested that a possible urcontext of language might be posited interrogatively in this way: What action is happening, if any? What or who instantiates the action? Who or what receives some impact or brunt of the action directly (i.e. in a manner corresponding to a 2nd person perspective)? Who or what receives some impact of the action indirectly (i.e. in a manner perhaps suggestive of a 3nd person perspective)? Which things or persons might be caretakers, stakeholders, or owners of some aspect of the action? When, where, how, and why does the action happen as it does?

This in turn would be to suggest that the sense we make, implicitly or explicitly, is established relationally in terms of interactions between interrogative and declarative ways of speaking (imperative ways of speaking, by the way, are treated in the framework of the Discover German course sequence as interrogatively as possible in terms of making polite requests).

The general Ja-Nein question and the specific information questions (with “w”-question-words) could be seen as "switches" that "turn" either a whole declarative statement or particular parts of it "on" when present, or highlight a general gap or specific gaps (respectively) when not. These two main modes or aspects of the interaction between interrogative and declarative ways of speaking will be rehearsed in the Q/A parts of the synchronous student-instructor meetings:

1. A Yes-No Question is like a general binary switch that turns the action of its corresponding declarative statement on or off in its entirety, suggestive of an action that (perhaps wondrously) comes into being ( switch "on") or contrarily does not happen at all (switch "off").[1]
2. In Information Questions, the general binary switch is always on and what is being asked for is something specific in the makeup of the declaration (cor)responding to the question (i.e. the language occupying one of the declaration's syntactic positions). The question words with which Information Questions begin (wer? was? wie? wo? wann? etc.) are thus like interrogative placeholders for specific actions, actors, or modalities in the corresponding declarative statement. 

Asking questions is good practice in and of itself. But as you do so you please bear in mind that you are also learning to feel comfortable in the above-posited possible urcontext of language.

___

[1] The binary structure and logic of the yes/no question seems consistent with the foundations of rational “communicative action” as conceptualized by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, for example in view of passages such as this: “Processes of reaching understanding aim at an agreement that meets the conditions of rationally motivated assent [Zustimmung] to the content of an utterance. A communicatively achieved agreement has a rational basis; it cannot be imposed by either party, whether instrumentally through intervention in the situation directly or strategically through influencing the decisions of opponents. Agreement can indeed be objectively obtained by force; but what comes to pass manifestly through outside influence or the use of violence cannot count subjectively as agreement. Agreement rests on common convictions. The speech act of one person succeeds only if the other accepts the offer contained in it by taking (however implicitly) a “yes” or “no” position on a validity claim that is in principle criticizable” (Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy [Beacon Press, 1981], p. 287). Original German text in Jürgen Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, BD 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (Suhrkamp, 1981), p.387: "Verständigungsprozesse zielen auf ein Einverständnis, welches den Bedingungen einer rational motivierten Zustimmung zum Inhalt einer Äußerung genügt. Ein kommunikativ erzieltes Einverständnis hat eine rationale Grundlage; es kann nämlich von keiner Seite, sei es instrumentell, durch Eingriff in die Handlungssituation unmittelbar, oder strategisch, durch erfolgskalkulierte Einflußnahme auf Entscheidungen eines Gegenspielers, auferlegt werden. Wohl kann ein Einverständnis objektiv erzwungen sein, aber was ersichtlich durch äußere Einwirkung oder Anwendung von Gewalt zustande kommt, kann subjektiv nicht als Einverständnis zählen. Einverständnis beruht auf gemeinsamen Überzeugungen. Der Sprechakt des einen gelingt nur, wenn der andere das darin enthaltene Angebot akzeptiert, indem er (wie implizit auch immer) zu einem grundsätzlich kritisierbaren Geltungsanspruch mit Ja oder Nein Stellung nimmt" (italics in original).

The binary structure and logic of the yes/no question also seems spatially consistent with the "dialectics of outside and inside" characteristic of the poetic image as seen by Gaston Bachelard, though in the Q/A as discussed above we would be viewing these dialectics at work in basic structures of language: "Outside and inside form a dialectic of division, the obvious geometry of which blinds us as soon as we bring it into play in metaphorical domains. It has the sharpness of the dialectics of yes and no, which decides everything. Unless one is careful, it is made into a basis of images that govern all thoughts of positive and negative. Logicians draw circles that overlap or exclude each other, and all their rules immediately become clear. Philosophers, when confronted with outside and inside, think in terms of being and non-being. Thus profound metaphysics is rooted in an implicit geometry which—whether we will or not—confers spatiality on thought" (Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space, trans. Maria Jolas [Penguin Press, 2014], 227-28. Original French text in Gaston Bachelard, La Poétique de l’Espace (Presses Universitaires de France, 1964), 191: “Dehors et dedans forment une dialectique d’écartèlement et la géométrie évidente de cette dialectique nous aveugle dès que nous la faisons jouer dans des domaines métaphoriques. Elle a la netteté tranchante de la dialectique du oui et du non qui décide de tout. On en fait, sans y prendre garde, une base d’images qui commandent toutes les pensées du positif et du negatif. Les logiciens tracent des cercles qui chevauchent ou s’excluent et aussitôt toutes leurs règles sont claires. Le philosophe, avec le dedans et le dehors pense l’être et le non-être. La métaphysique la plus profonde s’est ainsi enracinée dans une géometrie implicite, dans une géometrie qui—qu’on le veuille ou non—spatialise la pensée” (italics in original).