Generally speaking, most people think about the function of questions in terms of either gathering information ("Why didn’t you tell me you ate the last egg?") or requesting goods/services ("May I have a tall, black coffee, please?"). Indeed, we do use questions to accomplish these basic tasks (cf. Halliday, *Introduction to Functional Grammar* [2d ed], 69f.). But there’s more to questions than just demanding information and/or goods and services. People use questions as a means of negotiating ideologies and the value positions attendant to those ideologies. When discussing this "rhetorical" function of questions, functional linguists typically talk about *expository* questions and *leading questions* (a.k.a. "rhetorical questions").

**Expository Questions**

Expository questions are *open-ended* questions that, in terms of heteroglossia and dialogism (cf. Lemke, *Textual Politics*, 18–21 on Bakhtin [btw, cf. my "Not Like Cain"]), expand the dialogistic impact of a text by making allowances for (i.e., create semiotic space for) alternative voices/points of view/value positions in the ongoing colloquy within which the text is located (cf. Martin and White, *Language of Evaluation*, 108). Interpersonally, this allows for the space for—but does not guarantee—solidarity (i.e., more alignment with readers in terms of value positions) between the writer and any readers who may hold to alternative positions,, at least to the extent to which alternative views and their proponents are recognized as (potential) participants in the colloquy (Martin and White, *Language of Evaluation*, 109). Of course, it is the writer’s prerogative to go on to answer these questions in ways that may contract dialogue by rejecting alternative positions (removing semiotic space). Use of expository questions is a key feature of open questions in argument texts.

**Leading ("Rhetorical") Questions**

Rhetorical questions are *closed* questions in that they assume an answer. These are questions that are really statements dressed in interrogative clothing. In fact, I often tell my students of biblical Greek to gloss these to English as statements with a tag question (e.g., James 4:4 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν; [*You do not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God, **do you**?*]) In biblical Greek these questions are grammatically marked; questions expecting/assuming an affirmative answer include the negative particle οὐ and those expecting/assuming a negative answer include the negative particle μή. These questions are dialogically contractive in that, because they already assume/expect an answer, no dialogic space is opened up for any other points of view/value positions to be considered. Moreover, these closed rhetorical questions project an audience that already knows the answer (or should know it), thus no answer needs to be supplied; this is contraction by concurrence (Martin and White, *Language of Evaluation*, 123). Also, when answers are supplied for these kinds of questions, they are emphatic; that is, when the author asks a yes/no question and then supplies the yes or no, the answer is emphatic.

**Examples of Expository Questions**

- 1 Cor 3:5 — **τί οὖν ἐστιν Ἀπολλῶς; τί δέ ἐστιν Παῦλος;** διάκονοι δι᾽ ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε, καὶ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν [* **What, therefore, is Apollos? What is Paul?** Servants through whom you believed, and to each (of us) as the Lord gave.*]

This example is interesting because Paul asks two back-to-back expository/open questions that have the effect of opening up dialogic space; they are dialogically expansive. However, he turns right around and provides an answer, thereby slamming that semiotic space closed. In argumentative texts, this is a key way to attempt to position readers.

- Col 2:20 — Εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; [*If you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, then **why as though you are living in the world do you submit to its dogmas**? *]

I find this example interesting because the question appears as the apodosis of a first class conditional construction (i.e., it’s the "then" part of an "if/then" construction). First class conditions are those in which the writer, for the sake of argument, asserts the proposition in the protasis (the "if" part) as if it is reality, and then states a consequence on the basis of that assertion. Here the expository question serves as the consequence, thus demanding that the implied readers analyze the situation. Here, if the assertion of the protasis holds (i.e., that they died with Christ [i.e., converted to the group of Jesus followers]), then it would not make sense to keep living by the norms of the "world" and not those of the group of Jesus followers. [Remember that the ancients were much more group-oriented than us westerners!!] A very powerful means of positioning readers, indeed!

**Examples of Leading ("Rhetorical") Questions**

- 1 Cor 12:30 — μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν; [* **Not all have the gifts of healing, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all interpret, do they**? *]

Each of the questions in this back-to-back-to-back instance of leading questions is tagged with the negative particle μή and, therefore, expect/assume the answer "No." This effectively removes the voice of the putative reader(s) and, as far as the textual world that is created by the writer goes, positions them by giving only one option.

- 1 Cor 3: 3 — ὅπου γὰρ ἐν ὑμῖν ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις, οὐχὶ σαρκικοί ἐστε καὶ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε; [*For where envy and strife exist among you, **are you not fleshly and behaving according to human inclinations**?* (cf. NRSV)]

Here, because the negative particle οὐ is used, the expected/assumed answer is "yes." The dialogic impact is the same as the previous example. The voice of the putative reader(s) is squelched and the only option in the text is the affirmative.

Interesting? I hope so. One last remark since I’m pretty sure I have once again passed 500 words. :p I don’t want to leave the impression that people—the biblical writers or any language user, for that matter—are somehow wrong or bad or abusers of power or whatever when they use language in this way. Certainly, language like this can be used to abuse. But the truth is, anyone who holds to a value position or, as Bakhtin would put it, anyone who has a "voice," about anything will at some point use language in this way. Why? Because positioning readers/hearers is part and parcel with taking stance and making argument. It doesn’t matter if the language user is the staunchest conservative or the loosest liberal; this kind of language use is one part of how we make interpersonal meaning.