Two Types of Argumentation Involving Rhetorical Questions 39 set of possible answers, while exclamations do not express a question even on the semantic level and are therefore not answerable. Furthermore, RQs and exclamations have strikingly different implications: the rhetorical hz wn[çy hm “How will this fellow save us?” (1 Sam 10,27) implies “This fellow cannot save us”, while the exclamation hzh μwqmh arwn hm “How awesome is this place” (Gen 28,17) implies “This place is very awesome.” Of the yes-no and content RQs in the corpus, those expressing premises in logical arguments were identified through analysis of the meaning and context of each question. Out of over 300 RQs, 117 were found to be argumentative (39). By expressing the premise as an RQ, the speaker underlines the obviousness and irrefutability of the premise, and hence the conclusion. Argumentative RQs are used for a variety of discourse functions, including justifying a directive (e.g., Gen 47,15), refusing a directive (e.g., Exod 3,11), issuing a criticism (e.g., Exod 14,11), rebutting a criticism (e.g., Exod 16,7), and refuting an assertion (e.g., Num 11,22). The conclusion in nearly all the arguments involving RQs is a negative proposition involving epistemic modality (possibility or necessity) or deontic modality (permission or obligation). In other words, the conclusion expresses that a particular situation X should not happen/have happened, cannot happen/have happened, is/was not necessary, etc. The conclusion is most commonly expressed by a yk clause, as described above (40). The conclusion may also be indirectly represented by a “why” or “what” RQ, e.g., Num 22,37 “Why didn’t you come to me? Am I really unable to honor you” (i.e., “You should have come to me”); Exod 14, 11 “Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have brought us to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us, taking us out of Egypt?” (i.e., “You should not have taken us out of Egypt”) (41). In other arguments the conclusion is implicit, e.g., 1 Sam 25,10, “Who is David and who is the son of Jesse? Today there are many servants who are breaking away from their masters” (i.e., “I am not obligated to give your men food”), Gen 30,2 “Can I take the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb”, (i.e., “I cannot give you a child”) and Exod 6,30 “I am of impeded speech; how should Pharaoh heed me?” (i.e., “I should not go to Pharaoh”) (42). (39) Double questions that express a single premise are counted as one question; this includes wa/μa...h sequences, as in Num 11,22, as well as double appositive questions followed by a yk clause that relates to both, e.g., Jud 9,28. Arguments that are requoted are counted as a single argument (e.g., Jud 8,6.15; 1 Kgs 1,3.6.16). (40) A few of the many examples of this structure are Gen 20,9; 37,26; Judg 8,6; 9,28; 14,3; 2 Sam 19,23; 2 Kgs 5,7. (41) The structures in these two verses are simpler versions of the “triple rhetorical question” described above. Although Singer describes such instances are rare, there are a number of occurrences in the classical prose corpus, including, in addition to the two cited above, Gen 18,13-14; Num 22,37; 2 Sam 12,23. In some instances the conclusion is expressed by a “what” question, as in Exod 14,11 (above) and Josh 22,16. In 2 Kgs 19,11-12 the conclusion is expressed by an unmarked yes-no RQ. The “triple rhetorical question” occurs twice in the corpus (Num 11,12; 2 Sam 19,43), as well as a single instance of a “quadruple rhetorical question”, with the premise expressed by a sequence of three yes-no questions (2 Sam 19,36). (42) See also, e.g., Gen 34,31; 43,7; Exod 2,14; 6,12; Num 16,9; 22,38; 2 Kgs 4,28; 18,27.