You consider that wording a statement? Sometimes the wording can be interpreted either declrative or interrogative, as in your example. It that case, the punctuation choice disambiguates it. Remember that the thread is about sarcasm. Sarcasm is all about subtext, not the literal text of a statement or question.
As I said earlier, linguists distinguish between "interrogative" and "question", and between "declarative" and "statement". "Interrogative" and "declarative" are the grammatical structures, "question" and "statement" are functions. Grammatically my sentence was a declarative, and the sarcastic sentence was an interrogative. Functionally my sentence was a question, and the sarcastic sentence was a statement. My sentence was punctuated according to its function, not its grammatical structure, so why should the sarcastic sentence be punctuated according to its grammatical structure rather than its function?
I'm not sure the right or wrong answer, or even if there is a definitive right or wrong answer, but I find this thread interesting to read. One example I was curious about was the opposite example, where a question is asked as a statement. "You've done your homework?" In context, that might even hypothetically have sarcasm, though the sarcasm wouldn't be the reason behind the punctuation. "You've done your homework? I suppose your dog helped you. You've been playing with him all day." Whether sarcastic or not, I believe that, with this usage, the question mark would probably be used. I'm just wondering how that sentence applies to the "you punctuate as worded" advice, as, as worded, the sentence appears to be a statement, not a question, though clearly it can be used as a question. Charlie
OK, I'm confused. To me, all three of the following _are_ functionally questions: "Yeah, he's a real genius, isn't he?" "And if something is worded as a statement then nothing is being asked?" "So this should not have a question mark?" Sure, the real meaning may be: "Boy, he's an idiot." and "You can word something as a statement and still be asking something." and "Your argument suggests that this statement should not have a question mark, and I disagree." but that doesn't change the fact that they're all dressed up as questions, to the extent that the question mark is called for. Am I missing the argument here? (And, yes, that is a question. ) Now, in the case of the dialogue, I think that "Yeah, he's a real genius, isn't he." could be perfectly correct, because this is dialogue. Punctuated that way, it tells me that the person saying it did not rise his voice interrogatively. Punctuated with a question mark, it tells me that he did. ChickenFreak
From the wording alone, you can't tell whether they're functioning as statements or questions. I suggest that the addition of the question mark signals that they're functioning as questions. Exactly. Now, where would you use a sarcastic sentence other than in dialogue? Even if you have a sarcastic narrator, such a narrator would be in a pseudo-dialogue with the reader.
Unless someone has something material to add, I'll be closing this down in the next day or so. The discusiion is turning quite pedantic, and only confuses the issue rather than clarifying it.
Well, if anything, you can always add '... he said sarcastically' to the end just to hammer the point down.
"He said sarcastically," is a bit of an awkward phrase. I prefer to add on body language that indicates sarcasm, such as, "He said, rolling his eyes." Or the less grammatically-constipated sounding, "He deadpanned."
Definitely use the question mark. Say the sentence aloud, and you should be able to hear the question mark present itself. If you can hear the questioning cadence of the sentence, it always deserves a question mark. Think Ron Burgundy from Anchorman: "I'm Ron Burgundy?" Ha. I bring up the "listening" to your sentence because I write dialog like I hear it. I don't worry about grammar or proper sentence structure (too much [see postscript]) because speaking people do not worry about it either. And if you're wanting your dialog to sound real, then all you have to do is listen. Hope that helps. P.S. Let me clarify shortly. I do consider sentence structure in dialog because in real life, you can listen to someone ramble on incoherently and as long as they get to the point, it's ok. You'll excuse it. It's a little different in writing, as readers don't want to read a page and a half waiting for some blubbering character to get to the point (unless that's necessary for that scene, which it rarely is).
The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style provides guidance. First, the extracts: 6.76 Use of the exclamation point An exclamation point (which should be used sparingly to be effective) marks an outcry or an emphatic or ironic comment. 6.77 Exclamation rather than question A question that is essentially an exclamation usually ends with an exclamation point. How could you possibly believe that! When will I ever learn! ----------------------------------------------------------- The important points to note are: 1. 6.77 makes it clear that Chicago style does not require a question mark if a question is essentially an exclamation. 2. Is sarcasm an exclamation? Yes. An exclamation point can be used for an ironic comment (6.76). Irony is “...mildly sarcastic use of words to imply the opposite of what they normally mean.” [Source of definition: Collins English Dictionary]. Therefore, you can omit the question mark and use an exclamation point: “Yeah, he’s a real genius, isn’t he!” You’ll note how closely this resembles the examples given at 6.77 of the CMS. If you punctuate it this way, you have solid authority to back you up.
Though that may be grammatically, imagine how this sounds to the reader. Is the speaker yelling it? It feels (to me) as if the tone has shifted from light sarcasm to overt jeering. In the end, it's up to the writer. We could run this topic into the ground stating and restating what is grammatically correct. But, in the end, it's really about what point the author is trying to get across and what other details s/he has provided to supplement what is spoken. My personal opinion: "!" makes it look like the speaker is yelling or just outright rude. "." kills the sarcasm and makes the line feel as if it's spoken at a deadpan. "?" provides the proper level of sarcasm. But, again, that's just my personal interpretation. As we've seen, these punctuation marks evoke very different feelings from different readers. I think the solution lies in the context and supporting details. I believe this is one of those situations were a single line of dialogue, standing alone, just isn't enough to reach a concrete solution of what is the best way. (And I highly doubt such a solution exists, in any case.) If the OP has any lingering doubts or confusion regarding this, it might be best handled in the review room, where readers can see this line in its natural habitat.
Digitig has explained very well why the question mark is not appropriate. But some still seem to be clinging onto the belief that if something looks like a question then it must take a question mark. This has never been the case! (Or certainly not within the last 100 years or so.) Decades ago, the ninth edition of the Chicago Manual of Style made it clear that “a technically interrogative sentence—disguised as a question out of courtesy but actually embodying a request—does not need the interrogation point.” It gives the example: Will you kindly sign and return the enclosed card. Sure, it looks like a question, but it isn’t. It’s a request. If anyone still has doubts, let’s leap forward in time and look at the 2003 Oxford Style Manual. Rule 5.8.1 makes it clear that “statements framed as questions out of idiom or politeness do not normally take question marks.” New Hart’s Rules (the rules form part of the Oxford Style Manual, but were published several years later as a separate book) do make a passing mention to sarcasm. Yay! Rule 4.8.2 says that “a question mark in parenthesis is sometimes used to underline sarcasm or for other humorous effect.” Is an exclamation point suitable? Well, Chicago style certainly approves (see my post above). And we need to be clear: the exclamation point is used for so much more than simply yelling. For example, Improve Your Punctuation published by Collins permits the use of an exclamation point to show irony, reverse meaning, ironic tone, insults. Using a question mark (unless you put it in parenthesis as per New Hart’s Rules) isn’t the right way to denote sarcasm. The punctuation mark with the authoritative backing is the exclamation point.
I never said it must take a question mark. The entire point of my post was to state that it could take any one of the three ('.' '?' or '!') and that the final decision really boils down to what point the author is trying to convey. And, yes, I understand the technical reasons for using an exclamation point, the same as I understand the reasons for using either of the other two. I did read the thread, thank you. Like I said, it makes it look as if the speaker is being overtly rude and/or jeering at the target (Insults). I certainly know that the exclamation point is used for more than yelling, but when your readers see it, they see strong emotion tied to that punctuation mark. So unless you want the speaker to feel very strongly about this sarcastic remark, I'd advise avoiding it. But, as we've already stated multiple times, any one of the three can be argued as grammatically correct. It is simply up to the writer to decide which voice s/he is going for. But it is the right way (or one of the right ways) to punctuate a question, even if that question isn't seeking a straight answer. Sarcasm is subtext. I'd prefer to use context clues and details to denote subtext, not punctuation. Again, it's a matter of style. Again, it denotes strong emotions. Clearly she's feeling pretty strongly about what's taking place in this scene. But, if I may ask, why did you feel the need to add "she moaned quietly"? It seemed, to me, that you were trying to lower the volume on those exclamation marks... but that's just my interpretation. It's been an interesting and informative run, but I think the discussion has reached its inevitable conclusion (or lack thereof). The ball is in the author's court, where it's been all along. And when all is said and done, the CMS isn't going to write our works for us. There's my closing remark on the matter.
AnonyMouse—you say that the exclamation mark might look rude. But sarcasm is rude. And it can’t just rest with the writer—not when there are major authorities offering a solution. I’ve citied three, and Digitig cited at least one. You say that we haven’t really reached a conclusion. I disagree. We have a definitive answer to the original question: Q. Do you need a question mark with sarcasm? A. No—not if you are using the latest CMS (see 6.76 & 6.77 above). The CMS is respected around the world. Even British books on grammar and punctuation cite it.
Because had I not then you could have still said she was shouting. But she wasn't shouting: however much her injuries hurt, she didn't want the guards to find her (you did work out that that was the context, didn't you)
