The speech functions of tag questions
and their properties. A comparison of their distribution in COLT and LLC
This article proposes a classification of speech functions of variable tag questions in British English conversations. Based on intonational, conversational and formal criteria the analysis shows that tag questions can not only function as questions and statements, but also as responses, commands and offers. A large group of tag questions cannot be captured by any of the traditional speech functions and are classified instead as Statement-Question blends. The article investigates the impact of the LLC and COLT corpora, and features such as gender, age and social roles, on the distribution of the different speech functions and their properties. The main finding is that all speech functions are present in the two different corpora, albeit with differing relative frequencies.
References (40)
References
Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic Gradience. The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. 2006. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Andersen, G. 1998. Are tag questions questions? Evidence from spoken data. Paper presented at the 19th ICAME Conference. Belfast, May 1998. [URL] (16 May 2012).
Ashby, W.J. 2001. Un nouveau regard sur la chute du ne en français parlé tourangeau: s’Agit-il d’un changement en cours? French Language Studies 11: 1–22.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Axelsson, K. 2011. Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg. [URL] (1 January 2012).
Bald, W.-D. 1979. English tag questions and intonation. In Anglistentag 1979, K. Schumann (ed.), 263–292. Berlin: Technische Universität.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baumann, M. 1976. Two features of ‘women’s speech’? In The Sociology of Languages of American Women, B.L. Dubois, & I. Crouch (eds), 33–40. San Antonio TX: Trinity University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berry, M. 1981. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Studies in Discourse Analysis, M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (eds), 120–145. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. 2009. Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Calnan, A. & Davidson, M. 1998. The impact of gender and its interaction with role and status on the use of tag questions in meetings. Women In Management Review 13: 19–36. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron, D., McAlinden, F. & O’Leary, K. 1989. Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex, J. Coates, & D. Cameron (eds), 74–93. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Case, S.S. 1988. Cultural differences, not deficiencies: An analysis of managerial women’s language. In Women’s Careers: Pathways and Pitfalls, L. Larwood & S. Rose (eds), 41–63. New York NY: Praeger. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dubois, B.L. & Crouch, I. 1975. The question of tag questions in women’s speech: they don’t really use more of them, do they? Language in Society 4: 289–294. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fishman, P. 1980. Conversational insecurity. In Language: Social Psychological Perspectives, H. Giles, P. Robinson & P.M. Smith (eds), 127–132. New York NY: Pergamon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ford, C.E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, J. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holmes, J. 1984. Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo. Journal of the Linguistics Society of New Zealand 27: 47–62.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kimps, D. & Davidse, K. 2008. Illocutionary force and conduciveness in imperative constant polarity tag questions: a typology. Text & Talk 28: 699–722. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kimps, D., Davidse, K. & Cornillie, B. 2014. A speech function analysis of Britisch English tag questions in spontaneous dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 66: 64–85. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Labov, W. 1972. The study of language in its social context. InLanguage and Social context, P.P. Giglioli (ed.), 283–307. Harmondsworth: Penguin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York NY: Academic press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ladd, R. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society17: 164–171.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York NY: Harper & Row.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lapadat, J. & Seesahai, M. 1977. Male versus female codes in informal contexts. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8: 7–8.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McMillan, J.R., Cliftin, K., McGrath, D. & Gale, W. 1977. Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality. Sex Roles 3: 545–59. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meyerhoff, M. 2006. Routledge Sociolinguistics Reader. Glossary. [URL] (5 July 2013).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sankoff, G. 2006. Age: apparent time and real time. In Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn, E.K. Brown & A. Anderson (eds). Boston: Elsevier.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E.A. 1972. Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In Studies in Social Interaction, D. Sudnow (ed.), 75–119. New York NY: Free Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stenström A.-B. & Andersen, G. 1996. More trends in teenage talk: A corpus-based investigation of the discourse items cos and innit
. In Synchronic corpus linguistics, C.E. Percy,. C.F. Meyer & I. Lancashire (eds), 177–190. Amsterdam: Rodopi.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Svartvik, J. 1990. The London Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research [Lund Studies in English 82]. Lund: Lund University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tandberg, A. 1996. Innit from a Grammatical and Pragmatic Point of View. MA thesis, University of Bergen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verstraete, J.-C. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–1528. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wagner, S.E. 2012. Age grading in sociolinguistic theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 371–382. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Alsaraireh, Mohammad Yousef, Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh & Lama Ahmed Khalifah
2023.
The use of question tags in Jordanian Arabic by Facebook users.
Cogent Arts & Humanities 10:1
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Carvalho, Ana M. & Joseph Kern
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.