Tag Questions in Conversation

A typology of their interactional and stance meanings

| KU Leuven
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027200433 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027264336 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This monograph deals with variable tag questions. These are utterances with a variable interrogative tag, like It's peculiar writing, isn't it, and the semi-variable tag innit, such as Nice, innit. The aim is to provide a corpus-based, comprehensive semantic-pragmatic typology of British English tag questions. Compared to existing descriptions, the proposed typology is novel in three ways. Firstly, whereas almost all existing typologies are single-layered classifications, the functions of tag questions are categorized into two parallel dimensions of interpersonal meaning: the speech function and the stance layer. Secondly, semantic generalizations are proposed for clusters of grammatical, intonational and conversational properties. Thirdly, the bottom-up description is based on a sizeable amount of authentic, spontaneous conversations, which are analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 83]  2018.  xviii, 250 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
ix
List of abbreviations
xi–xiii
Typographical conventions in the examples
xv
Key to transcription conventions
xvii–xviii
Chapter 1. Introduction
2–5
Chapter 2. State of the art and aims of study
14–34
Chapter 3. Corpora, data and methodology
36–50
Chapter 4. TQ properties
52–91
Chapter 5. Speech functions
94–127
Chapter 6. Stance typology of TQs
130–190
Chapter 7. TQs across the three corpora
192–213
Chapter 8. Conclusions and prospects for future research
216–222
References
223–235
Appendix
237–244
Name index
Subject index
“Despite an abundance of previous studies on TQs, Kimps succeeds in taking a fresh approach, by considering a range of features and accounting systematically for correlations between formal and conversational properties and interaction/stance functions.”
“Unique descriptive results regarding tag questions; the development of an original analytical framework; exemplary deployment of methods; and excellently written.”
“It develops a rich taxonomy of use and I am happy to note incorporates prosody. The author’s well motivated separation of Interactional function and stance is for me the most significant aspect of this study.”
“This book delivers on one of the most important promises of corpus linguistics, which is that the use of corpora can not only give us data, but can furnish us with new opportunities. [...] The book is well-produced, well proofread, and well indexed, and we ought to give credit to both the author and the publisher for the nice array of charts and graphs in the book, many of which include color. [...] What exactly is going on with tag questions in English? How does corpus linguistics empower us to provide better analyses of such linguistic phenomena? This book provides worthwhile answers and points us in the direction of deeper understanding.”
“I strongly recommend this book to all scholars interested in tag questions in particular, but also to anybody hoping to receive guidance on how to tackle the challenges presented by the categorization of speechrelated features.”
References

References

Aarts, Bas
2007Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner
1991Discourse Particles. Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
1979The function of tag questions in English. In Papers from the Fifth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Tore Pettersson (ed), 9–17. Lund: Acta Universitatis Lundensis and Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Algeo, John
1988The tag question in British English. It’s different, i’n’it? English-World-Wide 9(2): 171–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990It’s a myth, innit? Politeness and the English tag questions. In The State of the Language, Christopher Ricks & Leonard Michaels (eds), 443–450. Berkeley CA: Centennial Books, University of California Press.Google Scholar
2006British or American English? Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allerton, David
2009Tag questions. In One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, Günter Rohdenbur & Julia Schlüter (eds), 306–323. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle
1997 “I goes you hang it up in your shower, innit? He goes yeah.” The use and development of invariant tags and follow-ups in London teenage speech. Paper Given at First Language Variation Wokshop, Reading, April 1997.
1998Are tag questions questions? Evidence from spoken data. Paper presented at the 19th ICAME Conference. Belfast, Ma, 1998. http://​gandalf​.aksis​.uib​.no​/~gisle​/pdf​/BELFAST​.pdf (16 May 2012).
2001Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 84]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence
2014AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. http://​www​.laurenceanthony​.net/ (1 February 2014).Google Scholar
Arbini, Ronald
1969Tag questions and tag imperatives in English. Journal of Linguistics 5: 205–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, Brian & Reese, Nicholas
2007Prosody and the interpretation of tag questions. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11: 448–462.Google Scholar
Ashby, William
2001Un 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1992Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In The Contextualization of Language [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 22], Peter Auer & Aldo di Luzio (eds), 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Axelsson, Karin
2011aTag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
2011bA cross-linguistic study of grammatically-dependent question tags: Data and theoretical implications. Studies in Language 35(4): 793–851. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Confirmation-demanding tag questions in fiction dialogue. In Subjectivity and Epistemicity: Corpus, Discourse, and Literary Approaches to Stance [Lund Studies in English 117], Dylan Glynn & Mette Sjölin (eds), 165–185. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
2008Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baciu, Ileana
1983The function of minor questions in conversation. Cahiers de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée 28(20.1): 15–19.Google Scholar
Bald, Wolf-Dietrich
1979English tag questions and intonation. In Anglistentag, Kuno Schumann (ed), 263–292. Berlin: Technische Universität.Google Scholar
Barron, Anna, Pandarova, Irina & Muderack, Karoline
2015Tag questions across Irish English and British English: A corpus analysis of form and function. Multilingua 34(4): 495–525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Marie
1976Two features of ‘women’s speech’? In The Sociology of Languages of American Women, Betty Lou Dubois & Isabel Crouch (eds), 33–40. San Antonio TX: Trinity University.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary & Ayers, Gayle Elam
1993Guidelines for ToBI Labelling. The Ohio State University Research Foundation. www​.ling​.ohiostate​.edu/​/~tobi​/ame​_tobi​/labelling​_guide​_v3​.pdf (11 January 2014).Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary, Hirschberg, Julia & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie
2005The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Prosodic Typology - The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Robert Ladd & Sun-Ah Jun (eds), 9–54. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, William
1989The structure of English tags. Word 40(3): 315–333.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Pia
2007How to model the “meaning” of intonation: Some insights from an interactional perspective. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 28: 239–245.Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret
1981Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Studies in Discourse Analysis, Malcolm Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds), 20–145. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey & Quirk, Randolph
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biscetti, Stefania
2006Tag questions in courtroom discourse. In Studies in Specialized Discourse, John Flowerdew & Maurizio Gotti (eds), 209–238. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Blankenship, Kevin & Craig, Traci
2007aLanguage and persuasion: Tag questions as powerless speech or as interpreted in context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(1): 112–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007bPowerless language markers and the correspondence bias - Attitude confidence mediates the effects of tag questions on attitude attributions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(1): 28–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul
2002Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5.9(10): 34–45.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
2015Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.04. www​.praat​.orgGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1947American English intonation. American Speech 22(2): 134–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1957Interrogative structures of American English. Publication of the American Dialect Society 28. Tuscaloosa AL: Alabama University Press.Google Scholar
1961Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37: 366–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Bonsignori, Veronica
2007Tag Questions in English: A Syntactic, Pragmatic and Prosodic Account. PhD dissertation, Universita’ Di Pisa.Google Scholar
2013English Tags: A Close-Up on Film Language, Dubbing and Conversation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Borlongan, Ariane Macalinga
2008Tag questions in Philippine English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 39: 109–134.Google Scholar
Bouton, Lawrence F.
1990The imperative tag. A thing apart. World Englishes 9(1): 37–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brazil, David
2008Tag questions. Ilha do Desterr 5: 0–28.Google Scholar
Brazil, David, Coulthard, Malcolm & Johns, Catherine
1980Discourse Intonation and Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian
1977Listening to Spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian, Curry, Karen & Kenworthy, John
1980Questions of Intonation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram
1978Ausdrucksweisen der Sprechereinstellung im Deutschen und Englishen. Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik der deutschen Modalpartikeln und Vergewisserungsfragen und ihrer englischen Entsprechungen [Linguistische Arbeiten 57]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1997Tag questions, transformational grammar and pragmatics. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 9: 5–23.Google Scholar
Burleson, Deborah
2014Intonation patterns in English tag questions of Japanese speakers of English as a second language. IULC Working Papers 7. https://​www​.indiana​.edu​/~iulcwp​/wp​/article​/download​/07​-04​/30 (19 April 2016).Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher
1985Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Applications. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Buttiens, Luc & Lens, Fred
1977Tag Question: A Status Questionis. A Corpus Analysis of British Theatrical Language. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven
2017Question tags in translation. Languages in Contrast 17(2): 157–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Calnan, Alison & Davidson, Marilyn
1998The 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah, McAlinden, Fiona & O’Leary, Kathy
1988Lakoff in context: The social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Women in their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex, Jennifer Coates & Deborah Cameron (eds), 74–93. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Case, Susan
1988Cultural differences, not deficiencies: An analysis of managerial women’s language. In Women’s Careers: Pathways and Pitfalls, Laurie Larwood & Suzanna Rose (eds), 41–63. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray
1973Negative transportation and tag questions. Language 49(3): 612–639. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Winnie & Warren, Martin
2001‘She kows more about Hong Kong than you do isn’t it’: Tags in Hong Kong conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 33(9): 1419–1439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2015Stance in the sequence: Laughter as a negative stance marker (Contribution to stance and footing in interaction, organized by Clift Rebecca & Elizabeth Holt), Presentation at IPRA, Antwerp, Belgium. 26–31 July.
Collins, Peter
2004Let-imperatives in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(2): 299–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Clause types. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 180–197. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Columbus, Georgie
2010A comparative analysis of invariant tags in three varieties of English. English World-Wide 31(3): 288–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
1998Prosody in interactional discourse. In Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, Timo Haukioja, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Matti Miestamo (eds), 7–40. Åbo: Åbo Akademis Tryckeri.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret
1996Prosody in Conversation [Interactional studies 12]. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan
1997Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986Intonation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Crystal, David
1969Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1975The English Tone of Voice. Essays in Intonation, Prosody and Paralanguage. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria
1997Form-use mappings for tag questions. In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, Wolf-Andreas Liebert & Gisela Redeker (eds), 3–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter
1992English tag questions in universal grammar. Lingua 88: 193–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Eirian
1979On the Semantics of Syntax. Mood and Condition in English. London: Croom Helm London and Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
2001Propositional attitudes. Functions of Language 8(2): 217–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Speaking, telling and assertion: Interrogatives and mood in English. Functions of Language 13(2): 151–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012May, might and degrees of positivity in four English sentence types. English Text Construction 5: 230–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1991A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
De Clerck, Bernard
2004On the pragmatic functions of let’s utterances. Language and Computers 49(1): 213–233.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbet, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola
2013Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Braun, Bettina
2013The prosody of question tags in English. English Language and Linguistics 17(01): 129–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Wichmann, Anne
2010Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language 34(1): 36–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2001The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demirezen, Mehmet
2014The tag questions: Certainty versus uncertainty issue in English pitches and intonation in relation to anthropology. Anthropologist 18(3): 1059–1067. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, Maureen, Sugar, Judith & Whitaker, Harry
1982The acquisition of tag questions. Child Development: 1254–1257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2013“Same same but different” - Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 19–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Angela
2001“Surely you knew!” Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language 8(2): 251–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Angela & Locke, Philip
2006English Grammar: A University Course, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul
2012What drives sequences? Research of Language and Social Interaction 45: 61–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois John, Cumming, Susanna, Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, & Paolino, Danae
1992Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, Vol 4: Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John
2007The stance triangle. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed), 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Betty Lou & Crouch, Isabel
1975The question of tag questions in women’s speech: they don’t really use more of them, do they? Language in Society 4(3): 289–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka
2015Semantics and pragmatics of assertions and questions. LOT Summer school course given from June 22 to June 26 2015 at KU Leuven, Belgium.
Fillmore, Charles
1984Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. In Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems, Jacek Fisiak (ed), 119–141. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2000From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Notes on analysing context. In Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 114], Peter Kühlein, Hannes Rieser & Henk Zeevat (eds), 193–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents. In Lexical Markers of Common Grounds [Studies in Pragmatics 3], Anita Fetzer & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Alm, Maria
2013A radical Construction Grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 47–87.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Drescher, Martina
1996Methods for the description of discourse particles: Contrastive analysis. Language Sciences 18(3): 853–861. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Pamela
1980Conversational insecurity. In Language: Social Psychological Perspectives, Howard Giles, Peter Robinson & Philip Smith (eds), 127–132. Oxford: Pergamon Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara & Thompson, Sandra
2003Social interaction and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language [Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure 2], Michael Tomasello (ed), 119–144. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
1993Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod
2001When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 92]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke, Brems, Lieselotte & Van de Velde, Freek
2012Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification. In Intersections of Intersubjectivity Liselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds). [Special issue of English Text Construction 5(1): 128–152.Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip
2003Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, Pascual Cantos
2013Statistical Methods in Language and Linguistic Research. Leeds: Equinox.Google Scholar
Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
2014Canonical tag questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese: A discourse-functional study. Languages in Contrast 14(1): 93–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Svartvik, Jan
1999The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English. ICAME. http://​www​.hit​.uib​.no​/icame​/london​-lund​/index​.htm (21 June 2017).
Gunlogson, Christine
2008A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 101–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos
1983Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 377–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984On The Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael
1967Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Hasan, Ruqaia
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Matthiessen, Christian
2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Greaves, William
2008Intonation in the Grammar of English. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Harres, Annette
1998“But basically you’re feeling well, are you?”: Tag questions in medical consultations. Health Communication 10(2): 111–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Patricia H.
1972The use of tag questions, tag-like responses, and non-tags. Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Science, 62–82.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2012Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 31: 182–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer
2001The pragmatics of humor support. Humor 14(1): 55–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees
1989Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Maxwell J. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 299–345. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1998 Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27: 291–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds), 159–183. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The epistemic engine. Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research of Language and Social Interaction 45: 30–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey
2005The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Sebastian, Anne-Katrin Blass & Mukherjee, Joybrato
2014Canonical tag questions in Asian Englishes: Forms, functions and frequencies in Hong Kong English, Indian English and Singapore English. In The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes, Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola & Devyani Sharma (eds), 697–714. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian
2006Tag questions in early and late modern English. Historical description and theoretical implications. Anglistik 17(2): 35–55.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1983The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 3: 40–65.Google Scholar
1984Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8(3): 345–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Women, Men and Politeness. White Plains NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Hosman, Lawrence & Siltanen, Susan
2011Hedges, tag questions, message processing, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30(30): 341–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Houck, Noel
1991Tag questions: a necessary pragmatic context. In Pragmatic and Language Learning, Lawrence Bouton & Yamulra Kachru (eds), 29–38. Urbana IL: Deil.Google Scholar
1995Pragmatic constraints on constant-polarity tag questions. Paper presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics in March, 1995 at Long Beach CA.
Huddleston, Rodney
1970Two approaches to the analysis of tags. Journal of Linguistics 6: 215–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard
1975The meaning of questions. Language 51(1): 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas & Smith, Sara W.
1998And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 171–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas, Smith, Sarah & Lüdge, Tanja
2003Interactive aspects of vague language in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1737–1769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri & Peters, Stanley
1975Conventional implicature in Montague Grammar. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Cathy Cogen, Henry Thompson, Graham Thurgood, Kenneth Whistler & James Wright (eds), 266–278. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul
2002English subjectless tagged sentences. Language 78: 456–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina
2006Patterns of Stance Taking. Negative Yes/No Interrogatives and Tag Questions in American English Conversation. PhD Dissertation, University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Ann, Ji-Young
2008English tag questions: Corpus findings and theoretical implications. English Language and Linguistics 25: 103–126.Google Scholar
Kimps, Ditte
2007Declarative constant polarity tag questions: A data-driven analysis of their form, meaning and attitudinal uses. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 270–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimps, Ditte & Davidse, Kristin
2008Illocutionary force and conduciveness in imperative constant polarity tag questions: A typology. Text and Talk 28: 699–722. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin & Cornillie, Bert
2014aA speech function analysis of Britisch English tag questions in spontaneous dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 66: 64–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014bThe speech functions of tag questions and their properties. A comparison of their distribution in COLT and LLC. In Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 63], Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds), 321–350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Knowles, John
1980The tag as a parenthetical. Studies in Language 4(3): 379–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Klaus
1978Englische ’Question Tags’ und ihre deutschen Entsprechungen. Arbeitsberichte des Instituts für Phonetik der Universität Kiel 10: 61–77.Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J.
2013From communicative functions to prosodic forms. Phonetica 70(1–2): 24–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker
2012Understanding English-German Contrasts [Grundlagen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik 29]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Kreiman, Jody
1982Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries in natural conversation. Journal of Phonetics 10: 163–175.Google Scholar
Kreuz, Roger, Kassler, Max, Coppenrath, Lori & McLain Allen, Bonnie
1999Tag questions and common ground effects in the perception of verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1685–1698. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred
1998British English is developing a new discourse marker, innit? A study in lexicalisation based on social, regional and stylistic variation. AAA: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 23(2): 145–197.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972The study of language in its social context. In Language and Social Context, Pier Paolo Giglioli (ed), 283–307. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Labov, William & Fanshel, David
1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert
1981A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Chicago Linguistic Society 17: 164–171.Google Scholar
1986Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2008Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1975Language and Woman’s Place. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lapadat, Judy & Seesahai, Maureen
1977Male versus female codes in informal contexts. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8: 7–8.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse
1973Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Gloss 7: 107–122.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Torreira, Francisco
2015Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1995Three levels of meaning. In Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons, Frank R. Palmer (ed), 90–115. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia
2015How to do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David
1969Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan
2009Interactional linguistics. In The Pragmatics of Interaction [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 4], Sigurd D’hondt, Jan-Jola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 96–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lukácsi, Zoltán
2009Language and gender: How question tags are classified and characterised in current EFL materials. In UPRT 2008: Empirical Studies in English Applied Linguistics, Réka Lugossy, József Horváth & Marianne Nikolov (eds), 191–205. Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.Google Scholar
Martin, James
1992English Text. System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maryott, Kenneth R.
1991Tag questions and their answers in Sangir. In Studies in Sulawesi Linguistics VI [ NUSA: Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia ], Wyn D. Laidig (ed), 84–94. Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John
1990Formalization of two puzzles involving knowledge. In Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy, Vladimir Lifschitz (ed), 158–166. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1998The Syntactic Phenomena of English, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, William
1995a Ja hear that didja?: Interrogative Tags in Australian English. Te Reo. Journal of the Linguistic Society of New Zealand 36: 3–35.Google Scholar
1995bThe English ‘Tag Question’: A new analysis, is(n’t) it? In On Subject and Theme. A Discourse Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory], Ruquiya Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds), 91–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
McMillan, Julie, Cliftin, Kay, McGrath, Diane & Gale, Wanda
1977Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality. Sex Role 3: 545–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam
2006Routledge Sociolinguistics Reader. Glossary. http://​cw​.routledge​.com​/textbooks​/meyerhoff​/glossary​.asp (5 July 2013).Google Scholar
Millar, Martin & Brown, Keith
1979Tag questions in Edinburgh speech. Linguistische Berichte Braunschweig 60: 24–45.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2012Tags: Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2165–2182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Emma & Podesva, Robert
2009Style; indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society 38(4): 283–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nair, Rukmini
1991Expressing doubt and uncertainty: the tag question and the “to” particle in some Indian languages. Language Science 13(2): 207–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nässlin, Siv
1984 The English Tag Question: A Study of Sentences Containing Tags of the Type Isn’t it?, Is it? Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Nehls, Dietmar
1989German modal particles rendered by English auxiliary verbs. In Sprechen mit Partikeln, Harald Weydt (ed), 282–292. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean & Aarts, Bas
2002Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English [Varieties of English around the World G29]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nilsenová, Marie
2006Rises and Falls Studies in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Intonation. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal
1995Hunh-tags and evidentiality in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 687–692. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1333–1359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. Journal of Pragmatics 44(5): 566–576. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan & van der Auwera, Johan
2016The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2001aEpistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001bSubjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Joseph
1955The intonation of tag questions in English. English Studies 36(1): 97–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Joseph & Arnold, Gordon
1961Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
O’Grady, Gerard
2010A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Increments. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
2013Key Concepts in Phonetics and Phonology. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Oleksy, Wieslaw
1977Tags in English and equivalent constructions in Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 7: 95–109.Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola
1981A functional approach to English tags. Studia Anglica Posnaniensa 13: 3–16.Google Scholar
Palacios Martínez Ignacio,
2015Variation, development and pragmatic uses of innit in the language of British adults and teenagers. English Language and Linguistics 19(3): 383–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank
1976The English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2001Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parviainen, Hanna
2016The invariant tag isn’t it in Asian Englishes. World Englishes 35(1): 98–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike
2013The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation [Studies in Language Variation 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Hirschberg, Julia
1990The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha Pollack (eds), 271–311. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth
1945The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin
2007Common ground in interaction: The functions of medial doch in German. In Lexical Markers of Common Grounds [Studies in Pragmatics 3], Anita Fetzer & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Pope, Emily
1976Questions and Answers in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1972A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1985A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
2008R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://​www​.R​-project​.orgGoogle Scholar
Ramírez Verdugo, Dolores & Trillo Romero, Jesus
2005The pragmatic function of intonation in L2 discourse: English tag questions used by Spanish speakers. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(2): 151–168.Google Scholar
Rando, Emily
1980Intonation in discourse. In The Melody of Language, Linda R. Waugh & Cornelis H. van Schooneveld (eds), 243–278. Baltimore MD: University Park Press. Reprinted from Pope, Emily Norwood, Questions and Answers in English, The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Reese, Brian & Asher, Nicholas
2008Prosody and the interpretation of tag questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Estela Puig-Waldmüller (ed), 448–462. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Roesle, Andrea
2001Tag Questions in British and American English: A Matter of Gender, Regional Dialect and Pragmatics. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel & Jefferson, Gail
1974A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold
1974Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Vivian
1987aElizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays. In A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 35], Vivian Salmon & Edwina Burness (eds), 37–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987bSentence structures in colloquial Shakespearian English. In A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 35], Salmon, Vivian & Burness, Edwina (eds), 265–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian
2006Age: Apparent time and real time. In Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 2, Keith Brown & Anne Anderson (eds). Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Sandra A. Thompson & Emanuel Schegloff (eds), 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society 8(2): 165–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen
1972Meaning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schoonjans, Steven
2014Modalpartikeln als Multimodale Konstruktionen. Eine Korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Searle, John
1975Speech acts and recent linguistics. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 263: 27–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya
2013The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Siertsema, Berthe
1980Sidelights on tag questions. In The Melody of Language, Linda R. Waugh & Cornelis H. van Schooneveld (eds), 299–314. Baltimore MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin
2007The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty. A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Mouton de Gruyter.Berlin: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Sara & Jucker, Andreas
2000 Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. In Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, Gisle Andersen & Thorstein Fretheim (eds), 207–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1978Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics [Pragmatics 9], Peter Cole (ed), 315–332. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita
1984Questions and Responses in English Conversation [Lund Studies in English 68]. Lund: Liber/Gleerups.Google Scholar
1994An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita & Andersen, Gisle
1996More trends in teenage talk: A corpus-based investigation of the discourse items cos and innit . In Synchronic Corpus Linguistics, Carol Percy, Charles Meyer & Ian Lancashire (eds), 177–190. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita, Andersen, Gisle, Hasund, Kristine, Monstad, Kristine & Aas, Hanne
1998User’s Manual to Accompany The Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT). Bergen: Department of English at the University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita, Andersen, Gisle & Hasund, Ingrid, Kristine
2002Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Enfield, Nick
2010A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2620–2626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya & Rossano, Federico
2010Mobilizing sequence. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, Jan
1990The London Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research [Lund Studies in English 82]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Mariko
2014A comparative study of tag questions in four Asian Englishes from a corpus-based approach. Asian Englishes 16(2): 101–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tench, Paul
1996The Intonation Systems of English. London: Cassel.Google Scholar
1990The Roles of Intonation in English Discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond
1992Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Intentions in Communication, Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha Pollack (eds), 325–363. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Paul
1989The “same way”question tag. Studies in English Language and Literature 29(3): 61–79.Google Scholar
Torgersen, Eivind, Gabrielatos, Costas, Hoffmann, Sebastian & Fox, Sue
2011A corpus-based study of pragmatic markers in London English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1): 93–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian
2006Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34: 283–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009aTag questions in English The first Century. Journal of English Linguistics 37: 130–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bTag questions as markers of stance in written English. In Corpora and Discourse and Stuff. Papers in Honour of Karin Aijmer [Gothenburg Studies in English], Rhonwen Bowen, Mats Mobärg & Sölve Ohlander (eds). Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Gothenburg: Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2002Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19(1): 77–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ukaji, Masatomo
1998Tag questions in Early Modern English. Paper presented at 10th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Valenzuela Farías, Maria Gabriela
2013A comparative analysis of intonation between Spanish and English speakers in tag questions, Wh-questions, inverted questions, and repetition questions. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada 13(4): 1061–1083. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2001Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–1528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy. Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus
1978A Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vol. 3 . Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wall, Larry, Christiansen, Tom & Orwant, Jon
2000Programming Perl, 3rd edn. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Wells, John C.
2006English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Weckerly, Jill, Wulfeck, Beverly & Reilly, Judy
2004The development of morphosyntactic ability in atypical populations: The acquisition of tag questions in children with early focal lesions and children with specific-language impairment. Brain and Language 88(2): 190–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weydt, Harald & Berlin, West
1983Partikeln und Interaktion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Anne
2007Can English tag questions grammaticalise? Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Français 28: 349–357.Google Scholar
2000Intonation in Text and Discourse: Beginnings, Middles and Ends. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winefield, Helen, Chandler, Margaret & Bassett, Darryl
1989Tag questions and powerfulness: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of a course of psychotherapy. Language in Society 18(1): 77–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wong, May L-y
2007Tag questions in Hong Kong English: A corpus-based study. Asian Englishes 10(1): 44–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Jock
2008Anglo English and Singapore English tags: Their meanings and cultural significance. Pragmatics & Cognition 16(1): 88–117.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Kimps, Ditte, Kristin Davidse & Gerard O’Grady
2019. English tag questions eliciting knowledge or action. Functions of Language 26:1  pp. 86 ff. Crossref logo
Kostadinova, Viktorija, Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Marco Wiemann, Gea Dreschler, Sune Gregersen, Beáta Gyuris, Kathryn Allan, Maggie Scott, Lieselotte Anderwald, Sven Leuckert, Tihana Kraš, Alessia Cogo, Tian Gan, Ida Parise, Shawnea Sum Pok Ting, Juliana Souza Da Silva, Beke Hansen & And Ian Cushing
2020. IEnglish Language. The Year's Work in English Studies Crossref logo
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2017. Favourite puzzles. English Text Construction 10:2  pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Westphal, Michael
2020. Question Tags in Philippine English. Corpus Pragmatics Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 september 2020. 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017057761 | Marc record