Cover not available

In:Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns
Edited by Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière and Lieven Vandelanotte
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 63] 2014
► pp. 321–350

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

The speech functions of tag questions 
and their properties. A comparison of their distribution in COLT and LLC

 | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
ORCiD logo with link | KU Leuven
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.63.21kim
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. 2006. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. 2009. Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, C.E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimps, D. & Davidse, K. 2008. Illocutionary force and conduciveness in imperative constant polarity tag questions: a typology. Text & Talk 28: 699–722. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York NY: Academic press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lapadat, J. & Seesahai, M. 1977. Male versus female codes in informal contexts. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8: 7–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMillan, J.R., Cliftin, K., McGrath, D. & Gale, W. 1977. Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality. Sex Roles 3: 545–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. 2006. Routledge Sociolinguistics Reader. Glossary. [URL] (5 July 2013).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization [Human Cognitive Processing 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B., Andersen, G. & Hasund, I. 2002. Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. 1990. The London Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research [Lund Studies in English 82]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tandberg, A. 1996. Innit from a Grammatical and Pragmatic Point of View. MA thesis, University of Bergen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verstraete, J.-C. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1505–1528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wagner, S.E. 2012. Age grading in sociolinguistic theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 371–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four 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
Carvalho, Ana M. & Joseph Kern
2019. The permeability of tag questions in a language contact situation. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 29:4 ► pp. 463 ff. DOI logo
Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
2018. “God that came out quick didn’t it eh”. In The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 296], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Tag Questions in Conversation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 83], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue