In:Tag Questions in Conversation: A typology of their interactional and stance meanings
Ditte Kimps
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 83] 2018
► pp. 129–190
Chapter 6Stance typology of TQs
Published online: 25 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.83.c6
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.83.c6
Article outline
- 6.1Towards a systematic description of the stance types conveyed by English TQs
- 6.1.1TQs and modal particles
- 6.1.2TQs and the notion of common ground
- 6.2TQs as markers of common ground perception and negotiation
- 6.2.1Signalling a breach in common ground
- 6.2.1.1
Signalling a breach in and reconstructing common ground
- 6.2.1.1.1Signalling a breach with the speaker as origin.
- Stance type 1: Doubt of presupposed knowledge
- Stance type 2: Emphatic counter-expectation
- 6.2.1.1.2
Signalling a breach with the hearer as origin.
- Stance type 3: Informing
- Stance type 4: Unexpectedness of H’S stance
- Stance type 5: Unexpectedness of soa
- Stance type 6: Hedging
- 6.2.1.1.1Signalling a breach with the speaker as origin.
- 6.2.1.2 Signalling and exacerbating the breach
- 6.2.1.1
Signalling a breach in and reconstructing common ground
- 6.2.2Establishing common ground
- 6.2.1Signalling a breach in common ground
- 6.3Comparison of the stance types and their properties
- 6.3.1A brief overview of the stance types
- 6.3.2The speaker–hearer commitment continuum
- 6.3.3Comparing stance types in relation to their properties
Notes
