In:Tag Questions in Conversation: A typology of their interactional and stance meanings
Ditte Kimps
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 83] 2018
► pp. v–viii
Get fulltext
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 25 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.83.toc
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.83.toc
Table of contents
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
Typographical conventions in the examples
Key to transcription conventions
Chapter 1Introduction
Chapter 2State of the art and aims of study
2.1Overview table
2.2Functional studies
2.2.1Form-based typologies
2.2.2Interactional typologies
2.2.3Stance typologies
2.2.4Some problems with the existing functional typologies
2.3Prosodic studies
2.4
Innit and invariable tag studies
2.5Variational and comparative studies
2.6Socio- and psycholinguistic studies
2.7Aims of this study
Chapter 3Corpora, data and methodology
3.1Corpora: COLT, LLC and ICE-GB
3.2Data extraction: building a dataset
3.3Data processing
3.3.1Prosodic annotation
3.3.2The tagging and categorization process
3.3.3Distribution of speaker characteristics and conversation
types
3.4Data analysis
Chapter 4TQ properties
4.1The TQ construction: anchor + tag
4.2Mood and modality
4.2.1Mood types
4.2.2Types of modality
4.2.3A-events, B-events and AB-events
4.3Polarity patterns
4.4Conversational features
4.4.1Adjacency pairs
4.4.2Turn position
4.4.3Responses to TQs
4.5Prosodic features
4.5.1Tone units
4.5.2Tones on anchor and tag
4.6The prototypical TQ and (un)markedness of options within
properties
4.7A note on how to interpret these properties
Chapter 5Speech functions
5.1Towards a systematic description of the speech functions of English
TQs
5.2Speech function types of TQs
5.2.1Questions
5.2.2Statements
5.2.3Statement-question blends
5.2.4Responses
5.2.4.1TQs responding to a statement
5.2.4.2TQs responding to a wh-interrogative
5.2.4.3TQs responding to a polar interrogative
5.2.4.4TQs responding to a TQ
5.2.5Desired actions
5.2.6Ambiguous TQs
5.3Comparison of the speech function types and their features
5.3.1A brief overview of the speech function types
5.3.2A flowchart approach to the classification of TQs into speech
functions
5.3.3Comparing speech functions in relation to their main
properties
Chapter 6Stance typology of TQs
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
6.2.1.1Signalling 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
6.2.1.1.2Signalling 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
6.2.1.2Signalling and exacerbating the breach
Stance type 7: Stating the obvious
Stance type 8: Questioning stance
6.2.2Establishing common ground
Stance type 9: Acknowledging
Stance type 10: Confirming
Stance type 11: Joking
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
Chapter 7TQs across the three corpora
7.1Distribution of speech function types in ICE-GB, LLC and COLT
7.2Distribution of TQ stance types in ICE-GB, LLC and COLT
7.3Distribution of TQ properties in ICE-GB, LLC and COLT
7.4Explaining the differences between ICE-GB, COLT and LLC
7.4.1A real time language change?
7.4.2Possible impact of speakers’ age
7.4.3Possible impact of speakers’ gender
7.4.4Possible impact of conversation types
7.4.5Possible factors combined
7.5Some concluding remarks
Chapter 8Conclusions and prospects for future research
References
Appendix
Name index
Subject index
