Pragmatic axis of English tag question

15 
wanted by police) is a syntactic difference, but one motivated by information 
structuring considerations.
The given information is shown in the anchor and the unknown information is 
the answer of the listener based on the tag. 
For example: He is a student, isn‟t he? 
The given information is “he is a student” and the unknown information is the 
confirmation or the denial to the given one. The unknown information will be 
stated by answer the tag “isn‟t it?” 
Pragmatic function of English tag questions 
According to M.V. Tomaselli, A. Gatt (2015), depending on discourse 
context, TQs with the same form can have different functions. Most research 
on TQ functions has focused on English, though this section will also deal 
with related work on other languages. 
In line with the distinction between the speaker‟s stance on a proposition 
and the interactional impact of a TQ, Holmes (1995) divides TQs into 
„epistemic modal‟ and „affective‟ types. Epistemic modal TQs „„express 
genuine speaker uncertainty rather than politeness‟‟ (p. 80), as in (1) below. 
Examples (1) to (5) come from Holmes (1995), where a downward slash 
indicates falling intonation, and an upward slash rising intonation. 
Ex1: Fay Weldon‟s lecture is at eight /isn‟t it? 
Affective TQs are subdivided into „facilitative‟, „softening‟, and 
„challenging‟. Facilitative TQs‟‟. . . are examples of hedges 
which serve as positive politeness devices. They invite the addressee to 
contribute to the discourse‟‟ (Holmes, 1995, p. 81):
Ex2: You‟ve got a new job Tom \haven‟t you? 
Softening TQs, on the other hand, serve a negative politeness function and 
are used to attenuate the force of negatively affective utterances, for 
example, directives and criticisms (Holmes, 1995, p. 81): 
Ex3: Make a cup of tea /would you? 
Ex4: That was a really dumb thing to do \wasn‟t it? 

16 
Challenging TQs are „„confrontational strategies [which] may pressure a 
reluctant addressee to reply or aggressively boost the force of a negative 
speech act‟‟ (Holmes, 1995, p. 80): 
Ex5:
A: . . .you‟ll probably find yourself in front of the Chief Constable, 
/okay?
B: Yes, Sir, yes, understood. 
A: Now you er fully understand that, \don‟t you? B: Yes, Sir, indeed, 
yeah. 
Algeo (1990, 2006) proposes a different classification, and divides TQs into 
„informational‟, „confirmatory‟, „punctuational‟, „peremptory‟, and 
„aggressive‟ (renamed „antagonistic‟ in Algeo, 2006). When using 
informational TQs, „„the speaker has an idea about something (the statement 
preceding the tag), but asks for information without presuming to know 
what the answerer will say‟‟ (1990, p. 445). In fact, in (6) the speaker‟s 
presupposition turns out to be false. 
Ex6: 
Q: You don‟t have to wear any sort of glasses or anything, do you?
A: Well, I wear glasses for reading sometimes. 
Confirmatory TQs are used to „„draw the person addressed into the 
conversation (. . .) [asking] for confirmation of what the speaker has said‟‟ 
(Algeo, 1990, pp. 445--446). The difference is that the speaker assumes that 
the addressee will agree with the statement, so this type of TQ does not seek 
information, as shown in (7) where the speaker is teasing. Some responses 
listed by Algeo are „of course‟, „yes, certainly‟, „that‟s right‟, or a nod of the 
head (p. 446). 
Ex7:
Q: You have some pull with the management, do you?
A: [laugh] 
Punctuational TQs „„point up what the speaker has said [and] are the vocal 
equivalent of an exclamation point or of underlining for emphasis‟‟ (Algeo, 

17 
1990, p. 446). No response is required in this type of TQ, which simply 
demands the hearer‟s attention, without necessarily participating. 
Ex8: You classicists, you‟ve probably not done Old English, have you? 
Course you haven‟t. 
Algeo‟s peremptory TQ follows a statement whose truth is universally 
acknowledged, so that „„even someone of the 
limited intelligence of the addressee must be presumed to recognize it‟‟ 
(Algeo, 1990, p. 446):
Ex9: I wasn‟t born yesterday, was I? 
58 M.V. Tomaselli, A. Gatt / Journal of Pragmatics 84 (2015) 54--82 
The use of an aggressive/antagonistic TQ does something very similar, 
except that the TQ follows a statement that is not obvious and couldn ‟t 
possibly be known to the addressee. Algeo (1990, p. 447) argues that this is 
insulting and provocative, because it implies that addressees ought to know 
something they cannot actually know, as in (10). 
Ex10: 
A: I rang you up this morning, but you didn‟t answer.
Q: Well, I was having a bath, wasn‟t I? 
There is much overlap between Holmes‟s (1995) and Algeo‟s (1990, 2006) 
classifications: Informational TQs correspond to epistemic modal TQs, as 
they demand verification of an assumption. Confirmatory TQs correspond to 
facilitative TQs, drawing the hearer into the conversation (although in the 
case of confirmatory TQs, the hearer‟s contribution is usually limited to a 
minimal response, without taking necessarily taking the turn). There is no 
equivalent of Holmes‟s softening TQs in Algeo‟s classification, and there is 
no equivalent of Algeo‟s punctuational TQs in Holmes‟s. Algeo‟s remaining 
categories (peremptory and antagonistic TQs) are subsumed in Holmes‟s 
challenging tag, all sharing the purpose of putting down the hearer in some 
way. Punctuational TQs can in certain cases be challenging in their pointing 
up what the speaker has said, but they are not restricted to that use. 

18 
Tottie and Hoffmann (2006) propose their own classification based on 
corpora of British and American English, which includes all the functions 
covered so far except softening TQs. Like Holmes (1995), they distinguish 
between confirmatory and facilitative uses, with the further addition of an 
„attitudinal‟ category that broadly coincides with Algeo‟s (1990, 2006) 
punctuational tag, and is also claimed to be a sub-class of Holmes‟s 
challenging type. Interestingly, they observe that confirmatory, attitudinal 
and facilitative TQs account for around 90% of occurrences in their corpora, 
with a much lower percentage (3%) of informational uses. Roesle (2001) 
also adds categories: „Involving‟ TQs, roughly coinciding with Holmes‟s 
facilitative uses, and „hoping/fearing‟ and „conspiracy‟, under the affective 
macro-category. The conspiracy category accounts for cases in which both 
speaker and listener are aware of the truth of a proposition, and are using the 
TQ for the benefit of a third party. By contrast, hoping/fearing uses express 
a speaker‟s hope or fear that the proposition carried by the anchor might be 
true, for example: I didn‟t offend you, did I? 
The table below summarizes the primary functions discussed so far. (Maria 
Vittoria Tomaselli *, 2015, p. 57) 
Algeo (1990) 
Holmes (1995) 
Roesle (2001) 
Tottie and 
Hoffmann (2006) 
Informational 
Confirmatory 
Punctuational 
Peremptory 
Aggressive 
Epistemic modal 
Facilitative 
Challenging 
Challenging 
Challenging 
Softening 
Confirmatory 
Involving 
Punctuational 
Peremptory 
Aggressive 
Informational 
Hopeful/fearful: 
Conspiracy 
Confirmatory 
Facilitating 
Attitudinal 
Peremptory 
Aggressive 
Informational 
Other types Other 
types 

tải về 0.54 Mb.

Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: