Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T18:27:41.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The prosody of question tags in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2013

NICOLE DEHÉ
Affiliation:
Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Fach 186, 78457 Konstanz, Germanynicole.dehe@uni-konstanz.de, bettina.braun@uni-konstanz.de
BETTINA BRAUN
Affiliation:
Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Fach 186, 78457 Konstanz, Germanynicole.dehe@uni-konstanz.de, bettina.braun@uni-konstanz.de

Abstract

The prosodic realization of English question tags (QTs) has received some interest in the literature; yet corpus studies on the factors affecting their phrasing and intonational realization are very rare or limited to a certain aspect. This article presents a quantitative corpus study of 370 QTs from the International Corpus of English that were annotated for prosodic phrasing and intonational realization of the QT and the host. Factors tested were polarity, position in the sentence and the turn as well as verb type. Generally, prosodic phrasing and intonational realization were highly correlated: separate QTs were mostly realized with a falling contour, while integrated QTs were mostly rising. Results from regression models showed a strong effect of polarity: QTs with an opposite polarity were more often phrased separately compared to QTs with constant polarity, but the phrasing of opposite polarity QTs was further dependent on whether the QT was negative or positive (more separate phrasing in negative QTs). Furthermore, prosodic separation was more frequent at the end of syntactic phrases and clauses compared to phrase-medial QTs. At the end of a turn, speakers realized more rising contours compared to QTs within a speaker's turn. Verb type also had an effect on the phrasing of the tag. Taken together, our results confirm some of the claims previously held for QTs, while others are modified and new findings are added.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We thank Daniela Brandt and Samuel Schweizer for support with the analyses, Joanna Müller for generating the figures, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Special thanks to Anne Wichmann and Jill House for discussion and for their intonational analysis of numerous sound files.

References

Baayen, Harald R. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bald, Wolf-Dietrich. 1980. English tag-questions and intonation. In Schuhmann, Kuno (ed.), Anglistentag 1979: Vorträge und Protokolle, 263–91. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Elam, Gayle Ayers. 1993. Guidelines for ToBI labelling: The Ohio State University Research Foundation. 43 pp. www.ling.ohio-state.edu//~tobi/ame_tobi/labelling_guide_v3.pdf (17 June 2012)Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3, 255309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bing, Janet M. 1985. Aspects of English prosody. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2012. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.04. www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Intonation and its uses: Melody in grammar and discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1973. Negative transportation and tag questions. Language 49 (3), 612–39.Google Scholar
Cooper, William & Sorensen, John. 1981. Fundamental frequency in sentence production. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45 (3), 569615.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1993. Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review 100, 233–53.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Rietveld, Toni. 1992. Intonation contours, prosodic structure and preboundary lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 20, 283303.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia. 2004. Pragmatics and intonation. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 515–37. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1970. Two approaches to the analysis of tags. Journal of Linguistics 6 (2), 215–22.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knowles, Gerry. 1991. Prosodic labelling: The problem of tone group boundaries. In Johansson, Stig & Stenström, Anna-Brita (eds.), English computer corpora: Selected papers and research guide, 149–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Knowles, John. 1980. The tag as a parenthetical. Studies in Language 4 (3), 379409.Google Scholar
Kreiman, J. 1982. Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries in natural conversation. Journal of Phonetics 10, 163–75.Google Scholar
Krivokapić, Jelena. 2007. Prosodic planning: Effects of phrasal length and complexity on pause duration. Journal of Phonetics 35 (2), 162–79.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 17, 164–71.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3, 311–40.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 7, 107–22.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edn.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean & Aarts, Bas. 2002. Exploring natural language: Working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2002. The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20 (3), 623–89.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rando, Emily. 1980. Intonation in discourse. In Waugh, Linda R. & van Schooneveld, C. H. (eds.), The melody of language, 243–78. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Reese, Brian & Asher, Nicholas. 2008. Prosody and the interpretation of tag questions. In Puig-Waldmüller, Estela (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 448–62. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1974. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3, 371405.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 550–69. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136, 3573.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn, 435–84. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim E. A., Beckman, Mary E., Pitrelli, John F., Ostendorf, Mari, Wrightman, Colin & Price, Patti J.. 1992. ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
Syrdal, Ann K. & McGory, Julia. 2000. Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34 (4), 283311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19 (1), 77120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turk, Alice E. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2007. Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics 35 (4), 445–72.Google Scholar
Vaissière, Jacqueline. 1983. Language-independent prosodic features. In Cutler, Anne & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements, 5366, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2007. Can English tag questions grammaticalise? Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 28, 349–57.Google Scholar
Wightman, Colin W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ostendorf, Mari & Price, Patti J.. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91 (3), 1707–17.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael. 1985. Parentheticals and functional grammar. In Bolkestein, A. Machtelt, Groot, Casper & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (eds.), Syntax and pragmatics in Functional Grammar, 181213. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar