Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:28:40.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A generalized question tag in English

Are English tag questions collapsing?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2015

Extract

In several (colloquial) varieties of English around the world, the tag question is reduced to a single generalized invariant tag ‘isn't it?’. This is used irrespective of the general structure and semantic content of the matrix or main, superordinate clause that embeds it. Linguists started debating seriously on the actual use of tag questions in English since the early 1960s and 70s. The debates then were particularly focused on the use of tags on (elliptical) imperatives, with many concluding that the auxiliary in the imperative main clause is an elliptical will that serves as the source of input for the tag that is appended (Katz & Postal, 1964; Postal, 1966). Arbini (1969) discussed the putative parallel between tag imperatives and tag questions, and other early discussions on tags include Bolinger (1967), Huddleston (1970), and Klima (1964). The present discussion looks to a different direction. As already implied, it focuses on the emergence of isn't it? as a generalized invariant tag.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

Arbini, R. 1969. ‘Tag-questions and tag-imperatives in English.’ Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, P. 2003. English in Practice: In Pursuit of English Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1967. ‘The Imperative in English.’ In To Honor Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 335–62.Google Scholar
Downing, A. & Locke, P. 2006. English Grammar. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrar, H. 1955. A French Reference Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. 1982. ‘Tag questions and grammatical acceptability.’ Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 129–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1970. ‘Two approaches to the analysis of tags.’ Journal of Linguistics, 6(2), 215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2005. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. A. & Postal, P. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klima, E. 1964. ‘Negation in English.’ In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 246323.Google Scholar
Kolln, M. & Funk, R. 1998. Understanding English Grammar. Needham, MA: Allyne & Bacon.Google Scholar
Peters, P. 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. 1966. ‘On so-called “pronouns” in English.’ In Dinneen, F. (ed.), 19th Monograph on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1973. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. & Hannah, J. 1994. International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English, 3rd edn.London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar