1887
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Canonical question tags feature prominently in spoken English, where they display great versatility. At face value they are meant to elicit a response from a co-participant in the form of (dis)agreement with the proposition to which the tag has been added. Their pragmatic scope is, however, considerably broader: they serve as politeness strategies but also emphasize the speaker’s convictions or mark accusations. Like many other languages, Dutch does not have a similar structure, which raises questions as to what devices Dutch employs to serve the same purpose as question tags. This contrastive study examines such correspondents in a parallel corpus of English novels and their Dutch translations. Three structures can be identified: pragmatic markers, clause-final parentheticals and combinations of these. The data indicate a preference for pragmatic markers (most notably and ), which predominantly appear either as invariant tags or clause-medially, indicating subtle shifts in utterance interpretation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.17.2.01buy
2017-09-19
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. -M.
    2003 The Discourse Particle well and its Equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics41:1123–1161. doi: 10.1515/ling.2003.036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.036 [Google Scholar]
  2. Algeo, J.
    1988 The Tag Question in British English: It’s Different, i’n’it?English World-Wide9(2):171–191. doi: 10.1075/eww.9.2.03alg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.9.2.03alg [Google Scholar]
  3. 1990It’s a Myth, innit? Politeness and the English Tag Question. InThe State of the Language. C. B. Ricks and L. Michaels (eds), 443–450. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Axelsson, K.
    2011 Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg.
  5. 2014 Confirmation-Demanding Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. InSubjectivity and Epistemicity: Corpus, Discourse, and Literary Approaches to Stance. D. Glynn and M. Sjölin (eds), 165–185. Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazzanella, C. and Morra, L.
    2000 Discourse Markers and the Indeterminacy of Translation. InArgomenti per una Linguistica della Traduzione. Notes pour une Linguistique de la Traduction. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. I. Korzen and C. Marello (eds), 149–157. Alessandria: Edizione dell’ Orso.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolden, G. B.
    2006 Little Words That Matter: Discourse Markers “So” and “Oh” and the Doing of Other‐Attentiveness in Social Interaction. Journal of Communication56(4):661–688. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2006.00314.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00314.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Buysse, L.
    2017 English So and Dutch Dus in a Parallel Corpus: An Investigation into their Mutual Translatability. InContrastive Analysis of Discourse-Pragmatic Aspects of Linguistic Genres (Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 5), K. Aijmer and D. Lewis (eds), 33–61. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑54556‑1_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54556-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Caspers, J. and van der Wouden, T.
    2010 Modal Particles in Dutch as a Second Language. Evidence from a Perception Experiment. Linguistik Online44(4). Available athttps://bop.unibe.ch/linguistik-online/article/view/407/645 [last accessed9 June 2016].
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Columbus, G.
    2010 A Comparative Analysis of Invariant Tags in Three Varieties of English. English World-Wide31(3):288–310. doi: 10.1075/eww.31.3.03col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.31.3.03col [Google Scholar]
  11. Culicover, P. W.
    1992 English Tag Questions in Universal Grammar. Lingua88(3–4):193–226. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90042‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90042-H [Google Scholar]
  12. Foolen, A.
    2006 Polysemy Patterns in Contrast: The Case of Dutch toch and German doch . InPragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer and A. -M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 59–72. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2010 Partikels volgen de schijf van vijf. Internationale Neerlandistiek48:41–51. doi: 10.5117/IVN2010.2.FOOL
    https://doi.org/10.5117/IVN2010.2.FOOL [Google Scholar]
  14. Gómez González, M. A.
    2014 Canonical Tag Questions in English, Spanish and Portuguese. A Discourse-Functional Study. Languages in Contrast14(1):93–126. doi: 10.1075/lic.14.1.06gom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.06gom [Google Scholar]
  15. Hogeweg, L. , Ramachers, S. and Wottrich, V.
    2011Doch, toch and wel on the Table. InLinguistics in the Netherlands 2011, R. Nouwen and M. Elenbaas (eds), 50–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Holmes, J.
    1982 The Functions of Question Tags. English Language Research Journal3:40–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K.
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  18. Johansson, S.
    2006 How Well Can well Be Translated? On the English Discourse Particle well and its Correspondences in Norwegian and German. InPragmatic markers in contrast, K. Aijmer and A. -M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 115–137. Oxford/Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kimps, D.
    2007 Declarative Constant Polarity Tag Questions: A Data-Driven Analysis of their Form, Meaning and Attitudinal Uses. Journal of Pragmatics39(2):270–291. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kimps, D. , Davidse, K. and Cornillie, B.
    2014 A Speech Function Analysis of Tag Questions in British English Spontaneous Dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics66(1):64–85. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.013 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kirsner, R. S.
    2003 On the Interaction of the Dutch Pragmatic Particles hoor and with the Imperative and Infinitivus Pro Imperativo. InUsage-Based Approaches to Dutch: Lexicon, Grammar, Discourse, A. Verhagen and J. van de Weijer (eds), 59–96. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kirsner, R. S. and van Heuven, V. J.
    1996 Boundary tones and the semantics of the Dutch final particles hè, hoor, zeg and joh . InLinguistics in the Netherlands 1996, den Dikken, M. and Cremers, C. (eds), 133–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, G. and Short, M.
    2007Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose (2nd edition). Harlow: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Palacios Martínez, I.
    2015 Variation, Development and Pragmatic Uses of Innit in the Language of British Adults and Teenagers. English Language and Linguistics19(3):383–405. doi: 10.1017/S1360674314000288
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000288 [Google Scholar]
  25. Tomaselli, M. V. and Gatt, A.
    2015 Italian Tag Questions and their Conversational Functions. Journal of Pragmatics84(1), 54–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Tottie, G. and Hoffmann, S.
    2006 Tag Questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics34(4):283–311. doi: 10.1177/0075424206294369
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424206294369 [Google Scholar]
  27. van der Wouden, T. and Caspers, J.
    2010 Nederlandse partikelbeschrijving in internationaal perspectief: waar zijn we eigenlijk en waar moet het toch naartoe?Internationale Neerlandistiek48(1):52–62. doi: 10.5117/IVN2010.2.DERW
    https://doi.org/10.5117/IVN2010.2.DERW [Google Scholar]
  28. van der Wouden, T. and Foolen, A.
    2011 Pragmatische Partikels in de Rechterperiferie. Nederlandse Taalkunde16(3):307–322. doi: 10.5117/NEDTAA2011.3.PRAG497
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2011.3.PRAG497 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015 Dutch Particles in the Right Periphery. InFinal Particles, S. Hancil , A. Haselow and M. Post (eds), 221–247. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Vandeweghe, W.
    2010 Modale partikels en vertaling. Internationale Neerlandistiek48(1):19–30. doi: 10.5117/IVN2010.2.VAND
    https://doi.org/10.5117/IVN2010.2.VAND [Google Scholar]
  31. Weydt, H.
    2006 What are Particles Good for?InApproaches to Discourse Particles, K. Fischer (ed.), 203–217. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zeevat, H. and Karagjosova, E.
    2009 History and Grammaticalisation of “Doch”/“Toch”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics51:135–152.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.17.2.01buy
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.17.2.01buy
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): English/Dutch , fiction , parallel corpus , pragmatics , question tags and translation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error