Request for confirmation sequences in British and American English

Author:

Küttner Uwe-A.1ORCID,Szczepek Reed Beatrice2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Leibniz-Institute for the German Language , Augustaanlage 32, D-68165 Mannheim , Germany

2. School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London , 150 Stamford Street , London SE1 9NH , United Kingdom

Abstract

Abstract This article presents the quantitative findings from a comparative study of request for confirmation (RfC) sequences in British English (BE) and American English (AE). The study is part of a large-scale cross-linguistic research project on RfCs in ten languages. RfCs put forward a proposition about which the speaker claims some knowledge but for which they seek (dis)confirmation from an informed co-participant. The article examines linguistic resources for building RfCs and their responses in the two English varieties. RfCs are analyzed with regard to their syntactic design, polarity, modulation, inference marking, connectives, question tags, and the prosodic design of confirmables and potential question tags. Responses to RfCs are analyzed with regard to response type, the use, type and position of response tokens, (non-)minimal responses in turns with a response token, response prefacing, and repeat responses. BE and AE are found to resemble each other closely in most categories. A major exception is their prosodic design, however. Specifically, the preference for the final pitch pattern of RfCs differs markedly in the two varieties: BE shows a strong preference for final falling pitch; AE shows a preference for final rising pitch. This suggests that the two varieties have routinized distinct intonation patterns for expressing epistemic (un)certainty in RfCs.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Reference120 articles.

1. Aldrup, Marit. 2024. “Asking the obvious: Other-repeats as requests for reconfirmation.” Contrastive Pragmatics 5(1–2), 274–306. 10.1163/26660393-bja10088.

2. Algeo, John. 1990. “It’s a myth, innit? – Politeness and the English tag question.” In The state of the language, edited by Christopher Ricks and Leonard Michaels, 443–50. Berkeley: University of California Press.

3. Antaki, Charles. 2012. “Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings.” Discourse Studies 14(5), 531–47. 10.1177/1461445612454074.

4. Barnes, Scott. 2011a. “Aphasia and Topic Talk.” PhD diss., Macquarie University. https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/mq:17892/SOURCE3.

5. Barnes, Scott. 2011b. “Claiming mutual stance: On the use of ‘that’s right’ by a person with aphasia.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(4), 359–84. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619312.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3