The use and perception of question tags in Trinidadian English

Michael Westphal
Kiel University
Abstract

This study presents an analysis of the use and perception of variant question tags and the seven invariant forms eh, ent, nah, OK, not so, right, and you know in Trinidadian English. The analysis of use is based on four dialogue text types from the Trinidad and Tobago component of the International Corpus of English and takes a variationist approach. The analysis of the perception is based on a survey that combines a multiple-choice test, where participants were presented with different dialogue scenarios and had to select the form they found most appropriate, and an indirect language attitude test, in which participants rated the use of the eight question tags on attitudinal scales and added open comments. The usage and perception profiles of the eight forms largely overlap but there are marked differences for individual forms.

Keywords:
Publication history

Date received: 24 October 2022

Date accepted: 12 June 2023

Published online: 23 October 2023

Table of contents

Pragmatic markers come in a multitude of forms and are an integral part of spoken discourse as speakers use them to structure conversations, guide utterance interpretation, integrate other participants into a conversation, encode politeness, and express their own stance (Ajimer 2013, 4–8; Beeching 2016, 4; Brinton 2017, 2–8). In this paper, the term pragmatic marker is used as an umbrella term to describe markers that both structure discourse and express speaker stance. Despite their functional significance, they are commonly stigmatized (Schiffrin 1987, 45; Watts 1989). In addition, they are very difficult to classify in conventional categories of structural linguistics, as they are syntactically optional, only loosely connected to the syntax of an utterance, often short and phonologically reduced; they do not fit into any traditional word class, often do not change the truth-conditional meaning of an utterance, and instead fulfill a wide range of pragmatic functions. Pragmatic markers have been largely ignored in theoretical linguistics and many strands of applied linguistics have only paid more attention to them recently.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Aijmer, Karin
2013 Understanding Pragmatic Markers in English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Gisle
2001 Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2016 Pragmatic Markers in British English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglass, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
1999 The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Borlongan, Ariane
2008 “Tag Questions in Philippine English.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics 39 (1): 1–34.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
2017 The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Columbus, Georgie
2010 “A Comparative Analysis of Invariant Tags in Three Varieties of English.” English World-Wide 31 (3): 288–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar
2014 English in the Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Peter
2010 Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez González, María de los Ángeles
2018 “Variable and Invariable Tag Questions in Spoken British English.” In The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction, ed. by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie, 109–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney
1996 “Introducing ICE.” In Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English, ed. by Sidney Greenbaum, 3–12. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E.
2009 “Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed-Effects Variable Rule Analysis.” Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1): 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimps, Ditte
2018 Tag Questions in Conversations: A Typology of Their Interactional and Stance Meanings. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lange, Claudia, and Sven Leuckert
2021 “Tag Questions and Gender in Indian English.” In Gender in World Englishes, ed. by Tobias Bernaisch, 69–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lim, JooHyuk, and Ariane Borlongan
2011 “Tagalog Particles in Philippine English: The Case of Ba, Na, ‘No, and Pa.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics 42: 59–74.Google Scholar
Mühleisen, Susanne
2001 “Is ’Bad English’ Dying Out? A Diachronic Comparative Study of Attitudes towards Creole versus Standard English in Trinidad.” Philologie im Netz 15: 43–78.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike
2013 The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar
2007 Postcolonial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus, and Anne Barron
(eds) 2008 Variational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Mariko
2014 “A Comparative Study of Tag Questions in Four Asian Englishes from a Corpus-based Approach.” Asian Englishes 16 (2): 101–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel, and Sebastian Hoffmann
2006 “Tag Questions in British and American English.” Journal of English Linguistics 34 (4): 283–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unuabonah, Foluke O., and Rotimi O. Oladipupo
2018 “You’re Not Staying in Island Sha O: O, Sha and Abi as Pragmatic Markers in Nigerian English.” Journal of Pragmatics 135: 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
1989 “Taking the Pitcher to the ‘Well’: Native Speakers’ Perception of Their Use of Discourse Markers in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 13: 203–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westphal, Michael
2022 “The Multilingual Pragmatics of New Englishes: An Analysis of Question Tags in Nigerian English.” Frontiers in Communication 6: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Question Tags in Philippine English.” Corpus Pragmatics 4 (1): 401–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Guyanne
2014 The Sociolinguistics of Singing: Dialect and Style in Classical Choral Singing in Trinidad. Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat.Google Scholar
Wilson, Guyanne, Michael Westphal, Johanna Hartmann, and Dagmar Deuber
2017 “The Use of Question Tags in Different Text Types of Trinidadian English.” World Englishes 36 (4): 726–743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winer, Lise
2009 Dictionary of the English/Creole of Trinidad & Tobago. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald
1985 “The Concept of ‘Diglossia’ in Caribbean Creole Situations.” Language in Society 14 (3): 345–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Re-Examining Caribbean English Creole Continua.” World Englishes 16 (2): 233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Youssef, Valerie
2004 “ ‘Is English We Speaking’: Trinbagonian in the Twenty-first Century.” English Today 20 (4): 42–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar