Italian tag questions and their conversational functions

Abstract

This study examines the use of tag questions in Italian conversation. We propose a classification of their discourse functions, and provide an account of their syntactic and discourse contexts. The data used are recordings of conversation in several settings: experimental game settings, a reality TV show, and TV and radio talk shows, for a total of 60.4 h. The analysis uncovered seven main functions, some of which do not conform to existing classifications in the literature. We explore the relationship between these functions and the conversational settings in which they are used, their placement within the utterance, and their relationship with asymmetries in participants' leadership roles in specific settings.

Pragmatic Features of Tag Questions in Turkish

“…This shows that epistemic functions, which have been identified in English, are also specified in Turkish. The same epistemic functions have also been found in Italian (Bazzanella: 1994, Tomaselli andGatt: 2015). It can be proposed that since informational and confirmatory tags are observed in Turkish, Turkish shows a similarity in this respect.…”

“…The studies on TQs from pragmatic perspective indicate that there is not a conformity in affective functions of TQs. (Holmes, 1995;Roesle, 2001;Algeo, 2006;Tottie and Hoffmann, 2006;Tomaselli and Gatt, 2015). The present study has identified six affective functions of TQs.…”

“…In spite of the overlapping functions, there are also functions, which have not been proposed in English. Tomaselli and Gatt (2015) and Marianne Mithun (2012) also demonstrated that in Italian and Mohawk, different functions have been identified than English. Tomaselli and Gatt (2015) have identified 'check hearer understanding', 'prompt agreement', and 'request permission' as different functions from English.…”

“…There is a rich literature on TQs with regard to their syntax, phonology and pragmatic functions (Huddleston, 1970;Cattell, 1973;Ladd, 1981;Quirk et al, 1985;Algeo, 1988Algeo, , 2006Culicover, 1992;Roesle, 2001;Tottie and Hoffmann, 2006;Kimps, 2007;Brasoveanu et al, 2014;Tomaselli and Gatt, 2015).Although the analysis of pragmatic functions of TQs is relatively new, it has gained considerable importance especially in the last two decades, especially in English (Holmes, 1995;Roesle, 2001;Algeo, 2006;Tottie and Hoffman, 2006. ) Holmes (1995) divides TQs into epistemic and affective types.…”

“…In these studies, different functions of TQs have been identified. In pragmatic analysis of TQs, there are three traditions in the literature (Tomaselli and Gatt, 2015). These traditions can be named as grammar-based, pragmatic analysis and functional grammar perspective.…”