Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T01:18:55.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tag constructions: structure and function in child discourse*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Ginger Berninger  and
Catherine Garvey
Ginger Berninger
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Catherine Garvey
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A distinction has been drawn between tag questions which occur within the same temporally defined turn and those in a second turn by the same speaker. A TAG CONSTRUCTION has been defined as a MATRIX CLAUSE (any syntax) and a TAG FORM (reduced interrogative in elliptical constructions; or interrogative expression in stereotypical constructions) produced WITHIN THE SAME TURN. The discoursal functions of tag constructions include requests for information, agreement, permission, compliance, responsiveness and attention. Although stereotypical tag constructions emerge earlier in development than elliptical tag constructions, from the beginning stereotypical tag constructions perform the same discoursal functions as the grammatically more complex elliptical constructions as well as additional ones. Tag constructions are less effective than canonical questions in obtaining turn transfers. This relative ineffectiveness may be due to either the post-positioned clearance signal or the fact that the listener feels less compelled to respond when the speaker seems to have an expectation as to what the response to the request should be.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 151 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

REFERENCES

Ashmore, R. D. & Boca, F. K. Del (in press). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In Hamilton, D. L.. (ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior. Hilisdale N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berninger, G. & Garvey, C. (in press). Questions and the allocation, construction, and timing of turns in child discourse. JPsycholingRes.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R.. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. (1973). Negative transportation and tag questions. Lg 49. 652–39.Google Scholar
Garvey, C. & Debba, M. Ben (1974). Effects of age, sex, and partner on children's dyadic speech. ChDev 45. 1159–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Garvey, C. & Berninger, G. (1981). Timing and turn-taking in children's conversations. Discourse Processes 4. 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1975). The meaning of questions. Lg 31. 1–32.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9. 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, E. S. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J.. (eds), The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1969). A syntactic argument for negative transportation. Papers from the 5th regional meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society. 140–7.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Lg 50. 696–735.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I.. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar