SPEECH FUNCTIONS OF TAG QUESTIONS IN TURKISH DISCUSSION PROGRAMS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 What is Tag Question?

Tag is a term used in grammar 'to refer to a question structure

usually consisting of an auxiliary verb and pronoun attached to the

end of a statement in order to convey a negative or positive

orientation.' ( Crystal: 1997) Despite this definition, across

languages the formation of question tags can show differences. In

addition, 'the majority of tags are single lexical items, including

the English right?, eh?' ( Mithun: 2012) These constructions,

consisting of a host clause and some kind of tag, provide a means of

turn-allocation and evidential or attitudinal modification. ( Kimps:

2007) Most of the studies on tag questions (TQ's) have focused on

their semantic and pragmatic aspects. But their syntactic

implications are also being taken into consideration.

1. Ali toplantıya katılacak, değil mi?

( Ali will attend the meeting, won't he? )

In this Turkish TQ example the sentence before comma represents the

anchor or host, and the last part is abbreviated question (QT). This

is the main commonality in TQs acroos languages. A host and an

abbreviated question. But the formation changes in Turkish. A word

'değil' ( means not) and question particle 'mi' merge and form QTs

in Turkish. Note that 'değil' is used as a negative polarity item in

Turkish. Yet, when it is used with 'mi' in Turkish at the end of a

sentence it serves as QT marker.

1.2 Features of Tag Questions

There have been several models to clarify the functions of TQs.

Among them we can see Janet Holmes ( 1983, 1984, 1995), John Algeo

(1988, 1990, 2006) and Tottie and Hoffman (2006) These have been

proposed according to pragmatic functions. Brasoveanu et al. is the

one who has tried to explain TQs in terms of their syntactic

functions.

From Brasoveanu's point of view two types of QTs have been

distinguished; Reverse Tag Questions and Reduplicative Tag

Questions.

2. Maria resigned, didn't she? / Maria didn't resign, did she?

3. Maria resigned, did she?

In 2 we see Reverse TQs here the polarity of the tag question is the

reverse of that of the sentence it attaches to. But in 3 the

polarity of the tag is the same as that of the anchor . Note that in

English if content, anger and surprise is indicated than the second

part can be the same with the anchor.

Apart from this model, some pragmatic approach have been applied to

QTs. For instance Holmes mainly determined two functions; Epistemic

Modal Function which include rising intonation and expressing

genuine speaker uncertainity rather than politeness and Affective

Function that involves three sub-branches respectively Facilitative

( Hedges) Softening (negative politeness devices) and Challenging

( Confrontational Strategies)

After him Algeo developed his own model. His model involves five

basic functions of Tag Questions. Informational (asking real

information) , Confirmatory ( confirmation of what the speaker has

said) , Punctuational (pointing up what the speaker has said and

are the vocal equivalent of an exclamation point or underlining for

emphasis) , Peremptory ( it follows a statement of obvious or

universal truth) and Aggressive or Antagonistic (insulting and

provocative) ( Mithun: 2012)

Based on these two models Tottie and Hoffman postulate their model.

For them QTs serve these six functions when they are used:

Informational ( genuine request for information) , Confirmatory

( speaker is not sure of what s/he says, wants confirmation) ,

Attitudinal ( Emphasizes what the speaker says, does not expect

involvement or reply) , Facilitating ( speaker is sure of the truth

of what s/he says but wants to involve the listene) , Peremptory

( follows statement of generally acknowledged truth, is intented to

close off debate), Aggressive ( insult or provocation).

Table 1: Tottie and Hoffmann's Classification

Overview of Tottie and Hoffmann's Model

1. Informational

Genuine request for information

2. Confirmatory

Speaker is not sure of what s/he says, wants confirmation

3. Attitudinal

Emphasizes what the speaker says, does not expect involvement or reply

Features of TQs

Informational

Confirmatory

Attitudinal

Facilitating

Peremptory

Aggressive

4. Facilitating

Speaker is sure of the truth of what s/he says but wants to involve the listener

5. Peremptory

Follows statement of generally acknowledged ... truth, is intended to close off debate

6. Aggressive

Functions as insult or provocation

1.3 Previous Studies Regarding Tag Questions

Previous studies of TQs substantially include English and other

European Languages. However, from time to time some comparative

studies are done to show differences or similarities among different

languages. Discussion of English tags has been made by Rodney

Huddleston (1970), Ray Cattell (1973), Betty Lou Dubois and Isabel

Crouch (1975) Robin Lakoff ( 1975) and Sebastian Hoffmann (2006).

All these studies show differences with regard to their focus. Some

of them focus on structural features while others focus on

functions and uses. Since there is a substantial literature on TQs

it is impossible to give all of them here.

In Turkish study on QTs is rare. Demirezen (2014) in relation to

Anthropology and Intonation analyzed Tag Questions. İnan and Fidan

(2013) partly examined Tag Questions in Foreign Language Teaching

Classes.

1.4 Aim of the Study and Research Questions

This study aims to investigate speech functions of TQs in Turkish

discussion programs by using Tottie and Hoffmann's model on TQs.

The study's main aim is to show that whether in TV debate programs

participants and moderator take advantage of functions of TQs to

navigate and control their speech through the use of tag questions.

Moreover, this study aims to find out if speakers of Turkish use

some pitch and intonation patterns with TQs.

The following research questions will be adressed:

1) Which functions of Tag Questions are exploited in Turkish TV

discussion programs?

2) Does intonation play a role in conveying the meaning of Tag

Question? If so which intonation patterns are used with specific

function of TQs?

2. METHODOLOGY

By using random sampling discussion programs in Turkey which are

broadcasted between the years of 2013 and 2015 have been examined.

After examination the parts of speeches which involve TQs have been

transcribed and a corpus has been formed. From this corpus TQs are

evaluated according to Tottie and Hoffmann's model that is provided

above. Also to show intonation patterns the sentences involving TQs

have been put into Praat to be analyzed. The names of programs have

been made available in Data Analysis section. Since the only

criteria is being a discussion program a wide range of programs have

been examined. Furthermore, discussion programs can be partially

natural in terms of speech. This is the most important reason for

their selection.

3. Data Analysis

In this section extracts from different TV discussion programs in

Turkey have been provided and analyzed.

Extract 1: From Ruhat Mengi ile Her Açıdan - 19 October 2014 - Halk TV

Mengi: Mürşitpınar bizim sınır kapımız, di mi? ( Mürşitpınar is our

border gate, isnt't it?)

Mete Yarar: Bizim sınır kapımız. ( Yes, it is our border gate)

First of all it should be said that in written language 'değil mi'

is used as a question tag. But in speech mostly 'di mi' is used.

They convey the same meaning and function. It is used like this

because of its easy articulation during the speech. This use of TQ

falls under the category of Facilitating function of TQ according to

Tottie and Hoffmann's model. Because speaker of this utterance,

Ruhat Mengi who is operator in this program, know that Mürşitpınar

is Turkey's border gate. She is sure about it but wants to make it

clear to the audiences and wants the listener to involve speech. The

pitch contour of this utterance is below. We can interpret from this

graph that the rising tone falls on the last QT part. So we can

also add that Facilitating part can be attributed to rising

intonation on QT part.

Graph 1: The pitch pattern of Extract 1

Extract 2: From 'Aykırı Sorular' - 28 April 2014

Enver Aysever: Bir de günceli bulur herhalde, di mi? ( And it also seeks

for updated information, doesn't it?

Murat Bardakçı: O gazeteye mahsustur. (It is peculiar to newspaper)

In this program moderator and participant are talking about history

and its scope. Having been defined what the history is, moderator

asks this question by using tag question. Here we can observe

confirmatory function of TQ. Because actually Aysever is not sure

about what he said. As Bardakçı knows better than him about history

he wants justification of his statement by using TQ. And Bardakçı

corrects him by saying his utterance. With confirmatory function

raising tone on QT is seen. So raising tone accompany confirmatory

function.

Graph 2: The pitch pattern of Extract 2

Extract 3: From 'Aykırı Sorular' - 28 April 2014

Enver Aysever: İllegal bir örgüt altında, di mi ortaya çıkışı? ( It

emerged as an illegal organization, didn't it)

Facilitating function is again at work here. The dialogue is about

'İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti' (Committee of Union and Progress)

which was an influential organization between 1908 and 1918. It is

widely known that this organization was a reaction to Abdulhamid

rule. So it emerged as an illegal organization at first. Knowing

this general truth, Aysever combines this statement with a question

tag to take advantage of its facilitating function. He seeks to

involvement of the other speaker into conversation to elaborate

the issue. In parallel to the other facilitating function a rising

tone falls on QT part.

Graph 3: The Pitch Pattern of Extract 3

Extract 4: From 'Söz Sende' 2 May 2013

Balçiçek İlter: En son hatırlamaya çalışıyorduk di mi? ( Last time we

were trying to remember, weren't we?)

Cem Hakko: Evet. Aynen öyle. ( Yes, exactly)

Here Balçiçek İlter, the moderator, says something that the guest

knows so we can assume her statement as a shared information. Both

speakers know the proposition. What is tried to be said is that

İlter emphasizes what she says and doesnot actually expect a reply

from her quest in the program. So she uses Attitudinal function of

TQ. Once more in this function rising tone accompanies to QT part.


Extract 5: From 'Söz Sende' 2 May 2013

Balçiçek İlter: Devir de tabiri caizse bütün dünyada pazarlama devri di

mi aslında di mi? ( The era is marketing era in the world, isn't it?)

Cem Hakko: Tabi. Aslında... ( Of course. In fact...)

Using two tag questions, İlter again takes advantage of Facilitating

function since she is sure of her statement but wants the other

speaker join to the conversation. Therefore, the quest is directed

to make a detailed comment on this topic. Both of the TQs pitch is

high. But the highest stress falls on the first TQ.

Graph 5:The Pitch Pattern of Extract 5

Extract 6: From 'Tarihin Arka Odası' 24 January 2015

Murat Bardakçı: Moskof madalyonu kaybolmuş, diğil mi? ( Muscovy medallion has been lost, hasn't it?)

İlber Ortaylı: Herşey. ( Everything)

Murat Bardakçı, an eminent journalist in Turkey, makes this statement by using TQ. Here we can observe Confirmatory function of TQ. Because he is not totally sure of what he says and expects a confirmation from someone who knows the incident better than him. ( Ortaylı is a distinguished historian) Like other confirmatory functions rising tone falls on QT.

Graph 6: The PitchPpattern of Extract 6

Extract 7: From 'Tarihin Arka Odası' 24 January 2015

Murat Bardakçı: Vatikan nişanı kayboldu mu? Duruyor di mi? ( Did Vatikan medal get lost? İt is still exist, isn't it?)

İlber Ortaylı: Ondan bir bilgim yok.( I have no idea about it)

In this extract we can see for the first time in our analysis that

Informational function is exploited in a Turkish TV program. It is

known that in Foreign Affairs archives there are medals and Bardakçı

is directing a question about a particular medal. Actually he does

not know whether or not they still have this medal in their

archives. So to learn this he is asking a genuine question so as to

request for a real information. The rising tone actually falls on

the yes/no question part. But to emphasize the TQ part another

rising tone also accompanies it.


Extract 8:From 'Cansu Canan ile Öteki Gündem' 13 March 2015

Cansu Canan: Konuşucaz inşallah, di mi? ( We will talk if God permits,won't we?)

The moderator mentions about a topic that they will cover upcoming weeks. By saying her utterance above she actually stress what she says, she does not expect an actual responce or participation of theother speakers in the program. Hence, Attitudinal function of TQ is

used here. Pitch pattern also shows that stress falls upon the QT part.


Extract 9: From 'Ruhat Mengi ile Her Açıdan'- 1 March 2015

Ümit Özdağ: Ahmet Türk, HPD yüzde 10'u aşmazsa kan akar dedi, değil mi?( Ahmet Türk said that if HDP (a political party in Turkey) cannot go beyond 10 %, blood will be shed, didn't he?)

Ruhat Mengi: Evet. Dedi. ( Yes, he did)

Here the quest of the program is sure about what he said. Because another person uttered this statament a few days before the program.So we can assume that this a shared information. Even though he knows that this utterance is true he wants to involve the listener in this case the moderator in the conversation for reinforcing his claim. Therefore he benefits from the Facilitating function of TQ. Arelatively high pitch pattern can be observed in QT part.


Extract 10: From ' Cem Özer +1' - 4 December 2014

İlber Ortaylı: Kimer Country'i bilirsin, değil mi? ( You know Kimer Country, don't you?)

Cem Özer: Evet. Kimer Country. (Yes, Kimer Country)

In this extract participants are talking about Turkish degeneration.İlber Ortaylı asks the moderator a question. Indeed he asks this question to get information from the moderator as he is not certain that whether he knows what he is saying. So Informational function is benefited here by the speaker. Similar to the other informationalfunction rising intonation is seen on QT.


CONCLUSION

Table 2: Overall Result

Extracts Functions of Tag Questions

Intonation Patterns on Tag Questions

Extract 1 Facilitating Rising Tone

Extract 2 Confirmatory Rising Tone


Extract 4 Attitudinal Rising Tone


Extract 6 Confirmatory Rising Tone

Extract 7 Informational Rising Tone

Extract 8 Attitudinal Rising Tone


Extract 10

Informational Rising Tone

From Tottie and Hoffmann's model four functions have been observed

in our data. These are Facilitating, Confirmatory, Attitudinal and

Informational functions. Peremptory and Aggressive functions have

not been seen. In Turkish TV programs these four functions are used

mostly by the moderator of the program. Either the moderator is not

sure of what s/he says so waits a confirmation or s/he is sure of

what s/he says but still wants the other participant involve in the

conversation.

In observed four functions intonation of TQ parts is relatively high

when compared to the rest of the sentence. So speakers indeed

adjust their voice by increasing their tone to express the function

of TQ. In pitch studies falling tone is generally accepted as a sign

of uncertainity. But in Confirmatory function even though the

speaker is not totally sure of his/her utterance s/he does not use

falling tone in QT parts. Maybe this is because the effect of TV on

speakers. They avoid from appearing to be uncertain in front of

public. Thus, we can put forward that TV setting has an influence on

speakers in terms of their intonation.

In discussion programs speakers usually don't want to end the debate

so this can be another effect of TV setting on speakers that they

don't use peremptory function. Also in TV's insulting is a rare

case. That might be another reason why speakers do not take

advantage of the function of Agressive.

But to understand the effect of TV programs on the use of TQ we must

make some comparisons in different domains such as natural dialogues

and classroom interactions. Only in this way can we see the impact

of TV setting on use of Tag Questions.

In addition to all these, it should be noted that in most cases

moderator consult Taq Questions. Since they have to orientate and

seek active participation of speakers it is natural to observe that

phenomena in their speech. And generallt they are the one to ask

questions to participants. This may be another factor why moderator

apply to use TQs.

REFERENCES

1) Crystal, David 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and

Phonetics.Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Oxford.

2) Brasoveanu, Adrian et al. 2014. Question Tags and Sentential

Negativity. Lingua 145. 173-193

3) Kimps, Ditte. 2007. Declarative Constant Polarity Tag Questions:

A Data-driven Analysis of Their Form, Meaning and Attitudinal Uses.

Journal of Pragmatics 39. 270-291.

4) Mithun, Marianne. 2012. Tags: Cross-linguistic Diversity and

Commonality. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 2165-2182

5) Tottie, Gunnel. Hoffmann Sebastian. 2006. Tag Questions in

British and American English. Jornal of English Linguistics 34 (4).

283-311

SPEECH FUNCTIONS OF TAG QUESTIONS IN TURKISH DISCUSSION PROGRAMS

Documents

Transcript of SPEECH FUNCTIONS OF TAG QUESTIONS IN TURKISH DISCUSSION PROGRAMS