Kuttner2024
| Kuttner2024 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Küttner2024 |
| Author(s) | Uwe-Alexander Küttner and Beatrice Szczepek Reed |
| Title | Request for confirmation sequences in British and American English |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2024 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Open Linguistics |
| Volume | 10 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0012 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
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.
Notes
