Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Các mô hình khác, mà chúng ta có thể gọi là "phân cực liên tục", chỉ có thể có một ngữ điệu tăng. Điều này cho chúng ta trong tất cả ba khả năng: (i) (ii) (iii) đảo ngược cực - với một ngữ điệu cf giảm. phải không? với một ngữ điệu mức độ đảo ngược cực | Tag questions 319 is that of so-called reversed polarity i.e. an affirmative clause is followed by negative tag question and vice versa in such cases the tag question may take either a rising or a falling intonation. The other pattern which we can call constant polarity can only have a rising intonation. This gives us in all three possibilities i reversed polarity with a falling intonation cf. right with a level intonation confident ii reversed polarity with a rising intonation cf. right with a rising intonation cautious iii constant polarity with a rising intonation cf. eh with a rising intonation inferential The following are examples 27 a. George felt deserted didn t he b. George didn t feel deserted did he 28 a. George felt deserted didn t he b. George didn t feel deserted did he 29 a. George felt deserted did he b. George didn t feel deserted didn t he A question that obviously arises is exactly what the semantic or pragmatic difference is between reversed polarity and constant polarity and within the first type what the difference is between a rising and a falling intonation. As we saw above Algeo describes the difference between normally used falling and rising tags as that between confirmatory and informational tags but the distinction can be better described as involving a difference between seeking confirmation for something presumed to be true and seeking resolution of a doubt . The falling tag has been described as coercive but a better word would be confident . The rising tag is cautious . In both cases the preceding statement is an assertion that is being made by the speaker. The constant polarity tag is somewhat different in this latter respect. The speaker is not so much making an assertion of his or her own as rather checking whether he or she has correctly understood an implicature suggested by the collocutor we could refer to it as inferential . This may explain the unlikelihood of the negative form except where the inferential meaning is very .
