MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

LÊ THỊ TỐ UYÊN

SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH TAG

QUESTION
(ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ DỤNG HỌC CỦA CÂU HỎI TÁCH BIỆT
TRONG TIẾNG ANH)

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 8220201

Hanoi, 2019
 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 8220201

SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH TAG

QUESTION
(ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ DỤNG HỌC CỦA CÂU HỎI TÁCH BIỆT
TRONG TIẾNG ANH)

LÊ THỊ TỐ UYÊN
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr Vo Dai Quang

Hanoi, 2019
 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled
“The syntactic and pragmatic features of English tag question” submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language.
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‟s work has been used without
due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.

Hanoi, 2019

Le Thi To Uyen

Approved by

SUPERVISOR

Assoc. Prof. Vo Dai Quang, Ph,D

Date:……………………………..

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from a
number of people. I would like, hereby, to express my profound gratitude to my
supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vo Dai Quang who has patiently and constantly supported
me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and
suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an academic researcher.

Also, I am very grateful to all the teachers at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies of
Hanoi Open University for their interesting and useful lectures which have built in me
a firm foundation with immense ideas for the fulfillment of this paper.

In conducting this research, I have benefited a lot of ideas from the research work:
“The Syntax and Pragmatics o f English Tag Questions: A Study o f Adult Arabic
Learners of English” by Imad Al-Nabtiti”.

Last but not least, I should also express my heartfelt thanks to my family who have
supported me a lot during my studies and my research work as well.

ii
 ABSTRACT
In English, tag questions play an important part in communicative process. People
are not able to communicate well without making and answering questions. In reality,
people make tag question for confirmation or checking information. It is obvious that
tag questions cannot be missed in communication. However, there are several
problems when using tag questions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to describe
the syntactic and pragmatic features of English tag questions. This study used both
quantitative and qualitative methods as the main ones. In addition, a descriptive
method was also used to shed light into the features of these English structures in
terms of syntax and pragmatic. Finally, some other methods and techniques such as
statistical technique and error method were also used by the writer of this paper to
measure the chosen participants‟ ability to respond to a written test and an oral test. In
the previous research, the syntactic and pragmatic features were shown. However, this
study‟s contributions are: describing the syntactic and pragmatic features of English
tag question and pointing out the commonly errors committed by students at Nguyen
Thi Minh Khai high school and the solutions to the errors will be recommended.
These findings will be useful.

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Word order in English tag questions 9

Table 2 Canonical TQs identified in English by various authors 18

Table 3 Word order in English tag questions in the written test 29

Table 4 The typical intonation of English tag questions 33

Table 5 Summary of errors made by participants on the oral and 36

written test

Table 6 Rhetorical tag question 41

Table 7 Verb tenses in English tag question 46

Table 8 Intonation of English tag questions based on pragmatic 47

function

LIST OF FIGURES

Chart 1 Types of English tag questions 30

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP.............................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Rationale for the Study ..................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aims and Objectives of the study ..................................................................... 2
1.2.1. Aims of the study ........................................................................................... 2
1.2.2. Objectives of the study .................................................................................. 2
1.3 Research questions ............................................................................................ 2
1.4 Methods of the study ......................................................................................... 2
1.5 Scope of the study .............................................................................................. 2
1.6 Significance of the study.................................................................................... 3
1.6.1 Theoretical significance .................................................................................. 3
1.6.2 Practical significance ...................................................................................... 3
1.7 Design of the study ............................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 4
2.1. Previous studies .................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Theoretical background...................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 An overview of syntactic features .................................................................. 5
2.2.2 An overview of pragmatic features............................................................... 12
2.2.3 Summary ....................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 20
3.1 Approaches ........................................................................................................ 20
3.2 Methods .............................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Data collection instruments .............................................................................. 26
3.4 Data analysis technique .................................................................................... 27
Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 28
4.1 Syntactic features of tag question in English .................................................. 28
4.2 Pragmatic features of tag question in English ................................................ 37
 4.3 The possible solutions for learning and teaching English tag question at
Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school ..................................................................... 43
4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................ 47
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 48
5.1 Recapitulation .................................................................................................... 48
5.2 Concluding remarks.......................................................................................... 48
5.2 Limitations of the current research ................................................................. 50
5.3 Recommendations/Suggestions for further study .......................................... 50
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 51
Book ........................................................................................................................... 51
Website ........................................................................................................................ 52
 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale for the Study

Tag Questions are important devices in the English language and are used very
often by native speakers. Almost all languages have tag questions; however,
Canonical Tag Questions are unique to the English language (Bublitz, 1979) and
mastering them requires a high level of proficiency in English (Holmes, 1982). In
terms of formal properties, canonical English tag questions are sensitive to three main
factors: the choice of auxiliary and pronoun, polarity (negation), and intonation
pattern. Even though the general uses of tag questions follow the described
constraints, their actual use in real life appears to be much more complex (Ann, 2011,
p. 6).
Students over the world find learning question tags in English confusing and
difficulty because some Asian languages don‟t have question tags. The results of the
survey in Vietnamese students' classrooms are also given the fact that English tag
questions is still limited because of commonly mistakes. To overcoming these
obstacles is probably a big challenge for students. This is also the reason why students
lack confidence in using English tag questions to communicate.
This study investigates to find out what are the syntactic and pragmatic features of
English tag questions. The results of the study reveal that non-native speakers cannot
use Canonical Tag Questions appropriately because of the syntactic complexity of
these kinds of questions, but because of their pragmatic requirements. The results also
show possible solutions to mistakes commonly committed by students at Nguyen Thi
Minh khai high school.

1
1.2 Aims and Objectives of the study

1.2.1. Aims of the study

This research is aimed at helping students to have an insightful look at the syntactic
and pragmatic features of English tag question.
The findings of this research are expected to improve the ability to use English tag
question effectively; particularly, in the teaching and learning of English tag question.

1.2.2. Objectives of the study

To achieve the aims mentioned above, following objectives are put forward:
(1) Describing the syntactic and pragmatics features of English tag questions;
(2) Pointing out possible solutions for mistakes commonly committed by students at
Nguyen Thi Minh khai high school when they use English tag question.

1.3 Research questions

The paper will attempt to answer three following questions:
• What are the syntactic and pragmatic features of tag question?
• What are the mistakes commonly committed by students at Nguyen Thi Minh
Khai high school?
• What are the possible solutions to the mistakes?

1.4 Methods of the study

The thesis is conducted by combining the main research approaches which are mixed
method, quantitative method , qualitative method which are carried out with the
following orientations.
- Various sources of printed publications as books, articles, journals will be used as
the data.
- Some questionnaire and interview with students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school.

1.5 Scope of the study

The scope of the study is the syntactic and pragmatic features of English tag question.
The survey will be carried out at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school to find out the
mistakes commonly committed by students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school.

2
The participants of the study are students in class 12A1 at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai
high school. The level of the students is good. They have studied about English tag
question.

1.6 Significance of the study

1.6.1 Theoretical significance

The study is expected to help people to know about the syntactic and pragmatics
features of English tag questions.

1.6.2 Practical significance

The results of the research were able to be referenced and used for learning English
language effectively. Accordingly, the thesis points out commonly errors committed
by students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school and possible solutions to the
problems. Therefore, it also helps seeking some appropriate solutions for the problem
of learning English question

1.7 Design of the study

With the purpose of creating an easy-understanding research, this paper is divided into
five chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction of the thesis in which rationale of the study, aims of the study, scope of
the study, method of the study, design of the study is introduced to give the
background of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature review
This part refers to the overview of some studies on English tag questions, provides the
basic knowledge about the tag questions in English.
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter consists of approaches, methods, data collection instruments, data
analysis technique, and data related issues.
Chapter 4: Finding and discussion

3
It provides the results obtained via applications of the concerned an investigation into
the syntactic and pragmatic features of English tag questions and possible solutions to
the mistakes commonly committed by students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The last chapter presents the review of the study and the references will put the end of
the paper.

4
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Previous studies

English tag question has been studied by many researchers and discussed in
many grammar books by many authors.
In Vietnam, Nguyen Thi Ngan (2016) indicates the features of tag questions
in English with their Vietnamese equivalents in terms of syntactic and
semantic features. The author makes comparison of tag questions between
English and Vietnamese and points out the similarities and differences
between the two languages. (Ngan, 2016)
In over the world, Imad Al-Nabtiti (2012) reveals that non-native speakers
cannot use Canonical Tag Questions appropriately not because of the syntactic
complexity of these kinds of questions, but because of their pragmatic
requirements. The results also show the importance of incorporating a
pragmatic theory and the social contexts in which discourses take place in ESL
curricula.
Besides, Gunnel Tottie and Sebastian Hoffmann (2009) states that Canonical
tag questions in Present-day English (PDE) have received ample coverage in
the literature, but their historical development has so far been given little
attention.
Furthermore, enka Vondrus ov (2007) shows how the English question tags
are translated into Czech. It points out the frequency and types of question tags
encountered by translators of fiction, the meanings and communicative
functions they convey, and the means of expression used to translate them. The
thesis provides an overview of existing translations and at least partly clarify
their foundation, thus outlining translation equivalence of the English and
Czech structures. (Vondrus ov , 2017)
Finally, Qiyun Zhang (2010) points out that questioning or being questioned is
a necessity in communicative activities. The tag question plays an important
role in everyday communication. In the tag mechanism of those questions, the
4
tags are not formed in accordance with the general forming rules. So, learners
often commit errors. This paper studies the types and causes of errors of the tag
question. By analyzing these error sources, the learner can avoid and benefit
from errors. Thus, they can understand tag questions better. (Qiyun, 2010)

2.2 Theoretical background

2.2.1 An overview of syntactic features

Syntax refers to the ways symbols may be combined to create well-
formed programs in the language. It defines the formal relations between the
constituents of a language, thereby providing a structural description of the
various expressions that make up legal strings in the language.
According to Peter Svenonius (2017), the theory of features in syntax
derives from earlier work in morphology and phonology, especially the
foundational work in the first half of the twentieth century by Jakobson and
Trubetzkoy and others (e.g., Jakobson 1990 [1942], Jakobson et al. 1951;
see Clements and Hume 1995, Halle et al. 2000 for discussion). In
phonology the term feature is normally used in the restrictive sense of
“distinctive features” of phonemes—all and only the properties that are
necessary to uniquely distinguish each item in the phoneme inventory of a
language. These properties are normally assumed to be phonetically (or ar-
ticulatorily) grounded. They define natural classes. For example, a
distinctive feature distinguishes /p/ from /b/ in English, as demonstrated by
the ex- istence of minimal pairs such as pray and bray. In contrast, no
distinctive feature distinguishes the aspirated /p/ ([ph]) in pat from the
unaspirated one in spat or ape. (Svenonius, 2017 , p. 2)
In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky lays down the foundation of
transformational grammar and tries to construct a formalized theory of
linguistic structure. He begins by focusing on the grammar of a language,
stating that the grammar of a language is the device that generates all
sensical and nonsensical sequences of words for a language. Afterwards,
Chomsky argues that the fundamental aim of linguistic analysis of a
5
language is to separate grammatical sequences from ungrammatical
sequences of a language and to study the structure of the grammatical
sequences. From there he concludes that grammar is autonomous and
independent of meaning. For the rest of his book Chomsky argues that
language utilizes a transformational grammar that has a natural tripartite
arrangement consisting of: phrase structure rules, transformational rules, and
morphophonemic rules. Syntactic Structures is regarded as one of the most
influential pieces on current linguistic theory. From there on out, Chomsky
co
ntinued to prove that he is an academic intellectual. His later linguistic and
philosophical works assert that most of grammar is innate knowledge and
has been termed universal grammar. This has had strong support in the field
of psychology and has directly challenged many behaviorist theories and
prior theories that have attempted to explain how children learn language
and gain the ability to use language. (Keller, 2012)
Other scholar such as Leonard Bloomfield (1939) considered syntax was the
study of free forms that were composed entirely of free forms. Central to his
theory of syntax were the notions of form classes and constituentstructure.
(These notions were also relevant, though less central, in the theory of
morphology.) Bloomfield defined form classes, rather imprecisely, in terms
of some common “recognizable phonetic or grammatical feature” shared by
all the members. He gave as examples the form class consisting of
“personal substantive expressions” in English (defined as “the forms that,
when spoken with exclamatory final pitch, are calls for a person‟s presence
or attention”—e.g., “John,” “Boy,” “Mr. Smith”); the form class consisting
of “infinitive expressions” (defined as “forms which, when spoken with
exclamatory final pitch, have the meaning of a command”—e.g., “run,”
“jump,” “come here”); the form class of “nominative substantive
expressions” (e.g., “John,” “the boys”); and so on. It should be clear from
these examples that form classes are similar to, though not identical with,
the traditional parts of speech and that one and the same form can belong to
6
more than one form class. What Bloomfield had in mind as the criterion for
form class membership (and therefore of syntactic equivalence) may best be
expressed in terms of substitutability. Form classes are sets of forms
(whether simple or complex, free or bound), any one of which may be
substituted for any other in a given construction or set of constructions
throughout the sentences of the language. (Brittanica, 1995)
Question tags are formed in several ways, and many languages give a choice of
formation. In some languages the most common is a single word or fixed
phrase, whereas in others it is formed by a regular grammatical construction.
Word order of English tag question:
According to Luke Maurits, basic word order is essentially grounded on
properties of a certain kind of sentence. The kind of sentence we are interested
in is the declarative sentence, that is, a sentence which makes a statement about
something, rather than being asking a question or issuing a command.
Furthermore, it is a declarative sentence which states, very loosely, that
something has done something to something else. Examples of the sort of
sentence we are interested in, in English, are:
(1) The dog bit the man
(2) John kissed Mary
(3) A fire destroyed the town
Note that we are not interested in declarative sentences involving more than
two items (or two noun phrases), such as “John gave Mary the book”. An
underlying assumption in trying to define basic word order is that all languages
contain sentences of the kind described above.
The sentences we are interested can typically be analysed as having three
constituents: a subject (S), a verb (V) and an object (O). For instance, in “the
dog bit the man”, the subject is “the dog”, the verb is “bit” and the object is
“the man”. As a matter of logical necessity, any such sentence must place these
three constituents in some linear order, for example SVO in the case of “the
dog bit the man” (or, indeed, all of the three example sentences above). There

7
are six logically possible ways in which these constituents can be ordered, and
these are SOV, SVO, VSO, VOS, OVS and OSV.
In most languages, one of these six orders can be considered as being, loosely,
the most typical, natural or important. For instance, the majority of English
declarative sentences use SVO word order rather than any of the other five,
although there are exceptions. On the other hand, Japanese declarative
sentences are most often constructed using SOV word order, as the example
below shows:
(4) Inu ga otoko o kamimashita
Dog (subj) man (acc) bit
“The dog bit the man”
As a first approximation to a definition, then, we can say that the basic word
order of a language is the ordering of subject, verb and object which best
characterizes declarative sentences in that language. In many cases, assigning a
basic word order to a language is quite straightforward and this sort of informal
definition is arguably entirely adequate. For example, speakers of English
should have little trouble in convincing themselves that English has a basic
word order of SVO. However, if we wish to assign a single basic word order,
with confidence, to every language in the world, we rapidly run into a number
of complications and suddenly things are not so straightforward. The following
section deals with the major sources of this trouble. (Maurits, 2011, p. 10)
English tag questions are shown in the table below, with either reversed or
constant polarity in the main clause, henceforth called the anchor, and in the
tag. The subject of the anchor can be any noun, a pronoun, or there. The verb
of English tag question can be of any type, but in the tag, the subject must be
either a personal pronoun, one, or there, and the operator can only be a form of
have, be, or do, or a modal verb. Besides, tag questions with truncated
anchors—normally deletion of subject and verb—as well as imperatives can
have either Positive-Negative or Negative-Positive polarity. (Hoffmann, 2009,
p. 131)

8
 ANCHOR TAG POLARITY
(1) Makes you really doesn‟t it? Positive-Negative
think,
(2) Oh the ring‟s not is it? Negative-Positive
very valuable
(3) So this is the letter he is it? Constant Positive
sent you (Positive-Positive)
(4) Yes, they don‟t come don‟t they? Negative-Negative
cheap
Table 1: Word order in English tag questions

Types of English tag question:

The different varieties o f tag questions make it difficult to set up a clear and
systematic categorization of them; however, there is a sort of agreement among
scholars who dealt with tag questions on dividing them into two categories:
canonical tag questions and invariant tag questions.
Bublitz (1979) mentions that there are two kinds of tag questions in the English
language: lexical tag questions such as “right, okay”; and the intonational tag
“eh”. Cheng and Warren (2001), on the other hand, adopt a different definition
that classifies tag questions into two categories: canonical tag questions, with
both matching and contrasting polarity, e.g., “It is hot, is it?” and “It is hot,
isn‟t it?” and invariant tag questions, e.g., “right”. The canonical tag question
with contrastive polarity is referred to as a “checking tag” and the one with
matching polarity is referred to as a copy tag. “Word tags”, according to Cheng
and W arren (2001), refer to invariant tags.
Holmes (1982) also argues that tag questions in the English language can
be classified into two categories. One is “the grammatically complex tag
forms” (Holmes, 9

9
1982, p. 41) which also can be referred to as canonical tag questions, e.g., “It
is going to rain tomorrow, isn‟t it?” and the other type is “grammatically simple
tags” (Holmes,
1982, p. 41) which can be refereed to as invariant tag questions such as “right
and okay”. The syntactic form o f canonical tag questions involves an auxiliary
verb that agrees with the host sentence in tense and number, a pronoun, and
matching or contrasting polarity. The form ofthe canonical tag question should
agree with the subject and the auxiliary of the preceding host sentence in
number, gender and tense. On the other hand, the invariant tag question
involves words, such as “right”, “eh”, “okay” and “yeah” and does not have to
change its form to agree with gender, number or tense o f the host sentence.
The invariant tag question is less formal than the canonical tag question.
Sometimes these invariant tag questions are referred to as response elicitors or
response getters because they aim to elicit a response from the listener or
promote interaction in the conversation (Biber et al., 2002).
This study adopts Holmes‟s (1982) categorization o f tag questions. So, in
this study canonical tag question will be used to refer to the grammatically
complex tag forms and invariant tag question will be used to refer to tag words
such as “right and okay”. (Al-Nabtiti, 2013, p. 9)
Typical intonation of English tag question
The term intonation refers to a means for conveying information in speech
which is independent of the words and their sounds. Central to intonation is the
modulation of pitch, and intonation is often thought of as the use of pitch over
the domain of the utterance. However, the patterning of pitch in speech is so
closely bound to patterns of timing and loudness, and sometimes voice quality,
that we cannot consider pitch in isolation from these other dimensions. The
interaction of intonation and stress — the patterns of relative prominence
which characterise an utterance — is particularly close in many languages,
including English. For those who prefer to reserve „intonation‟ for pitch effects
in speech, the word „prosody‟ is convenient as a more general term to include
patterns of pitch, timing, loudness, and (sometimes) voice quality. In this
10
Chapter, however, intonation will be used to refer to the collaboration of all
these dimensions, and, where necessary, the term „melody‟ will be used to refer
specifically to the pitch-based component.
Intonation is used to carry a variety of different kinds of information. It signals
grammatical structure, though not in a one-to-one way; whilst the end of a
complete intonation pattern will normally coincide with the end of a
grammatical structure such as a sentence or clause, even quite major
grammatical boundaries may lack intonational marking, particularly if the
speech is fast. Intonation can reflect the information structure of an utterance,
highlighting constituents of importance. Intonation can indicate discourse
function; for instance most people are aware that saying „This is the eeds
train‟ with one intonation
constitutes a statement, but, with another, a question. Intonation can be used by
a speaker to convey an attitude such as friendliness, enthusiasm, or hostility;
and listeners can use intonation-related phenomena in the voice to make
inferences about a speaker‟s state, including excitement, depression, and
tiredness. Intonation can also, for instance, help to regulate turn-taking in
conversation, since there are intonational mechanisms speakers can use to
indicate that they have had their say, or, conversely, that they are in full flow
and don‟t want to be interrupted.
Intonation is not the only linguistic device for which pitch is recruited by
languages; many languages use pitch to distinguish words. In languages around
the world as diverse as Thai, Hausa (Nigeria), and Mixtec (Mexico), words are
distinguished not only by vowels and consonants but also by the use of one of a
limited set of distinctive pitch patterns or heights on each syllable. Such
languages are called tone languages. A number of other languages, such as
Swedish and Japanese, make a more limited use of pitch to distinguish words.
These languages might best be called lexical accent languages. All tone
languages and lexical accent languages also have intonation, but in general the
greater a language‟s use of pitch for distinguishing words, the less scope it has
to develop an elaborate intonation system. English, on the other hand, is not a
11
tone language or lexical accent language, and is generally agreed to have
relatively complex intonation. (Nolan, 2014, pp. 1,2)
English tag questions can have a rising or a falling intonation pattern.[3] This
can be contrasted with Polish, French or German, for example, where all tags
rise, or with the Celtic languages, where all fall. As a rule, the English rising
pattern is used when soliciting information or motivating an action, that is,
when some sort of response is required. Since normal English yes/no questions
have rising patterns (e.g. Are you coming?), these tags make a grammatical
statement into a real question:
Ex:
You're coming, aren't you?
The falling pattern is used to underline a statement. The statement itself ends
with a falling pattern, and the tag sounds like an echo, strengthening the
pattern. Most English tag questions have this falling pattern.
Ex:
He doesn't know what he's doing, does he?
The meaning of a tag question can be changed with the pitch of our voice. With
rising intonation, it sounds like a real question. But if our intonation falls, it
sounds more like a statement that doesn't require a real answer.

2.2.2 An overview of pragmatic features

According to Pininta Veronika Silalahi, pragmatics is a relatively late comer in
linguistics. It enters the linguistic scene at the end of the 1970s. However, to
many people, this is a rather new area. Pragmatics was a reaction to structural
linguistics as outlined by Ferdinand de Saussure. In many cases, it expanded
upon his idea that language has an analyzable structure, composed of parts that
can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics first engaged only in
synchronic study, as opposed to examining the historical development of
language. However, it rejected the notion that all meaning comes from signs
existing purely in the abstract space of langue.

12
Pragmatics deals with utterances, by which we will mean specific events, the
intentional acts of speakers at times and places, typically involving language.
Logic and semantics traditionally deal with properties of types of expressions,
and not with properties that differ from token to token, or use to use, or, as we
shall say, from utterance to utterance, and vary with the particular properties
that differentiate them. Pragmatics is sometimes characterized as dealing with
the effects of context. This is equivalent to saying it deals with utterances, if
one collectively refers to all the facts that can vary from utterance to utterance
as „context.‟ One must be careful, however, for the term is often used with
more limited meanings. (Silalahi, 1945, p. 83)
There are many definitions of pragmatics, because this field of linguistics has
been so charming and appealing to so many people that each one of them
seems to claim an interest in it and define it from different perspective.
According to Leech (1983: X), pragmatics can be usefully defined as the study
of how utterances have meanings in situations. In a way, through this
definition, Leech is clearing up the differences between semantics, syntax, and
pragmatics. What he is trying to say here is like this: Sentences are for syntax,
while utterances for pragmatics; sentence meanings free from situations are for
semantics, while utterance meanings bound with situations are for pragmatics.
Crystal (1987: 120) says that pragmatics studies the factors that govern our
choice of language in social interaction and the effects of our choice on others.
This definition emphasizes the absolute roles that context and language users
(speaker and hear) play. The former is instrumental in framing language users‟
choices of linguistic means for optimal communication outcomes, while the
later are solely responsible for the awareness of context or speech environment
in which they are to perform certain functions via language or fulfill specific
objectives by utilizing available linguistic means within their capability.
eech (1983:6) defines pragmatics as “the study of meaning in relation to
speech situations”. The speech situation enables the speaker use language to
achieve a particular effect on the mind of the hearer.” Thus the speech is goal-
oriented (i.e. the meaning which the speaker or writer intends to communicate).
13
 evinson (1983:9) defines pragmatics as “the study of those aspects of the
relationship between language and context that are relevant to the writing of
grammars.” In this definition that interest is mainly in the interrelation of
language and principles of language use that are context dependent. While Yule
(1996:127), pragmatics is “the study of intended speaker meaning”. This
definition is in accord with Crystal (1997, p. 301) who says that pragmatics is
“the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the
choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social
interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the
act of communication. Mey (1993:42) states that pragmatics is the study of the
condition of human language uses as this is determined by the context of
society. Pragmatic is needed if we want a fuller, deeper, and generally more
reasonable account of human language behavior. (Silalahi, 1945, p. 84)
Principles of Pragmatics is a general map of the terrain. It cannot give a
detailed view of every square inch. In particular, Leech's treatment of the
Textual Rhetoric is not fully worked out, as he himself states. There is need for
further formalization and testing, analysis of corpus data, cross-cultural studies,
and the extension of the discussion to whole texts or discourses, as opposed to
individual utterances or small exchanges. These are necessary limitations, in
the present state of the art. We are better off with a general map, since detailed
predictions (weak or strong) must await consensus on the outlines. (C, G. . N .
L E E, 1983, p. 123)
Pragmatic axis of English tag question
In linguistics, information structure, also called information packaging,
describes the way in which information is formally packaged within a sentence.
This generally includes only those aspects of information that “respond to the
temporary state of the addressee‟s mind”, and excludes other aspects of
linguistic information such as references to background knowledge, choice of
style, politeness, and so forth. For example, the difference between an active
clause (e.g., the police want him) and a corresponding passive (e.g., he is

14
wanted by police) is a syntactic difference, but one motivated by information
structuring considerations.
The given information is shown in the anchor and the unknown information is
the answer of the listener based on the tag.
For example: He is a student, isn‟t he?
The given information is “he is a student” and the unknown information is the
confirmation or the denial to the given one. The unknown information will be
stated by answer the tag “isn‟t it?”
Pragmatic function of English tag questions
According to M.V. Tomaselli, A. Gatt (2015), depending on discourse
context, TQs with the same form can have different functions. Most research
on TQ functions has focused on English, though this section will also deal
with related work on other languages.
In line with the distinction between the speaker‟s stance on a proposition
and the interactional impact of a TQ, Holmes (1995) divides TQs into
„epistemic modal‟ and „affective‟ types. Epistemic modal TQs „„express
genuine speaker uncertainty rather than politeness‟‟ (p. 80), as in (1) below.
Examples (1) to (5) come from Holmes (1995), where a downward slash
indicates falling intonation, and an upward slash rising intonation.
Ex1: Fay Weldon‟s lecture is at eight /isn‟t it?
Affective TQs are subdivided into „facilitative‟, „softening‟, and
„challenging‟. Facilitative TQs‟‟. . . are examples of hedges
which serve as positive politeness devices. They invite the addressee to
contribute to the discourse‟‟ (Holmes, 1995, p. 81):
Ex2: You‟ve got a new job Tom \haven‟t you?
Softening TQs, on the other hand, serve a negative politeness function and
are used to attenuate the force of negatively affective utterances, for
example, directives and criticisms (Holmes, 1995, p. 81):
Ex3: Make a cup of tea /would you?
Ex4: That was a really dumb thing to do \wasn‟t it?

15
Challenging TQs are „„confrontational strategies [which] may pressure a
reluctant addressee to reply or aggressively boost the force of a negative
speech act‟‟ (Holmes, 1995, p. 80):
Ex5:
A: . . .you‟ll probably find yourself in front of the Chief Constable,
/okay?
B: Yes, Sir, yes, understood.
A: Now you er fully understand that, \don‟t you? B: Yes, Sir, indeed,
yeah.
Algeo (1990, 2006) proposes a different classification, and divides TQs into
„informational‟, „confirmatory‟, „punctuational‟, „peremptory‟, and
„aggressive‟ (renamed „antagonistic‟ in Algeo, 2006). When using
informational TQs, „„the speaker has an idea about something (the statement
preceding the tag), but asks for information without presuming to know
what the answerer will say‟‟ (1990, p. 445). In fact, in (6) the speaker‟s
presupposition turns out to be false.
Ex6:
Q: You don‟t have to wear any sort of glasses or anything, do you?
A: Well, I wear glasses for reading sometimes.
Confirmatory TQs are used to „„draw the person addressed into the
conversation (. . .) [asking] for confirmation of what the speaker has said‟‟
(Algeo, 1990, pp. 445--446). The difference is that the speaker assumes that
the addressee will agree with the statement, so this type of TQ does not seek
information, as shown in (7) where the speaker is teasing. Some responses
listed by Algeo are „of course‟, „yes, certainly‟, „that‟s right‟, or a nod of the
head (p. 446).
Ex7:
Q: You have some pull with the management, do you?
A: [laugh]
Punctuational TQs „„point up what the speaker has said [and] are the vocal
equivalent of an exclamation point or of underlining for emphasis‟‟ (Algeo,
16
1990, p. 446). No response is required in this type of TQ, which simply
demands the hearer‟s attention, without necessarily participating.
Ex8: You classicists, you‟ve probably not done Old English, have you?
Course you haven‟t.
Algeo‟s peremptory TQ follows a statement whose truth is universally
acknowledged, so that „„even someone of the
limited intelligence of the addressee must be presumed to recognize it‟‟
(Algeo, 1990, p. 446):
Ex9: I wasn‟t born yesterday, was I?
58 M.V. Tomaselli, A. Gatt / Journal of Pragmatics 84 (2015) 54--82
The use of an aggressive/antagonistic TQ does something very similar,
except that the TQ follows a statement that is not obvious and couldn‟t
possibly be known to the addressee. Algeo (1990, p. 447) argues that this is
insulting and provocative, because it implies that addressees ought to know
something they cannot actually know, as in (10).
Ex10:
A: I rang you up this morning, but you didn‟t answer.
Q: Well, I was having a bath, wasn‟t I?
There is much overlap between Holmes‟s (1995) and Algeo‟s (1990, 2006)
classifications: Informational TQs correspond to epistemic modal TQs, as
they demand verification of an assumption. Confirmatory TQs correspond to
facilitative TQs, drawing the hearer into the conversation (although in the
case of confirmatory TQs, the hearer‟s contribution is usually limited to a
minimal response, without taking necessarily taking the turn). There is no
equivalent of Holmes‟s softening TQs in Algeo‟s classification, and there is
no equivalent of Algeo‟s punctuational TQs in Holmes‟s. Algeo‟s remaining
categories (peremptory and antagonistic TQs) are subsumed in Holmes‟s
challenging tag, all sharing the purpose of putting down the hearer in some
way. Punctuational TQs can in certain cases be challenging in their pointing
up what the speaker has said, but they are not restricted to that use.

17
Tottie and Hoffmann (2006) propose their own classification based on
corpora of British and American English, which includes all the functions
covered so far except softening TQs. Like Holmes (1995), they distinguish
between confirmatory and facilitative uses, with the further addition of an
„attitudinal‟ category that broadly coincides with Algeo‟s (1990, 2006)
punctuational tag, and is also claimed to be a sub-class of Holmes‟s
challenging type. Interestingly, they observe that confirmatory, attitudinal
and facilitative TQs account for around 90% of occurrences in their corpora,
with a much lower percentage (3%) of informational uses. Roesle (2001)
also adds categories: „Involving‟ TQs, roughly coinciding with Holmes‟s
facilitative uses, and „hoping/fearing‟ and „conspiracy‟, under the affective
macro-category. The conspiracy category accounts for cases in which both
speaker and listener are aware of the truth of a proposition, and are using the
TQ for the benefit of a third party. By contrast, hoping/fearing uses express
a speaker‟s hope or fear that the proposition carried by the anchor might be
true, for example: I didn‟t offend you, did I?
The table below summarizes the primary functions discussed so far. (Maria
Vittoria Tomaselli *, 2015, p. 57)
Algeo (1990) Holmes (1995) Roesle (2001) Tottie and
Hoffmann (2006)
Informational Epistemic modal Confirmatory Confirmatory
Confirmatory Facilitative Involving Facilitating
Punctuational Challenging Punctuational Attitudinal
Peremptory Challenging Peremptory Peremptory
Aggressive Challenging Aggressive Aggressive
Softening Informational Informational
Hopeful/fearful: Other types Other
Conspiracy types

Table 2: Canonical TQs identified in English by various authors.

Genuine tag question

18
Genuine means "real" or "not fake. So seeking information is usually
conducted by genuine question.
Tag question is used to check information or to ask for agreement. If we use
a rising intonation in the tag, we do not know or are not quite sure of the
answer. If we use a falling intonation in the tag, we are seeking the
agreement of the person we are talking to.
We can reply to tag questions either with simple yes/no answers (negative tags
normally expect a yes answer and positive tags normally expect a no answer)
or by using yes/no + auxiliary verb.
Rhetorical tag question
Rhetorical tag question is by forming a question right after a statement to mean
the opposite of what you said. Except the purpose of seeking information, its
aims are also confirmation, and affective tag questions, which perform various
discourse functions such as expressing speaker opinion or attitude (attitudinal
tag questions), challenging or putting down an addressee (peremptory and
aggressive tag questions), or involving the interlocutor in conversation
(facilitative tag questions).

2.2.3 Summary
Chapter 2 deals with the brief description of the syntactic and pragmatic
features of English tag question and the error analysis theory through the work
of linguists at home and abroad and other authors who are interested in tag
question study. Chapter 2 provides some background about theory of syntax
and pragmatic from famous author. It also presents the concept framework of
questions and problems involves tag question such as word order, types of
English tag question and the typical intonation of English tag question.
On the level of pragmatic study, we focus on the pragmatic axis of English tag
question, Pragmatic function of English tag question, genuine tag question, and
rhetorical tag question.

19
 Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to give an in-depth account on the
research methodology used in the study. First, the author will provide a detailed
presentation on the subjects of the study, including the information about who
they were, the number of subjects willing for the participation of the test, and
finally the reason why they were chosen as the valid and reliable sample of the
study. Next, the instrumentation that the writer of this paper used to collect the
database for a thorough investigation of English tag question and the
procedures that she followed in order to achieve that will be clearly presented.
Finally, the statistical analysis will also be described. All the data collected will
be sources for the next chapter.

3.1 Approaches
This research will be investigated base on four approaches: mixed methods
approach, qualitative approach, and quantitative approach.
The term “mixed methods” refers to an emergent methodology of research
that advances the systematic integration, or “mixing,” of quantitative and
qualitative data within a single investigation or sustained program of
inquiry. The basic premise of this methodology is that such integration
permits a more complete and synergistic utilization of data than do separate
quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.
Mixed methods research originated in the social sciences and has recently
expanded into the health and medical sciences including fields such as nursing,
family medicine, social work, mental health, pharmacy, allied health, and
others. In the last decade, its procedures have been developed and refined to
suit a wide variety of research questions (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011).
Using a mixed methods study has several advantages, which we discuss below.
Compares quantitative and qualitative data. Mixed methods are especially
useful in understanding contradictions between quantitative results and
qualitative findings.
Reflects participants‟ point of view. Mixed methods give a voice to study
participants and ensure that study findings are grounded in participants‟ experiences.

20
Fosters scholarly interaction. Such studies add breadth to multidisciplinary
team research by encouraging the interaction of quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methods scholars.
Provides methodological flexibility. Mixed methods have great flexibility and
are adaptable to many study designs, such as observational studies and
randomized trials, to elucidate more information than can be obtained in only
quantitative research.
Collects rich, comprehensive data. Mixed methods also mirror the way individuals
naturally collect information—by integrating quantitative and qualitative data. For
example, sports stories frequently integrate quantitative data (scores or number of
errors) with qualitative data (descriptions and images of highlights) to provide a
more complete story than either method would alone.
Mixed methods studies are challenging to implement, especially when they are
used to evaluate complex interventions.
Increases the complexity of evaluations. Mixed methods studies are complex to plan
and conduct. They require careful planning to describe all aspects of research,
including the study sample for qualitative and quantitative portions (identical,
embedded, or parallel); timing (the sequence of qualitative and quantitative
portions); and the plan for integrating data. Integrating qualitative and quantitative
data during analysis is often a challenging phase for many researchers.
Relies on a multidisciplinary team of researchers. Conducting high-quality
mixed methods studies requires a multidisciplinary team of researchers who, in
the service of the larger study, must be open to methods that may not be their
area of expertise. Finding qualitative experts who are also comfortable
discussing quantitative analyses and vice versa can be challenging in many
environments. Given that each method must adhere to its own standards for
rigor, ensuring appropriate quality of each component of a mixed methods
study can be difficult (Wisdom, Cavaleri, Onwuegbuzie, et al., 2011). For
example, quantitative analyses require much larger sample sizes to obtain
statistical significance than do qualitative analyses, which require meeting
goals of saturation (not uncovering new information from conducting more
21
interviews) and relevance. Embedded samples, in which a qualitative
subsample is embedded within a larger quantitative sample, can be useful in
cases of inadequate statistical power.
Requires increased resources. Finally, mixed methods studies are labor
intensive and require greater resources and time than those needed to conduct a
single method study. (Cresswell, 2013).
Qualitative research:
Qualitative research is a type of social science research that collects and
works with non-numerical data and that seeks to interpret meaning from
these data that help us understand social life through the study of targeted
populations or places. People often frame it in opposition to quantitative
research, which uses numerical data to identify large-scale trends and
employs statistical operations to determine causal and correlative
relationships between variables.
Within sociology, qualitative research is typically focused on the micro-level of
social interaction that composes everyday life, whereas quantitative research
typically focuses on macro-level trends and phenomena.
Methods of qualitative research include observation and immersion, interviews,
open-ended surveys, focus groups, content analysis of visual and textual
materials, and oral history.
Qualitative research is designed to reveal the meaning that informs the action
or outcomes that are typically measured by quantitative research. So,
qualitative researchers investigate meanings, interpretations, symbols, and
the processes and relations of social life. What this type of research produces is
descriptive data that the researcher must then interpret using rigorous and
systematic methods of transcribing, coding, and analysis of trends and themes.
Because its focus is everyday life and people's experiences, qualitative research
lends itself well to creating new theories using the inductive method, which can
then be tested with further research.
Methods of Qualitative Research

22
Qualitative researchers use their own eyes, ears, and intelligence to collect in-
depth perceptions and descriptions of targeted populations, places, and events.
Their findings are collected through a variety of methods, and often, a
researcher will use at least two or several of the following while conducting a
qualitative study.

Direct observation
Open-ended surveys
Focus group
Oral history
Participant observation
Ethnographic observation
Content analysis
Qualitative research has both benefits and drawbacks. On the plus side, it
creates an in-depth understanding of the attitudes, behaviors, interactions,
events, and social processes that comprise everyday life. In doing so, it helps
social scientists understand how everyday life is influenced by society-wide
things like social structure, social order, and all kinds of social forces. This set
of methods also has the benefit of being flexible and easily adaptable to
changes in the research environment and can be conducted with minimal cost
in many cases.
The downsides of qualitative research are that its scope is fairly limited so its
findings are not always widely generalizable. Researchers also have to use
caution with these methods to ensure that they themselves do not influence the
data in ways that significantly change it and that they do not bring undue
personal bias to their interpretation of the findings. Fortunately, qualitative
researchers receive rigorous training designed to eliminate or reduce these
types of research bias. (Ashley Crossman, 2018).
Quantitative Research Definition: Quantitative research, in marketing, is a
stimulating and highly educational technique to gather information from
existing and potential customers using sampling methods and sending
23
out online surveys, online polls, questionnaires etc., the results of which can be
analyzed using statistical methods. Results produced using quantitative
research are usually numerical and after careful understanding of these
numbers to predict the future of a product or service and make changes
accordingly.
Quantitative research templates are objective, elaborate and many a times,
investigational in nature. The results achieved from this research method
are logical, statistical and unbiased. Data collection happens using a
structured method and conducted on larger samples which represent the
entire population.
The types of quantitative research are classified on the basis of data collection
sources. As mentioned earlier, this research method is highly numerical and the
results are in form of “data”. The analysis of this data is numerical and so the
data collection is also done in form of numbers. Using statistical analysis,
researchers conduct an analysis of data which is why quantitative research is
closely linked with statistics.
There are four different types of quantitative research methods:
Survey Research is a quantitative research method used to ask questions to a
sample of respondents using sources such as online polls, surveys,
questionnaires via Email, Social Media or embedding on a website. Every
small and big organization intends to understand what their customers think
about their products and services, how well are new features faring in the
market and other such details.
Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal surveys.
Correlational Research
Causal-Comparative Research
Experimental Research: Also known as true experimentation, this research
method is reliant on a theory. Experimental research, as the name suggests, is
usually based on one or more theories. This theory has not be proved in the past
and is merely a supposition. In an experimental research, an analysis is done

24
around proving or disproving the statement. This research method is used in
natural sciences.
Advantages of Quantitative Research
Collect reliable and accurate data: As data is collected, analyzed and presented
in numbers, the results obtained will be extremely reliable. Numbers do not lie.
They present an honest picture of the conducted research without discrepancies
and is also extremely accurate. In situations where a researcher predicts
conflict, quantitative research is conducted.
Quick data collection: A quantitative research is carried out with a group
of respondents who represent a population. A survey or any other
quantitative research method applied to these respondents and the
involvement of statistics, conducting and analyzing results is quite
straightforward and less time-consuming.
Wider scope of data analysis: Due to the statistics, this research method
provides a wide scope of data collection.
Eliminate bias: This research method offers no scope for personal comments or
biasing of results. The results achieved are numerical and are thus, fair in most
cases. (Bhat, 2018; Bhat, 2018)
In this research, the syntactic and pragmatic features of English tag question
are described by using the qualitative approach. Various sources of printed
publications as books, articles, journals will be used as the data.
Some questionnaire and interview are carried out with students at Nguyen Thi
Minh Khai high school. The quantitative approach analyzes the error statistics.
Baed on the result, the solutions for commonly mistakes committed by Nguyen
Thi Minh Khai high school will be given.

3.2 Methods
The methods of the study consist of descriptive research methods and
experimental research methods.
One of the goals of science is description (other goals include prediction and
explanation.

25
Descriptive research methods describe situations. They do not make accurate
predictions, and they do not determine cause and effect. The type of descriptive
method in this study is case-study methods.
Case study methods involve an in-depth study of individual or group of
individuals. They often lead to testable hypothesis and allow us to study rare
phenomena. They should not be used to determine cause and effect, and they
have limited use for making accurate prediction.
There are two serious problems with case study expectancy effects and atypical
individuals. Expectancy effects include the experimenter‟s underlying biases
that might affect the actions taken while conducting research. The biases can
lead to misrepresenting participants‟ description. Describing atypical
individuals may lead to poor generalizations and detract from external validity.
Experiments are conducted to be able to predict phenomenon. Typically, an
experiment is constructed to be able to explain some kind of causation.
Experimental research is a collection of research design which use
manipulation and controlled testing to understand causal processes. In
experimental research one or more variables are manipulated, and controlled
and measured any change in other variables.
Experimental research methods are often used where:
There is time priority in a causal relationship (cause precedes effect)
There is consistency in a causal relationship (a cause will always lead to the
same effect)
The magnitude of the correlation is great.

3.3 Data collection instruments

There are 46 students of class 12A1 at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high shool
participating in this survey. The level of the students is good. They have
studied about English tag question. They will answer a questionnaire about
using English tag question.
The data types in this study are qualitative and quantitative. The sources of data
are primary. However, the authenticity of data does not extremely accurate

26
because this research is carried out in one class at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high
school.

3.4 Data analysis technique

The 46 students in class 12A1 at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school
will do two English tag question tests which are a written test and an oral test.
Data analysis is in the form of written texts and an oral test. They are analyzed
in terms of syntactic and pragmatic features. Then the commonly errors
committed by students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school will be pointed
out. The study will suggest some solutions to the errors in using English tag
question.
3.5. Summary
In general, the purpose of this chapter was to describe the research
methodology of this study, describe the procedure used in collecting data and
provide an explanation of the statistical procedures used to analyze the data.
Besides, major methods, supporting methods and techniques used in this study
have been presented.

27
 Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Syntactic features of tag question in English

a. Word order:
The English tag question is made up of an auxiliary verb and a pronoun. The
auxiliary must agree with the tense, aspect and modality of the verb in the
preceding sentence. If the verb is in the present perfect, for example, the tag
question uses has or have; if the verb is in a present progressive form, the tag is
formed with am, are, is; if the verb is in a tense which does not normally use an
auxiliary, like the present simple, the auxiliary is taken from the
emphatic do form; and if the sentence has a modal auxiliary, this is echoed in
the tag:
 He has read this book, hasn't he?
 He read this book, didn't he?
 He's reading this book, isn't he?
 He reads a lot of books, doesn't he?
 He'll read this book, won't he?
 He should read this book, shouldn't he?
 He can read this book, can't he?
 He'd read this book, wouldn't he?
 He'd read this book, hadn't he?
A special case occurs when the main verb is to be in a simple tense. Here the
tag question repeats the main verb, not an auxiliary:
 This is a book, isn't it?
English question tags exist in both positive and negative forms. When there is
no special emphasis, the rule of thumb often applies that a positive sentence has
a negative tag and vice versa. This form may express confidence, or seek
confirmation of the asker's opinion or belief.
 She is French, isn't she?
 She's not French, is she?

28
Indeed, English tag questions are shown in the table below, with either reversed
or constant polarity in the main clause, henceforth called the anchor, and in the
tag. Example (4) with constant negative polarity is a minority type, whose
authenticity has been questioned. However, the type can be found in some
documentaries.
ANCHOR TAG POLARITY
(1) He really needs new doesn‟t he? Positive-Negative
glasses,
(2) She doesn't have a does she? Negative-Positive
new boyfriend,
(3) et‟s go, shall we? Constant Positive
(Positive-Positive)
(4) Yes, they don‟t come don‟t they? Negative-Negative
cheap

Table 3: Word order in English tag questions in the written test

The subject of the anchor can be any noun, a pronoun, or there.
You could have seen him, couldn‟t you?
Example:
 All can‟t speak at a time, can they?
 Very little progress has been made, has it?
 The child rarely cries, does he?
 He could hardly feed a large family, could he?
The verb of English tag question can be of any type, but in the tag, the subject
must be either a personal pronoun, one, or there, and the operator can only be a
form of have, be, or do, or a modal verb.
Example:
 You work at an IT company, don‟t you?
 She can‟t speak English, can she?
 One can be one‟s master, can‟t you/one?

29
  There is a book, is not there?
Besides, tag questions with truncated anchors—normally deletion of subject
and verb—as well as imperatives can have either Positive-Negative or
Negative-Positive polarity.
Ex: Why throw the books, can not you?

b. Types of English tag questions

There are two categories as the figure below:

Ex: He is late. is
not he?
The grammatically
complex tag form
Ex: There are
some flowers, are
Tag question not there?

The grammatically right?/ okay? /

simple tag form ect.

Figure 1: Types of English tag questions

The syntactic form of the grammatically complex tag form involves an

auxiliary verb that agrees with the host sentence in tense and number, a
pronoun, and matching or contrasting polarity. The form of the canonical tag
question should agree with the subject and the auxiliary of the preceding host
sentence in number, gender and tense.
On the other hand, the grammatically simple tag questions involve words, such
as “right”, “eh”, “okay” and “yeah” and does not have to change its form to
agree with gender, number or tense o f the host sentence. The grammatically

30
simple tag questions is less formal than the grammatically complex tag
questions. Sometimes these grammatically simple tag questions tag questions
are referred to as response elicitors or response getters because they aim to
elicit a response from the listener or promote interaction in the conversation.
Ex: The conversation in the oral test that is carried out in class 10A9 at Nguyen
Thi Minh Khai high school.
Student: I‟m not late fix class today, am I?
Teacher: Yes, you are. In fact, you‟re 15 minutes late. You missed your bus
again, didn‟t you?
Student: Yes, unfortunately I did. I am really sorry about that. But I can still
come into class, can‟t I?
Teacher: Yes, you can. And I assume you‟ve forgotten your homework again,
haven‟t you?
Student: But we didn‟t have any homework for today, did we?
Teacher: Yes, you did. You should have done exercises 4 and S for today‟s
class.
Student: That‟s for Thursday‟s class, isn‟t it?
Teacher: That‟s right and today is Thursday, isn‟t it?
Student: Oops, I am afraid I made a mistake, I thought today was Wednesday.
But I can still hand it in tomorrow, can‟t I.
Teacher: Welt, I suppose so, but let‟s agree that 2 points will be taken off for
lateness. Student: Oh, okay. Thank you for letting me hand it in late.
Teacher: But it‟s not going to happen again, ok?
Student: No, sure it isn‟t
The grammatically complex tag questions are:
 I’m not late fix class today, am I?
 In fact, you’re 15 minutes late. You missed your bus again, didn’t you?
 I am really sorry about that. But I can still come into class, can’t I?
 And I assume you’ve forgotten your homework again, haven’t you?
 But we didn’t have any homework for today, did we?
 That’s for Thursday’s class, isn’t it?
 That’s right and today is Thursday, isn’t it?
 But I can still hand it in tomorrow, can’t I?
31
 The grammatically simple tag questions is:
 But it’s not going to happen again, ok?

The tag right? is common in a number of dialects across the UK and US, as
well as in Indian English. It is an example of an invariable tag which is
preferred in American English over traditional tags.
The tags isn't it? and no? are used in Indian English.
The tag eh? is of Scottish origin, and can be heard across much of Scotland,
New Zealand, Canada and the North-Eastern United States. In Central Scotland
(in and around Stirling and Falkirk), this exists in the form eh no? which is
again invariant.
The tag or? is used commonly in the North-Eastern United States and other
regions to make offers less imposing. These questions could always logically
be completed by stating the opposite of the offer, though this effect is
understood intuitively by native speakers. For example:
 Would you like another drink, or (would you not)?
 Did you want to go to the park together, or (did you not want to go)?
The tag hey? (of Afrikaans and Dutch origin) is used in South African English.

c. The typical intonation of the tag may be either rising or falling, and occurs
on the operator, as in c.i) and (c.ii), or on a full form not when it is presented,
as in (c.iii) and (c.iv):
c.i He forgot to bring the report, didn't he?(rising)
c.ii He forgot to bring the report, didn't he?(falling)
c.iii He forgot to bring the report, did he not?(rising)
c.iv He forgot to bring the report, didn't not?(falling)
The meaning of a tag question can be changed with the pitch of our voice. With
rising intonation, it sounds like a real question. But if our intonation falls, it
sounds more like a statement that doesn't require a real answer:

32
 Intonation
You don't know where my dress is, do you? / rising real question
We can take three apples, can't we? \ falling not a real question
Table 4: The typical intonation of English tag questions

The falling pattern is used to underline a statement. The statement itself ends
with a falling pattern, and the tag sounds like an echo, strengthening the
pattern. Most English tag questions have this falling pattern.
Ex:
 He doesn't know what he's doing, does he?
 This is really boring, isn't it?
Sometimes the rising tag goes with the positive to positive pattern to create a
confrontational effect.
Ex:
 He was the best in the class, was he? (rising: the speaker is challenging
this thesis, or perhaps expressing surprised interest)
 He was the best in the class, wasn't he? (falling: the speaker holds this
opinion)
 Be careful, will you? (rising: expresses irritation)
 Take care, won't you? (falling: expresses concern)
Sometimes the same words may have different patterns depending on the
situation or implication.
Ex:
 You don't remember my name, do you? (rising: expresses surprise)
 You don't remember my name, do you? (falling: expresses amusement
or resignation)
 Your name's Mary, isn't it? (rising: expresses uncertainty)
 Your name's Mary, isn't it? (falling: expresses confidence)
As an all-purpose tag the Multicultural London English set-phrase innit (for
"isn't it") is only used with falling patterns.

33
Ex:
 He doesn't know what he's doing, innit?
 He was the best in the class, innit?
On the other hand, the adverbial tag questions (alright? OK? etc.) are almost
always found with rising patterns. An occasional exception is surely.

Ex:

 But it‟s not going to happen again, ok?

The result of the tag question written test
The analysis was conducted on the six syntactic categories mentioned in the
research questions: polarity, auxiliary, verb tenses, pronominalization, and
contraction.
Polarity:
The grammar of polarity poses a paradox. What should in principle be a simple
and symmetrical relation is in practice fraught with asymmetry. In principle,
opposed terms must be equal in their opposition: one term cannot be more
opposite than another. But in natural language opposites are never equal. There
is a consistent imbalance between the unmarked expression of affirmation and
the marked expression of negation; between the general utility of affirmative
sentences and the pragmatically loaded uses of negative sentences; between the
simple logic of double negation and the not uncomplicated pragmatics which
insures that denying a negative is never quite the same as asserting a positive
(cf. Horn 1991). And it‟s not just that negative and affirmative sentences are
unequal—they are also to some degree incommensurable: not every negative
sentence has a direct affirmative counterpart, nor does every affirmative have a
simple negation. Natural languages commonly (perhaps always) include what
artificial languages never do: a class of constructions which do not themselves
express negation or affirmation, but which are restricted to sentences of one or
the other polarity. The existence (and indeed abundance) of such polarity items
suggests that the resources which languages provide for negative and
affirmative sentences can be surprisingly independent of one another.
34
From a logical point of view, these asymmetries are unexpected; however, they
begin to make sense once one considers the functions which negation and
affirmation may serve in actual language use. This chapter explores the
landscape of these asymmetries, and seeks their motivations in the pragmatic
functions they serve. (Israel, 2014, p. 1)

The written Test was corrected out of sixteen, one point was given to each
correct answer.
The total number of wrong tag questions made by participants on the Tag
Question Written Test was 86. Error analysis of these wrong tag questions
revealed that the most syntactic difficulty that participants had in the
formation of canonical tag questions was in polarity, 16 errors, the second
difficulty was in pronominalization, 39 errors, and then auxiliary with a total
number of 37 errors. The fourth difficulty was in using verb tenses,21 errors.
In addition, 10 errors in contraction was made by the participants in the Tag
Question Written Test.
However, when it comes to the Tag Question Oral Test, the number and
frequency of the same errors changed drastically, although the two tests
designed to test the same syntactic properties. The total number of wrong tag
questions was 198, compared to 86 on the written test. The most difficulty was,
again, in polarity but this
time with a total number of 97. The second difficulty was in auxiliary with a
total number of 36 errors. The third difficulty was in pronominalization, 23
errors. Tense came next with a total number of 23 errors. Similar to the written
test, the least number of errors was in contraction but this time with a total
number of 19 errors.

35
 The written test The oral test
Polarity error 16 97
Auxiliary error 39 38
Verb tenses error 21 25
Pronominal error 37 23
Contraction error 10 19

Total 86 198
Table 5: Summary of errors made by participants on the oral and written
test
After that, an error analysis was conducted on the twenty regular sentences
for the two groups of participants based on six categories:
1. Polarity: did the participants use the correct polarity for each of the
sentences? e.g., “Mike is your friend, isn't he?” as a correct polarity
and “Mike isn't your friend, isn't he?” as an incorrect polarity.
2. Auxiliary: Did the participants use the correct auxiliary when forming
a tag question? e.g., “Jane's brother drove a nice car, didn’t he?” as a
correct auxiliary and “Jane's brother drove a nice car, haven’t he?” as
an incorrect auxiliary.
3. Verb Tense: Did the participants use a correct auxiliary tense in the
tag question that matches the tense of the host sentence? e.g., “Mary
ate cereal for breakfast, didn’t she? as a correct verb tense and “Mary
ate cereal for breakfast, doesn’t she? as an incorrect verb tense.
4. Pronominalization: Did the participants use the correct subject
pronoun in the tag question? e.g., “The birds were singing in the
park, weren‟t they?” is correct, but “The birds were singing in the
park, weren‟t it?” is incorrect.
5. Contraction: Did the participants use the correct contracted form of
tag question? e.g . , “isn’t it ? ” . This category was added during the
process of error analysis because some of the participants did not use
the right contraction, e.g., “is not it?”. Although this kind of error was
not expected and it was not common among the participants, some
participants made some mistakes in contraction especially in the Tag
Question Oral test
36
If this case can be generalized for all syntactic properties of the language or
just happened by chance in this study. The tanking of errors is almost the
same in the written and die oral tests but the frequency is higher in die oral
test. The syntactic rules of tag questions had been explained to the
participants with plenty of examples before they did the Tag Question
Written Test. After knowing the rules and implementing them in a written
test, they should have committed fewer errors in the oral test, but what
happened was completely the opposite. This would be a very interesting area
for future research in error analysis and for research in knowing about the
language and knowing the language.

4.2 Pragmatic features of tag question in English

a. Pragmatic axis of English tag question
In linguistics, information structure, also called information packaging,
describes the way in which information is formally packaged within a sentence.
This generally includes only those aspects of information that “respond to the
temporary state of the addressee‟s mind”, and excludes other aspects of
linguistic information such as references to background knowledge, choice of
style, politeness, and so forth.
Every single sentence has the pragmatic axis. They also include the given
information that is mentioned in the sentences. The unknown information is the
response of the listener.
In English tag question, the given information is shown in the anchor and the
unknown information is the answer of the listener based on the tag.
For example:
 Tom went out, didn’t he?
The given information is “Tom went out” and the unknown information is the
confirmation or the denial to the given one. The unknown information will be
stated by answer the tag “didn‟t he?”
 He really needs new glasses, doesn't he?

37
The given information is “He really needs new glasses” and the unknown
information is the confirmation or the denial to the given one. The unknown
information will be stated by answer the tag “doesn‟t he?”
 She doesn't have a new boyfriend, does she?
The given information is “She doesn't have a new boyfriend” and the unknown
information is the confirmation or the denial to the given one. The unknown
information will be stated by answer the tag “does she?”
 He forgot to bring the report, didn't he?
The given information is “He forgot to bring the report” and the unknown
information is the confirmation or the denial to the given one. The unknown
information will be stated by answer the tag “didn‟t he?”
 You're twins, aren't you?
The given information is “You're twins” and the unknown information is the
confirmation or the denial to the given one. The unknown information will be
stated by answer the tag “aren‟t you?”
 He isn’t allergic to dairy like his sister, is he?
The given information is “He isn‟t allergic to dairy like his sister” and the
unknown information is the confirmation or the denial to the given one. The
unknown information will be stated by answer the tag “is he?”

b. Pragmatic functions of tag question:

There are several pragmatic functions of tag question which are difficult to
classified. Tag questions have different functions and meanings and these
functions and meanings depend on many factors such as relative status, social
role, social context and the degree of intimacy between interlocutors.
Based on the meaning, the pragmatic functions of English tag questions are
classified into five categories: the informational tag, the confirmatory tag,
the self-centered tag, the peremptory tag, and the aggressive tag.
 The informational tag is often spoken with a rising intonation. This tag
makes a genuine polite request for information. The informational tag

38
 often expects a direct response from the receiver. Besides, an equal
partnership between the conversers is showed.

Ex:
Tom is at home, isn’t he?
When the anchor is a negative sentence, the higher degree of politeness
will be showed. Because the negative host sentence makes the speaker
play a minor role in the request made.
Ex:
You didn’t go to school, did you?
 The confirmatory tag is usually spoken with a falling intonation. It is
considered that this type of tag need a high politeness. In this instance,
the addressee is invited to agree with the speaker to support the
information of the speaker. Moreover, this tag elicits a response from
the addressee that encourages the speaker to continue.
Ex:
You are his girl friend, aren’t you?
 The self-centered tag usually is used for paying attention to the listener
with a rising intonation. This type is not communicative, nor be it
friendly. It just shows the ego of the speaker.
Ex:
I’ve just told you the rule, haven’t I?
 The peremptory tag: The purpose of this tag is stopping the discussion
of a topic. When it is spoken with a falling intonation, the peremptory
tag seeks to end a discussion or a conversation.
Ex:
That‟s all, isn‟t it?
That‟s enough, right?
 The aggressive tag shows the attitude of the speaker which are
unfriendly, hostile, or unpleasant. It is spoken with a falling intonation
and is used to accuse the hearer.
39
 Ex:
You’re such an idiot, aren’t you?
Tag questions have different functions and meanings and these functions and
meanings depend on many factors such as relative status, social role, social
context and the degree of intimacy between interlocutors
c. Genuine tag question
Tag question is used to check information or to ask for agreement. If we use
a rising intonation in the tag, we do not know or are not quite sure of the
answer. If we use a falling intonation in the tag, we are seeking the
agreement of the person we are talking to.
We can reply to tag questions either with simple yes/no answers (negative tags
normally expect a yes answer and positive tags normally expect a no answer)
or by using yes/no + auxiliary verb.
In these examples, use a rising intonation in the tag. It is a genuine question.
You are not sure what the answer will be.
 You haven't seen my tennis shoes, have you? ~ No, I'm sorry. I haven't.
 I couldn't borrow yours by any chance, could I? ~ No. They wouldn't fit
you.
In these examples, use a falling intonation in the tag. You are simply seeking
agreement.
 It's been a lovely day today, hasn't it? ~ Yes, it has. Gorgeous.
 It was a lovely wedding, wasn't it? ~ Wonderful!
 I thought Sue looking stunning in her wedding dress, didn't she? ~ Yes,
she did. Absolutely stunning.
It's a shame the day is over, isn't it? ~ Yes, it is.
d. Rhetorical tag question
Rhetorical tag question is by forming a question right after a statement to mean
the opposite of what you said. Except the purpose of seeking information, its
aims are also confirmation, and affective tag questions, which perform various
discourse functions such as expressing speaker opinion or attitude (attitudinal
tag questions), challenging or putting down an addressee (peremptory and
40
aggressive tag questions), or involving the interlocutor in conversation
(facilitative tag questions).

Categories Example
Informational You‟re getting paid for this, are you?

Confirmatory I don‟t need a jacket, do I?

Attitudinal . . . she‟ll be in trouble, won‟t she?

She often gets her own drinks anyway
...
Peremptory I wasn‟t born yesterday, was I?
Aggressive Ernest: . . . I put six eggs on.
Peggy: you put what?
Ernest: put six eggs on, didn‟t I?
Facilitative Teacher: Right, it‟s two, isn‟t it?
Pupil: Mm.
Table 6: Rhetorical tag question

Take the conversation ( which is the dialogue in the oral test taken in class 109
at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school) below as an example:
Student: I‟m not late fix class today, am I?
Teacher: Yes, you are. In fact, you‟re 15 minutes late. You missed your bus
again, didn‟t you?
Student: Yes, unfortunately I did. I am really sorry about that. But I can still
come into class, can‟t I?
Teacher: Yes, you can. And I assume you‟ve forgotten your homework again,
haven‟t you?
Student: But we didn‟t have any homework for today, did we?
Teacher: Yes, you did. You should have done exercises 4 and S for today‟s
class.
Student: That‟s for Thursday‟s class, isn‟t it?
41
Teacher: That‟s right and today is Thursday, isn‟t it?
Student: Oops, I am afraid I made a mistake, I thought today was Wednesday.
But I can still hand it in tomorrow, can‟t I?
Teacher: Welt, I suppose so, but let‟s agree that 2 points will be taken off for
lateness. Student: Oh, okay. Thank you for letting me hand it in late.
Teacher: But it‟s not going to happen again, ok?
Student: No, sure it isn‟t
Informational tag questions are:
And I assume you’ve forgotten your homework again, haven’t you?
That’s for Thursday’s class, isn’t it?
That’s right and today is Thursday, isn’t it?
Confirmatory tag questions are:
I’m not late fix class today, am I?
But I can still come into class, can’t I?
But we didn’t have any homework for today, did we?
But I can still hand it in tomorrow, can’t I?
Peremptory tag question is:
But it’s not going to happen again, ok?
Aggressive tag question is:
In fact, you’re 15 minutes late. You missed your bus again, didn’t you?
The result of the tag question oral test
The Pragmatic Test 1 consisted of 16 situations with a tag question on each one
and participants were asked to read out loud these situations and the tag
questions with the correct intonation. The target intonations consisted of 8
rising and 8 falling, depending on whether the tag question was used to seek
information (rising intonation) or confirmation (falling intonation). This part is
16 points. The second pragmatic test was a conversation between a student and
a teacher. It consisted of fourteen tag questions, seven produced by the student
to ask for information and seven used by teacher to seek information The
student‟s tag questions were supposed to end with high intonations and die
teacher‟ tag questions were supposed to end with rising intonations. Therefore,
die target intonations were seven rising and seven falling. This part is 4 points.
The total mark of the oral test is 20 points.
42
Besides, the participants are divided into 2 groups. Group A is the participants
who are good at English and group B is the ones who are not as good as the
students in group A.
Data analysis revealed that Group B could not use the pragmatic functions of
English tag questions appropriately. The focus of this study was two pragmatic
functions: asking for information and seeking confirmation. Yet, data analysis
showed that group B could use neither of these functions appropriately. The
scores of participants in the pragmatic tests were very low. One reason behind
their inability to perform well in the pragmatic test could be their lack of
awareness of these pragmatic functions of tag questions and the social context
in which these questions are used in. This finding supports our hypothesis and
was expected because intonation plays a major role in determining the
pragmatic functions of tag questions; nonetheless, group B could not use the
coned intonation that matched the pragmatic function. The scores of the group
A on two pragmatic tests were higher than scores of the group B, yet their
scores on these two tests were lower than their scores on the Tag Question
Written and Oral Tests.
One possible explanation behind their lower scores could be because their
understanding of the social context of the tag questions in the two pragmatic
tests was different; as a result, they used the intonation that matched the tag
question within that social context

4.3 The possible solutions for learning and teaching English tag question
at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school
Because the analysis was conducted on the five syntactic categories mentioned
in the research questions: polarity, auxiliary, verb tenses, pronominalization,
and contraction, some suggestions should be brought out:
Polarity: There are several types of tag questions:
The first type of tag questions is opposite polarity tag questions
She‟s a translator, isn‟t she? (affirmative main clause + negative tag)
He hasn‟t arrived yet, has he? (negative main clause + affirmative tag)

43
We can use type 1 question tags when we expect the answer to the question to
confirm that what we say in the main clause is true:
The second type of question is similar polarity tag questions which consist of
an affirmative main clause and an affirmative tag:
You‟re Joe‟s cousin, are you?
We can use type 2 tags when we do not know if the answer is yes or no. The
intonation is usually a rising tone.
We can use right and yeah in very informal situations instead of question tags:
So, you‟re not coming with us tonight, right?
"Everybody" requires "they", you can say "didn't they", "did they",
"right/yeah", "you know" in different situations.
Auxiliary:
With auxiliary verbs
The question tag uses the same verb as the main part of the sentence. If this
is an auxiliary verb („have‟, „be‟) then the question tag is made with the
auxiliary verb.
They‟ve gone away for a few days, haven‟t they?
They weren‟t here, were they?
He had met him before, hadn‟t he?
This isn‟t working, is it?
Without auxiliary verbs
If the main part of the sentence doesn‟t have an auxiliary verb, the question tag
uses an appropriate form of „do‟.
I said that, didn‟t I? You don‟t recognize me, do you?
She eats meat, doesn‟t she?
Verb tenses:
There is one weird exception: the question tag after I am is aren't I.
For example: I'm in charge of the food, aren't I?
In English tag question, when the anchor is positive sentences, the tag is
negative and vice versa, which is showed as the table below:

44
Anchor Tag Example
Present simple „be‟ is-are/isn‟t-aren‟t - She's Italian, isn't she?

- We aren't late, are we?

don‟t/doesn‟t - They live in London, don't they?
Present simple other
- She doesn't have any children, does
verbs
she?
Present continuous is-are/isn‟t-aren‟t - We're working tomorrow, aren't we?

- The bus isn't coming, is it?

Past simple 'be' was-were/wasn‟t- - It was cold yesterday, wasn't it?
weren‟t - She wasn't at home yesterday, was
she?
Past simple other did /didn‟t - He went to the party last night, didn't
verbs he?
- They didn't go out last Sunday, did
they?
Past continuous was-were/wasn‟t- - We were waiting at the station,
weren‟t weren't we?
- You weren't sleeping, were you?
Present perfect has-have/hasn‟t- - They've been to Japan, haven't they?
haven‟t - She hasn't eaten all the cake, has
she?
Present perfect has-have/hasn‟t- - She's been studying a lot recently,
continuous haven‟t hasn't she?
- They haven‟t been working hard,
have they?
Past perfect had/hadn‟t - He had forgotten his wallet, hadn't
he?
- We hadn't been to London
before, had we?

45
Past perfect had/hadn‟t - We'd been working, hadn't we?
continuous - You hadn't been sleeping, had you?
Future simple will/won‟t - She'll come at six, won't she?
- They won't be late, will they?
Future continuous will/won‟t - They'll be arriving soon, won't they?
- He won't be studying tonight, will
he?
Future perfect will/won‟t - They'll have finished before nine,
won't they?
- She won't have left work before
six, will she?
Future perfect will/won‟t - She'll have been cooking all day,
continuous won't she?
- He won't have been travelling all
day, will he?
Modals can/can‟t - He can help, can't he?
- She can't speak Arabic, can she?
Modals must/mustn‟t - John must stay, mustn't he?
- They mustn't come early, must they?
Table 7: Verb tenses in English tag question

Pronominalization:

The tag question always uses a pronoun that replaces the subject of die host
sentence. The pronoun in the tag question agrees with the subject in person,
number and gender, e.g.,
“The bay is happy, isn‟t he?”
“The little bays are having fun, aren‟t they?
“Peter’s sister is a student, isn‟t she?”

46
Contraction:
Besides, students should be careful with abbreviation. For example, the
word “is “and “has “are written is “‟s”. The word “had” and “would” have the
same abbreviation that is “‟d”. Therefore, students should pay more attention
when they use English tag questions.

Intonation
Moreover, if students want to improve their intonation when they use
English tag questions, they have to fully understand the meaning of the tags.
On the other word, because there are five categories of English tag questions‟
pragmatic function such as: the informational tag, the confirmatory tag, the
self-centered tag, the peremptory tag, and the aggressive tag, some
suggestions should be brought out:
English tag questions‟ pragmatic Intonation
function
The informational tag Rising intonation
The confirmatory tag Falling intonation
The self-centered tag Rising intonation
The peremptory tag Falling intonation
The aggressive tag Falling intonation
Table 8: Intonation of English tag questions based on pragmatic function

4.4 Summary
Chapter 4 has points out the syntactic features of tag question in English, the
pragmatic features of tag question in English.
From the statistics on the characteristics of the question, we also provide
commonly mistakes committed by students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high
school. Based on these errors, the thesis also offers some suggestions on both
the syntactic and the pragmatic aspects for the learner to have an overview and
to refer to the solutions in order to learn English tag question better.

47
 Chapter 5: CONCLUSION

5.1 Recapitulation
The thesis has revised the definition of English tag question. It has also
confirmed the syntactic and pragmatic features of tag questions. Then, the
common error committed by students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai and the
solutions to the errors are stated. The questions‟ meaning features are studied
under the views of many scholars such as Imad Al-Nabtiti (2012) reveals that
non-native speakers cannot use Canonical Tag Questions appropriately not
because of the syntactic complexity of these kinds of questions, but because of
their pragmatic requirements. The results also show the importance of
incorporating a pragmatic theory and the social contexts in which discourses
take place in ESL curricula. Besides, Gunnel Tottie and Sebastian Hoffmann
(2009) states that Canonical tag questions in Present-day English (PDE) have
received ample coverage in the literature, but their historical development has
so far been given little attention, etc.

The thesis has used a written test that has 32 questions and a oral test that is a
conversation. The survey was carried out in the class 10A9 at Nguyen Thi
Minh Khai high school. Based on this material, the author of the thesis has
performed the tasks of describing, analyzing and discussing English tag
questions. Apply the results of the study to improve the learning English tag
question in Vietnam.

5.2 Concluding remarks

- Concluding remarks on objective 1 (research question 1)
+ Objective I restated that: What are the syntactic and pragmatic features of
tag question?
+ Remark:
The syntactic features of English tag question are indicated. Firstly, word order
of English tag questions are reversed or constant polarity in the main clause,
henceforth called the anchor, and in the tag. The subject of the anchor can be

48
any noun, a pronoun, or there, and the verb can be of any type, but in the tag,
the subject must be either a personal pronoun, one, or there, and the operator
can only be a form of have, be, or do, or a modal verb. Secondly, there are two
kinds of tag questions in the English language: The grammatically complex tag
form, ex: “There is a book, isn‟t there?” ; and the grammatically simple tag
form, ex:” right/ ok?” Finally, the typical intonation of the tag may be either
rising or falling, and occurs on the operator. Besides, the study points out the
pragmatic feature of tag question. The pragmatic functions of English tag
questions are classified into five categories: the informational tag, the
confirmatory tag, the self- centered tag, the peremptory tag, and the aggressive
tag.
Beside, the pragmatic functions of tag questions are a controversial issue.
Based on the meaning, the pragmatic functions of English tag questions are
classified into five categories: the informational tag, the confirmatory tag, the
self-centered tag, the peremptory tag, and the aggressive tag. The focus of this
study is on the first two pragmatic functions: the „informational tag‟ and the
“confirmatory tag”. In other words, this study will test only two pragmatic
functions o f tag questions: asking for information and seeking confirmation.
Genuine tag question it is said that tag questions originated as “pure”
information-seeking questions, and that they only gradually developed the full
range of pragmatic functions that are available today. Tag question is used to
check information or to ask for agreement. If we use a rising intonation in the
tag, we do not know or are not quite sure of the answer. If we use a falling
intonation in the tag, we are seeking the agreement of the person we are talking
to. We can reply to tag questions either with simple yes/no answers (negative
tags normally expect a yes answer and positive tags normally expect a no
answer) or by using yes/no + auxiliary verb. Finally, rhetorical tag question is
by forming a question right after a statement to mean the opposite of what you
said. Except the purpose of seeking information, its aims are also confirmation,
and affective tag questions, which perform various discourse functions such as
expressing speaker opinion or attitude (attitudinal tag questions), challenging or
49
putting down an addressee (peremptory and aggressive tag questions), or
involving the interlocutor in conversation (facilitative tag questions).
- Concluding remarks on objective 2 (research question 2)
+ Objective I restated that: What are the mistakes commonly committed by
students at Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school?
+ Remark: The participants commonly make the five errors about: polarity,
auxiliary, verb tenses, pronominalization, and contraction. As a result, the
possible solutions are mentioned in 4.3
- Concluding remarks on objective 3 (research question 3)
+ Objective I restated that: What are the solutions for the mistakes?
+ Remark: Based on the mentioned mistakes, the research points out the solutions
that students can follow to improve their English tag question in part 4.3.

5.2 Limitations of the current research

The limitation of the study is that this research is carried out in just one class at
Nguyen Thi Minh Khai high school. What I mean by this is that there are too
few students who participant in the survey. Because of the very tiny aspect of
the field, the application may be practiced in the class.

5.3 Recommendations/Suggestions for further study

For future research, it is suggested that a greater sample be obtained in order to
allow for the possibility of the development and validation of an instrument to
determine English tag question and their meaning, which may be used to as to
gather quantitative data. This would allow for the comparison to be more
standardized.

50
 REFERENCES

Book
Al-Nabtiti, I. (2012). The Syntax and Pragmatics o f English Tag Questions: A
Study o f Adult Arabic Learners o f English. Ontario: Carleton University.

Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic structure. Newyork: Walter de Gruyter GmbH

& Co. KG.

King, L. A. (2016). Experience schychology. California: Cram101

Incorporated.

Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches . Nebraska: University Nebraska - Lincoln.

YILDIZLI, A. (2017). pragmatic and conversational functions of tag questions

in Turkish: Comparison between natural speech and classroom setting.
Ankara: Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences.

Khansir, A. A. (2012). Error Analysis and Second Language Acquisition.

Finland: Academy.

Ann, J.-b. K.-y. (2011). English Tag Questions: Corpus Findings and
Theoretical Implications. Seattle: University of washington.

Hoffmann, G. T. (2009). Tag Questions in English The First Century.

Pennsylvania state: Journal of English Linguistics.

Maurits, L. (2011). Representation, information theory and basic word order .

School of Psychology .

Nolan, F. (2014). Intonation. UK: Linguistics at Cambridge.

Svenonius, P. (2017 ). Syntactic Features.

C, G. . N . L E E. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Silalahi, P. V. (1945). A highlight on pragmatics. 83.

Israel, M. (2014). The Pragmatics of Polarity.

51
Website
Bhat, A. (2018). Quantitative research: Definition, methods, types and
example. Retrieved from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/quantitative-
research/

Ashley Crossman. (2018). An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods.

Retrieved from thoughtco.com: https://www.thoughtco.com/qualitative-
research-methods-3026555

Brittanica. (1995). Linguistics. Retrieved from

https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/cl/volk/SyntaxVorl/SyntaxDef.html

Keller, B. (2012). Noam Chomsky Examined. Retrieved from

http://examiningpublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2012/01/noam-chomsky-
examined_28.html

52
 APPENDIX
The written test
1. I am late, …… I
a. aren‟t b. am not c. isn‟t
2. et‟s go, ……. we?
a. will b. are c. shall
3. Neither of them complained, …… they?
a. didn‟t b. did c. are
4. Everyone warned you, didn‟t ……?
a. they b. everyone c. it
5. Everything is good, isn‟t ……?
a. it b. everything c. thing
6. Yes, they don‟t come cheap, …. they?
a. are b. do c. don‟t
7. I wish to study English, …… I ?
a. am b. don‟t c. may
8. One can be one‟s master, can‟t …… ?
a. you b. they c. it
9. They must study hard, …… they?
a. mustn‟t b. don‟t c. needn‟t
10. et‟s go out, …… we ?
a. will b. shall c. do
11. What a beautiful dress, …… it ?
a. isn‟t b. is c. will
12. I think he will come here, …… …… ?
a. don‟t I b. won‟t I c. won‟t he
13. It seems that you are right, …… …… ?
a. aren‟t you b. doesn‟t it c. isn‟t it
14. What you have said is wrong, …… …… ?
a. don‟t you b. isn‟t it c. haven‟t you
15. He‟s lost in a busy street, …… he?
a. isn‟t b. hasn‟t c. is
16. She‟d rather stay at home tonight, …… she?
a. hadn‟t b. had c. wouldn‟t
53
 The oral test

1. In the following activity on have 16 situations with comments on each

one. Read the situation first and then the comment to show your intonation
that is correspondent with each mentioned situation.
2. Peter has trouble reading signs He really needs new glasses,
when he‟s driving. doesn't he?
3. Sally is looking very happy She doesn't have a new boyfriend,
today. does she?
4. Frank looked panicked when he He forgot to bring the report, didn't
opened his briefcase. he?
4. You two look so much alike. You're twins, aren't you?
5. Tom never eats cheese or ice He isn‟t allergic to dairy like his
cream. sister, is he?
6. Everyone noticed that Mary She wasn‟t invited to the party, was
wasn‟t at the party. she?
7. Kathy didn't attend the meeting She doesn‟t have a headache again,
today. does she?
8. Jane looks like she is gaining She hasn't been exercising much,
weight. has she?
9. Peter did really well in the race He didn't win first prize, did he?
today.
10. David took the bus to work today. He doesn't have a car, does he?
11. John was absent from work this But he didn‟t have another doctor‟s
afternoon. appointment, did he?
12. Mike is so tired this morning; he But he wasn‟t out partying last
fell asleep m class. night, was he?
13. The little boy looks so angry. His sister broke his new toy again,
didn‟t she?
14. Ann has a cast on her right leg. She broke her leg again, didn't she?
15. Susan came back from shopping She didn‟t buy a new TV, did she?
with a huge box.
16. George is looking quite depressed But he didn‟t lose his Job, did he?
after his meeting with his boss

54
2. The following activity is a conversation between a teacher and a student
who usually comes to doss late and forgets his assignments. Read the
conversation aloud to identify the intonation.
Student: I‟m not late fix class today, am I?
Teacher: Yes, you are. In fact, you‟re 15 minutes late. You missed your bus
again, didn‟t you?
Student: Yes, unfortunately I did. I am really sorry about that. But I can still
come into class, can‟t I?
Teacher: Yes, you can. And I assume you‟ve forgotten your homework again,
haven‟t you?
Student: But we didn‟t have any homework for today, did we?
Teacher: Yes, you did. You should have done exercises 4 and S for today‟s
class.
Student: That‟s for Thursday‟s class, isn‟t it?
Teacher: That‟s right and today is Thursday, isn‟t it?
Student: Oops, I am afraid I made a mistake, I thought today was Wednesday.
But I can still hand it in tomorrow, can‟t I.
Teacher: Welt, I suppose so, but let‟s agree that 2 points will be taken off for
lateness. Student: Oh, okay. Thank you for letting me hand it in late.
Teacher: But it‟s not going to happen again, ok?
Student: No, sure it isn‟t
Later in class
Teacher: Okay class...and now it‟s tune for the quiz.
The same student raises up his hand
Teacher: Yes...
Student: But we don‟t have a quiz today, do we?
Teacher: Yes, we do. Last week we agreed to have our second quiz today,
didn‟t we?
Student: Oh, yeah! I am afraid I made another mistake.
Teacher: Sounds like you should write everything down in your agenda,
shouldn‟t you?
Student: Yes, you‟re right again. But we can still do it tomorrow, can‟t we?
Teacher: No. I am afraid this time you‟re out of luck. But it never hurts to ask,
does it?
55