What is this structure called?

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:21 am

In I way I hesitate to bring this up (I've been reading this Forum too long! heh) but I need some help. I'd like to teach this:

He's going.
He is? Yes, he told me yesterday.

She can swim.
She can? I thought she didn't know how.

and then...

He can't do it.
He can't?
No. He never learned how.

They don't like to eat ice cream.
They don't? I thought I saw them eating some.

All I can think of calling them is "rejoinders" but I'm not sure that's right. Anyone have any ideas?

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:34 am

Do you want a functional label, or just the "correct" grammatical term? (Memories of my thread on rising tags come rushing back

).

Echo tags, perhaps? (Eastwood, Oxford Guide to English Grammar; Swan probably calls them something similar). Eastwood goes on to say that they "express interest in what someone has just said."

His notes below the main entry are interesting:

a) An echo tag is sometimes used without inversion.
b) After a positive statement, there can be a short statement + echo tag...if the short statement contradicts the previous sentence, this expresses surprise or even disbelief.

We're moving house soon. ~ You aren't, are you?
My brothers can't swim ~ They can, can't they?

(I don't know about you, but the second example above sounds a bit strange to me with the "They can". I think it would be ellipted).

c) We can use a negative tag in reply to a positive statement. This expresses agreement.

Max played the part brilliantly ~ Yes, didn't he?

The information is already known; both speakers saw Max playing part.

(I have omitted some of the discussion, and a fair number of examples - indeed, the whole of the main entry! I can type it out in full if you want

).

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:29 pm

Thanks for commenting, Duncan. I kind of like "echo tags" but I haven't decided whether or not I'll call them that. I might even try to teach them without calling them anything. Makes it kind of hard on the title, but I'll think of something.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:31 pm

Duncan Powrie wrote:Eastwood goes on to say that they "express interest in what someone has just said."

His notes below the main entry are interesting:

a) An echo tag is sometimes used without inversion.

This was indeed interesting to me, since I almost always use them without inversion. I wonder if it's just me.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 7:41 pm

Here's the example for the point that caught Lorikeet's attention:

We're moving house soon. ~ You are?

I would type more, but if you look on the "Macmillan English Dictionary hamstrung?" thread, you'll see I've done a LOT of typing today!

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 10:36 pm

Oh how interesting! I could never say, "We're moving house soon." I could say, "We're moving soon." though. Or, "We're moving to a new house." Heh English is always fun.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sun Aug 01, 2004 10:59 pm

Maybe you should buy a copy of Eastwood (or Swan), Lorikeet, and 'av a ganders/butchers like at all the smashing Britishisms (is that a word?) on display (there are also sizeable sections on what the authors perceive to be the differences between us Brits and you Yanks in speaking English vs. American

that should give yuz a good larf innit!).

How's this for demonstrating the KICK ARSE (=ASS - you Yanks are cruel to donkeys?!) nature of British English:

Is not it an outrage that the Minister has not even tried to answer the question?

Does not the Prime Minister think that he has a duty to tell the people the facts before they vote?

(The Grammar Book 2nd edition, page 218)

Bush wouldn't last five minutes at Westminster, what what! Hear hear, rhubarb rhubarb woof woof grrr....