UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A thesis on eh Gibson, Deborah Jean 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 G52.pdf [ 3.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093718.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093718-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093718-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093718-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093718-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093718-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093718-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093718-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093718.ris

Full Text

A THESIS ON EH by DEBORAH JEAN GIBSON B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Linguistics  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1976  (c)Deborah Jean Gibson, 1976  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment of  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  f u r t h e r agree  for  freely available  that permission  for  Columbia,  I agree  that  r e f e r e n c e and study.  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  this  thesis  s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or  by h i s of  make i t  the requirements f o r  this  representatives. thesis  It  i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l  written permission.  Department o f  UMS-UlSTlCS  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Date  S E P T . \O  t  \  Columbia  <\7(o  not be allowed without my  ABSTRACT  S e v e r a l l i n g u i s t s have noted t h a t eh i s a d i s t i n c t of Canadian E n g l i s h , e.g., A l l e n  (1959), A v i s  D e s p i t e t h i s common o b s e r v a t i o n , l i t t l e  characteristic  (1972), and Love  (1973).  d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s has been done on  e i t h e r eh's s y n t a c t i c o r s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c d i s t r i b u t i o n .  Avis  (1972), f o r  example, d i s c u s s e s a number o f the s y n t a c t i c environments o f eh, but based on i t s o c c u r r e n c e i n s e l e c t e d works o f l i t e r a t u r e .  Thus f a r t h e r e has  been no d e t a i l e d study on t h e s y s t e m a t i c use o f eh as i t i s found i n the spoken language, used by a d i v e r s i t y o f speakers. T h i s paper g i v e s a grammatical and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s o f the use o f eh, based on data c o l l e c t e d i n Vancouver, B.C., over a p e r i o d o f f o u r months.  The d a t a c o n s i s t o f more than 550 o c c u r r e n c e s o f eh from 74  informants o f v a r i o u s language and s o c i a l backgrounds.  Most i n f o r m a n t s  were n a t i v e speakers o f Canadian E n g l i s h , w i t h the o t h e r s b e i n g p r i m a r i l y speakers o f e i t h e r American o r B r i t i s h  English.  The grammatical a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t s the s y n t a c t i c and semantic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f eh and i t s uses. tags  I t i s i n p a r t based on r e s e a r c h on  (e.g., Huddleston 1970, C a t t e l l 1973), q u e s t i o n s (e.g., Hudson 1975),  and c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s  (e.g., Sacks 1967).  Important p r o p e r t i e s o f  sentences t h a t determine the a n a l y s i s and use o f eh i n c l u d e s y n t a c t i c mood, semantic f o r c e , and s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s .  A l s o , eh can o n l y be understood  by e x t e n d i n g the a n a l y s i s t o i n c l u d e the r e l a t i o n between sentences w i t h i n a discourse.  The s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s i s based on i n f o r m a t i o n about  the speakers who use eh and on the s o c i a l c o n t e x t i n which i t o c c u r s , i . e . , f o r m a l v e r s u s i n f o r m a l usage.  S o c i a l v a r i a b l e s i n the use o f eh a r e age,  c l a s s , sex, r e g i o n a l and language background o f t h e speaker.  iii The grammatical  analysis reveals  eight  types o f eh, as f o l l o w s :  Examples 1.  Reversed P o l a r i t y  That s h o u l d be okay, eh?  2.  Constant P o l a r i t y  A:  He s a i d "eh" t w i c e .  B:  Oh, he s a i d "eh", eh?  8.  Imperative  Look a t t h a t , eh!  Exclamation  What a drag, eh!  Polar  (Did) you see the game l a s t n i g h t , eh?  interrogative  Wh Q u e s t i o n  What a r e you t r y i n g to say, eh?  Pardon  Eh?  Anecdotal  He went from b u i l d i n g , eh, t o b u i l d i n g .  The s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t eh i s used m o s t l y i n i n f o r m a l speech, t h a t some speakers use eh more than o t h e r s , of c l a s s and r e g i o n a l background  may determine  and t h a t the v a r i a b l e s  t h e use o f c e r t a i n types of  eh, p a r t i c u l a r l y the A n e c d o t a l eh, which was found to be t h e most stigmatized  form.  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE  2  METHODOLOGY  10  2.0  Preliminary research  10  2.1  Free-field  13  3  o b s e r v a t i o n method  GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF EH  22  3.0  Some g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s on t a g q u e s t i o n s  22  3.1 3.2  Three a s p e c t s o f the grammar o f eh The e i g h t types o f eh Type 1. Reversed P o l a r i t y Eh Type 2. Constant P o l a r i t y Eh Type 3. Imperative Eh Type 4. E x c l a m a t i o n Eh Type 5. P o l a r I n t e r r o g a t i v e Eh Type 6. Wh Q u e s t i o n Eh Type 7. Pardon Eh Type 8. A n e c d o t a l Eh Some s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t s o f the use o f eh  29 30 34 40 46 51 53 54 56 57 61  3.3 4  1  SUMMARY  . . .  66  REFERENCES  69  APPENDIX A  71  APPENDIX B  75  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE 1  Eight  2  S i x types o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e eh, based on Love (1973) . . . .  3  N a t i o n a l i t y and time observed f o r 74 i n f o r m a n t s  16  4  N a t i o n a l i t y , time observed, number o f eh's, and average number o f eh's f o r 74 i n f o r m a n t s . .  17  Number, time observed, numbers o f eh's, age, sex, c l a s s and n a t i o n a l i t y o f the 10 most p r o d u c t i v e users o f eh  19  5  6  types o f eh, a c c o r d i n g t o A v i s (1972)  S y n t a c t i c mood, semantic of e i g h t  f o r c e , and pragmatic  4 6  aspects  types o f eh  7  The amount of use o f each type of eh by n a t i o n a l u s e r s  8  The amount o f use o f each type o f eh by t h e t e n most p r o d u c t i v e u s e r s o f eh  32 . .  62  64  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The help  and encouragement  sincere  thanks  o f many p e o p l e .  David  Dr.  Barbara Horvath  Ingram f o r h i s s u p e r v i s i o n  Dean W a l t e r  otherwise have remained Ms. L o r n a  To All of  data.  to express  o f Love's  my  assistance.  offering  (1973) t h e s i s ,  me h i s d a t a o n e h  of which  I would  unaware.  S a i n t - J a c q u e s , my  typist,  and generous  f o r generously  Hawes f o r h e r t i m e  Bernard my  like  f o r h e r a d v i c e and s u p p o r t .  S. A v i s ,  f o r s e n d i n g me h i s c o p y  Dr.  I would  without the  to the following.  Dr.  To and  p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h c o u l d n o t have been accomplished  Mrs. Nina  t h e i n f o r m a n t s who  and h e l p . second  reader.  Thurston. co-operated  so w i l l i n g l y  i n the c o l l e c t i o n  CHAPTER INTRODUCTION AND  Eh has H.  ONE  REVIEW OF  LITERATURE  been t r a d i t i o n a l l y regarded as a f e a t u r e of Canadian E n g l i s h .  B. A l l e n (1959:20) w r i t e s : And o n l y i n Canada i s found the i n t e r r o g a t i v e , eh? /ey/, used i n a s k i n g f o r a r e p e t i t i o n of what i s not understood or heard c l e a r l y . T h i s i s so e x c l u s i v e l y a Canadian f e a t u r e t h a t i m m i g r a t i o n o f f i c i a l s use i t as an i d e n t i f y i n g c l u e .  Mark O r k i n  (1970:77) f o l l o w s A l l e n v e r y c l o s e l y i n h i s mention of eh.  t i t l e of O r k i n ' s  (1973) Canajun, eh?,  The  shows t h a t eh i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d  w i t h Canadian E n g l i s h . Further English: Avis  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of eh i s found i n The  A Report, by M.  H.  S c a r g i l l and H.  (1972), i n h i s a r t i c l e "So  eh?  r e g a r d e d , at l e a s t by l e x o g r a p h e r s , out  t h a t eh i s " e n t e r e d  A v i s does not c o n s i d e r  Survey of Canadian  J . Warkentyne (1972).  i s Canadian, eh?",  argues t h a t eh i s  as u n i v e r s a l E n g l i s h .  i n every g e n e r a l  Walter  Avis  d i c t i o n a r y of E n g l i s h . "  points (89)  eh to be an e x c l u s i v e f e a t u r e of Canadian E n g l i s h ,  c i t i n g many usages of eh i n B r i t i s h and American l i t e r a t u r e of the l a s t  two  centuries. Although t h e r e i s a g e n e r a l agreement t h a t eh i s a f e a t u r e of Canadian E n g l i s h , t h e r e has many as having  been l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on i t .  a l i m i t e d meaning and  (1959) c o n s i d e r s o n l y one meaning and  distribution. use  of eh.  i s regarded  For i n s t a n c e , A l l e n This limited  i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d by Canadian d i c t i o n a r i e s , where two  1  Eh  viewpoint  d e f i n i t i o n s are  by  2 u s u a l l y proposed.  The I n t e r m e d i a t e D i c t i o n a r y  o f Canadian E n g l i s h  defines  eh as f o l l o w s : Eh - a 1. 2.  The  Senior  An e x c l a m a t i o n e x p r e s s i n g doubt, s u r p r i s e , o r f a i l u r e t o hear e x a c t l y . An e x c l a m a t i o n s u g g e s t i n g "yes" f o r an answer: Wasn't i t l u c k y , eh? I n t e r j e c t i o n .  D i c t i o n a r y o f Canadian E n g l i s h , and t h e Gage Canadian D i c t i o n a r y ,  have a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t second 2.  definition:  An e x c l a m a t i o n s u g g e s t i n g "yes" f o r an answer: o r assuming t h a t the answer w i l l be a f f i r m a t i v e : You're going home now, eh? S c a r g i l l and Warkentyne (1972: 75-76) a l s o c o n s i d e r  meanings and uses o f eh.  38.  Do you use eh (A) Yes; (B) Do you use eh (A) Yes; (B)  these two  In the grammatical usage s e c t i o n o f t h e i r  survey they ask the f o l l o w i n g 24.  only  questions:  i n , e.g., So t h a t ' s what he t h i n k s , eh? No; (C) Sometimes f o r What d i d you say? No  T h e i r comments on the r e s u l t s o f the survey a r e : Both q u e s t i o n s 24 and 38 have t o do w i t h eh as an i n t e r r o g a t i v e . In Number 24, eh i s a t a g q u e s t i o n s u b s t i t u t a b l e by does he; i n Number 38 eh stands a l o n e as an i n f o r m a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e . This second use o f eh has been c i t e d as d i s t i n c t i v e l y Canadian. The r e a l f a c t s about t h i s usage have been somewhat obscured by the way i n which the answers a r e p r e s e n t e d , e s p e c i a l l y i n Number 38. A b e t t e r c h o i c e o f f e r i n g would have been o f t e n , sometimes, never. The usage e l i c i t e d i n Number 38 i s much l e s s p o p u l a r than t h e one i n Number 24. Avis  (1972) i s unique i n p r e s e n t i n g  a grammatical a n a l y s i s o f eh.  H i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s based m a i n l y on a corpus o f Canadian, B r i t i s h and American l i t e r a t u r e o f the l a s t two c e n t u r i e s . of eh i n t o n o n - i n t e r r o g a t i v e latter i n his classification. of eh:  He has d i v i d e d t h e use  and i n t e r r o g a t i v e , d e a l i n g o n l y w i t h t h e Avis  states that the n o n - i n t e r r o g a t i v e  use  3 has s e v e r a l forms, the most common b e i n g to r e p r e s e n t e j a c u l a t i o n s of sorrow or d i s g u s t , the u s u a l p r o n u n c i a t i o n b e i n g /e/, sometimes /ey/, both w i t h p r o s o d i c v a r i a t i o n s . (95) About the i n t e r r o g a t i v e , A v i s c l a i m s : As w i t h most i n t e r j e c t i o n s , eh i s a contour c a r r i e r , i t s primary f u n c t i o n b e i n g to v e r b a l i z e e n q u i r i e s and/or to r e i n f o r c e them; as such i t i s a k i n d of a r t i c u l a t e d q u e s t i o n mark. (96) In a l l ,  A v i s proposes e i g h t types of eh. The  These a r e summarized i n T a b l e  o n l y o t h e r a n a l y s i s of eh.to date i s t h a t of Traeey Love  1.  (1973).  U s i n g A v i s ' d a t a , Love proposes t h a t eh i s a q u e s t i o n p a r t i c l e a c t i n g "alone and  i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h o t h e r i n t e r r o g a t i v e markers, e.g.,  i n t o n a t i o n , q u e s t i o n word, to i n d i c a t e a q u e s t i o n . " f i e s eh i n t o s i x s e t s .  She  (1973:i)  rising  Love  classi-  does not d e a l w i t h A v i s ' type 7 ( n a r r a t i v e  eh), r e g a r d i n g t h i s as a n o n - i n t e r r o g a t i v e use of eh.  She a l s o omits  A v i s ' type 1 (request f o r r e p e t i t i o n eh), c a l l i n g i t a h e s i t a t i o n form. Love c o n s i d e r s a l l o t h e r types of eh to be tag q u e s t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g those which A v i s c a l l s  'reinforcements'  (types 4,  5 and  6 i n Table 1), with  e x c e p t i o n s — W h q u e s t i o n + eh and p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e + eh. a r e presented  i n Table  Her  tested four i n t o n a t i o n patterns  Set 2 more c l o s e l y than the o t h e r s .  any  to see i f t h e r e was  She  ( f a l l i n g , r i s i n g , double bar j u n c t u r e ,  s i n g l e bar j u n c t u r e ) by r e a d i n g each example sentence to the  them.  s i x types  2.  Love examined her Set 1 and  f o u r times,  two  a meaning and  informant  f u n c t i o n d i f f e r e n c e between  She does not f i n d a c o r r e l a t i o n between meaning or f u n c t i o n w i t h  i n t o n a t i o n p a t t e r n , although  she regards  j u n c t u r e as a h e s i t a t i o n phenomenon.  She  eh f o l l o w e d by a double bar  concludes  t h a t eh i s a q u e s t i o n  p a r t i c l e i n Set 1, r e g a r d l e s s of r i s i n g o r f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n . Love c l a i m s t h a t "eh's  f u n c t i o n when l i n k e d w i t h an Imperative  as an emphatic" (17), not as an i n t e r r o g a t i v e element.  In Set i s to  2,  serve  4 TABLE 1 E i g h t types of eh, a c c o r d i n g to A v i s (1972)  Description  Examples  Request f o r r e p e t i t i o n a. to i n d i c a t e t h a t something heard.  2.  wasn't  "Eh?" s a i d G r a n d f a t h e r P i n n e r , c u r v i n g h i s hand ... over one ear.  b. to i n d i c a t e t h a t something wasn't f u l l y comprehended, and suggesting s u r p r i s e , d i s b e l i e f , e t c .  Harry ( e a g e r l y ) . Eh? D i d you ask em about Mary ...?  c. to i n d i c a t e p r e o c c u p a t i o n .  " I t seems a f i n e enough n i g h t . " —"Eh? Oh, yes ..."  The e q u i v a l e n t to a tag q u e s t i o n a. f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t statements. b. f o l l o w i n g statements by q u a l i f i e r s .  preceded  c. f o l l o w i n g e l l i p t i c a l statements i . i n i t i a t e d by the speaker himself. ii. iii.  i n i t i a t e d by speaker.  another  i n i t i a t e d as a c o n c l u s i o n drawn.  1  "The sun i s too h o t , eh?" asked.  he  " ... maybe y o u ' l l be going to the I n d i e s a g a i n some day, eh?" Bowling, what's he got to say f o r h i m s e l f ? N o t h i n g , eh? " I do know ..."--"You do, he demanded a c c u s i n g l y .  eh?"  Willie. Ah, Frank, my l a d ! Busy as u s u a l , eh?  d. excluded by p u n c t u a t i o n from p r e c e d i n g statement.  "That's how we s h a l l save the races. Eh? You b e g i n to see i t now?"  3.  N e g a t i v e examples df 2.  "You won't e h ? " — " N o , thank you ..."  4.  A r e i n f o r c e m e n t of an e x c l a m a t i o n a. i n t r o d u c e d by so.  5.  "So you t h i n k he might be hard on me, eh?"  b. m i s c e l l a n e o u s . (Canadian examples o n l y )  "Gee—what a n i g h t ,  A r e i n f o r c e m e n t of an i m p e r a t i v e  " L i s t e n , H a r r y , phone me b e f o r e you go out t o n i g h t , eh?"  eh?"  5 TABLE  1—continued  Description A reinforcement of a. w i t h a q u e s t i o n normally taking intonation. i . i n c l u d e d by ii.  Examples an i n t e r r o g a t i v e form i t s e l f falling punctuation  excluded by p u n c t u a t i o n  b. r i s i n g or f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n i . i n c l u d e d by p u n c t u a t i o n ii.  8.  excluded by p u n c t u a t i o n  "And who i s t o l o o k a f t e r the h o r s e s , eh?" "Why make a r e p o r t ? "Did  Eh?"  you get t h a t , eh?"  Hastings. Ehl ( s i c )  Wasn't i t l u c k y ?  O c c u r r i n g elsewhere than sentence final a. u t t e r a n c e f i n a l i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a name.  "A b i t too w e l l - e h , c r i e d the w i f e .  b. u t t e r a n c e i n i t i a l by a name o n l y .  " ... these k i d s a r e n ' t a l l Expo f a n s . Eh, gang?"  f o l l o w e d by  Josey?"  c. m i s c e l l a n e o u s .  Hardcastle. move?  The n a r r a t i v e eh  " J e s u s , the o l d Deacon, e h — g e t t i n g o f f t h a t hot one about the Major, eh?"  Eh, why don't you  TABLE 2 S i x types o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e eh, based on Love  Description  (1973)  Examples  Set  1  Declarative  + eh Tag Q  Set  2  Imperative + eh Tag Q  L i s t e n to me  Set  3  Wh  And who eh?  Q + eh  I suppose you're a smart f e l l o w  eh?  eh?  i s to l o o k a f t e r the h o r s e s  Set 4  Wh Q ( r h e t o r i c a l ) + eh  How  about t h a t  Set  5  Yes-no Q + eh  Did  that  Set  6  Yes-no Q ( r h e t o r i c a l ) + eh  Isn't  eh?  seem a l l r i g h t eh?  that a corker  eh?  7 The  a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s (Chapter 3) suggests t h a t  d e f i n i t i o n s of A l l e n (1959), the Canadian d i c t i o n a r i e s , and Warkentyne (1972), f a l l  has  to the d a t a c o l l e c t e d .  d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s are: f o r an answer; tion;  and  eh.  Intermediate D i c t i o n a r y  the Oxford E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y  an u n u s u a l s y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n and  according  and  f a r s h o r t of the t o t a l range of meanings of  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t the example g i v e n by The Canadian E n g l i s h and  Scargill  the  (Wasn't i t l u c k y ,  of  eh?),  i s of a type which o c c u r s v e r y r a r e l y ,  Other q u e s t i o n a b l e  f e a t u r e s of  the  the assumption t h a t eh always suggests  the statement t h a t eh has  the semantic f o r c e of an  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of eh as an i n t e r j e c t i o n .  i n t e r j e c t i o n i s not p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d  yes exclama-  Although  i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, i t i s  u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a sentence i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n , whereas eh i s r a r e l y found i n t h i s p o s i t i o n . use  S c a r g i l l and Warkentyne (1972) s t a t e t h a t  of eh i n t h e i r example 24  p o p u l a r than the use say?).  The  (So t h a t ' s what he  of eh i n t h e i r number 38  t h i n k s , eh?)  The  shown, and  be a r e f l e c t i o n  use  of  usage of eh by A l l e n , the  Canadian  S c a r g i l l and Warkentyne are i n s u f f i c i e n t , as A v i s  Avis himself  study of eh i n h i s e i g h t - t y p e d i f f e r s i n many r e s p e c t s  has conscious-  has made a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , although h i s  from t h a t to be p r e s e n t e d h e r e .  of eh as a r e v e r s e d  or constant  the  classification A v i s does not  d i s t i n g u i s h , i n e i t h e r grammatical s t r u c t u r e or i n meaning, between use  of  eh.  i n d i c a t e t h a t the laymen does not have much l i n g u i s t i c  ness about eh.  the  or a r e f l e c t i o n of Canadian s p e a k e r s '  d i s c u s s i o n s of the meaning and  d i c t i o n a r i e s , and  you  be a t t r i b u t a b l e to  c r i t i c i s m s the a u t h o r s themselves mention, or i t may  a t t i t u d e s towards a s t i g m a t i z e d  i s more  (eh meaning What d i d  d i f f e r e n c e i n t h i s degree of use may  d a t a c o l l e c t e d by m a i l e d s u r v e y s ,  the  p o l a r i t y t a g , i . e . , whether  the  the  8  [± n e g a t i v e ] f e a t u r e c f the t a g d i f f e r s from o r i s the same as t h a t of preceding clause.  Also,  the examples A v i s uses to i l l u s t r a t e h i s  classi-  fications occasionally d i f f e r greatly i n syntactic structure within classification.  For  c o n v e n t i o n s of p u n c t u a t i o n (2.d)."'"  (2.a,  2.b,  2.c)  and  A v i s ' s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 4.a  s i m i l a r i n e i t h e r s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e or semantic f o r c e .  two  s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d  not  the p r e c e d i n g c l a u s e  i s introduced  i n t h a t examples i n 6.a  polar interrogatives. the u t t e r a n c e ,  rather  on  literary and  4.b  These  s o l e l y on the b a s i s o f whether o r  by  so.  6. b are based on a d i f f e r e n c e i n i n t o n a t i o n . apparently  one  example, i n 2, the s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are based  s u p e r f i c i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s i n sentence s t r u c t u r e  are not  the  are Wh  S u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 6.a  and  They d i f f e r much more  q u e s t i o n s w h i l e those i n 6.b  are  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 7 i s based on the p o s i t i o n of eh than on any  f a c t , the examples w i t h which A v i s  s y n t a c t i c or semantic c r i t e r i a .  in  In  i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n range  through a l l types to be p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s .  In s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  7. c, most examples are of eh used as h e s i t a t i o n phenomena, which precede the c l a u s e  to which they r e l a t e .  A v i s ' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 1 and  With the e x c e p t i o n  of the o m i s s i o n of  8, Love's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of eh i s s i m i l a r to  Avis'. The fashion.  a n a l y s i s of eh i n t h i s t h e s i s w i l l proceed i n the  F i r s t , m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s i n the c o l l e c t i o n of i n s t a n c e s  eh i n spontaneous speech w i l l be d i s c u s s e d followed eh.  The  following  i n Chapter 2.  i n Chapter 3 w i t h a grammatical and b r i e f concluding  f i n d i n g s and  will  This w i l l  of be  s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c analysis  c h a p t e r w i l l attempt to summarize the major  suggest d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e work.  of  9 FOOTNOTE  ''"Avis' s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 2.d, 7.a, and 7.b do not correspond t o any of the types of eh i n t h i s t h e s i s , as they r e f e r to w r i t t e n d a t a , whereas the d a t a i n t h i s study a r e c o l l e c t e d from spoken language.  CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY  2.0  Preliminary  research  I n r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e i s s u e o f methodology l i n g u i s t i c discussions  ( c f . Labov 1972).  has become prominent i n  Due l a r g e l y t o t h e i n f l u e n c e  of Chomsky, much r e c e n t work has r e l i e d on t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e n a t i v e speaker to r e a c h l i n g u i s t i c i n t u i t i o n s on grammatical phenomena.  Chomsky  (1965:3) w r i t e s : L i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y i s concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h an i d e a l speakerl i s t e n e r , i n a c o m p l e t e l y homogeneous speech-community . .. R e c e n t l y , s o c i o l i n g u i s t s e.g., Hymes (1962), Labov  (1963), have c h a l l e n g e d  t h i s approach, c r i t i c i z i n g Chomsky's d o c t r i n e o f homogeneity  and a b s t r a c t -  ness based on t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between performance and competence, as counter-factual.  S o c i o l i n g u i s t s and v a r i a t i o n i s t s b e l i e v e t h a t  linguistic  competence i s not t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f an i n d i v i d u a l , and t h a t t h e i n t u i t i o n s of an i n d i v i d u a l do not r e p r e s e n t a heterogeneous speech community.  The  d a t a from an i d e a l i z e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t u i t i o n s a r e r e s t r i c t e d and i n v a r i a n t , and t h e r e f o r e cannot be used t o d i s c o v e r t h e u n i v e r s a l mental p r o p e r t i e s o f language competence.  W e i n r e i c h , Labov, and Herzog  (1968:125) w r i t e :  We f e e l i t important t o d w e l l e x p l i c i t l y on e m p i r i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s , i n view o f the c o n s c i o u s o r u n c o n s c i o u s d i s r e g a r d of e m p i r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s which pervades some of t h e most i n f l u e n t i a l work i n l i n g u i s t i c s today. Labov has demonstrated t h e e x i s t e n c e o f r e g u l a r i t i e s on t h e d a t a from r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples o f a heterogeneous speech community, and f u r t h e r 10  11 shown that unmonitored  speech i s more systematic than monitored  speech,  thus using empirical methods to reveal more about language-users competence than reliance on an i n t u i t i v e source of data can reveal. This study takes an empirical approach to the analysis of eh by selecting unmonitored  spoken language as i t s data base.  Once this decision  i s made, however, there remains the question of how to e l i c i t this form i n a natural way.  Ideally, the l i n g u i s t should e l i c i t the language variable  under consideration i n a tape-recorded interview i n which the informant i s unaware that h i s speech, and especially the p a r t i c u l a r language variable i n question, i s the focus of study. E l i c i t i n g eh through the tape-recorded interview method was t r i e d initially.  Eight informants were chosen, on a rough basis of age, sex  and c l a s s , and each was interviewed from t h i r t y minutes to one hour.  The  f i r s t informant was given to understand that he was being interviewed about the nature of h i s business operation. were explaining something their using eh.  I t was f e l t that i f the informants  to the interviewer, there was more chance of  He was aware of being tape-recorded, but not of the fact  that i t was h i s language, especially h i s use of eh, that was the focus of the interview.  Prior to the interview, this informant and the interviewer  (myself) had never met. interviewer.  The other seven informants were friends of the  Of these, two were taped without their knowledge although  they were informed after the interview. of  Regarding the f i v e who were aware  audio-recording, two were taped together and three i n d i v i d u a l l y .  informants were encouraged  All  to explain and discuss topics about which they  were r e l a t i v e l y expert and the interviewer was not.  None of these discus-  sions were about language, except for two teenage informants interviewed together who were asked to explain the most recent slang of their peers.  12 The r e s u l t s o f these i n t e r v i e w s were dismaying, c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a was a l t h o u g h eh was  concerned.  Only the f i r s t  i n s o f a r as  the  informant used  eh,  mentioned by one of the t e e n a g e r s , pronounced /eh/, as a  form he d i d not use.  W i t h i n t e n minutes a f t e r the c o m p l e t i o n o f the  t a p i n g , he used eh, pronounced /ey/, n a t u r a l l y i n the c o n t e x t of c o n v e r s a t i o n , as d i d t h r e e of the o t h e r i n f o r m a n t s . The was  t a p e - r e c o r d e d i n t e r v i e w method of c o l l e c t i n g o c c u r r e n c e s of eh  abandoned, as eh proved d i f f i c u l t  reasons.  to c o l l e c t by t h i s method f o r two  F i r s t , a l t h o u g h i n f o r m a n t s may  use eh, they w i l l not always use  i t w i t h i n the course of a one hour i n t e r v i e w . to  elicit.  Second, e h - i s too  Labov"'" has shown t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e to e l i c i t  v a r i a b l e i n an i n t e r v i e w .  He e l i c i t s  as, "What happened to Dorothy's  difficult  a syntactic  the p a s s i v e by a s k i n g such q u e s t i o n s  house i n The Wizard  of Oz?",  i n f o r m a n t s o b l i g i n g l y r e p l y , " I t got blown away."  to which h i s  Eh cannot be  similarly  e l i c i t e d , as i t r e s u l t s from not one s y n t a c t i c v a r i a b l e , but. many.  I f eh  were s e m a n t i c a l l y synonymous w i t h o n l y one s t r u c t u r e , i t would s t i l l  be  difficult  to d e v i s e a t e s t which would e l i c i t o n l y eh and not the synon-  ymous s t r u c t u r e .  For example, the use of eh i n e x p l a n a t i o n s , synonymous  w i t h you know and r i g h t , i s o n l y one type of eh. the course of a t h i r t y minute i n t e r v i e w , used i n s t a n c e of eh was method used to  of t h i s t y p e .  i n the p i l o t study was  explain topics.  The  eh 114  first  informant, i n  times, and  every  Perhaps the f a i l u r e of the i n t e r v i e w the r e s u l t o f encouraging  the i n f o r m a n t s  However, a t l e a s t h a l f of the d i s c u s s i o n i n a l l o f the  i n t e r v i e w s , except the f i r s t , were o f f the t o p i c and c o n s i s t e d of f r e e discussion.  I t was  concluded t h a t eh, w i t h i t s range of meanings and  f u n c t i o n a l l y complex l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t s , cannot be e l i c i t e d by means o f the t a p e - r e c o r d e d i n t e r v i e w method.  and  collected  13 2.1  F r e e - f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n method As a r e s u l t of the p r e l i m i n a r y work u s i n g t a p e - r e c o r d e d  to c o l l e c t d a t a , a f i n a l method of f r e e - f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n was  interviews decided  upon.  I n t h i s approach, the i n v e s t i g a t o r , d u r i n g a f o u r month p e r i o d , wrote down every  i n s t a n c e of eh which she heard.  at a l l times.  She kept paper and  O c c a s i o n a l l y circumstances  a pen about  her  weren't f a v o u r a b l e f o r data  c o l l e c t i o n , such as s i t u a t i o n s i n which too many eh's  were produced  too  2 q u i c k l y to be r e c o r d e d ,  or when adverse  a b i c y c l e , made w r i t i n g i m p o s s i b l e . l i n g u i s t i c and  The  p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , such as i n v e s t i g a t o r r e c o r d e d both  the  s o c i a l c o n t e x t of eh, as w e l l as as much r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n  about the speaker as was  known.  The  u t t e r a n c e i n which eh o c c u r r e d , and  l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t of eh i n c l u d e d  i n many cases,  (and o c c a s i o n a l l y , the f o l l o w i n g u t t e r a n c e ) .  The  the p r e c e d i n g  b a s i c requirements  to determine the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e of the main c l a u s e and  meaning of eh.  The  for  was  the the  produced, such as i t s f o r m a l i t y , and whether i t  produced i n f a c e to f a c e c o n v e r s a t i o n , over the phone, o r r a r e l y ,  written.  The  name, age,  sex, c l a s s , n a t i v e language and n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y .  i n f o r m a t i o n about the speaker,  when known, i n c l u d e d h i s / h e r  f o u r month p e r i o d of d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , o n l y e i g h t i n f o r m a n t s to the i n v e s t i g a t o r were overheard was  suf-  s o c i a l c o n t e x t of eh i n c l u d e d i n f o r m a t i o n about  s i t u a t i o n i n which eh was  the  utterance  the r e c o r d i n g of the l i n g u i s t i c c o n t e x t were t h a t the environment be ficient  riding  to use eh.  t r a n s f e r r e d from the paper on which i t was  cards.  One  c a r d was  the  were unknown  A l l .of the above i n f o r m a t i o n first  recorded  i n s t a n c e s o c c u r r e d w i t h i n the same u t t e r a n c e or immediately  Frequently,  who  used f o r each i n s t a n c e of eh, u n l e s s two  eh u t t e r a n c e by the same  In  to  index  o r more  f o l l o w i n g an  speaker.  the informants were aware t h a t t h e i r use of eh was  being  14 collected.  T h e r e f o r e , they were aware not o n l y t h a t t h e i r language  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , but a l s o of the exact language v a r i a b l e . f a r as c o u l d be determined, eh, a l t h o u g h they may  This,  as  d i d not a l t e r t h e i r q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n of  have been d i s t r e s s e d or i r r i t a t e d a t p r o d u c i n g eh or  at h a v i n g t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s w r i t t e n down. h e r s e l f was  was  For i n s t a n c e , the  investigator  an i n f o r m a n t , and d e s p i t e her h i g h l y i n c r e a s e d c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f  eh, s t i l l produced  eh w i t h unimpaired  example o f another  i n f o r m a n t ' s use of eh d e s p i t e the unwelcome knowledge  t h a t the u t t e r a n c e was  frequency.  The  f o l l o w i n g i s an  being recorded.  A (to B) That s t u f f ' s expensive, eh? (sees me w r i t i n g ) Oh God, "eh", (to B) But i t i s , eh? (informant 2) (When examples are g i v e n from informants of t h i s study, they w i l l f o l l o w e d by the number of the informant i n q u e s t i o n . more d e t a i l s on each informant.)  The  informant who  i n s t a n c e s of eh had claimed never to use A) B) A)  We had r e l i g i o u s r o o f e r s . ' They p r o b a b l y do t h e i r work, eh? Ha! ( w r i t i n g down u t t e r a n c e )  B)  No!  No!  No,  be  See Appendix B f o r produced  the f o l l o w i n g  eh.  but they p r o b a b l y do, eh?  (informant  55)  The disadvantages of the f r e e - f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n method were a r e s u l t i n g imbalance as age,  of i n f o r m a n t s i n c e r t a i n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c c a t e g o r i e s (such  c l a s s , e t c . ) and i n most of the d a t a b e i n g examples of c a s u a l speech  c o l l e c t e d i n an i n f o r m a l c o n t e x t , so ; i t was the use o f eh.  difficult  to compare s t y l e  and  The advantages were the ease of c o l l e c t i n g compared to the  t a p e - r e c o r d e d i n t e r v i e w method, and t h a t eh d i d not have to be e l i c i t e d i n the c o n s t r a i n i n g s i t u a t i o n of an i n t e r v i e w , which r a r e l y r e s u l t s i n t r u l y casual  speech. In t h i s manner, d a t a were c o l l e c t e d from 73 i n f o r m a n t s , i n Vancouver,  B.C.,  d u r i n g a f o u r month p e r i o d , from J u l y 1975  t o November  1975.  15 I n c l u d i n g the f i r s t  taped i n t e r v i e w , t h e r e were a t o t a l of 74  T a b l e 3 shows the number of hours i n which i t was been c o l l e c t e d from each informant and informant.  No  attempt  was  informants.  p o s s i b l e f o r d a t a to have  the n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y of each  made to p i c k informants a c c o r d i n g to age,  class,  sex or n a t i o n a l i t y , o r to v a r y the context of s i t u a t i o n when c o l l e c t i n g data. The q u a n t i t a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n of eh v a r i e s g r e a t l y per Although much more time was  spent w i t h some i n f o r m a n t s  i n v e s t i g a t o r ) than w i t h o t h e r s , the former the l a t t e r .  Every eh produced  informant.  (including  the  o f t e n contributed l e s s data  by the i n v e s t i g a t o r  (informant 3)  than  was  r e c o r d e d d u r i n g the f o u r month p e r i o d of c o l l e c t i o n , whereas i t i s h i g h l y p r o b a b l e t h a t the o t h e r i n f o r m a n t s produced recorded.  T a b l e 4 shows the number of i n f o r m a n t s per time p e r i o d of d a t a  c o l l e c t i o n and per n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y , and eh.  many eh's which were not  the q u a n t i t a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n of  The n o n - e x i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the time spent c o l l e c t i n g  from the i n f o r m a n t , the n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y of the i n f o r m a n t , and of eh's produced  by the informant i s r e v e a l e d i n T a b l e 4.  number of eh's per n a t i o n a l group , does not r e f l e c t i n d i v i d u a l informant.  The  years.  average any  I t i s , however, i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t the American  the B r i t i s h .  f o r a t l e a s t two  the number  the output of  i n f o r m a n t s have a h i g h e r average number of eh's per informant Canadian and  data  than do  The American i n f o r m a n t s had a l l l i v e d  to t h r e e y e a r s , and most had  lived  i n Canada  i n Canada f o r seven  T h i s r a i s e s the q u e s t i o n of whether the Americans adopted  Canada or whether they had used  i t i n the S t a t e s .  the  The  eh i n  i n f o r m a n t s were  e q u a l l y d i v i d e d on t h i s q u e s t i o n . T a b l e 5 shows the q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n of eh of the t e n u a l i n f o r m a n t s who  used  individ-  eh the most, the time spent c o l l e c t i n g d a t a  from  16 TABLE 3 Nationality and time observed f o r 74 informants  Time observed  Canadian  American  Number of Informants NonBritish native Unknown 1  Over 20 hours  Total  10  1 0 to 20 hours  5 to 10 hours 1 to 5 hours  12  less than 1 hour  13  2  Totals  44  8  25  11  1  8  24  3  8  74  TABLE 4 N a t i o n a l i t y , time observed, number o f eh's, and average number o f eh's f o r 74 informants  National Identity  Time Observed  Canadian  more than 20 hours  No. o f Subjects  No. o f eh's  Average no. o f . eh's per s u b j e c t  5  154  30.80  5  51  10.20  9  20  2.20  12  44  3.60  1 hour  13  136  10.40  totals more than 20 hours  44  405  9.20  3  90  30.00  10 t o 20 hours 5 to 10 hours 1 to 5 hours l e s s than  American  10 t o 20 hours  -  -  5 t o 10 hours  -  -  -  1 to 5 hours  3  4  1.10  1 hour  2  4  2.00  totals more than 20 hours  8  98  12.30  2  16  8.00  1  6  6.00  -  -  8  10  1.20  11  32  2.90  l e s s than  British  10 t o 20 hours 5 to 10 hours 1 to 5 hours l e s s than 1 hour totals  18 TABLE 4 — c o n t i n u e d  National Identity  Time Observed  Non-native Speakers of E n g l i s h  more than 20 hours  No. o f Subjects  No. o f eh's  Average no. o f eh's p e r s u b j e c t  10 t o 20 hours 5 t o 10 hours 1 to 5 hours  Unknown: presumably native Canadian English speakers  2.50  l e s s than 1 hour  1  2  2.00  totals  3  7  2.30  l e s s than 1 hour  8  11  1.30  totals  8  11  1.30  more than 20 hours 10 to 20 hours 5 t o 10 hours 1 to 5 hours  19 TABLE 5 Number, time observed, number o f eh's, age, sex, c l a s s and n a t i o n a l i t y  Informant Number  Time Observed  o f t h e 10 most p r o d u c t i v e u s e r s o f eh  No. o f eh's  Age  Sex  Class  Nationality Canadian ( r u r a l Saskatchewan)  l e s s than 1 hour 45 2 46 3 4 5 6 7 8  114  32  M  working  more than 20 hours  50  32  M  middle  American (7 y e a r s )  more than 20 hours  41  25  middle  Canadian (Vancouver)  more than 20 hours  39  27  middle  American (7 y e a r s )  more than 20 hours  38  29  middle  Canadian (Vancouver)  more than 20 hours  38  29  middle  Canadian (Vancouver)  more than 20 hours  34  29  middle  Canadian (Vancouver)  10 t o 20 hours  19  32  M  working  Canadian (Toronto)  1 to 5 hours  15  50  F  middle  Canadian (Toronto)  10 t o 20 hours  15  63  M  middle  Canadian (Vancouver)  M  M  20 them and the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s f o r each i n f o r m a n t , i n c l u d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on the r e g i o n o f Canada they were from or the amount of time they had l i v e d i n Canada.  T a b l e 5 r e v e a l s t h a t i t would be d i f f i c u l t  f a c t o r s i n the q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n of eh a s :  to c o r r e l a t e  time spent w i t h the  i n f o r m a n t , r u r a l / u r b a n background, n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y , and of age,  sex and c l a s s of the informant.  such  social  variables  No c l e a r p a t t e r n emerges i n terms  of the q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n o f eh and any o f the above f a c t o r s .  Due  to  the method of c o l l e c t i o n , most of the informants were people w i t h whom the i n v e s t i g a t o r spent a g r e a t d e a l o f time. a b l e s o f age,  Because of t h i s , the s o c i a l  sex and c l a s s were l a r g e l y an a r t i f a c t of the s o c i a l  of the i n v e s t i g a t o r and her a c q u a i n t a n c e s .  vari-  variables  The i n f o r m a n t s , i n g e n e r a l ,  (see Appendix B) were m o s t l y between 25 and 35, w i t h a range of 4 to  65.  Both sexes were e q u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d , and almost a l l i n f o r m a n t s were middle c l a s s w i t h some u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n .  21  FOOTNOTES ''"As p e r c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h B a r b a r a H o r v a t h , who r e l a t e d  this  t o me.  2 "Recorded" i s  3  u s e d t o mean " w r i t t e n  down".  The n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s o f E n g l i s h i n c l u d e d o n e J a p a n e s e , o n e S w e d e , and one F r e n c h C a n a d i a n , a l l o f whom h a d l i v e d i n B . C . f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e years.  CHAPTER THREE GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF EH  3.0  Some g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s on t a g q u e s t i o n s Eh most f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r s a t t h e end o f sentences and i s a s s o c i a t e d  s y n t a c t i c a l l y with questions.  Therefore, i n order to analyse the d i f f e r e n t  types o f eh, i t i s a l s o n e c e s s a r y to understand some b a s i c characteristics  of tag questions.  To d a t e , t h i s p a r t i c u l a r  grammar has been r e l a t i v e l y n e g l e c t e d . by Huddleston  grammatical aspect of  Some e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s a r e s t u d i e s  (1970), C a t t e l l (1973), and Hudson  (1975).  A s p e c t s o f these  s t u d i e s which a r e r e l e v a n t to an a n a l y s i s o f eh w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . A t a g q u e s t i o n c o n s i s t s o f a c l a u s e f o l l o w e d by a t a g o f some k i n d . The i n i t i a l c l a u s e i s r e f e r r e d t o as t h e "main s e n t e n c e " by Huddleston and as t h e "host c l a u s e " by C a t t e l l (1973). use t h e l a t t e r term.) the h o s t c l a u s e .  I n "John has l e f t ,  ( T h i s study w i l l  terms  The most s t r i k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  of t a g questions i s the  Huddleston  " r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y " and " c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y "  to c a p t u r e t h e p o s s i b l e  arbitrarily  hasn't he?", "John has l e f t " i s  p o l a r i t y between t h e host c l a u s e and t h e t a g . the  (1970)  (1970:215) uses  (as does t h i s  study)  relations:  A ' r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y t a g ' i s one whose n e g a t i v e - p o s i t i v e p o l a r i t y i s the r e v e r s e o f t h e main s e n t e n c e — a s i n (1) [John has gone, h a s n ' t h e ? ] , where t h e main sentence i s p o s i t i v e , the t a g n e g a t i v e , and a l s o i n (2) [John hasn't gone, has he?] c o n v e r s e l y a 'constant p o l a r i t y t a g ' has t h e same p o l a r i t y as t h e main sentence, as i n (3) [John has gone, has h e ( ? ) ] , and (4) [John hasn't gone, hasn't h e ( ? ) ] . T h i s s y n t a c t i c d i f f e r e n c e r e f l e c t s a d i f f e r e n c e i n meaning. 22  Cattell  23 (1973:620), who uses t h e terms " c o n t r a s t i n g " and "matching" p o l a r i t y f o r " r e v e r s e d " and " c o n s t a n t " p o l a r i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y , e x p r e s s e s the semantic d i f f e r e n c e as f o l l o w s : We can now say w i t h o u t r e s e r v a t i o n t h a t t a g q u e s t i o n s show c o n t r a s t ing p o l a r i t y t o the h o s t c l a u s e s when the l a t t e r r e p r e s e n t the speaker's p o i n t o f view', and matching p o l a r i t y when they don't. For  t h e r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y sentence "John has l e f t ,  p o i n t o f view i s t h a t John has l e f t . sentence "John has l e f t , of  hasn't he?", the speaker's  C o n v e r s e l y , i n the c o n s t a n t  polarity  has he?", i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the speaker's p o i n t  view t h a t John has l e f t .  T h i s can be shown more c l e a r l y w i t h examples  from d i s c o u r s e . Speaker A:  John has l e f t .  Speaker B:  John has l e f t , has he?  Speaker B i s u s i n g a c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y t a g t o show t h a t h i s u t t e r a n c e i s not n e c e s s a r i l y h i s own p o i n t o f view, but t h a t o f t h e p r e c e d i n g Speaker A. C a t t e l l argues t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange would be ungrammatical. Speaker A:  John has l e f t .  Speaker B:  John has l e f t , hasn't he?  Speakers B's use of a r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y t a g i s almost i n s o l e n t . the  I t gives  i m p r e s s i o n t h a t he i s p r e s e n t i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n , "John has l e f t " ,  which Speaker A has j u s t r e l a y e d , as h i s own. The f a c t t h a t t h e meaning o f tags concerns t h e speaker's p o i n t o f view i n d i c a t e s t h a t pragmatics i s a f a c t o r to be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s study. The a n a l y s i s o f t a g q u e s t i o n s demands a broader base than a sentence grammar.  Hudson (1975) makes t h i s p o i n t by s e p a r a t i n g t h r e e a s p e c t s o f grammar  t h a t must be c o n s i d e r e d i n the study o f t a g s .  These a r e s y n t a c t i c mood,  semantic f o r c e , and t h e s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s t h a t need t o be s a t i s f i e d f o r the  u t t e r a n c e t o be s u c c e s s f u l .  The s y n t a c t i c mood o f an u t t e r a n c e  24 d e s c r i b e s t h e grammatical shape o f the u t t e r a n c e .  S i x s y n t a c t i c moods  are: mood  example  declarative  John sees t h e boat,  polar interrogative  Does John see the boat?  interrogative  What does John  exclamative  Isn't that a b i g boat!  see?  What a b i g boat t h a t i s ! Is t h a t ever a b i g b o a t ! imperative  Look a t the boat.  responsive  Speaker A:  Does John see t h e boat?  Speaker B:  Yes, he does.  The s y n t a c t i c mood ' r e s p o n s i v e ' d e s c r i b e s an u t t e r a n c e which i s reduced t o a minimum and i s dependent a u x i l i a r y v e r b , and t e n s e .  on a p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e f o r pronoun  reference,  Tag q u e s t i o n s combine t h e s y n t a c t i c moods o f  t h e i r host c l a u s e , t a g , and p o s i t i o n i n d i s c o u r s e .  F o r example, a  r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y t a g q u e s t i o n , such as "John sees the boat, doesn't he?", combines t h e d e c l a r a t i v e mood o f "John sees t h e b o a t " w i t h the p o l a r r o g a t i v e mood o f "doesn't he?".  inter-  A c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y t a g q u e s t i o n , such as  Speaker B's u t t e r a n c e : Speaker A:  John sees t h e boat.  Speaker B:  He sees i t ,  does he?  combines the d e c l a r a t i v e mood o f "He sees i t " ,  t h e p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e mood  of "does he?", and the r e s p o n s i v e mood o f "He sees i t , a response t o Speaker A's u t t e r a n c e . a b i g boat t h a t i s , i s n ' t i t ? " ,  does he?", which i s  Tagged e x c l a m a t i v e s , such as "What  combine the e x c l a m a t i v e mood o f "What a b i g  boat t h a t i s " w i t h the p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e mood o f " i s n ' t  it?".  Tagged  25 i m p e r a t i v e s , such as "Look a t t h e boat, w i l l you?", combine t h e i m p e r a t i v e mood o f "Look a t the b o a t " w i t h t h e p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e mood o f " w i l l you?". The s y n t a c t i c mood o f an u t t e r a n c e o v e r l a p s w i t h i t s semantic  force.  The semantic f o r c e i s the unmarked meaning a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the u t t e r a n c e . The semantic f o r c e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the s i x s y n t a c t i c moods l i s t e d  above  are: type statement—a  statement t e l l s  q u e s t i o n — a q u e s t i o n asks  something,  something.  e x c l a m a t i o n — a n e x c l a m a t i o n exclaims about o r d e r — a n order orders  something,  something.  r e s p o n s e — a response answers or responds to something. Tag q u e s t i o n s combine the semantic f o r c e s o f the meaning o f the h o s t c l a u s e , tag,  and p o s i t i o n i n d i s c o u r s e .  A r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y t a g q u e s t i o n , such as  "John sees the boat, doesn't he?", combines t h e statement f o r c e o f "John sees t h e b o a t " w i t h the q u e s t i o n f o r c e of "doesn't he?". ity  A constant p o l a r -  t a g q u e s t i o n , such as "He sees i t , does he?", combines the statement  f o r c e o f "He sees i t " , t h e q u e s t i o n f o r c e of "does he?" and the response f o r c e o f "He sees i t , does he?". big  A tagged e x c l a m a t i o n , such as "What a  boat t h a t i s , i s n ' t i t ? " , combines the e x c l a m a t i o n f o r c e o f "What a b i g  boat t h a t i s " w i t h the q u e s t i o n f o r c e o f " i s n ' t  it?".  A tagged i m p e r a t i v e ,  such as "Look a t t h e boat, w i l l you?" combines t h e o r d e r f o r c e of "Look a t the  boat" w i t h the q u e s t i o n f o r c e o f " w i l l you".  Hudson (1975) p o i n t s out  t h a t t h e s y n t a c t i c mood can sometimes t a k e a marked semantic f o r c e . example, the sentence " I s n ' t t h a t a b i g b o a t ! " has a p o l a r  For  interrogative  mood but both an unmarked q u e s t i o n and a marked e x c l a m a t i o n f o r c e . The s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s o f an u t t e r a n c e a r e pragmatic.  They a r e  26 associated with the semantic force of the utterance.  Hudson defines  s i n c e r i t y conditions as follows: conditions that the speaker i s expected to s a t i s f y — c o n d i t i o n s on h i s relations to the proposition contained i n the sentence . . . they have to be s a t i s f i e d f o r the sentence to.be uttered sincerely . . . these conditions should be associated d i r e c t l y with elements i n the semantic structure called force markers, rather than with the syntactic structure. (13) Hudson gives the s i n c e r i t y conditions f o r the semantic categories as follows: The s i n c e r i t y condition for d e c l a r a t i v e s — o r rather the corresponding semantic category, e.g., STATEMENT—seems to be simply t h i s : (50) The speaker believes the proposition i s true. (24) . . . The s i n c e r i t y condition for questions i s : (2) The speaker believes that the hearer knows at least as well as he himself does whether the proposition i s true. (12) . . . The s i n c e r i t y condition for exclamations i s : (31) The speaker i s impressed by the degree to which a property defined i n the proposition i s present. (16) . . . The imperative means something l i k e 'I want the proposition to be true'. (29) Hudson claims that the s i n c e r i t y conditions for a tag question are a combination of the s i n c e r i t y condition for the semantic force of the host and the s i n c e r i t y condition for question.  clause  The s i n c e r i t y conditions f o r  tagged declaratives, i . e . , reversed and constant p o l a r i t y tags, therefore, are a combination of statement and question s i n c e r i t y conditions; s i n c e r i t y conditions f o r tagged exclamatives combine the s i n c e r i t y tions f o r exclamation and question; tagged imperatives  the condi-  and the s i n c e r i t y conditions f o r  combine the s i n c e r i t y conditions f o r order and question.  Hudson's analysis of the s i n c e r i t y conditions f o r tagged declaratives does not reveal the difference i n semantic force between reversed and constant p o l a r i t y tags.  A reversed p o l a r i t y tag question gives the speak-  er's point of view, and asks a question. gives the preceding  A constant p o l a r i t y tag question  speaker's point of view, and, i n many cases, i s a  27 response.  I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , both a q u e s t i o n and  w i t h u t t e r a n c e s which are both q u e s t i o n s and them d i r e c t l y to r e v e r s e d and f o l l o w i n g example and  a response.  Hudson d e a l s  responses but does not  constant p o l a r i t y tags.  Hudson g i v e s  relate the  claims:  a.  T h i s belongs to  b.  Does i t ?  me.  I n t e r r o g a t i v e s l i k e does i t I c a l l REDUCED INTERROGATIVES, and uses l i k e t h a t i l l u s t r a t e d here RESPONSES. . . . They have j u s t the same s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s as f u l l i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , and . . . the same pragmatic p r i n c i p l e s a p p l y . . . (20) I f the responder t h i n k s the f i r s t speaker accepts the t r u t h of the p r o p o s i t i o n , he l e a v e s i t s p o l a r i t y unchanged i n h i s response . . . (22) Does i t ? has  the semantic f o r c e of q u e s t i o n and response,  p o l a r i t y tags.  as do  constant  In the f o l l o w i n g exchange:  Speaker A:  T h i s belongs to  Speaker B:  That belongs to you,  the response of Speaker B has  me. does i t ?  the same p o l a r i t y i n the h o s t c l a u s e and  showing t h a t he t h i n k s Speaker A a c c e p t s  tag,  the t r u t h of B's p r o p o s i t i o n .  S i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s a r e concerned w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the speaker and express 57)  the h e a r e r  i n a conversation.  They d e f i n e the r o l e  the mutual b e l i e f of the speaker and h e a r e r .  d i s c u s s e s speaker-hearer  r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  and  Harvey Sacks (1967:  the p r o o f of h e a r e r s h i p :  One way h e a r e r s may have of p r o v i n g t h e i r h e a r e r s h i p i n v o l v e s them i n showing t h a t they are u s i n g the syntax so f a r developed i n an open sentence, to c o n t r o l i n p a r t what they say next, i . e . , what they say i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what has been so f a r s a i d i n the sense t h a t the two p a r t s produce a grammatical sentence, e.g., A:  By c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  B:  Beyond t h e i r  heh  heh.  control.  Sacks f u r t h e r s t a t e s : Y o u ' l l f i n d t h i n g s l i k e pronouns p l a c e d a t the b e g i n n i n g . . . t h i n g s l i k e i-t, t h a t , e t c . (57)  of  utterances  Another pragmatic c o n s i d e r a t i o n . a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s and the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the speaker and h e a r e r i s t u r n - t a k i n g and t h e  bestowal of s i l e n c e . speaker a t u r n .  I f a speaker bestows the s i l e n c e , he g i v e s the next  A q u e s t i o n bestows the s i l e n c e , g i v e s a t u r n to the next  speaker, and r e q u i r e s a response.  Questions a r e i n v i t a t i o n s to prove  h e a r e r s h i p , and responses prove h e a r e r s h i p .  Statements, e x c l a m a t i o n s ,  and i m p e r a t i v e s can a l s o bestow the s i l e n c e and g i v e a t u r n , but they may or  may not r e q u i r e a response.  Reversed p o l a r i t y tags a r e speaker  o r i e n t e d , and r e q u i r e a response, whereas c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y tags a r e h e a r e r o r i e n t e d and a r e o f t e n a response i n themselves.  Both types o f  tags bestow the s i l e n c e but c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y tags o f t e n take a t u r n to give a turn. Reversed p o l a r i t y tags a r e f r e q u e n t l y conducive, t h a t i s , they r e q u i r e a g i v e n answer.  Hudson uses the terms ' p o s i t i v e c o n d u c i v e n e s s ' ,  meaning "the speaker a n t i c i p a t e s agreement" (17) and ' n e g a t i v e c o n d u c i v e ness', meaning " t h e speaker a n t i c i p a t e s disagreement"  (17).  Examples of  p o s i t i v e conducive u t t e r a n c e s a r e : John has l e f t , hasn't he? John hasn't l e f t ,  has he?  The expected answer to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n i s " y e s " , and to the second In  both c a s e s , the speaker a n t i c i p a t e s agreement from the h e a r e r .  "no".  An  example o f a n e g a t i v e l y conducive u t t e r a n c e i s : You're c o m p l e t e l y s i c k of me,  a r e n ' t you?  The speaker a n t i c i p a t e s disagreement not."  i . e . , t h a t t h e answer be "No, of course  S a r c a s t i c utterances are frequently n e g a t i v e l y conducive.  mation o f t h i s k i n d i s o n l y a v a i l a b l e when one extends the range o f a n a l y s i s from the sentence to sequences of sentences i n d i s c o u r s e .  Infor-  29 3.1  Three a s p e c t s of the grammar o f eh The a n a l y s i s o f the d i f f e r e n t  types o f eh which occur i n t h e d a t a  i s based on the t h r e e a s p e c t s o f s y n t a c t i c mood, semantic f o r c e , and s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s o f the u t t e r a n c e c o n t a i n i n g eh.  Regarding s y n t a c t i c  mood, t h e r e a r e s i x moods which need t o be s e p a r a t e d .  These a r e d e c l a r -  a t i v e , p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e , i n t e r r o g a t i v e , r e s p o n s i v e , e x c l a m a t i v e , and imperative. The second aspect eh.  i s the semantic f o r c e o f the u t t e r a n c e c o n t a i n i n g  The f o r c e markers a r e statement, q u e s t i o n , response,  order.  When eh i s c o n t a i n e d  q u e s t i o n f o r c e , although extent  e x c l a m a t i o n and  i n an u t t e r a n c e , the u t t e r a n c e always has a  t h e r e a r e degrees o f q u e s t i o n i n g , depending on the  to which the u t t e r a n c e r e q u i r e s a response,  and o t h e r  pragmatic  considerations. The t h i r d aspect  i s t h e s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s o f the u t t e r a n c e  contain-  ing  eh and the r e l a t e d pragmatic f a c t o r s o f t u r n - t a k i n g , bestowal o f s i l e n c e ,  and  speaker-hearer  relationships.  The s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s f o r eh, l i k e  those f o r t a g q u e s t i o n s , a r e a combination  o f the c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e host  c l a u s e , and the u n d e r l y i n g t a g , o r paraphrase of eh.  When eh f a l l s  into  the semantic q u e s t i o n c a t e g o r y , as i t must when i t i s a sentence t a g , t h e s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s on q u e s t i o n f o r c e express speaker and h e a r e r .  the mutual b e l i e f of  The speaker o f an eh u t t e r a n c e may be e i t h e r i n a  speaker o r a h e a r e r r e l a t i o n s h i p .  A r e p e t i t i o n of the f i r s t  speaker's  u t t e r a n c e , a r e f e r e n c e t o an a c t i o n t h a t has j u s t taken p l a c e , o r a r e f e r ence t o o l d i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by another  speaker,  w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f  eh, a l l prove h e a r e r s h i p on the p a r t o f the eh speaker.  S i m i l a r l y , sentence  i n i t i a l pronouns, as w e l l as words such as so^ and but ( i n sentence  initial  p o s i t i o n ) , i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e speaker o f t h e eh u t t e r a n c e i s p r o v i n g h i s  30 hearership.  Hearer  eh's a r e o f t e n r e s p o n s i v e and a r e c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t u r n -  t a k e r s — t h e y f r e q u e n t l y do not r e q u i r e a response  themselves.  In general,  i f eh o c c u r s i n sentence f i n a l p o s i t i o n i t bestows t h e s i l e n c e , and i f i t o c c u r s sentence  i n t e r n a l l y i t does not g i v e a t u r n , a l t h o u g h the h e a r e r may  choose t o i n t e r r u p t a t t h i s point."''  3.2  The e i g h t types o f eh A grammatical  a n a l y s i s o f t h e 5^0 o c c u r r e n c e s o f eh c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s  study r e v e a l e d e i g h t d i s t i n c t  types o f eh, w i t h v a r i o u s sub-types.  These  are: type Reversed p o l a r i t y a. s e e k i n g agreement  example  Silly letter, letter)  eh? ( a f t e r r e a d i n g a  b. s e e k i n g c o n f i r m a t i o n  That should be okay, eh?  Constant p o l a r i t y a. r e p e t i t i o n o f p r e v i o u s utterance  Speaker A: Speaker B:  b. r e f e r e n c e t o a c t i o n  Oh, you're s t i l l here eh?  c. e l a b o r a t i o n o f p r e v i o u s utterance  Speaker A: Speaker B:  d. r e f e r e n c e t o o l d information  But I hear we j u s t missed  Imperative  Look a t t h a t , eh!  Exclamation  What a drag, eh!  5.  Polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e  (Did) you see the game l a s t n i g h t , eh?  6.  Wh q u e s t i o n  What a r e you t r y i n g t o say, eh?  7.  Pardon  Eh?  8.  Anecdotal  He went from b u i l d i n g , eh, t o b u i l d i n g ,  Each type has i t s own s y n t a c t i c , semantic  He s a i d "eh" t w i c e . Oh, he s a i d "eh", eh?  George brought i t o v e r . Oh, you've seen i t , eh?  and pragmatic  them, eh?  features.  These  names f o r the types o f eh a r e a m i x t u r e o f s y n t a c t i c and semantic p r o p e r t i e s  31 of  the host c l a u s e s , the u n d e r l y i n g t a g , and  of the f u n c t i o n of eh.  There  i s a l s o a s m a l l r e s i d u a l group of anomalous eh's which do not f i t e x a c t l y i n t o any  of the above c a t e g o r i e s .  The  t h r e e a s p e c t s of d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s  used to determine the types of eh w i l l be d i s c u s s e d more f u l l y a n a l y s i s of each type of eh. w i t h the t h r e e d e t e r m i n i n g  T a b l e 6 g i v e s the e i g h t types of eh  noted,  to p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e s and Wh  Bolinger  imperatives  (1957) and  questions.  Love have  These a r e a l s o tagged,  i n A u s t r a l i a n and American E n g l i s h , a c c o r d i n g  Cattell  John d r i n k beer, d i d he?" well.  and  Eh, however, can a l s o be added, as both A v i s and  w i t h some r e s t r i c t i o n s ,  together  aspects.  In standard E n g l i s h , o n l y d e c l a r a t i v e s , e x c l a m a t i v e s can be tagged.  in.the  (1973).  (616).  to  C a t t e l l g i v e s the example, "Did Eh i s appendaged to t a g q u e s t i o n s  as  In the s t r u c t u r e tag q u e s t i o n + eh, eh f u n c t i o n s as a q u e s t i o n  p a r t i c l e , o r , i n A v i s ' words, "a k i n d of a r t i c u l a t e d q u e s t i o n mark"(96). However, i n the s t r u c t u r e d e c l a r a t i v e + eh, where eh i s paraphrased tag  q u e s t i o n , the i s s u e of whether eh i s an u n d e r l y i n g constant  p o l a r i t y tag a r i s e s . phrased tag  or  An u t t e r a n c e such as " I t ' s good, eh?" may  as e i t h e r " I t ' s good, i s n ' t  be  i t ? " or " I t ' s good, i s i t ? " .  q u e s t i o n s have d i f f e r e n t meanings.  as a reversed paraThese  When eh i s used as a t a g , one must  r e l y on pragmatic a s p e c t s of d i s c o u r s e to determine the p o l a r i t y  underlying  eh.  contexts,  S i n c e the d a t a c o n t a i n both c o n v e r s a t i o n a l and  the u n d e r l y i n g p o l a r i t y was  u s u a l l y easy to determine.  a more r i g o r o u s methodology was  At times, however,  r e q u i r e d f o r those examples which c o u l d not  be determined because they were ambiguous. intuition,  situational  P o l a r i t y can be determined  the context of s i t u a t i o n , the c o n t e x t of the p r e c e d i n g  t i o n , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the speaker and c o n d i t i o n s of r e v e r s e d and  the h e a r e r , and  constant p o l a r i t y t a g s .  the  by  conversasincerity  In the example, " S i l l y  TABLE 6 S y n t a c t i c mood, semantic  f o r c e , and pragmatic a s p e c t s o f e i g h t types of eh  Pragmatic  Type o f eh Reversed Polarity a. s e e k i n g agreement  S y n t a c t i c Mood  Semantic F o r c e  declarative + interrogative  statement question  +  a.  speaker  + ( i f sentence f i n a l )  hearer  + ( i f sentence f i n a l )  speaker  +  + (more) declarative + interrogative + responsive  statement + question + response  repetition of p r e c e d i n g utterance  b. r e f e r e n c e to a c t i o n c. e l a b o r a t i o n of p r e c e d i n g utterance d. r e f e r e n c e t o o l d information Imperative  +  ± Bestow Silence  +  b. s e e k i n g confirmation Constant Polarity  ± Requires Response  Aspects Speakerhearer P o i n t o f View  i m p e r a t i v e (or declarative) + question  order + question  -  (less)  -  (less)  -  (more)  -  (more)  + (or nonbal)  TABLE 6 — c o n t i n u e d  Type of eh  Pragmatic Aspects Speaker± Requires hearer P o i n t Response of View  ± Bestow Silence  S y n t a c t i c Mood  Semantic Force  Exclamation  Polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e or exclamative + interrogative  exclamation + question  5.  Polar Interrogative  Polar interrogative  question  +  speaker  +  6.  Wh  Interrogative  question  +  speaker  +  7.  Pardon  interrogative (no h o s t c l a u s e )  question + response  +  hearer  +  8.  Anecdotal  declarative + interrogative  statement + question  Question  (less)  hearer  speaker  34 l e t t e r , eh?",  where the speaker has j u s t f i n i s h e d r e a d i n g a l e t t e r ,  t i o n suggests  t h a t eh  'sounds r i g h t ' i f i t i s paraphrased  reversed p o l a r i t y tag. context still  of s i t u a t i o n ,  I n the example, "Oh  you're s t i l l h e r e , eh?",  suggests  as constant p o l a r i t y tags a r e used to r e f e r  place.  The  context of the p r e c e d i n g  s a i d "eh"  Oh,  example:  twice.  he s a i d "eh",  eh? u t t e r a n c e , and  u n d e r l y i n g constant  The  p o l a r i t y t a g , d i d he?.  i n the above example, and  polarity.  The  relationship  Therefore,  In the example, " S i l l y  i s not i n a h e a r e r r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  between  eh?",  polarity.  l e t t e r , eh?",  constant p o l a r i t y The  speaker of  'eh',  to be t r u e .  eh?",  tags the  has v e r y l i t t l e doubt t h a t  what he says i s t r u e , whereas Speaker B of the c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y he s a i d  the speaker  t h e r e f o r e the u n d e r l y i n g tag i s r e v e r s e d  can a l s o be used as c r i t e r i a f o r d e t e r m i n i n g  "Oh  the  the tag u n d e r l y i n g  letter,  s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s f o r r e v e r s e d and  r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y example, " S i l l y  thus has  Speaker B shows t h a t Speaker B i s  p r o v i n g h i s h e a r e r s h i p w i t h h i s response. eh i s constant p o l a r i t y .  by  to an a c t i o n t a k i n g  Eh i s a r e p e t i t i o n of the p r e v i o u s speaker's  Speaker A,  is  c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s o determines when eh  has an u n d e r l y i n g constant p o l a r i t y t a g , as i n the  Speaker B:  the  t h a t eh i s paraphrased  a r e you,  He  isn't i t , a  i . e . , t h a t the speaker i s a d d r e s s i n g someone who  i n the same p l a c e as the speaker,  Speaker A:  by  intui-  example,  b e l i e v e s t h a t Speaker A b e l i e v e s t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n  I t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the p o i n t of view of Speaker B, but  that  of Speaker A. Type 1.  Reversed P o l a r i t y  Eh  A Reversed P o l a r i t y tag i s one  i n which the p o l a r i t y of the h o s t  c l a u s e i s r e v e r s e d from t h a t of the t a g , whether the former i s p o s i t i v e negative.  An example of a r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y tag i n which the host  or  clause  35 i s p o s i t i v e i s " I t ' s good, i s n ' t  it?"  When t h e host c l a u s e i s n e g a t i v e ,  the t a g i s then p o s i t i v e , as i n " I t i s n ' t good, i s i t ? " tags can be reduced on t h e s u r f a c e to eh.  Both o f these  I t turned out t h a t t h e use o f  eh w i t h p o s i t i v e host c l a u s e s i s by f a r the most common i n spontaneous  speech.  There a r e o n l y f i v e examples o f n e g a t i v e host c l a u s e s f o r r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y tags i n the d a t a , compared to 118 examples where t h e h o s t c l a u s e i s p o s i t i v e . The Reversed P o l a r i t y eh d i v i d e s i n t o two s u b - t y p e s — S e e k i n g Agreement and Seeking C o n f i r m a t i o n .  These a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by t h e s i n c e r i t y  condi-  t i o n s , which i n d i c a t e t h e degree o f t h e speaker's b e l i e f about t h e t r u t h o f his proposition.  I n Hudson's a n a l y s i s , t h e s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s a r e the  same f o r r e v e r s e d and c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y t a g s .  I suggest t h a t t h e s i n c e r i t y  c o n d i t i o n s on t h e two sub-types o f Reversed P o l a r i t y eh v a r y s l i g h t l y  from  each o t h e r and a r e as f o l l o w s : Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement eh: The speaker has l i t t l e  doubt t h a t what he says i s t r u e .  Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking C o n f i r m a t i o n eh: The speaker has some doubt  t h a t what he says i s t r u e .  In Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement, t h e speaker i s commenting on a s i t u a t i o n and i n v i t i n g  the h e a r e r ' s comments, whereas i n Reversed  Polarity  Seeking C o n f i r m a t i o n , t h e speaker i s a s k i n g a q u e s t i o n which r e q u i r e s an answer.  Both types o f Reversed P o l a r i t y a r e f a c t i v e — t h e speaker assumes  f a c t u a l knowledge on t h e p a r t o f t h e h e a r e r . s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n on q u e s t i o n s ;  T h i s agrees w i t h Hudson's  i t does n o t , however, c o r r e s p o n d t o h i s  s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n on d e c l a r a t i v e s .  There a r e s l i g h t l y more Reversed  P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement eh's than Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking C o n f i r m a t i o n eh's. Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement eh i s t h e f i r s t  sub-type o f  Reversed  P o l a r i t y eh tags.  more than a q u e s t i o n .  T h i s sub-type  A response  i s r e q u i r e d , but i t i s f r e q u e n t l y more  i n the n a t u r e of an encouragement. v a r i e t y of — i n  i s o f t e n a comment on a s i t u a t i o n  T h i s sub-type  in a  situations:  a g r e e t i n g s i t u a t i o n i n which the obvious Gee,  of eh i s used  you made good time, eh.  N i c e weather, eh.  (informant  (informant  i s stated.  9)  14) 2  Oh, wow, —after  i t ' s hot today,  eh?  (informant  cliches.  Speaker A:  Are you from Vancouver?  Speaker B:  Yep.  Born and bred.  Smoke b e f o r e a f i r e ,  eh.  Sounds s i c k , eh.  (informant  Ships t h a t pass i n the n i g h t , eh. You  9)  and me  both, eh, L e n n i e .  Good o l d E l a i n e , eh.  (informant  45)  (informant  46)  (addressed to a c a t ) (informant  (informant  with  eh.  —as  an i n d i r e c t q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d as an o b s e r v a t i o n .  —as  you've got of hooking  a comment on a s i t u a t i o n i n v i t i n g a Good, eh?  (asking f o r admiration)  That should be okay, eh.  4)  45)  The l a t t e r f o u r examples above a r e i m p o s s i b l e to paraphrase  That's a c u t e way (informant 68)  15)  up t h a t thermostat,  except  eh.  response.  (informant  (informant  or t a g  46)  27)  3 Uh huh?  Eh?  N i c e s c o r e ! ( b o a s t i n g about a win)  I t must be a p l a y on Export A, eh. advertisement) (informant 12)  (informant  4)  ( i n r e f e r e n c e to a c i g a r e t t e  — w h e n i t r e f e r s more to the i n i t i a l c l a u s e than the J u s t a sec, I'd b e t t e r get a p i e c e of paper, c o n v e r s a t i o n ) (informant 19)  eh.  final. (telephone  37 Here, eh c o u l d perhaps be paraphrased as okay. In most o f the Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement d a t a , and i n a l l of the p r e c e d i n g examples,  eh o c c u r s sentence f i n a l l y or b e f o r e a name.  Eh can a l s o o c c u r sentence i n t e r n a l l y however, i n which case i t does not bestow the s i l e n c e or g i v e the next speaker a t u r n . examples,  In the f o l l o w i n g  eh i n sentence i n t e r n a l p o s i t i o n o p e r a t e s as a r h e t o r i c a l  ques-  tion device. I t ' s p r e t t y d i r t y , eh, f o r j u s t one y e a r , (informant 17) You're an a n i m a l . Eh? Everybody argument) (informant 70)  knows you a r e . (a man  T h i s sub-type a l s o o c c u r s w i t h a t a g . " B i l l g e t s n i c e c l o t h e s , doesn't he,  h a v i n g an  An example from informant 9 i s , eh?"  There a r e o n l y t h r e e examples of t h i s sub-type of eh where the host clause i s negative.  Cattell  states:  We may say t h a t when a n e g a t i v e o c c u r s i n the s u r f a c e of the h o s t c l a u s e , and the t a g i s p o s i t i v e , v a r i o u s r e a d i n g s w i l l be taken, i n v o l v i n g both matching and c o n t r a s t i n g p o l a r i t y , p r o v i d i n g a p o s i t i v e base sentence i s a grammatical p o s s i b i l i t y . (62) Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement eh, where the h o s t c l a u s e i s n e g a t i v e , i s d i f f i c u l t t o s e p a r a t e from Constant P o l a r i t y . e h examples w i t h n e g a t i v e host c l a u s e s , because  i t i s not always  r e f l e c t s the speaker's p o i n t of view. Judd, you c a l l me  easy to determine i f the statement An example from informant 3 i s ,  a compulsive e r o t i c and I'm  not compared to David, eh.  The second sub-type o f Reversed P o l a r i t y eh i s Reversed  Polarity  Seeking C o n f i r m a t i o n eh.  The s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n on t h i s sub-type i s t h a t  the speaker has some doubt  t h a t what he says i s t r u e — m o r e  the Seeking Agreement eh.  doubt  than i n  The former sub-type, t h e r e f o r e , i s more a  q u e s t i o n than the l a t t e r and r e q u i r e s more of a r e s p o n s e .  T h i s sub-type of  eh bestows the s i l e n c e when i t i s sentence t e r m i n a l , as i t i s i n a l l but  one  38 example. is  I t i s o f t e n used  expected,  i n a p o s i t i v e conducive manner.  A g i v e n answer  but t h e speaker b e l i e v e s t h a t the h e a r e r knows more than he  does about the p r o p o s i t i o n , as shown i n the f o l l o w i n g two examples. We're about even, eh? ( p l a y i n g backgammon f o r t h e f i r s t (informant 6) I t goes over here, eh? ( p l a y i n g croquet f o r the f i r s t (informant 8) T h i s d i f f e r s from Reversed  time)  time)  P o l a r i t y s e e k i n g Agreement eh i n t h a t t h e speaker  b e l i e v e s t h a t he knows almost  as much as the h e a r e r about the p r o p o s i t i o n .  The use o f eh f o r c o n f i r m a t i o n i s o f t e n employed when the speaker i s p r o p o s i n g something he wishes, or  approval,  when i n a sense he i s a s k i n g f o r p e r m i s s i o n  as i n " T h i s one's mine.  Eh, B i l l ? " ( i n f o r m a n t 3).  In t h i s  u t t e r a n c e , t h e r e was a pause a f t e r the host c l a u s e d u r i n g which the expected c o n f i r m a t i o n d i d not o c c u r , hence the s t r e s s e d eh.  I n the f o l l o w i n g  example, I can do t h i s maybe w h i l e you're p i c k i n g them through, f i n i s h hemming a d r e s s ) (informant 9)  eh? (wishing t o  the speaker uses maybe as an i n d i c a t o r o f an i n d i r e c t r e q u e s t .  Another  example i s , "Guess I ' l l have to buy a mickey f o r t o n i g h t , eh?", produced informant 46. speaker  Although  by  t h i s u t t e r a n c e conveys a seeming r e l u c t a n c e , the  a c t u a l l y wants t o c a r r y o u t h i s s u g g e s t i o n , b u t a n t i c i p a t e s p o s s i b l e  d i s a p p r o v a l from the h e a r e r , hence the use of both guess and maybe.  Polite  s u g g e s t i o n s a l s o make use o f S e e k i n g C o n f i r m a t i o n eh. Speaker A: Speaker B:  Where do you want i t ? ( h e l p i n g B move a f i l i n g c a b i n e t ) I n h e r e . Maybe we should g e t i t out f i r s t , eh? ( i n f o r m a n t 53)  S i m i l a r t o the p o l i t e s u g g e s t i o n s i s eh i n statements eh f u n c t i o n s as a ' p o l i t e s o f t e n e r ' , e.g., We should get going, eh. (informant 33) W e l l , I guess we should go, eh. (informant 2)  o f l e a v e t a k i n g , where  39 Maybe we We'd  should h i t t h e road, eh.  (informant  45)  b e t t e r a l s o f u n c t i o n s as a t e n t a t i v e s u g g e s t i o n as w e l l as T h i s sub-type  of eh i s o c c a s i o n a l l y found  t i o n , where i t does not bestow the s i l e n c e . i n t o n a t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a response  You  :  internal  posi-  In t h i s case, eh has a r i s i n g  i s r e q u i r e d , as i n "There's  n o i s e s , eh, i n s i d e t h i s f l a t . " by informant a tag,'H  i n sentence  should.  20.  I t can a l s o be used  as i n the f o l l o w i n g examples, from i n f o r m a n t s 9 and 45 t h i n k i t ' s going to be funny, don't you,  weird with  respectively.  eh?  Speaker A: Speaker B:  You t h i n k about i t a l l the time, don't ( i n q u i r i n g look)  you?  Speaker A:  You  you?  t h i n k about i t a l l the time, don't  Eh?  There a r e examples of t h i s type of eh i n which eh can't be s u b s t i t u t e d by  a  t a g , y e t the s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n f o r these u t t e r a n c e s i s the c r i t e r i o n f o r a n a l y s i n g them as Reversed  P o l a r i t y Seeking  C o n f i r m a t i o n eh t a g s .  Observe  the f o l l o w i n g example. She's a good one s t e p s i x . Eh?  to p r o j e c t a c t u a l l y .  I know she won't be h e r e ,  Here, the speaker wishes the h e a r e r to comply w i t h a dubious can be paraphrased  as "What do you  think?"  An unusual a boy tag  as "Do  you  1 have t o . (takes  i s from the youngest  I t i s r a r e to have a r e v e r s e d or c o n s t a n t  ( u n l e s s t h e r e i s a s a r c a s t i c meaning) w i t h the f i r s t  informant, polarity  person s u b j e c t .  I don't remember t h a t , eh? (he d i s c o v e r e d t h a t he had made a i n a c o u n t i n g game) (informant 32) The  Eh  understand?"  example of t h i s sub-type  of f o u r y e a r s .  request.  A s i m i l a r example i s ,  I have t o get up i n the morning and do t h i s s t u f f . the h e a r e r ' s hand) Eh? (informant 46) where eh can be paraphrased  but  f o l l o w i n g i s one of the few examples of a Reversed  Seeking C o n f i r m a t i o n tag i n which the h o s t c l a u s e i s n e g a t i v e .  mistake  Polarity  (to A) I thought t h a t was M a r t i n Small but I looked r i g h t a t him and he d i d n ' t s m i l e . (to B) That wasn't M a r t i n Small eh? (informant 4) Type 2.  Constant P o l a r i t y  Eh  Examples of Constant P o l a r i t y eh o c c u r r e d w i t h the g r e a t e s t quency.  fre-  I t i s n e c e s s a r y to have both the c o n t e x t o f s i t u a t i o n and  p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e i n o r d e r to be a b l e to a n a l y s e t h i s t y p e .  the  Constant  P o l a r i t y eh has a d e c l a r a t i v e , p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e and r e s p o n s i v e mood, a statement, question:,  and response semantic f o r c e , and i s h e a r e r o r i e n t e d .  The s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n f o r t h i s type i s n o n - f a c t i v e — t h e speaker o f the eh u t t e r a n c e (a h e a r e r ) b e l i e v e s t h a t the p r e c e d i n g speaker b e l i e v e s the eh u t t e r a n c e to be t r u e . sarily  In o t h e r words, the eh u t t e r a n c e i s not n e c e s -  the p o i n t o f view o f the speaker, but r a t h e r r e f l e c t s the p o i n t of  view of the p r e c e d i n g speaker.  Constant P o l a r i t y eh tags can be b o t h  p o s i t i v e - p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e - n e g a t i v e ( i . e . , the h o s t c l a u s e has a matching p o l a r i t y w i t h t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t a g ) . Constant P o l a r i t y eh has f o u r sub-types. 1.  R e p e t i t i o n of P r e c e d i n g U t t e r a n c e : a d i r e c t r e p e t i t i o n o f the f i r s t  speaker's u t t e r a n c e , or a p o r t i o n of  i t , w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f eh. 2.  Reference to A c t i o n : a remark about an a c t i o n which i s t a k i n g , or has j u s t taken p l a c e .  These two  sub-types are both responses to a p r e v i o u s statement o r a c t i o n ,  and q u e s t i o n s . and g i v e the next  They do not r e q u i r e a response, but bestow the s i l e n c e ( u s u a l l y the o r i g i n a l ) speaker a t u r n .  The use o f eh  i n these c o n t e x t s proves h e a r e r s h i p on the p a r t of the speaker of the eh utterance.  Love s t a t e s :  41 I f the sentence merely echoes an a s s e r t i o n d i r e c t l y p r e c e d i n g , . . . the eh appears t o be a n a r r a t i v e d e v i c e , perhaps a "meaningless s p a c e r " as d e s i g n a t e d by A v i s . (16) Proving hearership i s a n a r r a t i v e device. on eh, a g a i n demonstrating  t h a t t h i s type o f eh has l e s s q u e s t i o n f o r c e  than Reversed  P o l a r i t y eh.  3.  t o Old I n f o r m a t i o n :  Reference Although it  t h i s may be an exact r e p e t i t i o n o f another  speaker's  i s not an immediate r e p e t i t i o n and r e f e r s back t o a former  T h i s eh f u n c t i o n s t o b r i n g up former 4.  The i n t o n a t i o n g e n e r a l l y f a l l s  utterance, topic.  topics of conversation.  E l a b o r a t i o n of Preceding Utterance: T h i s i s not a d i r e c t r e p e t i t i o n , but q u e s t i o n s some f e a t u r e o f the preceding utterance.  The above sub-types types 1 and 2;  (3 and 4) more s t r o n g l y r e q u i r e a response  t h a t i s , they have more q u e s t i o n f o r c e .  n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e a response of  They do not  to a q u e s t i o n , but a response,  t u r n - t a k i n g , by t h e o t h e r speaker.  than do sub-  The use o f eh i n these  i n t h e form contexts  a l s o proves h e a r e r s h i p . Examples o f sub-type most p r e v a l e n t i n the d a t a . is  1 ( R e p e t i t i o n o f P r e c e d i n g U t t e r a n c e ) a r e the New i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n by the p r e c e d i n g  speaker  repeated. Speaker A:  We c a l l  Speaker B:  t h i s category. Constant p o l a r i t y eh. (informant 45)  Speaker A: Speaker B:  A b i g egg war. Another egg war eh. (informant 4)  Speaker A Speaker B Speaker A  David, d i d you get a l l t h e way t o L.A.? Judd, f o r C h r i s t sakes, you know damn w e l l I d i d . You d i d eh. (abashed) (informant 45)  T h i s sub-type  t h i s " c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y " and your eh's f i t i n  o f eh i s f r e q u e n t l y used by an a d u l t t o a c h i l d .  42 Speaker A: Speaker B:  N i c e s q u i r t ! (6 year o l d s q u i r t i n g a d u l t ) N i c e s q u i r t eh? ( l a u g h i n g ) (informant 46)  A l s o , the eh t a g so l i t t l e  r e q u i r e s a response  t h a t the eh speaker  o c c a s i o n a l l y answer h i s i m p l i e d q u e s t i o n h i m s e l f , as i n the next Speaker A:  She bought t h e f i l m .  Speaker B:  Oh, she bought t h e f i l m eh, yeah,  will  example.  (informant 45)  There was no change i n i n t o n a t i o n between eh and yeah, but a s u s t a i n e d cadence. If  a hearer d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e eh u t t e r a n c e , he must do a  e x t r a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l footwork,  as disagreement  r u l e v i o l a t i o n when the eh speaker  little  i s almost a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  has been r e p e a t i n g an u t t e r a n c e .  Disagreement o n l y o c c u r r e d when a mistake  i n comprehension on the p a r t o f  the eh speaker had been made, as the next example shows. Speaker A: Speaker B:  W e l l , the o n l y guy who's g i v e n us a decent Gus eh. (informant 45)  Speaker A:  No, as a matter  Sub-type 2, t h e Reference  of f a c t .  o f f e r i s Nelson.  Nelson.  to A c t i o n eh, i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e  R e p e t i t i o n of P r e c e d i n g U t t e r a n c e eh, i n t h a t these u t t e r a n c e s s t a t e the o b v i o u s , as i s shown by t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e examples. L a t e supper, Oh, you're  eh. (upon a r r i v a l a t d i n n e r t i m e )  still  R o l l over, Nard.  here, eh. (informant 5) Oh no way eh.  The l a s t case i s d i f f i c u l t It  was addressed  Eh L e n n i e .  (informant 46)  t o t a g on the s u r f a c e w i t h a paraphrase  to a c a t .  c a t s , or b a b i e s , and f u l f i l l someone f a i l s  (informant 49)  Many Constant P o l a r i t y eh's were addressed t o the r o l e of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l turn-takers.  t o take h i s t u r n i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , another  can take h i s p l a c e w i t h a c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y t a g . the c a t has r e f u s e d to r o l l w i t h "Oh no way eh."  of eh.  over, and the speaker  If  participant  I n the p r e v i o u s example, responds  f o r the c a t  43 The  t h i r d sub-type  i s Reference  to o l d I n f o r m a t i o n eh.  The  u t t e r a n c e f r e q u e n t l y b e g i n s w i t h but or so, which i s proof of the speaker's  eh  eh  hearership.  But I hear we  j u s t missed  So i t h u r t l a s t  time eh.  them eh. (informant  (informant  16)  34)  Sub-type 4, E l a b o r a t i o n of P r e c e d i n g U t t e r a n c e , i s o f t e n used by a h e a r e r to q u e s t i o n some f e a t u r e of the f i r s t  speaker's  type r e q u i r e s a response more than the o t h e r sub-types eh, and  resembles  Reversed  Polarity  Seeking  utterance.  This  of Constant  Confirmation  Polarity  eh.  Speaker A: Speaker B:  George brought i t over. Oh you've seen i t eh. (informant  Speaker A: Speaker B:  I w r i t e i t down everytime I say i t . Keep a check on y o u r s e l f eh. (informant  Speaker A: Speaker B:  I went back to work. You d e c i d e d not to take a h o l i d a y eh I was say. (informant 2)  Speaker A: Speaker B:  She had no underpants on and Gregg and S n i c k e r i n g eh. (informant 4)  46)  12)  going to  I were l a u g h i n g .  The above examples of Constant P o l a r i t y eh have a l l been p o s i t i v e positive.  The most d i f f i c u l t u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of eh to understand  n e g a t i v e c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y , where the h o s t c l a u s e i s n e g a t i v e and tag.  These sound ungrammatical and almost meaningless  Canadian E n g l i s h .  of  When informants were asked  to  An example i s ,  He d i d n ' t do i t .  Speaker B:  He d i d n ' t do i t , d i d n ' t he?  where eh can s u b s t i t u t e f o r d i d n ' t he.  tag.  so i s the  to speakers  Speaker A:  paraphrase  is  such d a t a , they u s u a l l y produced  a positive,  reversed p o l a r i t y  C a t t e l l g i v e s examples of n e g a t i v e c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y tags  from  A u s t r a l i a n E n g l i s h data.  The o n l y type of n e g a t i v e c o n s t a n t  polarity  tag which i s used w i t h any  frequency i n Vancouver and p r o b a b l y i n Canadian  44 E n g l i s h i s a type such a s : Speaker A:  I won't.  Speaker B:  Oh, you won't, won't you!  W e l l , w e ' l l see about t h a t !  "Oh, you won't, won't you" i s u s u a l l y spoken i n a c h a l l e n g i n g manner, sometimes by an a d u l t to a c h i l d . s y n t a c t i c , semantic  and pragmatic  I t r e f l e c t s not the eh speaker's speaker.  Negative  Constant P o l a r i t y eh has t h e same  a s p e c t s as p o s i t i v e Constant P o l a r i t y eh. p o i n t o f view, but t h a t o f t h e p r e c e d i n g  I t i s as much a response  as a q u e s t i o n , and has more q u e s t i o n  than response  f o r c e f o r the E l a b o r a t i o n o f P r e c e d i n g U t t e r a n c e  sub^type,  more response  than q u e s t i o n f o r c e f o r the o t h e r t h r e e sub-types.  Negative  Constant P o l a r i t y eh o c c u r s about h a l f as o f t e n as p o s i t i v e Constant P o l a r i t y eh i n the d a t a , and i n c o n t e x t s i n which t h e speaker  i s not b e i n g  s a r c a s t i c or c h a l l e n g i n g . Here a r e some examples o f each o f the f o u r sub-types  with negative  host c l a u s e s . 1. R e p e t i t i o n o f P r e c e d i n g U t t e r a n c e . Speaker A: Speaker B: 2.  3.  I t wasn't q u i t e l i k e t h a t . I t wasn't eh. (informant 45)  Reference  to A c t i o n .  You  l i k e t h a t eh? ( t o f r i e n d gagging  don't  Reference  on a b s i n t h e )  to Old Information.  You won't get any money from l i n g u i s t i c s t h i s w i n t e r eh. 45) You  (informant 6)  (informant  can't go t h a t weekend eh? (informant 3)  I guess t h e r e ' s no beer eh? (informant 12)  The  Speaker A:  Poor A l .  Speaker B:  H i s f a m i l y won't g i v e him one eh. (informant 46)  first  We should g i v e him a k i d n e y .  t h r e e examples above were used  to b r i n g back a p r e v i o u s t o p i c o f  c o n v e r s a t i o n , and the l a s t was r e f e r r i n g t o i n f o r m a t i o n which had been  g i v e n about two 4.  months p r e v i o u s l y .  E l a b o r a t i o n of P r e c e d i n g  Utterance.  Speaker A: Speaker B:  I'm supposed to wear c o n s e r v a t i v e c l o t h e s . No long t h i n g s , eh. (informant 60)  Speaker A: Speaker B:  No, we used to watch i t at Osborn's. We d i d n ' t ever get i t eh. (informant 3) Mickey Mouse show)  Speaker A:  That's not  Speaker B:  You  ( " i t " i s the  true.  don't t h i n k so eh.  (informant  5)  Constant P o l a r i t y eh can be used as a v e h i c l e f o r t e a s i n g sarcasm.  Lakoff  (1969:142) c l a i m s  t h a t sentences which have  p o l a r i t y tags are g e n e r a l l y s a r c a s t i c or c h a l l e n g i n g very  few  of my  Canadian E n g l i s h .  case, must be regarded as d i f f e r e n t from other  s a r c a s t i c examples, the speaker of the eh u t t e r a n c e  The  However,  reflect  a dia-  These d a t a ,  Constant P o l a r i t y eh's  t h a t they v i o l a t e the s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n f o r c o n s t a n t  t h a t the f i r s t  constant  i n meaning.  d a t a are s a r c a s t i c or c h a l l e n g i n g — t h i s may  l e c t d i f f e r e n c e between American and  or  The  eh speaker a c t u a l l y knows the c o n t r a r y  p r o p o s i t i o n to be t r u e , or knows that he the p r e c e d i n g  speaker.  utterance.  of  T h i s i s shown by a d i f f e r e n t i n t o n a t i o n  Do we need l i f e j a c k e t s ? You wouldn't go without l i f e j a c k e t s eh?  p r e f e r Pat  Speaker A: Speaker B:  to s i t b e s i d e  you  than me  eh?  (taunt)  (informant  (informant  (informant  I know_what t h a t means a c t u a l l y but You do eh. (informant 5)  You're sure about t h a t eh.  the  pattern utterance,  f o r example.  You  the  i s e x a g g e r a t i n g the p r o p o s i t i o n of  and/or by p l a c i n g an unusual s t r e s s on a s i g n i f i c a n t word i n the  Speaker A: Speaker B:  In  pretends to b e l i e v e  speaker b e l i e v e s the p r o p o s i t i o n s t a t e d i n the eh  utterance.  any  in  p o l a r i t y tags.  eh speaker expects c o n t r a d i c t i o n from h i s h e a r e r — t h e speaker of  preceding  in  3)  5)  I forget.  3)  46 These data were spoken w i t h an exaggerated emphasis on a p a r t i c u l a r word.  i n t o n a t i o n and w i t h a heavy  The example, " A i r i n g your basket, eh  Dave" (informant 4 6 ) , was d e l i v e r e d i n a s t y l e o f mock innocence,  as were  the f o l l o w i n g examples w i t h n e g a t i v e h o s t c l a u s e s . Speaker A:  what's t h a t i n your  Speaker B:  I know. I shouldn't c a r r y i t around i n case the p o l i c e might stop us eh. (informant 3)  purse?  You're going t o do i t out here?  Not i n the bathroom eh? (informant 3)  O c c a s i o n a l l y the content o f the u t t e r a n c e , not the s t r e s s o r i n t o n a t i o n p a t t e r n , showed t h a t i t was s a r c a s t i c , as i n , So the f o u r v i c e s of Western I m p e r i a l i s m a r e queers, the Army and the Navy eh. (informant 4) Speaker A:  I've c o n t a c t e d Noam.  Speaker B:  A f r i e n d o f yours eh. (informant 50)  S i m i l a r to these s a r c a s t i c examples o f Constant type o f Reversed  P o l a r i t y eh where the speaker  the A i r F o r c e ,  P o l a r i t y eh i s a  expects c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n  the form o f r e a s s u r a n c e from h i s h e a r e r , as i n t h i s example, Speaker A: Speaker B: Type 3.  T h i s must be j u s t h o r r i b l e f o r you eh David, Oh i t ' s not so bad.  (informant 5)  Imperative Eh  Imperatives  can be tagged  i n Canadian E n g l i s h .  Positive  impera-  t i v e s a r e u s u a l l y c o n s t a n t p o l a r i t y t a g s , f o r example, "Look a t t h a t , w i l l you!", w i t h the r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y t a g , "Look a t t h a t , won't you" b e i n g a p o l i t e v a r i a t i o n which n e i t h e r changes the meaning nor r e f l e c t s a h e a r e r p o i n t o f view. speaker  Rather,  "Look a t t h a t , won't you!" r e f l e c t s a  p o i n t of view. Katz and P o s t a l (1964) c l a i m t h a t o n l y " w i l l " o c c u r s i n tagged  imperatives.  However, Huddleston  Be q u i e t , can't you?  (1970) p o i n t s out t h a t such tags a s :  Pass me the hammer, would you? L e t ' s go to the cinema, s h a l l we? a l s o occur and p r o b a b l y have the same u n d e r l y i n g  s t r u c t u r e as "Look a t  t h a t , w i l l you?" and "Look a t t h a t , won't you?" Love s t a t e s  that:  A c c o r d i n g to g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t i c c o n v e n t i o n you w i l l i s found i n the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f every i m p e r a t i v e ( B u r t , 1971: 8-9; 4 8 ) . Here i t must be n o t i c e d t h a t t a g q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o an imperat i v e a r e themselves emphatics and have no i n t e r r o g a t i v e v a l u e . (17) I t i s here suggested t h a t , as tags have a semantic f o r c e o f q u e s t i o n s y n t a c t i c mood o f i n t e r r o g a t i v e , f o r c e o f order imperative.  and q u e s t i o n Occasionally,  a t e s h e r tagged i m p e r a t i v e  • tagged i m p e r a t i v e s  and a  have a semantic  and a s y n t a c t i c mood of i n t e r r o g a t i v e and the host  clause  i s declarative.  Love punctu-  examples w i t h q u e s t i o n marks, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t  they have some i n t e r r o g a t i v e v a l u e . Hudson r e g a r d s tagged i m p e r a t i v e s  as s i m i l a r t o tagged d e c l a r a t i v e s ,  i n t h a t they share t h e s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n f o r p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , and thus have a semantic q u e s t i o n  element.  Hudson s t a t e s , g i v i n g t h e example:  Come here, w i l l you? The p r o p o s i t i o n h e r e i s 'that you w i l l come here'; the i m p e r a t i v e means something l i k e 'I want t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t o be t r u e ' ; the i n t e r r o g a t i v e , 'I b e l i e v e t h a t you know a t l e a s t as w e l l as I do whether the p r o p o s i t i o n i s t r u e ' — w h i c h i n t h i s case c l e a r l y depends on whether you want to MAKE i t t r u e , so I am l e a v i n g i t t o you t o d e c i d e whether t o comply o r n o t . S i m i l a r l y , the d i f f e r e n c e between r e v e r s e d - p o l a r i t y and c o n s t a n t - p o l a r i t y tags seems t o f i t the r u l e s worked out f o r tagged d e c l a r a t i v e s . (29) T h i s a n a l y s i s does n o t support Hudson's c l a i m t h a t the constant imperative  polarity  "Have some more, w i l l you?" r e f l e c t s a h e a r e r p o i n t o f view and  "Have some more, won't you?" a speaker p o i n t o f view. t h a t both r e v e r s e d  and constant  I t i s here  claimed  p o l a r i t y tags have a speaker p o i n t o f view.  I t happens t h a t a l l but one o f the Imperative eh tags i n t h e d a t a  48 have p o s i t i v e host c l a u s e s .  L a t e r o b s e r v a t i o n has shown t h a t n e g a t i v e  i m p e r a t i v e s w i t h eh do o c c u r . u s u a l l y be paraphrased  The p o s i t i v e i m p e r a t i v e eh tags  can  by w i l l you, but, when the s u b j e c t of the h o s t  c l a u s e i s L e t ' s or We'11, the paraphrase  s h a l l we  i s too f o r m a l and  there-  f o r e not a c c e p t a b l e . Many of the Imperative u t t e r a n c e from informant " L i s t e n to t h a t eh!" can be paraphrased  eh examples a r e s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s of the  2, "Look a t t h a t eh!"  (informant 45).  A similar utterance i s ,  I t seems t h a t eh i n these examples  by w i l l y o u — w o u l d you i s a l s o a p o s s i b i l i t y ,  f o r some reason, won't you does not seem a p p r o p r i a t e . determine  It is difficult  a meaning d i f f e r e n c e between w i l l you, would you, and won't  and so i t i s assumed t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f Imperative w i l l you.  T h i s assumption  d e f i n e s Imperative  clause having a constant p o l a r i t y . eh tags i n t h a t a v e r b a l response t h a t they do not have a response  to  you,  eh i s  eh tags w i t h a p o s i t i v e h o s t  They a r e s i m i l a r to Constant  Polarity  i s u s u a l l y not r e q u i r e d , but d i f f e r e n t i n f o r c e or a r e s p o n s i v e mood.  eh tags do not r e f l e c t a p r e v i o u s speaker's may  although,  As  imperative  p o i n t of view (although they  be comments on a p r e v i o u s or c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n ) , they do not f i t the  Constant P o l a r i t y speaker-hearer  relationship criterion.  T h e r e f o r e , they  There are many s i t u a t i o n s i n which the Imperative  eh i s used w i t h a  are a s e p a r a t e type of  eh.  f o r c e r a n g i n g from more order to more q u e s t i o n . Imperative impatient,  Some examples where  eh i s used as an o r d e r are when the speaker was  angry  or  e.g.,  J u s t don't t u r n down t h i s p r o p o s a l b l i n d l y . ( a d d r e s s i n g u n i o n members) (informant 40) W e l l , h u r r y up eh.  (informant  2)  T h i n k about i t eh!  49 Oh l a y o f f eh. (informant 3) Come on eh. (informant 17) In  the above usage o f Imperative  and r i s i n g . of  age.  two  eh, the s t r e s s on eh i s o f t e n  exaggerated  The l a s t t h r e e were o f t e n used by informants under 20 years  Requests a r e a l s o a f u n c t i o n o f Imperative  eh, as the f o l l o w i n g  examples show. Give me a c a l l on Monday, make sure I c a l l t h a t guy eh. (informant 45) Wait a minute. J u s t l e t me l o o k a t the f i l e t i o n ) (informant 19)  J u s t o r you j u s t f r e q u e n t l y b e g i n the Imperative we're t a l k i n g . just r o l l eh",  eh? (telephone  conversa-  eh d a t a , as i n " P a t r i c k ,  You j u s t p l a y over t h e r e eh", from informant 53 and "You  over and l i e on the p i l l o w and hug the white c a t and get s t r o k e d  from informant 46.  T h i s type o f eh can a l s o be used  to tease.  Some  examples a r e , "Be good, eh'.", " A f t e r you t h i n k o f one t e l l me about i t eh", and "Fancy having a n i g h t out w i t h Deborah eh!", from i n f o r m a n t s 24, 8 and 56 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  A f a v o u r i t e i m p e r a t i v e example i s , "Think o f a l l t h i s  competence and not much performance eh", which informant 53 s a i d when the types of eh had been e x p l a i n e d to h e r .  I n the f o l l o w i n g examples, eh can  be s u b s t i t u t e d by okay. So t r y and top i t eh. (informant 26) Speaker A: Speaker B:  Number s i x . That's supposed to be seven.  Speaker A:  Oh, make i t seven then eh. (informant 8)  You have t o t e l l me what happened to Yvonne eh. (informant 45) The In  above i m p e r a t i v e examples have you f o r the s u b j e c t o f t h e h o s t c l a u s e . the next examples, we i s the s u b j e c t . L e t ' s be r e a l i s t i c . (informant 25)  Eh? (speaking of h e r own ambitious  plans)  50 L e t ' s get t o g e t h e r t h i s weekend and (informant 45)  figure  out what's shaking  W e ' l l take our c a r eh Judd? ( p e r s u a s i v e ) (informant We'll j u s t Arbini  s i t here f o r a l i t t l e b i t eh?  eh.  2)  (comforting)  (informant  3)  (1969) c l a i m s t h a t n e g a t i v e i m p e r a t i v e s a r e never tagged,  i n Canadian E n g l i s h a t l e a s t , r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y l a t e , w i l l you?" are grammatical.  Negative  but  examples such as "Don't be  constant p o l a r i t y  as "Don't be l a t e , won't you?", however, a r e not a c c e p t a b l e .  tags, The  such  under-  l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of i m p e r a t i v e eh tags w i t h a n e g a t i v e host c l a u s e i s assumed to be p o s i t i v e .  T h i s type t h e r e f o r e have a r e v e r s e d p o l a r i t y ,  they a r e not Reversed P o l a r i t y polarity  eh tags as they do not f i t the r e v e r s e d  c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r semantic  relationship,  but  f o r c e , s y n t a c t i c mood,  speaker-hearer  or s i n c e r i t y c o n d i t i o n s .  Love c l a i m s : I t was . . . noted t h a t i n an i m p e r a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n when the p o l a r i t y of the main sentence and t h a t of the eh p a r t i c l e ' s t a g paraphrase d i f f e r , the command i s an i n f o r m a t i o n q u e s t i o n . In a l l such cases eh can be c o n s t r u e d as a r e q u e s t f o r a yes or no response. (15) Love does not s t a t e whether she i s r e f e r r i n g  to a s t r u c t u r e such as "Have  some more, won't you?", where the tag i s n e g a t i v e , or to a s t r u c t u r e such as "Don't have some more, w i l l you", These two said  where the h o s t c l a u s e i s n e g a t i v e .  examples have v e r y d i f f e r e n t meanings, n e i t h e r of which can  to be an i n f o r m a t i o n q u e s t i o n , a l t h o u g h the f i r s t  i s a more p r o b a b l e  candidate. There i s o n l y one Imperative  eh.  (informant  46)  example i n the data o f a n e g a t i v e host  I t i s , "Come on now.  Not  be  clause  i n the p a r k i n g l o t eh."  51 Type 4.  Exclamation  Eh  Hudson i s o l a t e s two  types of e x c l a m a t i o n s :  s y n t a c t i c a l l y e x c l a m a t i v e s , e.g., be tagged,  and  only.  like,  "What a p r e t t y g i r l  she i s ! " , and  can  2) those which are s y n t a c t i c a l l y p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e s ,  " I s n ' t she a p r e t t y g i r l ! " , and sentences  1) those which are  can't be tagged.  e.g.,  Hudson c l a i m s t h a t  " I s she a p r e t t y g i r l ? " are not e x c l a m a t i o n s , but  questions  He does not mention c o n s t r u c t i o n s such as, " I s she ever a p r e t t y  g i r l ! " , which are a l s o e x c l a m a t i o n s . t i o n of exclamations  as, "The  speaker  Hudson d e f i n e s the s i n c e r i t y c o n d i i s impressed  a p r o p e r t y d e f i n e d i n the p r o p o s i t i o n i s p r e s e n t . " a pretty g i r l " ,  by the degree to which (16)  In " I s she  ever  ever i s an i n t e n s i f i e r which i n d i c a t e s a degree to which a  property i s present. When a tag i s added to the f i r s t pretty g i r l exclamation.  she i s , i s n ' t she?",  type of e x c l a m a t i o n , i . e . , "What a  t h i s becomes a q u e s t i o n as w e l l as  an  Hudson s t a t e s :  The a n a l y s i s of 'exclamations' a l s o r e v e a l s a s y n t a c t i c f a c t : that tags on e x c l a m a t i v e s appear to be e x c l u s i v e l y r e v e r s e d - p o l a r i t y tags: 72) a. What a n i c e g i r l she i s , i s n ' t she? b. *What a n i c e g i r l she i s , i s she? The e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s i s , of course, t h a t the tag i s an 'exclamation' and must t h e r e f o r e be p o s i t i v e , but as an i n t e r r o g a t i v e 'exclamation' i t must have the (non-negative) marker of 'exclamation', namely n ' t . Far from b e i n g r e v e r s e d - p o l a r i t y t a g s , these are c o n s t a n t - p o l a r i t y tags . . . (28) The c r i t e r i a Hudson's a n a l y s i s . response,  f o r Constant P o l a r i t y eh tags o f f e r e d here The E x c l a m a t i o n  as i t has more response  a p r e v i o u s speaker's  eh g e n e r a l l y does not r e q u i r e a  than q u e s t i o n f o r c e .  It often reflects  p o i n t of view, or i s a comment on what the  h i m s e l f has j u s t s a i d .  The  supports  eh u s u a l l y has f a l l i n g  E x c l a m a t i o n eh t h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h i t may  intonation.  be paraphrased  speaker The  as a r e v e r s e d  p o l a r i t y tag, has an underlying constant p o l a r i t y tag. Love's analysis of this type of eh, which she c a l l s a " r h e t o r i c a l question", i s similar.  She states:  Eh can . . . be considered an optional element i n any r h e t o r i c a l question, e.g., How about that (eh)? Wasn't i t lucky (eh)? Neither of these constructions i s expected to evoke a response; with the addition of eh, although the l i s t e n e r i s encouraged to agree, the question remains r h e t o r i c a l . (18) The f i r s t  examples of this type of eh are exclamations which are  s y n t a c t i c a l l y exclamatives.  They are missing the subject and verb.  What a day eh. (informant 3) What a l i f e eh. (informant 46) What a drag eh. (informant 17) What the h e l l eh. (informant 18) What a way to spend Christmas eh. (informant 37) What a poet eh. (informant 61)  (the speaker had just said something that rhymed)  The next examples are semantically exclamations and s y n t a c t i c a l l y Wh questions.  Love c a l l s these Wh Rhetorical questions.  How time goes eh. (informant 24) How do you l i k e that eh? (accompanied by a wink, leer, and nudge) (informant 38) Look at these women. (informant 45)  How'd they end up looking that way anyway eh.  The following data are polar interrogative exclamatives.  Love  c a l l s these Yes-no r h e t o r i c a l questions. Speaker A:  You're saying that because you want to end this conversation.  Speaker B:  Oh, i s that right eh? (informant 4)  This example was spoken with an angry emphasis on the eh utterance.  "Is  53 that r i g h t  eh" o c c u r s many times  s i m i l a r to " r e a l l y " , Speaker A: Speaker B:  i n the d a t a as a n o n - s a r c a s t i c  response,  f o r example,  We pay $220 a month. Is t h a t r i g h t eh? (informant  7)  T h i s example has a p o s i t i v e p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e h o s t c l a u s e , which d i f f e r s from the f o l l o w i n g example where the h o s t c l a u s e i s n e g a t i v e . Speaker A:  We can get some dynamite a c i d and take i t up t h e r e , (teasing) Oh wouldn't t h a t be f u n , eh B i l l , ( t e a s i n g a t h i r d p a r t i c i p a n t i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n ) (informant 3)  Speaker B:  O c c a s i o n a l l y , i s i t ever o c c u r s i n a p o s i t i v e p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e e x c l a m a t i v e host c l a u s e , as i n "I'm T r i a n g l e and  r e a d i n g t h i s book on the Bermuda  i s i t ever f u c k i n g weird  eh" from informant  39.  There a r e some d a t a which a r e s y n t a c t i c a l l y more l i k e r e s p o n s i v e s e x c l a m a t i v e s , but they have an e x c l a m a t i o n  force.  (informant 4, as w e l l as other s p e a k e r s ) , "Not "Freak,  f r e a k , f r e a k eh"  (informant 6 ) .  For example, "Oh  a g a i n eh"  than  dear  eh"  (informant 4 ) , and  They a r e a l l responses  to a  situ-  a t i o n o r an a c t i o n t a k i n g p l a c e . Type 5.  P o l a r I n t e r r o g a t i v e Eh T h i s i s the s m a l l e s t c a t e g o r y i n the d a t a — t h e r e  examples, a l t h o u g h A v i s has  c i t e d more.  are only  Love s t a t e s t h a t eh f u n c t i o n s as  a redundant, o p t i o n a l q u e s t i o n p a r t i c l e i n t h i s type, which can s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h i n v e r s i o n and take e i t h e r r i s i n g or f a l l i n g doesn't  A v i s notes  Speaker A: Speaker B:  by a paraphrase  of  t h a t these  The host  eh.  You see the game l a s t n i g h t eh? No.  above example r e q u i r e s a response,  occur  and  can  In both examples below i n v e r s i o n  take p l a c e , as the a u x i l i a r y and do_ are d e l e t e d .  can not be tagged  The  "dummy" do.  intonation.  two  (informant  e i t h e r yes or no  44)  i s an  clause  54 a c c e p t a b l e response,  as p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e s a r e n o t c o n d u c i v e .  tag does not appear to add a conducive Constant  P o l a r i t y type eh.  my d a r l i n g ?  element, as i t does i n Reversed and  The other example i s , "Ready to go to bed  Eh?" (informant 53)  d a r l i n g and eh.  The eh  T h i s was asked  Here, the i n t o n a t i o n was r i s i n g on both o f a c a t , t h e r e f o r e no response  was  expected. Type 6.  Wh Q u e s t i o n Eh  This i s a l s o a small category.  T h i s type o f eh r e q u i r e s a  response,  i  and  i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y i n t e r r o g a t i v e , s e m a n t i c a l l y a q u e s t i o n , and has the  s i n c e r i t y condition f o r questions. an eh paraphrase.  The host c l a u s e s can't be tagged  with  Love makes t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a i m about t h e f u n c t i o n o f eh  i n types 5 and 6: In both Wh q u e s t i o n s and yes-no q u e s t i o n s t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l i n t e r r o g a t i v e markers throughout the sentence, as i n How would you l i k e t o p l a y f o r us (eh)? The q u e s t i o n word, the i n v e r s i o n o f s u b j e c t and a u x i l i a r y and the r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n each c o n t r i b u t e to the i n t e r r o g a t i v e n a t u r e o f the sentence. Not a l l o f these f a c t o r s need to be p r e s e n t i n order to form the q u e s t i o n i . e . , they a r e to some extent redundant. The eh p a r t i c l e , a l t h o u g h e n t i r e l y o p t i o n a l , s e r v e s the same purpose as t h e aforementioned markers. (18) The you  f o l l o w i n g examples,, "How was i t eh?" (informant 4) and "What do  say eh?  W e l l , w e l l , w e l l , what do you know" ( i n f o r m a n t 1 4 ) , were  i m i t a t i o n s o f "Canadian a c c e n t s " , by informants i m i t a t i o n s , they d i d not r e q u i r e a response.  from Vancouver.  Being  I n t h e second example the eh  does not bestow t h e s i l e n c e , and the e n t i r e u t t e r a n c e f u n c t i o n s as a conversational turn-taker. t u r n to the next  I t s f u n c t i o n i s t o take a t u r n i n o r d e r to g i v e a  speaker.  The f o l l o w i n g t h r e e examples,  what's wrong w i t h my monkey eh? (informant 46) What a r e you t r y i n g t o say eh? (informant 4) W e l l , what do you t h i n k eh Poon? (informant 46)  55 a l l r e q u i r e a response, whereas "What a r e you doing up there? Eh?  Eh?  Eh?  Eh?  Eh?  Eh?" (informant 62), does n o t , as i t was spoken t o a c a t .  As i n the p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e example "Ready t o go to bed my d a r l i n g ?  Eh?",  t h i s Wh q u e s t i o n asked o f a c a t has the redundant q u e s t i o n f e a t u r e s , such as r e p e t i t i o n and e x a g g e r a t e d l y r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a mother's speech when she i s t a l k i n g t o a c h i l d The  too young t o answer.  example,  Speaker A:  What year was t h a t ?  Speaker B:  what does i t matter Yeah.  1960?  Were you m a r r i e d  then?  Oh,  eh? (informant 3)  i s i n t e r e s t i n g because an a f f i r m a t i v e response  i s g i v e n t o a Wh q u e s t i o n .  T h i s i s perhaps a f u n c t i o n of the f a c t t h a t tags i n g e n e r a l (and eh u s u a l l y ) , a r e p o s i t i v e l y conducive, o r perhaps a r e s u l t o f the f a c t  that a  response was n o t g i v e n nor r e q u i r e d ( i n t h a t the s i l e n c e was n o t bestowed) f o r the whole s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s . The  f o l l o w i n g examples a l l r e q u i r e a response.  Speaker A: Speaker B:  You promised me you wouldn't be v u l g a r t o n i g h t . Who s t a r t e d t h i s v u l g a r t a l k anyway eh? (informant 45)  Where's my e n d l e s s French n o v e l eh? (informant 46) Where's the pen eh B i l l ?  (informant. 3)  Why don't you go to s l e e p ?  Get an e a r l y n i g h t ?  Eh? (informant 3)  Why don't you j u s t r e l a x eh? (informant 3) Love c l a i m s t h a t eh o c c u r s " s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h q u e s t i o n words and the f r o n t - s h i f t i n g o f the a u x i l i a r y i n yes-no q u e s t i o n s . " (22)  The P o l a r  I n t e r r o g a t i v e eh d a t a c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s study have a d e l e t e d a u x i l i a r y , t h e r e f o r e f r o n t - s h i f t i n g does not occur w i t h eh i n these d a t a .  The Wh  q u e s t i o n d a t a , however, do support Love's c l a i m , as eh o c c u r s w i t h the q u e s t i o n words, who, where, why, what and how.  56 Type 7.  Pardon Eh T h i s category has been d e f i n e d by l e x o g r a p h e r s and l i n g u i s t s as a  paraphrase  of "What d i d you say?"  A v i s has s u b - d i v i d e d h i s d a t a  those o c c u r r e n c e s which are a r e q u e s t f o r r e p e t i t i o n and express astonishment  and d i s b e l i e f .  into  those which  T h i s a n a l y s i s r e g a r d s Pardon eh as  s y n t a c t i c a l l y i n t e r r o g a t i v e , a l t h o u g h t h i s i s the o n l y type of eh which is The  independent speaker  of a host c l a u s e .  Eh has both q u e s t i o n and response  force.  of Pardon eh i s i n a h e a r e r r e l a t i o n s h i p , as he i s r e s p o n d i n g  to a p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e , but t h i s eh a l s o r e q u i r e s a response.  The  f o l l o w i n g i s an example of a r e q u e s t f o r r e p e t i t i o n . Speaker A: Speaker B:  He d i d i t on purpose! He d i d i t on purpose! Didn't you B i l l ? Didn't you? Eh? (hasn't been p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n ) (informant 46)  The next examples a r e both r e q u e s t s f o r r e p e t i t i o n and astonishment  and d i s b e l i e f .  e x p r e s s i o n s of  They a r e not h e s i t a t i o n phenomena as Love  c o n s i d e r s t h i s type to be, because they r e f e r to the p r e c e d i n g u t t e r a n c e , not to t h a t which f o l l o w s . B r i t i s h speaker,  they may  However, as they were both spoken by the same  r e f l e c t a development from the "Eh what!" type of  h e s i t a t i o n remarks which A v i s Speaker A: Speaker B:  cites.  You'd b e t t e r f i n d out b e f o r e you get i n t i m a t e w i t h Yeah . . . eh?! (informant 53)  Speaker B has agreed  to A's  remark b e f o r e she r e a l i z e s i t s meaning.  the f o l l o w i n g example, Speaker A i s u s i n g eh to s t a l l f o r time, t h a t she i s i n a t h e o l o g i c a l h o l e . Speaker A: Speaker B: Speaker A:  him.  In  realizing  . Eh i s a fake r e q u e s t f o r r e p e t i t i o n .  But you can repent a f t e r , ( a f t e r death) You can repent r i g h t up to the judgement seat?? k i n d of a church d i d you go to? Eh? Never mind, (informant 53)  What  57 Type 8.  A n e c d o t a l Eh  N e i t h e r A v i s nor Love r e g a r d t h i s type o f eh as a q u e s t i o n . s t a t e s t h a t examples o f A v i s '  Love  ' n a r r a t i v e - i n t e r r o g a t i v e ' eh:  are not i n t e r r o g a t i v e a t a l l , but r a t h e r they c o n s t i t u t e a p u r e l y n a r r a t i v e d e v i c e . . . . T h i s eh can be c o n s i d e r e d t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f the n a r r a t i v e you know and can occur i n any p a r t of a sentence where a pause i s n a t u r a l . . . they a r e n a r r a t i v e d e v i c e s designed to m a i n t a i n the l i s t e n e r ' s a t t e n t i o n . (6) T h i s a n a l y s i s agrees w i t h Love's r e g a r d i n g t h e placement  o f eh and i n t h a t  the a n e c d o t a l eh u s u a l l y does not bestow the s i l e n c e and r e q u i r e s a response o n l y i n s o f a r as a n o n - v e r b a l response eh has a semantic  i s required.  However, t h i s type o f  q u e s t i o n f o r c e , because the eh speaker  i s q u e s t i o n i n g the  h e a r e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what the eh speaker has j u s t s a i d . can be supposed t o know as much as the speaker about  The h e a r e r  the p r o p o s i t i o n .  The  use o f eh i s an i n v i t a t i o n t o the h e a r e r to prove h i s h e a r e r s h i p w i t h a non-verbal  response.  A v i s notes t h a t t h i s eh o f t e n l a c k s r i s i n g  intonation.  In data  c o l l e c t e d from telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s , t h i s eh has a r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n and a s h o r t v e r b a l response i s r e q u i r e d , as a n o n - v e r b a l response would o b v i o u s l y not s u f f i c e .  O c c a s i o n a l l y , a n e c d o t a l eh has a r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n i n  f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n v e r s a t i o n s as w e l l , e s p e c i a l l y when the speaker ing  i s explain-  something. A n e c d o t a l eh can be paraphrased  know, r i g h t , okay, check,  by such n a r r a t i v e d e v i c e s as you  and do you f o l l o w me?  When i t can be p a r a -  phrased by a t a g , one o f the above would a l s o be an a p p r o p r i a t e synonym. It i s d i f f i c u l t  to d e c i d e on a c r i t e r i o n f o r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e paraphrase o f  eh, as not a l l o f those l i s t e d above can s u b s t i t u t e f o r eh i n every o c c u r rence.  Those u t t e r a n c e s which can o n l y be paraphrased  used t o ask p e r m i s s i o n .  by okay a r e u s u a l l y  The examples i n the d a t a r e q u i r e a response and  58 a r e sentence s t o r y eh?" to  final.  In t h i s example, " J u s t b e f o r e I g o — o n e l i t t l e s h o r t  (telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n ) , informant 10 i s r e q u e s t i n g p e r m i s s i o n  t e l l an anecdote.  girl  eh."  Another example i s , " I ' l l take everybody but  Here, informant 18 has stopped  h i k e r s , among whom i s a g i r l which eh can be paraphrased  the  to p i c k up a queue of h i t c h -  acquaintance he i s t e a s i n g .  An example i n  by okay, but which does not r e q u e s t p e r m i s s i o n  is, Speaker A:  Have a d r i n k .  Speaker B:  J u s t a l i t t l e shot eh.  (informant  Okay, you know, and r i g h t / a l l r i g h t  61).  can s u b s t i t u t e f o r eh and,  about an equal number of examples, eh can be paraphrased a l l r i g h t , and you know, not by okay.  in  by o n l y r i g h t /  T h i s c l a i m , however, i s based  author's i n t u i t i o n , and no e x p l a n a t i o n i s o f f e r e d .  The next two  on  the  examples,  as w e l l as s e v e r a l o t h e r s i n t h i s s e c t i o n , can s u b s t i t u t e okay, you know and r i g h t  f o r eh.  I t ' s not t h a t . I'm j u s t t i r e d and t i r e d eh. (informant 46)  I want to get home b e f o r e I'm  too  See, what I used to do w i t h mine, I have a s e v e n - i n c h r e e l a t home too eh, now a l l tape r e c o r d e r s work the same way, . . . (informant 6) These examples would be strange i f a tag was speaker own  can not be expected  f e e l i n g s and knowledge.  used  i n p l a c e of eh, as  to be q u e s t i o n i n g the h e a r e r about the  the  speaker's  Both a r e e x p l a n a t i o n s , a l t h o u g h the f i r s t  an i n d i r e c t r e q u e s t f o r p e r m i s s i o n .  The  second  a n e c d o t a l eh's  i n t h a t the eh f o l l o w s a sentence  explanation.  The  is  example i s t y p i c a l of many internal parenthetical  f o l l o w i n g t h r e e examples were accompanied by a demon-  s t r a t i o n from the speaker.  The a n e c d o t a l s t y l e i s shown by the use of  you and he s u b j e c t s i n the f i r s t  two  examples, to r e p l a c e I'm  showing  you,  and by the use of the p r e s e n t tense to r e l a t e an anecdote t h a t took p l a c e  59 i n the past, i n the second and t h i r d examples. Now you put your fingers i n and turn i t a l l the way around eh so i t ' s l i k e t h i s , (informant 68) Here he's doing i t with his hands back and now he's doing i t with his f i s t s eh. (informant 6) I say, "Hey now, just a minute eh. way I dress eh." (informant 6)  What's the matter.  The f i r s t eh i n the l a s t example i s an Imperative eh. tone of voice used throughout  It's just the  There was an angry  this example.  The following examples can be paraphrased only by you know and r i g h t , not by okay, according to the writer's i n t u i t i o n . I didn't get a sticker this year, I got here too l a t e eh. Speaker A: Speaker B:  (informant 15)  You've got too big of a category. You're not kidding. My wife has s i x wooden spoons eh. I didn't know that eh. (students' discussion of kitchenware componential analysis) (informant 13)  In the next example, the subject of the eh utterance i s 1. I thought he was gonna complain about something eh. (an anecdote) (informant 10) Again, i t would be odd to paraphrase eh with a tag when there i s a f i r s t person subject.  The next three examples have eh i n sentence  internal  position. Speaker A: Speaker B:  How's Jon doing? Five years i t takes eh Deb, f i v e years, but f i n a l l y getting fantastic jobs, (informant 26)  he's  At hockey, we go to a l o t of rinks eh, the coffee's 20 or 30 cents a cup. (informant 7) The people i n Beacon H i l l eh, they're Boston Bay types, (informant 7) In the l a s t example, eh i s used to question the hearer's f a m i l i a r i t y with a a t e l e v i s i o n show.  The example,  Bring i n the l a t e s t Time, the newspaper, and ask f i r s t of a l l , well, what's the name eh? (a talk on teaching methods) (informant 41)  60 i s interesting because eh does not tag the question "what's the name", but i s a sentence tag, i n v i t i n g the audience to show they have understood the explanation. That anecdotal e_h i s not a h e s i t a t i o n phenomena, i s shown by the next example, which contains both uh (a h e s i t a t i o n device) and  eh.  I'm a pretty good hummer (sic) and hawer but people don't uh r e a l l y . . . l i k e I have to talk to guys at work eh so I've got t h i r t y guys out i n front of me. (informant 6) Uh refers forward to an area of greater l e x i c a l or syntactic choice.  It  indicates a groping for words, which resulted i n a pause and the parent h e t i c a l explanation, " l i k e I have to talk to guys at work eh".  Eh  refers back to the clause, " l i k e I have to talk to guys at work", and i s a question by the speaker to see i f the hearer has understood.  It i s not  the result of h e s i t a t i o n ; rather, i t occurs after a burst of fluency. It i s , as Avis has commented, not at a l l unusual to have many anecdotal eh's i n one utterance.  The following passage i s taken from a  half-hour interview, ( i n which the speaker was  explaining the nature of h i s  business operation), which contained 114 occurrences  of eh, a l l anecdotal.  Like, Ok, when I bought the business out from my partner, and I was temporarily alone eh, now even though I knew I could cover i t , the business, quite e a s i l y , l i k e run i t myself eh? (Yeah) but by this time I had acquired other things, l i k e a house and so forth and so on, l i k e a car and a l l that jazz eh, then, you know, even though I knew I could s t i l l cover everything, you know, on paper I could do i t , I was, I don't know, I was a b i t s c e p t i c a l at that point eh? But after one month i t vanished eh cause there was no problem, (informant 1) In the above two utterances comprising  the entire passage, eh twice follows  an emphatic stress, and frequently follows parenthetical explanations. hearer inserted a response after a r i s i n g intonation on eh, although speaker did not pause long enough to bestow silence.  The  the  Eh occurs with, and  appears to be generally synonymous with, expression such as okay, and  61 so on and so f o r t h , you know, and  I don't know.  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t many a n e c d o t a l eh examples were c o l l e c t e d from speakers who visiting  were from O n t a r i o , e i t h e r phoning Vancouver,  or  f o r a s h o r t time.  There a r e a s m a l l group of f i v e anomalous eh's which do not f i t any of the c r i t e r i a f o r the a n a l y s i s of eh t y p e s . addressed to c a t s .  A l l but one of these were  These " c a t " eh's a r e examples of mother-language,  they were d e l i v e r e d i n a b a b y - t a l k s t y l e , w i t h exaggerated Some l i t t l e  f u r r y white man  H i P u s h k i n eh. P u s h i e , eh?  eh.  (informant  as  intonation.  46)  (informant 2)  P u s h i e , eh?  Oh t h e r e , Pushkin eh.  (informant 3)  (informant 3)  I t has been suggested t h a t , as a l l the i n f o r m a n t s above a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , t h i s use of eh i s r e s t r i c t e d The  f i n a l example was  to a p a r t i c u l a r  family.  a s i n c e r e e x p r e s s i o n of thanks, d i r e c t e d to  the m a i t r e d', on l e a v i n g a r e s t a u r a n t . Thanks a l o t eh. T h i s example was  3.3  (informant  74)  a l s o c o l l e c t e d from o t h e r i n f o r m a n t s , used  sarcastically.  Some s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c a s p e c t s of the use of eh I t has been noted throughout  t h i s c h a p t e r t h a t some types of eh were  used more ( o c c a s i o n a l l y , used more by a p a r t i c u l a r group were o t h e r s .  of speakers)  than  T a b l e 7 shows the d i f f e r e n c e i n amount t h a t the types of eh  were used, and the amount t h a t each type of eh was i v e n a t i o n a l groups.  used by the r e p r e s e n t a t -  T a b l e 7 i n d i c a t e s t h a t eh i s used most o f t e n by a l l  n a t i o n a l groups where i t c o u l d be g e n e r a l l y paraphrased  as a t a g , (Reversed  P o l a r i t y , Constant P o l a r i t y , E x c l a m a t i o n and Imperative eh) w i t h the n o t a b l e  TABLE 7 The amount o f use o f each type o f eh by n a t i o n a l  type o f eh  Canadian  American  British  Non-native  groups  Unknown  Totals  Reversed Polarity  70  25  Constant Polarity  15  5  3  118  6  1  2  183  122  52  3  -  -  38  Imperative  25  10  1  -  -  17  Exclamation  14  2 1  -  9  1  -  7  Polar Interrogative  6  2  Wh Q u e s t i o n  4  2  Pardon  5  1  Anecdotal  163  1  Totals  405  98  3  32  -  9  1  5  7  11  170 550+  63 e x c e p t i o n of A n e c d o t a l eh from Canadian i s used  informants.  Constant P o l a r i t y  the most, and A n e c d o t a l eh the next, a c c o r d i n g to the d a t a  f o r t h i s study.  There were, however, o t h e r f a c t o r s which must be  collected taken  i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n of A n e c d o t a l Because two i t was was  informants  (6 and  eh.  7 — s e e T a b l e 8) used a n e c d o t a l eh so o f t e n ,  not always p o s s i b l e to w r i t e down i t s every o c c u r r e n c e .  a l s o not r e c o r d e d as o f t e n as i t was  at the time of c o l l e c t i o n ,  eh  Pardon eh  heard, as the i n v e s t i g a t o r  t h a t s i m p l y w r i t i n g down eh? was  not of  felt, interest  f o r a l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s , as t h e r e are no h o s t c l a u s e s w i t h Pardon eh. However, i n terms o f the q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n o f eh and a b l e of n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y , t h i s d e c i s i o n was  an  the s o c i a l  vari-  error.  T a b l e 8 shows the q u a n t i t a t i v e p r o d u c t i o n of each type of eh_ by t e n i n f o r m a n t s who  used  eh most o f t e n .  the  Again, Table 8 l i k e Table 7  i n d i c a t e s t h a t Constant P o l a r i t y eh i s used most o f t e n , f o l l o w e d by A n e c d o t a l eh, Reversed  P o l a r i t y eh, Imperative eh, and E x c l a m a t i o n  P o l a r I n t e r r o g a t i v e eh, Wh T a b l e 7.  q u e s t i o n eh and Pardon eh d i f f e r  A l l but one r e s i d u a l  above i n f o r m a n t s .  i n order  (odd) eh i n the d a t a i s produced  No one speaker produced  eh.  Informant  number 1 i s remarkable  f o r h a v i n g produced  Inform-  the most eh's, i n  (30 m i n u t e s ) , and f o r p r o d u c i n g o n l y one  As s t a t e d above, informants 6 and  A n e c d o t a l eh's  the  (an American) i s c l o s e s t , m i s s i n g o n l y the P o l a r I n t e r r o g a t i v e  the s h o r t e s t c o l l e c t i o n time of eh.  by  from  every type of eh i n the  presence of the i n v e s t i g a t o r d u r i n g the time of d a t a c o l l e c t i o n . ant number 46  eh.  than c o u l d be r e c o r d e d .  7 a c t u a l l y produced  See T a b l e 5 i n Chapter  s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s of each of the t e n i n f o r m a n t s used  i n Table  8.  type  f a r more 2 f o r the  64 TABLE 8 The amount of use of each type of eh by the t e n most p r o d u c t i v e users of eh  Informant 2 46  numbers 3 4  5  6  7  8  totals  5  7  10  1  1  4  63  20  18  23  24  1  3  9  148  2  2  5  -  -  -  -  2  18  1  -  1  2  3  -  1  2  -  10  -  1  1  -  -  1  -  -  -  -  3  -  1  -  3  7  2  -  -  -  -  13  -  -  1  1  -  2  -  -  -  -  4  Anecdotal  114  -  -  1  -  -  -  16  9  -  140  Residual  -  -  2  1  1  -  -  -  -  -  4  50  42  39  38  38  34  19  15  15  404  Type of eh  1  45  Reversed Polarity  -  13  12  10  Constant Polarity  -  27  23  Imperative  -  7  Exclamation  -  Polar Interrogative Wh  Question  Pardon  Totals  114  FOOTNOTES "Intonation has not been used as a c r i t e r i a for d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the types of eh. question mark indicates r i s i n g intonation. 3 This example i s impossible to tag, or paraphrase except by yes, which indicates the difference i n degree to which this sub-type i s more of a response, i n contrast to seeking confirmation sub-type which i s more of a question.  CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY  L i n g u i s t s and speakers o f Canadian E n g l i s h have l o n g regarded eh as a f e a t u r e o f Canadian E n g l i s h .  A s i d e from a few mentions  in earlier  s t u d i e s , l i t t l e r e s e a r c h had been done on eh u n t i l t h e s t u d i e s o f A v i s (1972) and Love  (1973).  These s t u d i e s used o c c u r r e n c e s o f eh i n l i t e r a -  t u r e as a primary s o u r c e o f d a t a .  T h i s study has used spoken language as  a d a t a base, u s i n g a f r e e - f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n method t o c o l l e c t i n s t a n c e s o f eh i n n a t u r a l speech.  One o f t h e f i r s t  of eh o c c u r r e d i n i n f o r m a l s i t u a t i o n s .  f i n d i n g s was t h a t most i n s t a n c e s Although the f r e e - f i e l d  technique  p o t e n t i a l l y i n c l u d e d f o r m a l speech used i n c o n t e x t s such as t e l e v i s i o n , r a d i o , c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n s , e t c . , v e r y few examples o f eh r e s u l t e d these.  from  When eh was used i n a f o r m a l s i t u a t i o n , i t was u s u a l l y a t times  when the speaker had h i s guard down and r e l a x e d i n t o c a s u a l speech anger, ease, o r an attempt  t o make a p o i n t .  The l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s o f  eh i n v o l v e d r e s e a r c h on t a g q u e s t i o n s , ( C a t t e l l , 1973; discourse analysis  (Sacks, 1967).  through  Hudson, 1975), and  I t was found t h a t the d i f f e r e n t  of eh c o u l d o n l y be understood by examining  types  the s y n t a c t i c mood, the  semantic f o r c e , and the pragmatic a s p e c t s o f the u t t e r a n c e i n which eh occurred.  The a n a l y s i s r e s u l t e d i n e i g h t d i s t i n c t t y p e s .  In order to  a n a l y s e eh, i t was n e c e s s a r y to go beyond a grammar c a p a b l e o f a n a l y s i n g sentence l e n g t h u t t e r a n c e s and i n c l u d e the pragmatic components o f a d i s c o u r s e grammar.  Most g e n e r a l l y , the range o f eh i s f a r g r e a t e r than 66  67 t h a t of o r d i n a r y t a g s .  Eh can a l s o t a g h o s t c l a u s e s which are Wh  ques-  t i o n s , p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , a l l e x c l a m a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g those w i t h p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e h o s t c l a u s e s , i n t e r j e c t i o n s such as "Oh you",  and tags themselves.  t a g s , and a l s o sentence  dear" and  Eh o c c u r s sentence f i n a l l y , as do o r d i n a r y  i n t e r n a l l y , and  initially  (the l a t t e r occur o n l y  i n examples such as "Eh, what?", and do not occur i n my isolation  ( i n Pardon eh).  d a t a ) , and i n  The u n i v e r s e f o r eh e x c l u d e s o n l y p l a c e s i n a  sentence where a pause i s not  natural.  None of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s o f age, i d e n t i t y , or n a t i v e language  "Thank  c l a s s , sex, n a t i o n a l or r e g i o n a l  of the i n f o r m a n t s seemed to have a s i g n i f i c a n t  c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the amount or type of eh produced.  The  social  variables  of the' i n f o r m a n t s , however, were merely a r e f l e c t i o n of the s o c i a l  vari-  a b l e s o f the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s f r i e n d s and a s s o c i a t e s d u r i n g the p e r i o d of d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , and were not c o n t r o l l e d f o r a b a l a n c e . t h a t some speakers used  I t was  found  eh more than o t h e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y A n e c d o t a l  While a l l the d a t a were c o l l e c t e d i n Vancouver, B.C.,  and  23  eh.  informants  were n a t i v e s of t h i s a r e a , no c l a i m i s made r e g a r d i n g eh as a d i a l e c t f e a t u r e of t h i s a r e a .  I t was  by speakers n a t i v e to or now n a t i v e t o Vancouver.  i m p o s s i b l e to determine  i f eh was  used more  l i v i n g i n Vancouver than by speakers  not  Many informants f e e l , on somewhat a n e c d o t a l e v i d e n c e ,  t h a t eh i s used l e s s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and more i n E a s t e r n Canada than i n Vancouver, w h i l e o t h e r s s a i d t h a t eh i s used more i n r u r a l than areas.  N e i t h e r of these s u g g e s t i o n s i s pursued Another  Allen  a r e a unexplored  i n the p r e s e n t  the e x p r e s s i o n d o u b t l e s s comes from". two  study.  i n the p r e s e n t study i s the h i s t o r y of eh.  (1959:20) c l a i m s that eh " i s a l s o f r e q u e n t l y heard  the l a s t  urban  i n England, where  A v i s (1972) l i m i t s h i s corpus to  c e n t u r i e s , although he c i t e s e a r l i e r o c c u r r e n c e s of eh i n  68 British literature. and  Many informants had  strong, i f dubiously  c o n t r a d i c t o r y , o p i n i o n s on the o r i g i n of eh.  o r i g i n a t e d i n S c o t l a n d , w h i l e a New Zealand.  Other informants  Zealander  informed  A Scot claimed  t h a t eh  s t a t e d t h a t i t came from  p l a c e d the o r i g i n of eh i n Canada—some claimed  t h a t i t spread from e a s t e r n to western Canada w i t h the movement of tion  (with a c o r r e s p o n d i n g  l e s s e n i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e frequency  o t h e r s t h a t i t o r i g i n a t e d i n Quebecois. by western informants who  regarded  t h e i r r e g i o n a l d i a l e c t area.  I t was  the U n i t e d S t a t e s p r i o r to World War Another h y p o t h e s i s  The  latter  two  c l a i m s were h e l d No  British,  claimed t h a t eh o r i g i n a t e d i n  suggested  t h a t eh was  used more i n  I I , and has been l a r g e l y r e p l a c e d by  i s that Anecdotal  than a r e t h e o t h e r types of eh, and  popula-  of p r o d u c t i o n ) ,  eh as a s t i g m a t i z e d form.  American or n a t i v e Vancouver informants  huh.  New  eh i s a newer form i n Canada  i s used more by Canadians than  by  o t h e r n a t i o n a l groups. I t has been suggested  ( p e r s o n a l communication, Horvath) t h a t eh i s  a c r e o l i z a t i o n , as i t i s a s i m p l i f i e d a n a l y s i s does not support the complexity  of form and  t a g or q u e s t i o n p a r t i c l e .  This  the above s u g g e s t i o n , as C r e o l e s s i m p l i f y  both  f u n c t i o n , whereas eh i s f u n c t i o n a l l y more  complex than a r e t a g s . The p r e s e n t study suggests  f u t u r e r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d to eh.  Appendix  A o f f e r s a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the a t t i t u d e s toward eh.  Also, a  study i n which the c o n t e x t of s i t u a t i o n were c o n t r o l l e d f o r speech s t y l e s , and  the informants  c o n t r o l l e d f o r s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , c o u l d i n v e s t i g a t e the  c o r r e l a t i o n between s t y l e ,  speaker  and amount and  type of eh used.  R e g i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n the use of eh i s a r e l a t e d t o p i c worthy of t i o n , as i s a study of the s i m i l a r i t i e s between huh American E n g l i s h ) and  eh.  investiga-  (a form a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  69 REFERENCES  A l l e n , H. B. (1959) "Canadian-American Speech D i f f e r e n c e s Along the M i d d l e B o r d e r s , " J o u r n a l of the Canadian L i n g u i s t i c A s s o c i a t i o n , _5: 17-24. A r b i n i , R. (1969) "Tag-questions and t a g - i m p e r a t i v e s J o u r n a l of L i n g u i s t i c s , _5:205-14. A v i s , W. S. (1972) "So eh? i s Canadian, eh?", L i n g u i s t i c s , 17:89-105.  The  i n English,"  Canadian J o u r n a l  of  B o l i n g e r , D. L. (1957) I n t e r r o g a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s of American E n g l i s h . ( U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Alabama). C a t t e l l , R. (1973) 49:612-39.  "Negative T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  Chomsky, N. (1965) Cambridge).  A s p e c t s of The  and  Tag  Theory of Syntax.  Q u e s t i o n s , " Language,  (The M.I.T. P r e s s ,  The  D i c t i o n a r y of Canadian E n g l i s h : (W. J . Gage L t d . , T o r o n t o ) .  The  Intermediate D i c t i o n a r y .  The  D i c t i o n a r y of Canadian E n g l i s h : (W. J . Gage L t d . , T o r o n t o ) .  The  Senior D i c t i o n a r y .  The  Gage Canadian D i c t i o n a r y . Toronto).  (1973)  (Gage E d u c a t i o n a l  (1967),  Publishing  Huddleston, R. (1970) "Two Approaches to the A n a l y s i s of Tags," of L i n g u i s t i c s , 6J215-22. Hudson, R.  A.  (1975)  "The  (1963),  Limited,  Journal  Meaning of Q u e s t i o n s , " Language, 51:1-31.  Hymes, D. (1962) "The Ethnography of Speaking," i n Anthropology and Human Behaviour, Gladwin, T. , and S t u r t e v a n t , W. C , eds. ( A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y of Washington P r e s s , Washington, D.C.), 15-53. K a t z , J . J . , and P o s t a l , P. M. (1964) An I n t e g r a t e d Theory of Descriptions. (The M.I.T. P r e s s , Cambridge). Labov, W. (1963) 273-309  "The  Social Motivation  Linguistic  of a Sound Change," Word,  Labov, W. (1972) S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c P a t t e r n s . vania Press, Inc.).  (The U n i v e r s i t y of  19:  Pennsyl-  70 Lakoff,  R.  (1969)  "Language i n C o n t e x t , " Language, 48_: 907-27.  Love, T. (1973) "An Examination o f Eh as Q u e s t i o n P a r t i c l e , " essay, The U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a ) . O r k i n , M. (1970) Speaking Canadian E n g l i s h . Ltd., Toronto). O r k i n , M.  (1973) Canajun, eh.  Sacks, H.  (1967)  (General P u b l i s h i n g  (General P u b l i s h i n g  (Mimeo l e c t u r e n o t e s , I I I S p r i n g  S c a r g i l l , M. H., and Warkentyne, H. J . (1972) English: A Report," E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y ,  (B.A.  Co. L t d . , Don  Co.  Mills).  Q u a r t e r , A p r i l 10).  "The Survey of Canadian Volume 5, Number 3:47-104.  W e i n r e i c h , U., Labov, W., and Herzog, M. I . (1968) " E m p i r i c a l Foundat i o n s f o r a Theory of Language Change," i n D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i s t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s , Lehmann, W. P., and M a l k i e l , Y., eds. (University of Texas P r e s s , A u s t i n ) , 95-195.  \  71 APPENDIX A ATTITUDES TOWARD EH  Although the study of the a t t i t u d e s toward the use o f eh was not a f o c u s of t h i s t h e s i s , c e r t a i n g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n s w i l l be p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s appendix. A t t i t u d e s toward eh v a r i e d from unconscious p r o d u c t i o n and comprehension, to complete h o s t i l i t y , to a p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n to eh as a f e a t u r e of Canadian E n g l i s h . The f i r s t two a t t i t u d e s were not m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e — q u i t e o f t e n an informant n o t i c e d n e i t h e r h i s own nor o t h e r people's use of eh, but when asked about h i s r e a c t i o n toward t h i s use, he was v e r y n e g a t i v e . The p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e was m a i n l y c o n f i n e d to an o c c a s i o n a l commercial use of eh i n a d v e r t i s e m e n t s and b u m p e r - s t i c k e r s . An example i s an ad f o r Canadian c i g a r e t t e s , E x p o r t A, whose copy reads " E x p o r t , eh?". Had the c o p y - w r i t e r s been aware of the p r e v a i l i n g n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e towards eh, they might not have found eh worth of e x p l o i t a t i o n . A few i n f o r m a n t s o r i g i n a l l y c l a i m e d never to use eh, or thought o n l y used Pardon eh. T h e i r comments i n c l u d e d such statements as, I never used eh t i l l  I met  you.  (informant  they  21)  We p i c k e d i t up i n the two weeks we've been i n Canada. I t s t a r t e d as a j o k e , now i t ' s a h a b i t , ( i n f o r m a n t s 56, 57 and 61, who l a t e r agreed t h a t they used eh i n t h e i r n a t i v e S c o t l a n d ) I o n l y use i t when I'm  t a l k i n g to my Mum.  (informant 5)  Informants a l s o g e n e r a l i z e d about who uses eh and how much i t i s used, compared to i t s p r e v i o u s usage. Many c l a i m e d t h a t people i n the M a r i t i m e s and/or working c l a s s people use eh more. Other comments i n c l u d e , " O l d e r people use i t more w i t h meaning." (informant 60) and "Army people use i t more." (informant 10) The f o l l o w i n g comments a r e from f o u r t e a c h e r s of E n g l i s h . Teachers use i t more because they need c o n f i r m a t i o n from the s t u d e n t s on what they've j u s t e x p l a i n e d , (informant 25) P e o p l e use i t more i n Manitoba than B.C. I t ' s used more i n B.C. now than b e f o r e ; people used to say l i k e , now they say eh and right. Young people don't have t h i s problem  now.  Those i n f o r m a n t s who had a n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e toward eh u s u a l l y d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h between the d i f f e r e n t types and uses o f eh, but, when g i v i n g an example of a s t i g m a t i z e d use o f eh, would i n v a r i a b l y choose e i t h e r Pardon eh or A n e c d o t a l eh. E i g h t speakers' comments a r e ,  72 I hate i t . I t ' s j u s t a s t u p i d t h i n g to say. Why waste time? I t ' s a cop-out, i t ' s i n g r a t i a t i n g , i t d i l u t e s e v e r y t h i n g you say. I t means " t h a t ' s why". I don't n o t i c e when p e o p l e use i t but I don't l i k e i t when they do. (informant 16) I s n ' t eh l i k e hey most of the time? I t ' s low. "He went to her apartment eh and p i c k e d up her s u i t c a s e eh, you b e t c h e r sweet l i f e " , ( i n f o r m a n t 14 used r a i s e d and c e n t e r e d vowels i n h i s i m i t a t i o n o f a "low" Canadian a c c e n t . ) P e o p l e t a l k l i k e t h a t because c o n v e r s a t i o n has d i s i n t e g r a t e d s i n c e (informant 55)  TV.  I had t r o u b l e w i t h eh i n Manitoba. They say, "There's a meeting tomorrow eh?" and I say, " I don't know. Is t h e r e ? " , and they say, "I'm t e l l i n g you, t h e r e ' s a meeting tomorrow eh?". I heard my it. It's  f r i e n d say, " I went downtown y e s t e r d a y eh".  demeaning, and i t means you're i n s e c u r e .  I don't  like  ( i n f o r m a n t 33)  P e o p l e use i t because they've l o s t the r i c h n e s s of an i n f l e c t e d language, and i t ' s l i k e an i n f l e c t i o n , ( i n f o r m a n t 47) I bet L o r d Denning doesn't use i t . 18)  He speaks b e a u t i f u l l y , ( i n f o r m a n t  A v i s (1972:96) comments t h a t eh, " i s not s l a n g , thought i t may be trite; i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y rude or v u l g a r , though i t may be used i n an i l l - m a n n e r e d way." He notes t h a t h i s E n g l i s h f a t h e r 'abhorred' Pardon eh, and A v i s h i m s e l f would appear t o r e g a r d A n e c d o t a l eh as stigmatized. He comments, The " n a r r a t i v e e h ? " — f o u n d p r i m a r i l y i n o r a l e v i d e n c e o f Canadian o r i g i n — o c c u r s i n extended d i s c o u r s e , o f t e n w i t h d i s c o n c e r t i n g f r e q u e n c y . . . . While the n a r r a t i v e eh? i s p r o b a b l y not a r e c e n t i n n o v a t i o n , i t has c e r t a i n l y i n c r e a s e d i n i n t e n s i t y i n the l a s t decade. In many s i t u a t i o n s , i t s o c c u r r e n c e p a r a l l e l s t h a t o f see? and you know?, both of which i n t r u d e h a b i t u a l l y i n the n a r r a t i v e s t y l e of some speakers, e s p e c i a l l y the l i t t l e educated. (101-102) In Love's (1973) a c c e p t a b i l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e , she r e a d a v a r y i n g number of examples from each of her s i x s e t s of eh (which d i d not i n c l u d e A n e c d o t a l or Pardon eh, see T a b l e 2) to her s u b j e c t s and asked the s u b j e c t to judge whether eh was a c c e p t a b l e or n o t . Her study a l l o w e d f o r only an a c c e p t a b l e / n o t a c c e p t a b l e judgement, and d i d not permit the s u b j e c t s to compare the types of eh or to g i v e a m o r e - o r - l e s s a c c e p t a b i l i t y judgement w i t h i n her s e t s . The a c c e p t a b i l i t y judgements o f the types of eh p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s were:  73 Percentage of Informants who accepted the examples  Type Reversed o r Constant (Set I , 6 examples) Imperative  P o l a r i t y eh 89%  eh  ( s e t s I and I I , 2 examples) Wh Q u e s t i o n  eh  (Set I I I , 4 examples) Exclamation  58%  59%  eh  (Sets IV and V I , 5 examples)  83%  P o l a r I n t e r r o g a t i v e eh (Set V, 7 examples)  36%  Love s t a t e s , Although the sentences o f Set I were c o n s i d e r e d a c c e p t a b l e by the m a j o r i t y , many informants noted t h a t eh seemed to l e n d a p e j o r a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n to these sentences. Those informants who r e j e c t e d sentences i n Set I d i d so n o t because they c o n s i d e r e d eh t o be 'ungrammatical' but r a t h e r they o b j e c t e d to eh on the grounds t h a t i t was i n d e l i c a t e . (10) I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the P o l a r I n t e r r o g a t i v e examples decre a s e s as the l e n g t h and complexity of the h o s t c l a u s e i n c r e a s e s . In data which Love presumably i n v e n t e d , as she notes they a r e supplemental to A v i s ' d a t a , the a c c e p t a b i l i t y judgements a r e : Example Percentage of Ihformants_who accepted the examples W i l l you eh?  45%  W i l l you d r i v e eh?  37%  W i l l you d r i v e the c h i l d r e n to s c h o o l eh?  28%  W i l l you d r i v e the c h i l d r e n to s c h o o l and then p i c k up a few t h i n g s a t the s t o r e eh?  17%  The f i r s t example above, " W i l l you eh?" has a r e s p o n s i v e mood and a response f o r c e which the o t h e r examples don't have. Perhaps t h i s makes i t more a c c e p t a b l e . I n t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s t h e s i s , t h e r e were no l o n g or complex p o l a r i n t e r r o g a t i v e host c l a u s e s p r e c e d i n g eh. Love gave her q u e s t i o n n a i r e to 35 s u b j e c t s and c l a i m s t h a t , "No one of t h e . . . f a c t o r s o f age, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , and sex seemed t o produce a d e f i n i t e p a t t e r n i n responses g i v e n . " (10) A c o n t r o l l e d study of the a t t i t u d e s toward eh would be an i n t e r e s t ing topic f o r future research. I d e a l l y , a few examples of each type and  74  sub-type of eh would be presented o r a l l y to the informants, who would be representative of the s o c i a l variables of age, class and sex, and include Canadian, American and B r i t i s h English speakers. The informant would rank each use of eh i n such a manner that the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of each type and sub-type could be compared, and related to the s o c i a l variables of the informants. It i s the writer's impression, based on the attitudes r e f l e c t e d here, that most informants have a negative attitude toward eh, and that Pardon ^h and especially Anecdotal eh are the most stigmatized types. It i s interesting that, despite this prevailing attitude, most informants were unconscious of their own and other speakers' production of eh u n t i l they noticed the investigator writing down their utterance, when some informants then reacted negatively to their own use of eh. Never did an informant's use of eh produce a noticeable negative reaction i n any observers.  75 APPENDIX B Appendix B i s a t a b l e l i s t i n g a l l the i n f o r m a n t s who used eh, i n f o r m a t i o n of t h e i r age, sex, n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y and r e g i o n a l background, and/or l e n g t h of time i n Canada, the amount of eh's each informant produced, and the amount of time spent c o l l e c t i n g d a t a from him or h e r . Each informant i s numbered, w i t h the most f r e q u e n t producer of eh h a v i n g the lowest number of h i s / h e r n a t i o n a l group. However, when i n f o r m a n t s produced the same number of eh's as d i d o t h e r i n f o r m a n t s i n t h e i r n a t i o n a l group, the numbering i s a r b i t r a r y . For example, numbers 28 to 44 of the Canadian i n f o r m a n t s a l l produced one eh each. There was a random a s s i g n ment of numbers to these i n f o r m a n t s . The number of each informant i s the number used i f the i n f o r m a n t ' s eji u t t e r a n c e was quoted i n the body of t h i s paper. Not a l l the d a t a were quoted.  Informant No. of Number eh's  Time  Sex  Age  Region  Canadian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  114 41 38 38 34 19 15 15 12 9 8 7 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1  E A A A A B D B B D D C E B E C A C E C C D D E D E E D D E  M F F M F M F M F M M M M M . M M F M F F F M M M F F M M F F  32 25 29 28 28 32 50 63 63 27 50s 32 25 28 25 32 26 27 40s 30 29 50 26 ?  40s 29 30s 32 26 20s  Rural Saskatchewan/Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Toronto Toronto Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver/New Brunswick Vancouver Nova S c o t i a / V a n c o u v e r R u r a l B.C./Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Rural Saskatchewan/Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver R u r a l N o r t h e r n B.C./Vancouver Toronto Saskatoon/Vancouver R u r a l Saskatchewan Vancouver Toronto Vancouver Toronto/Vancouver Toronto/Vancouver Vancouver  76  Informant Number 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  No. of eh's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  Time  Sex  B E D D E C C  F M F M M M M F F M F F M M  c c  E D C D E  405 Informant Number  Age  Region  31 4 30 30s 30s 29 40s 30 30  London/Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Toronto Toronto/Vancouver Toronto/Vancouver  25 29 20s 20s  Vancouver Vancouver  ?  1  1 7  F=19 M=25  No. of eh's  Time  Sex  50 39 3 2 1 1 1 1  A A E D D D A E  M M M M M M F M  Age  Length of Time i n Canada i n Year:  American 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  98  32 27 20s 30s 30s 50s 30s 30s  7 7 7 7 4 4 2 7  F=l M=8  British 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  14 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 32  A B A D D D D D D D D  F F F M F F M F M M M F=6 M=5  34 29 30 60s 60s 40s 35 50s 20s 51 20s  13 6 15 1 week 1 week 12 13 5 1 week 20 ?  Informant Number  No. o f eh's  Time  Sex  Age  N a t i v e Language  M F M  50s 30s 30s  French Japanese Swedish  M M F M F f F m  302 30s 40s 50s 50s  A l l presumably N a t i v e Canadian speakers  Non-Native Speakers o f English 66 65 66  4 2 1  D E D F=l M=2  Unknown 67 68 69 70 71 72 . 73 74  2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1  E E E E E E E E  11  F=4 M=4  553  F=31 M=44  1  50s 30s  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093718/manifest

Comment

Related Items