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 British Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in 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 presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of U M S - U l S T l C S The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date S E P T . \Ot \ <\7(o ABSTRACT Several l i n g u i s t s have noted that eh i s a d i s t i n c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Canadian English, e.g., A l l e n (1959), Avis (1972), and Love (1973). Despite t h i s common observation, l i t t l e d e t a i l e d analysis has been done on either eh's synta c t i c or 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), for example, discusses a number of the syntactic environments of eh, but based on i t s occurrence i n selected works of l i t e r a t u r e . Thus far there has been no de t a i l e d study on the systematic use of eh as i t i s found i n the spoken language, used by a d i v e r s i t y of speakers. This paper gives a grammatical and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c analysis of the use of eh, based on data c o l l e c t e d i n Vancouver, B.C., over a period of four months. The data consist of more than 550 occurrences of eh from 74 informants of various language and s o c i a l backgrounds. Most informants were native speakers of Canadian English, with the others being p r i m a r i l y speakers of either American or B r i t i s h English. The grammatical analysis presents the synta c t i c and semantic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of eh and i t s uses. I t i s i n part based on research on tags (e.g., Huddleston 1970, C a t t e l l 1973), questions (e.g., Hudson 1975), and conversational analysis (e.g., Sacks 1967). Important properties of sentences that determine the analysis and use of eh include sy n t a c t i c mood, semantic force, and s i n c e r i t y conditions. Also, eh can only be understood by extending the analysis to include the r e l a t i o n between sentences within a discourse. The s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c analysis i s based on information about the speakers who use eh and on the s o c i a l context i n which i t occurs, i . e . , formal versus informal usage. S o c i a l variables i n the use of eh are age, cl a s s , sex, regional and language background of the speaker. i i i The grammatical analysis reveals eight types of eh, as follows: 1. Reversed P o l a r i t y 2. Constant P o l a r i t y Examples That should be okay, eh? A: He said "eh" twice. B: Oh, he said "eh", eh? Look at that, eh! What a drag, eh! (Did) you see the game l a s t night, eh? What are you t r y i n g to say, eh? Eh? He went from b u i l d i n g , eh, to b u i l d i n g . The s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c analysis indicates that eh i s used mostly i n informal speech, that some speakers use eh more than others, and that the variables of class and regional background may determine the use of c e r t a i n types of eh, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Anecdotal eh, which was found to be the most stigma-tized form. Imperative Exclamation Polar interrogative Wh Question Pardon 8. Anecdotal i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE 1 2 METHODOLOGY 10 2.0 Preliminary research 10 2.1 F r e e - f i e l d observation method 13 3 GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF EH 22 3.0 Some general observations on tag questions 22 3.1 Three aspects of the grammar of eh 29 3.2 The eight types of eh 30 Type 1. Reversed P o l a r i t y Eh 34 Type 2. Constant P o l a r i t y Eh 40 Type 3. Imperative Eh 46 Type 4. Exclamation Eh 51 Type 5. Polar Interrogative Eh 53 Type 6. Wh Question Eh 54 Type 7. Pardon Eh 56 Type 8. Anecdotal Eh 57 3.3 Some s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c aspects of the use of eh . . . 61 4 SUMMARY 66 REFERENCES 69 APPENDIX A 71 APPENDIX B 75 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Eight types of eh, according to Avis (1972) 4 2 Six types of interrogative eh, based on Love (1973) . . . . 6 3 N a t i o n a l i t y and time observed for 74 informants 16 4 N a t i o n a l i t y , time observed, number of eh's, and average number of eh's for 74 informants. . 17 5 Number, time observed, numbers of eh's, age, sex, class and n a t i o n a l i t y of the 10 most productive users of eh 19 6 Syntactic mood, semantic force, and pragmatic aspects of eight types of eh 32 7 The amount of use of each type of eh by national users . . 62 8 The amount of use of each type of eh by the ten most productive users of eh 64 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h c o u l d not have been a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h o u t t h e h e l p and encouragement o f many p e o p l e . I would l i k e t o ex p r e s s my s i n c e r e thanks t o the f o l l o w i n g . Dr. D a v i d Ingram f o r h i s s u p e r v i s i o n and generous a s s i s t a n c e . Dr. B a r b a r a H o r v a t h f o r h e r a d v i c e and s u p p o r t . To Dean W a l t e r S. A v i s , f o r g e n e r o u s l y o f f e r i n g me h i s d a t a on eh and f o r s e n d i n g me h i s copy o f Love's (1973) t h e s i s , o f which I would o t h e r w i s e have remained unaware. Ms. Lo r n a Hawes f o r h e r time and h e l p . Dr. B e r n a r d S a i n t - J a c q u e s , my second r e a d e r . To my t y p i s t , Mrs. Nin a T h u r s t o n . A l l the i n f o r m a n t s who c o - o p e r a t e d so w i l l i n g l y i n the c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a . CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE Eh has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y regarded as a feature of Canadian English. H. B. A l l e n (1959:20) writes: And only 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 asking for 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 . This i s so e x c l u s i v e l y a Canadian feature that immigration 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 clue. Mark Orkin (1970:77) follows A l l e n very c l o s e l y i n h i s mention of eh. The t i t l e of Orkin's (1973) Canajun, eh?, shows that eh i s c l o s e l y associated with Canadian English. Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n of eh i s found i n The Survey of Canadian English: A Report, by M. H. S c a r g i l l and H. J . Warkentyne (1972). Walter Avis (1972), i n h i s a r t i c l e "So eh? i s Canadian, eh?", argues that eh i s regarded, at l e a s t by lexographers, as u n i v e r s a l English. Avis points out that eh i s "entered i n every general d i c t i o n a r y of English." (89) Avis does not consider eh to be an exclusive feature of Canadian English, 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 there i s a general agreement that eh i s a feature of Canadian English, there has been l i t t l e research on i t . Eh i s regarded by many as having a l i m i t e d meaning and d i s t r i b u t i o n . For instance, A l l e n (1959) considers only one meaning and use of eh. This l i m i t e d viewpoint i s also 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 d e f i n i t i o n s are 1 2 usually proposed. The Intermediate Dictionary of Canadian English defines eh as follows: Eh - a 1. An exclamation expressing doubt, surprise, or f a i l u r e to hear exactly. 2. An exclamation suggesting "yes" for an answer: Wasn't i t lucky, eh? I n t e r j e c t i o n . The Senior Dictionary of Canadian English, and the Gage Canadian Dictionary, have a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t second d e f i n i t i o n : 2. An exclamation suggesting "yes" f o r an answer: or assuming that 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) also consider only these two meanings and uses of eh. In the grammatical usage section of t h e i r survey they ask the following questions: 24. Do you use eh i n , e.g., So that's what he thinks, eh? (A) Yes; (B) No; (C) Sometimes 38. Do you use eh for What did you say? (A) Yes; (B) No Their comments on the r e s u l t s of the survey are: Both questions 24 and 38 have to do with eh as an in t e r r o g a t i v e . In Number 24, eh i s a tag question substitutable by does he; i n Number 38 eh stands alone as an informal i n t e r r o g a t i v e . This second use of 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 are presented, e s p e c i a l l y i n Number 38. A better choice o f f e r i n g would have been often, sometimes, never. The usage e l i c i t e d i n Number 38 i s much less popular than the one i n Number 24. Avis (1972) i s unique i n presenting a grammatical analysis of eh. His c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s based mainly on a corpus of Canadian, 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. He has divided the use of eh into non-interrogative and int e r r o g a t i v e , dealing only with the l a t t e r i n h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Avis states that the non-interrogative use of eh: 3 has several forms, the most common being to represent ejaculations of sorrow or disgust, the usual pronunciation being /e/, sometimes /ey/, both with prosodic v a r i a t i o n s . (95) About the interrogative, Avis claims: As with 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 function being to v e r b a l i z e enquiries and/or to r e i n f o r c e them; as such i t i s a kind of a r t i c u l a t e d question mark. (96) In a l l , Avis proposes eight types of eh. These are summarized i n Table 1. The only other analysis of eh.to date i s that of Traeey Love (1973). Using Avis' data, Love proposes that eh i s a question p a r t i c l e acting "alone and i n conjunction with other i n t e r r o g a t i v e markers, e.g., r i s i n g intonation, question word, to i n d i c a t e a question." (1973:i) Love c l a s s i -f i e s eh into s i x sets. She does not deal with Avis' type 7 (narrative eh), regarding t h i s as a non-interrogative use of eh. She also omits Avis' type 1 (request for 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 considers a l l other types of eh to be tag questions, including those which Avis c a l l s 'reinforcements' (types 4, 5 and 6 i n Table 1), with two exceptions—Wh question + eh and polar interrogative + eh. Her s i x types are presented i n Table 2. Love examined her Set 1 and Set 2 more c l o s e l y than the others. She tested four intonation patterns ( f a l l i n g , r i s i n g , double bar juncture, sin g l e bar juncture) by reading each example sentence to the informant four times, to see i f there was a meaning and function d i f f e r e n c e between them. She does not f i n d a c o r r e l a t i o n between meaning or function with any intonation pattern, although she regards eh followed by a double bar juncture as a h e s i t a t i o n phenomenon. She concludes that eh i s a question p a r t i c l e i n Set 1, regardless of r i s i n g or f a l l i n g intonation. In Set 2, Love claims that "eh's function when linked with an Imperative i s to serve as an emphatic" (17), not as an i n t e r r o g a t i v e element. 4 TABLE 1 Eight types of eh, according to Avis (1972) Description Examples Request for r e p e t i t i o n a. to i n d i c a t e that something wasn't heard. b. to i n d i c a t e that something wasn't f u l l y comprehended, and suggest-ing surprise, d i s b e l i e f , etc. c. to ind i c a t e preoccupation. 2. The equivalent to a tag question a. following d i r e c t statements. b. following statements preceded by q u a l i f i e r s . c. following 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. i i . i n i t i a t e d by another speaker. i i i . i n i t i a t e d as a conclusion drawn. d. excluded by punctuation from preceding statement. 3. Negative examples df 2. 4. A reinforcement of an exclamation a. introduced by so. b. miscellaneous. (Canadian examples only) 5. A reinforcement of an imperative "Eh?" said Grandfather Pinner, curving h i s hand ... over one ear. Harry (eagerly). Eh? Did you ask 1 em about Mary ...? " I t seems a f i n e enough night." —"Eh? Oh, yes ..." "The sun i s too hot, eh?" he asked. " ... maybe y o u ' l l be going to the Indies again some day, eh?" Bowling, what's he got to say for himself? Nothing, eh? "I do know ..."--"You do, eh?" he demanded accusingly. W i l l i e . Ah, Frank, my l a d ! Busy as usual, eh? "That's how we s h a l l save the races. Eh? You begin to see i t now?" "You won't eh?"—"No, thank you ..." "So you think he might be hard on me, eh?" "Gee—what a night, eh?" " L i s t e n , Harry, phone me before you go out tonight, eh?" 5 TABLE 1—continued Description Examples A reinforcement of an in t e r r o g a t i v e a. with a question form i t s e l f normally taking f a l l i n g intonation. i . included by punctuation i i . excluded by punctuation b. r i s i n g or f a l l i n g intonation i . included by punctuation i i . excluded by punctuation "And who i s to look a f t e r the horses, eh?" "Why make a report? Eh?" "Did you get that, eh?" Hastings. Wasn't i t lucky? Ehl ( s i c ) Occurring elsewhere than sentence f i n a l a. utterance f i n a l i n conjunction with a name. b. utterance i n i t i a l followed by by a name only. c. miscellaneous. 8. The nar r a t i v e eh "A b i t too well-eh, Josey?" c r i e d the wife. " ... these kids aren't a l l Expo fans. Eh, gang?" Hardcastle. Eh, why don't you move? "Jesus, the old Deacon, e h — getting o f f that hot one about the Major, eh?" TABLE 2 Six types of in t e r r o g a t i v e eh, based on Love (1973) Description Set 1 Declarative + eh Tag Q Set 2 Imperative + eh Tag Q Set 3 Wh Q + eh Set 4 Wh Q ( r h e t o r i c a l ) + eh Set 5 Yes-no Q + eh Set 6 Yes-no Q ( r h e t o r i c a l ) + eh Examples I suppose you're a smart fellow eh? L i s t e n to me eh? And who i s to look a f t e r the horses eh? How about that eh? Did that seem a l l r i g h t eh? Isn't that a corker eh? 7 The analysis presented i n t h i s thesis (Chapter 3) suggests that the 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 S c a r g i l l and Warkentyne (1972), f a l l f a r short of the t o t a l range of meanings of eh. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the example given by The Intermediate Dictionary of  Canadian English and the Oxford English Dictionary (Wasn't i t lucky, eh?), has an unusual syn t a c t i c pattern and i s of a type which occurs very r a r e l y , according to the data c o l l e c t e d . Other questionable features of the d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s are: the assumption that eh always suggests yes for an answer; the statement that eh has the semantic force of an exclama-t i o n ; and 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 . Although i n t e r j e c t i o n i s not p r e c i s e l y defined i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, i t i s usually associated with 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 . S c a r g i l l and Warkentyne (1972) state that the use of eh i n t h e i r example 24 (So that's what he thinks, eh?) i s more popular than the use of eh i n t h e i r number 38 (eh meaning What did you  say?). The d i f f e r e n c e i n t h i s degree of use may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the c r i t i c i s m s the authors themselves mention, or i t may be a r e f l e c t i o n of data c o l l e c t e d by mailed surveys, or a r e f l e c t i o n of Canadian speakers' attitudes towards a stigmatized use of eh. The discussions of the meaning and usage of eh by A l l e n , the Canadian d i c t i o n a r i e s , and S c a r g i l l and Warkentyne are i n s u f f i c i e n t , as Avis has shown, and i n d i c a t e that the laymen does not have much l i n g u i s t i c conscious-ness about eh. Avis himself has made a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the study of eh i n h i s eight-type c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , although h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d i f f e r s i n many respects from that to be presented here. Avis does not d i s t i n g u i s h , i n either grammatical structure or i n meaning, between the use of eh as a reversed or constant p o l a r i t y tag, i . e . , whether the 8 [± negative] feature c f the tag d i f f e r s from or i s the same as that of the preceding clause. Also, the examples Avis uses to i l l u s t r a t e h i s c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s occasionally d i f f e r greatly i n s y n t a c t i c structure within one c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . For 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 on 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 structure (2.a, 2.b, 2.c) and l i t e r a r y conventions of punctuation (2.d)."'" Avis' s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 4.a and 4.b are not s i m i l a r i n either syntactic structure or semantic force. These two s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are distinguished s o l e l y on the basis of whether or not the preceding clause i s introduced by so. S u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 6.a and 6. b are based on a d i f f e r e n c e i n intonation. They d i f f e r much more apparently i n that examples i n 6.a are Wh questions while those i n 6.b are polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e s . 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 i n the utterance, rather than on any s y n t a c t i c or semantic c r i t e r i a . In f a c t , the examples with which Avis 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 presented 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 clause to which they r e l a t e . With the exception of the omission of Avis' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 1 and 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 analysis of eh i n t h i s thesis w i l l proceed i n the following fashion. F i r s t , methodological issues i n the c o l l e c t i o n of instances of eh i n spontaneous speech w i l l be discussed i n Chapter 2. This w i l l be followed i n Chapter 3 with a grammatical and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c analysis of eh. The b r i e f concluding chapter w i l l attempt to summarize the major findings and w i l l suggest d i r e c t i o n s for future work. 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 to 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 written data, whereas the data i n t h i s study are c o l l e c t e d from spoken language. CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY 2.0 Preliminary research In recent years, the issue of methodology has become prominent i n l i n g u i s t i c discussions ( c f . Labov 1972). Due l a r g e l y to the influence of Chomsky, much recent work has r e l i e d on the a b i l i t y of the native speaker to reach 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) writes: L i n g u i s t i c theory i s concerned p r i m a r i l y with an i d e a l speaker-l i s t e n e r , i n a completely homogeneous speech-community . . . Recently, s o c i o l i n g u i s t s e.g., Hymes (1962), Labov (1963), have challenged t h i s approach, c r i t i c i z i n g Chomsky's doctrine of homogeneity and abstract-ness based on the 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 believe that l i n g u i s t i c competence i s not the possession of an i n d i v i d u a l , and that the i n t u i t i o n s of an i n d i v i d u a l do not represent a heterogeneous speech community. The data 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 are r e s t r i c t e d and in v a r i a n t , and therefore cannot be used to discover the uni v e r s a l mental properties of language competence. Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog (1968:125) write: We f e e l i t important to dwell e x p l i c i t l y on empirical foundations, i n view of the conscious or unconscious disregard of empirical p r i n c i p l e s which pervades some of the 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 the existence of r e g u l a r i t i e s on the data from representative samples of a heterogeneous speech community, and further 10 11 shown that unmonitored speech is more systematic than monitored speech, thus using empirical methods to reveal more about language-users competence than reliance on an intuitive 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 is made, however, there remains the question of how to e l i c i t this form in a natural way. Ideally, the linguist should e l i c i t the language variable under consideration in a tape-recorded interview in which the informant i s unaware that his speech, and especially the particular language variable in question, is the focus of study. E l i c i t i n g eh through the tape-recorded interview method was tried i n i t i a l l y . Eight informants were chosen, on a rough basis of age, sex and class, and each was interviewed from thirty minutes to one hour. The f i r s t informant was given to understand that he was being interviewed about the nature of his business operation. It was f e l t that i f the informants were explaining something to the interviewer, there was more chance of their using eh. He was aware of being tape-recorded, but not of the fact that i t was his language, especially his use of eh, that was the focus of the interview. Prior to the interview, this informant and the interviewer (myself) had never met. The other seven informants were friends of the interviewer. Of these, two were taped without their knowledge although they were informed after the interview. Regarding the five who were aware of audio-recording, two were taped together and three individually. A l l informants were encouraged to explain and discuss topics about which they were relatively 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 of these interviews were dismaying, insofar as the c o l l e c t i o n of data was concerned. Only the f i r s t informant used eh, although eh was mentioned by one of the teenagers, pronounced /eh/, as a form he did not use. Within ten minutes a f t e r the completion of the taping, he used eh, pronounced /ey/, n a t u r a l l y i n the context of conversa-t i o n , as did three of the other informants. The tape-recorded interview method of c o l l e c t i n g occurrences of eh was abandoned, as eh proved d i f f i c u l t to c o l l e c t by t h i s method for two reasons. F i r s t , although informants may use eh, they w i l l not always use i t within the course of a one hour interview. Second, eh-is too d i f f i c u l t to e l i c i t . Labov"'" has shown that i t i s possible to e l i c i t a s y n t a c t i c v a r i a b l e i n an interview. He e l i c i t s the passive by asking such questions as, "What happened to Dorothy's house i n The Wizard of Oz?", to which hi s informants o b l i g i n g l y reply, " I t got blown away." Eh cannot be s i m i l a r l y e l i c i t e d , as i t r e s u l t s from not one syn t a c t i c v a r i a b l e , but. many. If eh were semantically synonymous with only one structure, i t would s t i l l be d i f f i c u l t to devise a test which would e l i c i t only eh and not the synon-ymous structure. For example, the use of eh i n explanations, synonymous with you know and r i g h t , i s only one type of eh. The f i r s t informant, i n the course of a t h i r t y minute interview, used eh 114 times, and every instance of eh was of t h i s type. Perhaps the f a i l u r e of the interview method used i n the p i l o t study was the r e s u l t of encouraging the informants to explain topics. However, at l e a s t h a l f of the discussion i n a l l of the interviews, except the f i r s t , were o f f the topic and consisted of free discussion. It was concluded that eh, with 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 contexts, cannot be e l i c i t e d and c o l l e c t e d by means of the tape-recorded interview method. 13 2.1 F r e e - f i e l d observation method As a r e s u l t of the preliminary work using tape-recorded interviews to c o l l e c t data, a f i n a l method of f r e e - f i e l d observation was decided upon. In t h i s approach, the investigator, during a four month period, wrote down every instance of eh which she heard. She kept paper and a pen about her at a l l times. Occasionally circumstances weren't favourable for 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 quickly to be recorded, or when adverse physical conditions, such as r i d i n g a b i c y c l e , made wr i t i n g impossible. The investigator recorded both the l i n g u i s t i c and s o c i a l context of eh, as well as as much relevant information about the speaker as was known. The l i n g u i s t i c context of eh included the utterance i n which eh occurred, and i n many cases, the preceding utterance (and occasionally, the following utterance). The basic requirements for the recording of the l i n g u i s t i c context were that the environment be suf-f i c i e n t to determine the syntactic structure of the main clause and the meaning of eh. The s o c i a l context of eh included information about the s i t u a t i o n i n which eh was produced, such as i t s formality, and whether i t was produced i n face to face conversation, over the phone, or r a r e l y , written. The information about the speaker, when known, included his/her name, age, sex, c l a s s , native language and na t i o n a l i d e n t i t y . In the four month period of data c o l l e c t i o n , only eight informants who were unknown to the investigator were overheard to use eh. A l l .of the above information was transferred from the paper on which i t was f i r s t recorded to index cards. One card was used for each instance of eh, unless two or more instances occurred within the same utterance or immediately following an eh utterance by the same speaker. Frequently, the informants were aware that t h e i r use of eh was being 14 c o l l e c t e d . Therefore, they were aware not only that t h e i r language was under consideration, but also of the exact language v a r i a b l e . This, as f a r as could be determined, did not a l t e r t h e i r quantitative production of eh, although they may have been distressed or i r r i t a t e d at producing eh or at having t h e i r utterances written down. For instance, the investigator h e r s e l f was an informant, and despite her highly increased consciousness of eh, s t i l l produced eh with unimpaired frequency. The following i s an example of another informant's use of eh despite the unwelcome knowledge that the utterance was being recorded. A (to B) That s t u f f ' s expensive, eh? (sees me writing) Oh God, "eh", (to B) But i t i s , eh? (informant 2) (When examples are given from informants of t h i s study, they w i l l be followed by the number of the informant i n question. See Appendix B for more d e t a i l s on each informant.) The informant who produced the following instances of eh had claimed never to use eh. A) We had r e l i g i o u s roofers. ' B) They probably do t h e i r work, eh? A) Ha! (writing down utterance) B) No! No! No, but they probably do, eh? (informant 55) The disadvantages of the f r e e - f i e l d observation method were a r e s u l t i n g imbalance of informants i n c e r t a i n s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c categories (such as age, c l a s s , etc.) and i n most of the data being examples of casual speech c o l l e c t e d i n an informal context, so ;it was d i f f i c u l t to compare s t y l e and the use of eh. The advantages were the ease of c o l l e c t i n g compared to the tape-recorded interview method, and that eh did not have to be e l i c i t e d i n the constraining s i t u a t i o n of an interview, 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, data were c o l l e c t e d from 73 informants, i n Vancouver, B.C., during a four month period, from July 1975 to November 1975. 15 Including the f i r s t taped interview, there were a t o t a l of 74 informants. Table 3 shows the number of hours i n which i t was possible for data to have been c o l l e c t e d from each informant and the natio n a l i d e n t i t y of each informant. No attempt was made to pick informants according to age, c l a s s , sex or n a t i o n a l i t y , or to vary 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 quantitative d i s t r i b u t i o n of eh v a r i e s greatly per informant. Although much more time was spent with some informants (including the investigator) than with others, the former often contributed l e s s data than the l a t t e r . Every eh produced by the investigator (informant 3) was recorded during the four month period of c o l l e c t i o n , whereas i t i s highly probable that the other informants produced many eh's which were not recorded. Table 4 shows the number of informants per time period of data c o l l e c t i o n and per national i d e n t i t y , and the quantitative d i s t r i b u t i o n of eh. The non-existent 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 data from the informant, the national i d e n t i t y of the informant, and the number of eh's produced by the informant i s revealed i n Table 4. The average number of eh's per national group , does not r e f l e c t the output of any i n d i v i d u a l informant. I t i s , however, i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the American informants have a higher average number of eh's per informant than do the Canadian and the B r i t i s h . The American informants had a l l l i v e d i n Canada for at l e a s t two to three years, and most had l i v e d i n Canada for seven years. This r a i s e s the question of whether the Americans adopted eh i n Canada or whether they had used i t i n the States. The informants were equally divided on t h i s question. Table 5 shows the quantitative production of eh of the ten i n d i v i d -ual informants who used eh the most, the time spent c o l l e c t i n g data from 16 TABLE 3 Nationality and time observed for 74 informants Number of Informants Time Non-observed Canadian American British native 1 Unknown Total Over 20 hours 10 1 0 to 20 hours 5 to 10 hours 1 to 5 hours 12 25 less than 1 hour Totals 13 44 2 8 11 1 3 8 8 24 74 TABLE 4 Na t i o n a l i t y , time observed, number of eh's, and  average number of eh's for 74 informants National Time No. of No. of Average no. of Identity Observed Subjects eh's . eh's per subject Canadian more than 20 hours 5 154 30.80 10 to 20 hours 5 51 10.20 5 to 10 hours 9 20 2.20 1 to 5 hours 12 44 3.60 less than 1 hour 13 136 10.40 t o t a l s 44 405 9.20 American more than 20 hours 3 90 30.00 10 to 20 hours - -5 to 10 hours - - -1 to 5 hours 3 4 1.10 le s s than 1 hour 2 4 2.00 t o t a l s 8 98 12.30 B r i t i s h more than 20 hours 2 16 8.00 10 to 20 hours 1 6 6.00 5 to 10 hours - -1 to 5 hours 8 10 1.20 le s s than 1 hour - -t o t a l s 11 32 2.90 TABLE 4—continued 18 National Time No. of No. of Average no. of Identity Observed Subjects eh's eh's per subject Non-native Speakers of English more than 20 hours 10 to 20 hours 5 to 10 hours 1 to 5 hours l e s s than 1 hour t o t a l s 1 3 2 7 2.50 2.00 2.30 Unknown: presumably native Canadian English speakers more than 20 hours 10 to 20 hours 5 to 10 hours 1 to 5 hours less than 1 hour t o t a l s 8 8 11 11 1.30 1.30 19 TABLE 5 Number, time observed, number of eh's, age, sex, class  and n a t i o n a l i t y of the 10 most productive users of eh Informant Number Time Observed No. of eh's Age Sex Class N a t i o n a l i t y 45 2 46 3 4 5 6 7 8 le s s than 1 hour more than 20 hours more than 20 hours more than 20 hours more than 20 hours more than 20 hours more than 20 hours 10 to 20 hours 1 to 5 hours 10 to 20 hours 114 50 41 39 38 38 34 19 15 15 32 32 25 27 29 29 29 32 50 63 M M M M M F M work-ing middle middle middle middle middle middle work-ing middle middle Canadian ( r u r a l Sask-atchewan) American (7 years) Canadian (Vancouver) American (7 years) Canadian (Vancouver) Canadian (Vancouver) Canadian (Vancouver) Canadian (Toronto) Canadian (Toronto) Canadian (Vancouver) 20 them and the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s f or each informant, including information on the region of Canada they were from or the amount of time they had l i v e d i n Canada. Table 5 reveals that i t would be d i f f i c u l t to c o r r e l a t e such factors i n the quantitative production of eh as: time spent with the informant, rural/urban background, nation a l i d e n t i t y , and s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s of age, sex and class of the informant. No c l e a r pattern emerges i n terms of the quantitative production of eh and any of 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 with whom the investigator spent a great deal of time. Because of t h i s , the s o c i a l v a r i -ables of age, sex and class 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 v a r i a b l e s of the inve s t i g a t o r and her acquaintances. The informants, i n general, (see Appendix B) were mostly between 25 and 35, with a range of 4 to 65. Both sexes were equally represented, and almost a l l informants were middle class with some u n i v e r s i t y education. 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 t h i s t o me. 2 " R e c o r d e d " i s u sed t o mean " w r i t t e n down" . 3 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 one J a p a n e s e , one Swede, and one F r e n c h C a n a d i a n , a l l o f whom had l i v e d i n B .C . f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e y e a r s . CHAPTER THREE GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF EH 3.0 Some general observations on tag questions Eh most frequently occurs at the end of sentences and i s associated 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 of eh, i t i s also necessary to understand some basic grammatical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of tag questions. To date, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r aspect of grammar has been r e l a t i v e l y neglected. Some exceptions to t h i s are studies by Huddleston (1970), C a t t e l l (1973), and Hudson (1975). Aspects of these studies which are relevant to an analysis of eh w i l l be discussed. A tag question consists of a clause followed by a tag of some kind. The i n i t i a l clause i s referred to as the "main sentence" by Huddleston (1970) and as the "host clause" by C a t t e l l (1973). (This study w i l l a r b i t r a r i l y use the l a t t e r term.) In "John has l e f t , hasn't he?", "John has l e f t " i s the host clause. 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 tag questions i s the p o l a r i t y between the host clause and the tag. Huddleston (1970:215) uses the terms "reversed p o l a r i t y " and "constant p o l a r i t y " (as does t h i s study) to capture the possible r e l a t i o n s : A 'reversed p o l a r i t y tag' i s one whose negative-positive p o l a r i t y i s the reverse of the main sentence—as i n (1) [John has gone, hasn't he?], where the main sentence i s p o s i t i v e , the tag negative, and also i n (2) [John hasn't gone, has he?] conversely a 'constant p o l a r i t y tag' has the same p o l a r i t y as the main sentence, as i n (3) [John has gone, has he(?)], and (4) [John hasn't gone, hasn't he(?)]. This sy 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 difference i n meaning. C a t t e l l 22 23 (1973:620), who uses the terms "contrasting" and "matching" p o l a r i t y f o r "reversed" and "constant" p o l a r i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y , expresses the semantic di f f e r e n c e as follows: We can now say without reservation that tag questions show contrast-ing p o l a r i t y to the host clauses when the l a t t e r represent the speaker's point of view', and matching p o l a r i t y when they don't. For the reversed p o l a r i t y sentence "John has l e f t , hasn't he?", the speaker's point of view i s that John has l e f t . Conversely, i n the constant p o l a r i t y sentence "John has l e f t , has he?", i t i s not nec e s s a r i l y the speaker's point of view that John has l e f t . This can be shown more c l e a r l y with examples from discourse. Speaker A: John has l e f t . Speaker B: John has l e f t , has he? Speaker B i s using a constant p o l a r i t y tag to show that h i s utterance i s not necessar i l y h i s own point of view, but that of the preceding Speaker A. C a t t e l l argues that the following 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 reversed p o l a r i t y tag i s almost ins o l e n t . It gives the impression that he i s presenting the information, "John has l e f t " , which Speaker A has j u s t relayed, as h i s own. The fa c t that the meaning of tags concerns the speaker's point of view indicates that pragmatics i s a factor to be considered i n t h i s study. The analysis of tag questions demands a broader base than a sentence gram-mar. Hudson (1975) makes t h i s point by separating three aspects of grammar that must be considered i n the study of tags. These are synta c t i c mood, semantic force, and the s i n c e r i t y conditions that need to be s a t i s f i e d f o r the utterance to be successful. The syntactic mood of an utterance 24 describes the grammatical shape of the utterance. Six synta c t i c moods are: mood example decl a r a t i v e John sees the boat, polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e Does John see the boat? in t e r r o g a t i v e What does John see? exclamative Isn't that a b ig boat! What a big boat that i s ! Is that ever a b ig boat! imperative Look at the boat. responsive Speaker A: Does John see the boat? Speaker B: Yes, he does. The syntactic mood 'responsive' describes an utterance which i s reduced to a minimum and i s dependent on a preceding utterance for pronoun reference, a u x i l i a r y verb, and tense. Tag questions combine the syntactic moods of th e i r host clause, tag, and p o s i t i o n i n discourse. For example, a reversed p o l a r i t y tag question, such as "John sees the boat, doesn't he?", combines the dec l a r a t i v e mood of "John sees the boat" with the polar i n t e r -rogative mood of "doesn't he?". A constant p o l a r i t y tag question, such as Speaker B's utterance: Speaker A: John sees the boat. Speaker B: He sees i t , does he? combines the dec l a r a t i v e mood of "He sees i t " , the polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e mood of "does he?", and the responsive mood of "He sees i t , does he?", which i s a response to Speaker A's utterance. Tagged exclamatives, such as "What a b i g boat that i s , i s n ' t i t ? " , combine the exclamative mood of "What a big boat that i s " with the polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e mood of " i s n ' t i t ? " . Tagged 25 imperatives, such as "Look at the boat, w i l l you?", combine the imperative mood of "Look at the boat" with the polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e mood of " w i l l you?". The s y n t a c t i c mood of an utterance overlaps with i t s semantic force. The semantic force i s the unmarked meaning associated with the utterance. The semantic forces corresponding to the s i x synta c t i c moods l i s t e d above are: type statement—a statement t e l l s something, q u e s t i o n — a question asks something. exclamation—an exclamation exclaims about something, o r d e r — a n order orders something. response—a response answers or responds to something. Tag questions combine the semantic forces of the meaning of the host clause, tag, and p o s i t i o n i n discourse. A reversed p o l a r i t y tag question, such as "John sees the boat, doesn't he?", combines the statement force of "John sees the boat" with the question force of "doesn't he?". A constant polar-i t y tag question, such as "He sees i t , does he?", combines the statement force of "He sees i t " , the question force of "does he?" and the response force of "He sees i t , does he?". A tagged exclamation, such as "What a big boat that i s , i s n ' t i t ? " , combines the exclamation force of "What a big boat that i s " with the question force of " i s n ' t i t ? " . A tagged imperative, such as "Look at the boat, w i l l you?" combines the order force of "Look at the boat" with the question force of " w i l l you". Hudson (1975) points out that the s y n t a c t i c mood can sometimes take a marked semantic force. For example, the sentence "Isn't that a b ig boat!" has a polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e mood but both an unmarked question and a marked exclamation force. The s i n c e r i t y conditions of an utterance are pragmatic. They are 26 associated with the semantic force of the utterance. Hudson defines sincerity conditions as follows: conditions that the speaker is expected to satisfy—conditions on his relations to the proposition contained in the sentence . . . they have to be satisfied for the sentence to.be uttered sincerely . . . these conditions should be associated directly with elements in the semantic structure called force markers, rather than with the syntactic structure. (13) Hudson gives the sincerity conditions for the semantic categories as follows: The sincerity condition for declaratives—or rather the corresponding semantic category, e.g., STATEMENT—seems to be simply this: (50) The speaker believes the proposition i s true. (24) . . . The sincerity 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 sincerity condition for exclamations i s : (31) The speaker is impressed by the degree to which a property defined in the proposition is present. (16) . . . The imperative means something like 'I want the proposition to be true'. (29) Hudson claims that the sincerity conditions for a tag question are a combin-ation of the sincerity condition for the semantic force of the host clause and the sincerity condition for question. The sincerity conditions for tagged declaratives, i.e., reversed and constant polarity tags, therefore, are a combination of statement and question sincerity conditions; the sincerity conditions for tagged exclamatives combine the sincerity condi-tions for exclamation and question; and the sincerity conditions for tagged imperatives combine the sincerity conditions for order and question. Hudson's analysis of the sincerity conditions for tagged declaratives does not reveal the difference in semantic force between reversed and constant polarity tags. A reversed polarity tag question gives the speak-er's point of view, and asks a question. A constant polarity tag question gives the preceding speaker's point of view, and, in many cases, is a 27 response. It i s , therefore, both a question and a response. Hudson deals with utterances which are both questions and responses but does not r e l a t e them d i r e c t l y to reversed and constant p o l a r i t y tags. Hudson gives the following example and claims: a. This belongs to me. b. Does i t ? Interrogatives l i k e does i t I c a l l REDUCED INTERROGATIVES, and uses l i k e that 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 conditions 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 apply . . . (20) If the responder thinks the f i r s t speaker accepts the truth of the proposition, he leaves 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 force of question and response, as do constant p o l a r i t y tags. In the following exchange: Speaker A: This belongs to me. Speaker B: That belongs to you, does i t ? the response of Speaker B has the same p o l a r i t y i n the host clause and tag, showing that he thinks Speaker A accepts the truth of B's proposition. S i n c e r i t y conditions are concerned with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the speaker and the hearer i n a conversation. They define the r o l e and express the mutual b e l i e f of the speaker and hearer. Harvey Sacks (1967: 57) discusses speaker-hearer r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the proof of hearership: One way hearers may have of proving t h e i r hearership involves them i n showing that they are using the syntax so f a r developed i n an open sentence, to control i n part what they say next, i . e . , what they say i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y consistent with what has been so f a r said i n the sense that the two parts produce a grammatical sentence, e.g., A: By circumstances, heh heh. B: Beyond t h e i r c o n t r o l . Sacks further states: Y o u ' l l f i n d things l i k e pronouns placed at the beginning of utterances . . . things l i k e i-t, that, etc. (57) Another pragmatic consideration.associated with s i n c e r i t y conditions and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the speaker and hearer i s turn-taking and the bestowal of s i l e n c e . I f a speaker bestows the s i l e n c e , he gives the next speaker a turn. A question bestows the s i l e n c e , gives a turn to the next speaker, and requires a response. Questions are i n v i t a t i o n s to prove hearership, and responses prove hearership. Statements, exclamations, and imperatives can also bestow the s i l e n c e and give a turn, but they may or may not require a response. Reversed p o l a r i t y tags are speaker oriented, and require a response, whereas constant p o l a r i t y tags are hearer oriented and are often a response i n themselves. Both types of tags bestow the s i l e n c e but constant p o l a r i t y tags often take a turn to give a turn. Reversed p o l a r i t y tags are frequently conducive, that i s , they require a given answer. Hudson uses the terms 'positive conduciveness', meaning "the speaker antic i p a t e s agreement" (17) and 'negative conducive-ness', meaning "the speaker antic i p a t e s disagreement" (17). Examples of p o s i t i v e conducive utterances are: 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 question i s "yes", and to the second "no". In both cases, the speaker antic i p a t e s agreement from the hearer. An example of a negatively conducive utterance i s : You're completely s i c k of me, aren't you? The speaker antic i p a t e s disagreement i . e . , that the answer be "No, of course not." Sarcastic utterances are frequently negatively conducive. Infor-mation of t h i s kind i s only a v a i l a b l e when one extends the range of analysis from the sentence to sequences of sentences i n discourse. 29 3.1 Three aspects of the grammar of eh The analysis of the d i f f e r e n t types of eh which occur i n the data i s based on the three aspects of syntactic mood, semantic force, and s i n c e r i t y conditions of the utterance containing eh. Regarding sy n t a c t i c mood, there are s i x moods which need to be separated. These are declar-a t i v e , polar 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 , responsive, exclamative, and imperative. The second aspect i s the semantic force of the utterance containing eh. The force markers are statement, question, response, exclamation and order. When eh i s contained i n an utterance, the utterance always has a question force, although there are degrees of questioning, depending on the extent to which the utterance requires a response, and other pragmatic considerations. The t h i r d aspect i s the s i n c e r i t y conditions of the utterance contain-ing eh and the related pragmatic factors of turn-taking, bestowal of s i l e n c e , and speaker-hearer r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The s i n c e r i t y conditions for eh, l i k e those for tag questions, are a combination of the conditions f o r the host clause, and the underlying tag, or paraphrase of eh. When eh f a l l s into the semantic question category, as i t must when i t i s a sentence tag, the s i n c e r i t y conditions on question force express the mutual b e l i e f of speaker and hearer. The speaker of an eh utterance may be eit h e r i n a speaker or a hearer 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 utterance, a reference to an action that has j u s t taken place, or a r e f e r -ence to old information provided by another speaker, with the addi t i o n of eh, a l l prove hearership on the part of 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 i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n ) , i n d i c a t e that the speaker of the eh utterance i s proving h i s 30 hearership. Hearer eh's are often responsive and are conversational turn-t a k e r s — t h e y frequently do not require a response themselves. In general, i f eh occurs i n sentence f i n a l p o s i t i o n i t bestows the s i l e n c e , and i f i t occurs sentence i n t e r n a l l y i t does not give a turn, although the hearer may choose to interrupt at t h i s point."'' 3.2 The eight types of eh A grammatical analysis of the 5^0 occurrences of eh c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s study revealed eight d i s t i n c t types of eh, with various sub-types. These are: type Reversed p o l a r i t y a. seeking agreement b. seeking confirmation Constant p o l a r i t y a. r e p e t i t i o n of previous utterance b. reference to action c. elaboration of previous utterance d. reference to old information example S i l l y l e t t e r , eh? (after reading a l e t t e r ) That should be okay, eh? Speaker A: He said "eh" twice. Speaker B: Oh, he said "eh", eh? Oh, you're s t i l l here eh? Speaker A: George brought i t over. Speaker B: Oh, you've seen i t , eh? But I hear we ju s t missed them, eh? Imperative Exclamation 5. Polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e 6. Wh question 7. Pardon 8. Anecdotal Look at that, eh! What a drag, eh! (Did) you see the game l a s t night, eh? What are you t r y i n g to say, eh? Eh? He went from b u i l d i n g , eh, to building, Each type has i t s own syn t a c t i c , semantic and pragmatic features. These names for the types of eh are a mixture of synta c t i c and semantic properties 31 of the host clauses, the underlying tag, and of the function of eh. There i s also a small r e s i d u a l group of anomalous eh's which do not f i t exactly into any of the above categories. The three aspects of discourse analysis used to determine the types of eh w i l l be discussed more f u l l y in.the analysis of each type of eh. Table 6 gives the eight types of eh together with the three determining aspects. In standard English, only d e c l a r a t i v e s , exclamatives and imperatives can be tagged. Eh, however, can also be added, as both Avis and Love have noted, to polar interrogatives and Wh questions. These are also tagged, with some r e s t r i c t i o n s , i n A u s t r a l i a n and American English, according to Bolinger (1957) and C a t t e l l (1973). C a t t e l l gives the example, "Did John drink beer, did he?" (616). Eh i s appendaged to tag questions as w e l l . In the structure tag question + eh, eh functions as a question p a r t i c l e , or, i n Avis' words, "a kind of a r t i c u l a t e d question mark"(96). However, i n the structure d e c l a r a t i v e + eh, where eh i s paraphrased as a tag question, the issue of whether eh i s an underlying constant or reversed p o l a r i t y tag a r i s e s . An utterance such as " I t ' s good, eh?" may be para-phrased as either " I t ' s good, i s n ' t i t ? " or " I t ' s good, i s i t ? " . These tag questions have d i f f e r e n t meanings. When eh i s used as a tag, one must r e l y on pragmatic aspects of discourse to determine the p o l a r i t y underlying eh. Since the data contain both conversational and s i t u a t i o n a l contexts, the underlying p o l a r i t y was usually easy to determine. At times, however, a more rigorous methodology was required for those examples which could not be determined because they were ambiguous. P o l a r i t y can be determined by i n t u i t i o n , the context of s i t u a t i o n , the context of the preceding conversa-t i o n , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the speaker and the hearer, and the s i n c e r i t y conditions of reversed and constant p o l a r i t y tags. In the example, " S i l l y TABLE 6 Syntactic mood, semantic force, and pragmatic aspects of eight types of eh Pragmatic Aspects Speaker-± Requires hearer Point ± Bestow Type of eh Syntactic Mood Semantic Force Response of View Silence Reversed P o l a r i t y a. seeking agreement b. seeking confirmation Constant P o l a r i t y a. r e p e t i t i o n of preceding utterance b. reference to action c. elaboration of preceding utterance d. reference to ol d informa-t i o n Imperative d e c l a r a t i v e + int e r r o g a t i v e d e c l a r a t i v e + int e r r o g a t i v e + responsive imperative (or declarative) + question statement + question statement + question + response order + question + + speaker + (more) - (less) - (less) - (more) - (more) + (or non-bal) + ( i f sen-tence f i n a l ) hearer + ( i f sen-tence f i n a l ) speaker + TABLE 6—continued Type of eh Syntactic Mood Semantic Force Pragmatic Aspects Speaker-± Requires hearer Point Response of View ± Bestow Silence Exclamation 5. Polar Interrogative 6. Wh Question 7. Pardon 8. Anecdotal Polar i n t e r r o -gative or exclamative + i n t e r r o g a t i v e Polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e Interrogative i n t e r r o g a t i v e (no host clause) de c l a r a t i v e + i n t e r r o g a t i v e exclamation + question question question question + response statement + question (less) hearer + + + speaker speaker 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 reading a l e t t e r , i n t u i -t i o n suggests that eh 'sounds r i g h t ' i f i t i s paraphrased by i s n ' t i t , a reversed p o l a r i t y tag. In the example, "Oh you're s t i l l here, eh?", the context of s i t u a t i o n , i . e . , that the speaker i s addressing someone who i s s t i l l i n the same place as the speaker, suggests that eh i s paraphrased by are you, as constant p o l a r i t y tags are used to r e f e r to an action taking place. The context of the preceding conversation also determines when eh has an underlying constant p o l a r i t y tag, as i n the example: Speaker A: He said "eh" twice. Speaker B: Oh, he said "eh", eh? Eh i s a r e p e t i t i o n of the previous speaker's utterance, and thus has the underlying constant p o l a r i t y tag, did he?. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between Speaker A, i n the above example, and Speaker B shows that Speaker B i s proving h i s hearership with h i s response. Therefore, the tag underlying eh i s constant p o l a r i t y . In the example, " S i l l y l e t t e r , eh?", the speaker i s not i n a hearer r e l a t i o n s h i p , therefore the underlying tag i s reversed p o l a r i t y . The s i n c e r i t y conditions for reversed and constant p o l a r i t y tags can also be used as c r i t e r i a for determining p o l a r i t y . The speaker of the reversed p o l a r i t y example, " S i l l y l e t t e r , eh?", has very l i t t l e doubt that what he says i s true, whereas Speaker B of the constant p o l a r i t y example, "Oh he said 'eh', eh?", believes that Speaker A believes t h i s proposition to be true. I t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the point 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 host clause i s reversed from that of the tag, whether the former i s p o s i t i v e or negative. An example of a reversed p o l a r i t y tag i n which the host clause 35 i s p o s i t i v e i s " I t ' s good, i s n ' t i t ? " When the host clause i s negative, the tag 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 ? " Both of these tags can be reduced on the surface to eh. I t turned out that the use of eh with p o s i t i v e host clauses i s by far the most common i n spontaneous speech. There are only f i v e examples of negative host clauses for reversed p o l a r i t y tags i n the data, compared to 118 examples where the host clause i s p o s i t i v e . The Reversed P o l a r i t y eh divides into two sub-types—Seeking Agreement and Seeking Confirmation. These are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the s i n c e r i t y condi-tion s , which indicate the degree of the speaker's b e l i e f about the truth of hi s proposition. In Hudson's an a l y s i s , the s i n c e r i t y conditions are the same f o r reversed and constant p o l a r i t y tags. I suggest that the s i n c e r i t y conditions on the two sub-types of Reversed P o l a r i t y eh vary s l i g h t l y from each other and are as follows: Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement eh: The speaker has l i t t l e doubt that what he says i s true. Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Confirmation eh: The speaker has some doubt that what he says i s true. In Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement, the 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 hearer's comments, whereas i n Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Confirmation, the speaker i s asking a question which requires an answer. Both types of Reversed P o l a r i t y are f a c t i v e — t h e speaker assumes f a c t u a l knowledge on the part of the hearer. This agrees with Hudson's s i n c e r i t y condition on questions; i t does not, however, correspond to h i s s i n c e r i t y condition on dec l a r a t i v e s . There are 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 Confirmation eh's. Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement eh i s the f i r s t sub-type of Reversed P o l a r i t y eh tags. This sub-type i s often a comment on a s i t u a t i o n more than a question. A response i s required, but i t i s frequently more i n the nature of an encouragement. This sub-type of eh i s used i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s : — i n a greeting s i t u a t i o n i n which the obvious i s stated. Gee, you made good time, eh. (informant 9) Nice weather, eh. (informant 14) 2 Oh, wow, i t ' s hot today, eh? (informant 9) — a f t e r c l i c h e s . Speaker A: Are you from Vancouver? Speaker B: Yep. Born and bred. Sounds sic k , eh. (informant 15) Smoke before a f i r e , eh. (informant 45) Ships that pass i n the night, eh. (informant 46) You and me both, eh, Lennie. (addressed to a cat) (informant 4) Good old Elaine, eh. (informant 45) The l a t t e r four examples above are impossible to paraphrase or tag except with eh. — a s an i n d i r e c t question presented as an observation. That's a cute way you've got of hooking up that thermostat, eh. (informant 68) — a s a comment on a s i t u a t i o n i n v i t i n g a response. Good, eh? (asking for admiration) (informant 46) That should be okay, eh. (informant 27) 3 Uh huh? Eh? Nice score! (boasting about a win) (informant 4) It must be a play on Export A, eh. ( i n reference to a c i g a r e t t e advertisement) (informant 12) —when i t r e f e r s more to the i n i t i a l clause than the f i n a l . Just a sec, I'd better get a piece of paper, eh. (telephone conversation) (informant 19) 37 Here, eh could perhaps be paraphrased as okay. In most of the Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Agreement data, and i n a l l of the preceding examples, eh occurs sentence f i n a l l y or before a name. Eh can also occur 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 give the next speaker a turn. In the following examples, eh i n sentence i n t e r n a l p o s i t i o n operates as a r h e t o r i c a l ques-t i o n device. It ' s pretty d i r t y , eh, for j u s t one year, (informant 17) You're an animal. Eh? Everybody knows you are. (a man having an argument) (informant 70) This sub-type also occurs with a tag. An example from informant 9 i s , " B i l l gets nice clothes, doesn't he, eh?" There are only three examples of t h i s sub-type of eh where the host clause i s negative. C a t t e l l states: We may say that when a negative occurs i n the surface of the host clause, and the tag i s p o s i t i v e , various readings w i l l be taken, involving both matching and contrasting p o l a r i t y , providing 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 host clause i s negative, i s d i f f i c u l t to separate from Constant P o l a r i t y . e h examples with negative host clauses, because i t i s not always easy to determine i f the statement r e f l e c t s the speaker's point of view. An example from informant 3 i s , Judd, you c a l l me a compulsive e r o t i c and I'm not compared to David, eh. The second sub-type of Reversed P o l a r i t y eh i s Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Confirmation eh. The s i n c e r i t y condition on t h i s sub-type i s that the speaker has some doubt that what he says i s true—more doubt than i n the Seeking Agreement eh. The former sub-type, therefore, i s more a question than the l a t t e r and requires more of a response. This sub-type of eh bestows the s i l e n c e when i t i s sentence terminal, as i t i s i n a l l but one 38 example. It i s often used i n a p o s i t i v e conducive manner. A given answer i s expected, but the speaker believes that the hearer knows more than he does about the proposition, as shown i n the following two examples. We're about even, eh? (playing backgammon for the f i r s t time) (informant 6) It goes over here, eh? (playing croquet for the f i r s t time) (informant 8) This d i f f e r s from Reversed P o l a r i t y seeking Agreement eh i n that the speaker believes that he knows almost as much as the hearer about the proposition. The use of eh for confirmation i s often employed when the speaker i s proposing something he wishes, when i n a sense he i s asking for permission or approval, as i n "This one's mine. Eh, B i l l ? " ( i n f o r m a n t 3). In t h i s utterance, there was a pause a f t e r the host clause during which the expected confirmation did not occur, hence the stressed eh. In the following example, I can do t h i s maybe while you're picking them through, eh? (wishing to f i n i s h hemming a dress) (informant 9) the speaker uses maybe as an ind i c a t o r of an i n d i r e c t request. Another example i s , "Guess I ' l l have to buy a mickey for tonight, eh?", produced by informant 46. Although t h i s utterance conveys a seeming reluctance, the speaker a c t u a l l y wants to carry out h i s suggestion, but an t i c i p a t e s p o s s i b l e disapproval from the hearer, hence the use of both guess and maybe. P o l i t e suggestions also make use of Seeking Confirmation eh. Speaker A: Where do you want i t ? (helping B move a f i l i n g cabinet) Speaker B: In here. Maybe we should get i t out f i r s t , eh? (informant 53) Similar to the p o l i t e suggestions i s eh i n statements of leave taking, where eh functions as a ' p o l i t e softener', e.g., We should get going, eh. (informant 33) Well, I guess we should go, eh. (informant 2) 39 Maybe we should h i t the road, eh. (informant 45) We'd better also functions as a tentative suggestion as well as should. This sub-type of eh i s occasionally found i n sentence i n t e r n a l p o s i -t i o n , where i t does not bestow the s i l e n c e . In t h i s case, eh has a r i s i n g intonation, i n d i c a t i n g that a response i s required, as i n "There's weird noises, eh, i n s i d e t h i s f l a t . " by informant 20. It can also be used with a tag,'H : as i n the following examples, from informants 9 and 45 r e s p e c t i v e l y . You think i t ' s going to be funny, don't you, eh? Speaker A: You think about i t a l l the time, don't you? Speaker B: (i n q u i r i n g look) Speaker A: You think about i t a l l the time, don't you? Eh? There are examples of t h i s type of eh i n which eh can't be substituted by a tag, yet the s i n c e r i t y condition for these utterances i s the c r i t e r i o n f o r analysing them as Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Confirmation eh tags. Observe the following example. She's a good one to project a c t u a l l y . I know she won't be here, but step s i x . Eh? Here, the speaker wishes the hearer to comply with a dubious request. Eh can be paraphrased as "What do you think?" A s i m i l a r example i s , I have to get up i n the morning and do t h i s s t u f f . 1 have to. (takes the hearer's hand) Eh? (informant 46) where eh can be paraphrased as "Do you understand?" An unusual example of t h i s sub-type i s from the youngest informant, a boy of four years. I t i s rare to have a reversed or constant p o l a r i t y tag (unless there i s a s a r c a s t i c meaning) with the f i r s t person subject. I don't remember that, eh? (he discovered that he had made a mistake i n a counting game) (informant 32) The following i s one of the few examples of a Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Confirmation tag i n which the host clause i s negative. (to A) I thought that was Martin Small but I looked r i g h t at him and he didn't smile. (to B) That wasn't Martin 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 occurred with the greatest f r e -quency. I t i s necessary to have both the context of s i t u a t i o n and the preceding utterance i n order to be able to analyse t h i s type. Constant P o l a r i t y eh has a d e c l a r a t i v e , polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e and responsive mood, a statement, question:, and response semantic force, and i s hearer oriented. The s i n c e r i t y condition for t h i s type i s n o n - f a c t i v e — t h e speaker of the eh utterance (a hearer) believes that the preceding speaker believes the eh utterance to be true. In other words, the eh utterance i s not neces-s a r i l y the point of view of the speaker, but rather r e f l e c t s the point of view of the preceding speaker. Constant P o l a r i t y eh tags can be both p o s i t i v e - p o s i t i v e and negative-negative ( i . e . , the host clause has a matching p o l a r i t y with the underlying structure of the tag). Constant P o l a r i t y eh has four sub-types. 1. Repetition of Preceding Utterance: a d i r e c t r e p e t i t i o n of the f i r s t speaker's utterance, or a portion of i t , with the addition of eh. 2. Reference to Action: a remark about an action which i s taking, or has j u s t taken place. These two sub-types are both responses to a previous statement or action, and questions. They do not require a response, but bestow the s i l e n c e and give the next (usually the o r i g i n a l ) speaker a turn. The use of eh i n these contexts proves hearership on the part of the speaker of the eh utterance. Love states: 41 If the sentence merely echoes an assertion d i r e c t l y preceding, . . . the eh appears to be a narrative device, perhaps a "meaningless spacer" as designated by Avis. (16) Proving hearership i s a narrative device. The intonation generally f a l l s on eh, again demonstrating that t h i s type of eh has less question force than Reversed P o l a r i t y eh. 3. Reference to Old Information: Although t h i s may be an exact r e p e t i t i o n of another speaker's utterance, i t i s not an immediate r e p e t i t i o n and r e f e r s back to a former top i c . This eh functions to bring up former topics of conversation. 4. Elaboration of Preceding Utterance: This i s not a d i r e c t r e p e t i t i o n , but questions some feature of the preceding utterance. The above sub-types (3 and 4) more strongly require a response than do sub-types 1 and 2; that i s , they have more question force. They do not necessar i l y require a response to a question, but a response, i n the form of turn-taking, by the other speaker. The use of eh i n these contexts also proves hearership. Examples of sub-type 1 (Repetition of Preceding Utterance) are the most prevalent i n the data. New information given by the preceding speaker i s repeated. Speaker A: We c a l l t h i s "constant p o l a r i t y " and your eh's f i t i n t h i s category. Speaker B: Constant p o l a r i t y eh. (informant 45) Speaker A: A big egg war. Speaker B: Another egg war eh. (informant 4) Speaker A Speaker B Speaker A David, did you get a l l the way to L.A.? Judd, for Christ sakes, you know damn well I did. You did eh. (abashed) (informant 45) This sub-type of eh i s frequently used by an adult to a c h i l d . 42 Speaker A: Nice s q u i r t ! (6 year old s q u i r t i n g adult) Speaker B: Nice s q u i r t eh? (laughing) (informant 46) Also, the eh tag so l i t t l e requires a response that the eh speaker w i l l o ccasionally answer h i s implied question himself, as i n the next example. Speaker A: She bought the f i l m . Speaker B: Oh, she bought the f i l m eh, yeah, (informant 45) There was no change i n intonation between eh and yeah, but a sustained cadence. If a hearer disagrees with the eh utterance, he must do a l i t t l e extra conversational footwork, as disagreement i s almost a conversational r u l e v i o l a t i o n when the eh speaker has been repeating an utterance. Disagreement only occurred when a mistake i n comprehension on the part of the eh speaker had been made, as the next example shows. Speaker A: Well, the only guy who's given us a decent o f f e r i s Nelson. Speaker B: Gus eh. (informant 45) Speaker A: No, as a matter of f a c t . Nelson. Sub-type 2, the Reference to Action eh, i s very s i m i l a r to the Repetition of Preceding Utterance eh, i n that these utterances state the obvious, as i s shown by the following three examples. Late supper, eh. (upon a r r i v a l at dinnertime) (informant 49) Oh, you're s t i l l here, eh. (informant 5) R o l l over, Nard. Oh no way eh. Eh Lennie. (informant 46) The l a s t case i s d i f f i c u l t to tag on the surface with a paraphrase of eh. It was addressed to a cat. Many Constant P o l a r i t y eh's were addressed to cats, or babies, and f u l f i l l the r o l e of conversational turn-takers. I f someone f a i l s to take h i s turn i n the conversation, another p a r t i c i p a n t can take h i s place with a constant p o l a r i t y tag. In the previous example, the cat has refused to r o l l over, and the speaker responds f o r the cat with "Oh no way eh." 43 The t h i r d sub-type i s Reference to old Information eh. The eh utterance frequently begins with but or so, which i s proof of the eh speaker's hearership. But I hear we j u s t missed them eh. (informant 16) So i t hurt l a s t time eh. (informant 34) Sub-type 4, Elaboration of Preceding Utterance, i s often used by a hearer to question some feature of the f i r s t speaker's utterance. This type requires a response more than the other sub-types of Constant P o l a r i t y eh, and resembles Reversed P o l a r i t y Seeking Confirmation eh. Speaker A: George brought i t over. Speaker B: Oh you've seen i t eh. (informant 46) Speaker A: I write i t down everytime I say i t . Speaker B: Keep a check on yourself eh. (informant 12) Speaker A: I went back to work. Speaker B: You decided not to take a holiday eh I was going to say. (informant 2) Speaker A: She had no underpants on and Gregg and I were laughing. Speaker B: Snickering eh. (informant 4) 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 -p o s i t i v e . The most d i f f i c u l t underlying structure of eh to understand i s negative constant p o l a r i t y , where the host clause i s negative and so i s the tag. These sound ungrammatical and almost meaningless to speakers of Canadian English. An example i s , Speaker A: He didn't do i t . Speaker B: He didn't do i t , didn't he? where eh can substitute f or didn't he. When informants were asked to paraphrase such data, they usually produced a p o s i t i v e , reversed p o l a r i t y tag. C a t t e l l gives examples of negative constant p o l a r i t y tags from A u s t r a l i a n English data. The only type of negative constant p o l a r i t y tag which i s used with any frequency i n Vancouver and probably i n Canadian 44 English i s a type such as: Speaker A: I won't. Speaker B: Oh, you won't, won't you! Well, we'll see about that! "Oh, you won't, won't you" i s usually spoken i n a challenging manner, some-times by an adult to a c h i l d . Negative Constant P o l a r i t y eh has the same synt a c t i c , semantic and pragmatic aspects as p o s i t i v e Constant P o l a r i t y eh. It r e f l e c t s not the eh speaker's point of view, but that of the preceding speaker. It i s as much a response as a question, and has more question than response force for the Elaboration of Preceding Utterance sub^type, more response than question force for the other three sub-types. Negative Constant P o l a r i t y eh occurs about ha l f as often as p o s i t i v e Constant Polar-i t y eh i n the data, and i n contexts i n which the speaker i s not being s a r c a s t i c or challenging. Here are some examples of each of the four sub-types with negative host clauses. 1. Repetition of Preceding Utterance. Speaker A: It wasn't quite l i k e that. Speaker B: I t wasn't eh. (informant 45) 2. Reference to Action. You don't l i k e that eh? (to f r i e n d gagging on absinthe) (informant 6) 3. Reference 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 winter eh. (informant 45) You can't go that weekend eh? (informant 3) I guess there's no beer eh? (informant 12) Speaker A: Poor A l . We should give him a kidney. Speaker B: His family won't give him one eh. (informant 46) The f i r s t three examples above were used to bring back a previous topic of conversation, and the l a s t was r e f e r r i n g to information which had been given about two months previously. 4. Elaboration of Preceding Utterance. Speaker A: I'm supposed to wear conservative clothes. Speaker B: No long things, eh. (informant 60) Speaker A: No, we used to watch i t at Osborn's. Speaker B: We didn't ever get i t eh. (informant 3) ( " i t " i s the Mickey Mouse show) Speaker A: That's not true. Speaker B: You don't think 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 for teasing or sarcasm. Lakoff (1969:142) claims that sentences which have constant p o l a r i t y tags are generally s a r c a s t i c or challenging i n meaning. However, very few of my data 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 r e f l e c t a d i a -l e c t d i f f e r e n c e between American and Canadian English. These data, i n any case, must be regarded as d i f f e r e n t from other Constant P o l a r i t y eh's i n that they v i o l a t e the s i n c e r i t y condition for constant p o l a r i t y tags. In s a r c a s t i c examples, the speaker of the eh utterance pretends to believe that the f i r s t speaker believes the proposition stated i n the eh utterance. The 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 the preceding utterance. The eh speaker a c t u a l l y knows the contrary of the proposition to be true, or knows that he i s exaggerating the proposition of the preceding speaker. This i s shown by a d i f f e r e n t intonation pattern and/or by placing an unusual stress on a s i g n i f i c a n t word i n the utterance, for example. Speaker A: Do we need l i f e j a c k e t s ? Speaker B: You wouldn't go without l i f e j a c k e t s eh? (informant 3) You prefer Pat to s i t beside you than me eh? (informant 5) Speaker A: I know_what that means a c t u a l l y but I forget. Speaker B: You do eh. (informant 5) You're sure about that eh. (taunt) (informant 3) 46 These data were spoken with an exaggerated intonation and with a heavy emphasis on a p a r t i c u l a r word. The example, " A i r i n g your basket, eh Dave" (informant 46), was delivered i n a s t y l e of mock innocence, as were the following examples with negative host clauses. Speaker A: what's that i n your purse? Speaker B: I know. I shouldn't carry i t around i n case the p o l i c e might stop us eh. (informant 3) You're going to do i t out here? Not i n the bathroom eh? (informant 3) Occasionally the content of the utterance, not the stress or intonation pattern, showed that i t was s a r c a s t i c , as i n , So the four vices of Western Imperialism are queers, the A i r Force, the Army and the Navy eh. (informant 4) Speaker A: I've contacted Noam. Speaker B: A f r i e n d of yours eh. (informant 50) Similar to these s a r c a s t i c examples of Constant P o l a r i t y eh i s a type of Reversed P o l a r i t y eh where the speaker expects c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n the form of reassurance from h i s hearer, as i n t h i s example, Speaker A: This must be ju s t h o r r i b l e for you eh David, (informant 5) Speaker B: Oh i t ' s not so bad. Type 3. Imperative Eh Imperatives can be tagged i n Canadian English. P o s i t i v e impera-t i v e s are usually constant p o l a r i t y tags, for example, "Look at that, w i l l you!", with the reversed p o l a r i t y tag, "Look at that, won't you" being a p o l i t e v a r i a t i o n which neither changes the meaning nor r e f l e c t s a hearer point of view. Rather, "Look at that, won't you!" r e f l e c t s a speaker point of view. Katz and Postal (1964) claim that only " w i l l " occurs i n tagged imperatives. However, Huddleston (1970) points out that such tags as: Be quiet, can't you? Pass me the hammer, would you? Let's go to the cinema, s h a l l we? also occur and probably have the same underlying structure as "Look at that, w i l l you?" and "Look at that, won't you?" Love states that: According to general l i n g u i s t i c convention you w i l l i s found i n the underlying structure of every imperative (Burt, 1971: 8-9; 48). Here i t must be noticed that tag questions pertaining to an impera-t i v e are themselves emphatics and have no interrogative value. (17) It i s here suggested that, as tags have a semantic force of question and a syntac t i c mood of int e r r o g a t i v e , • tagged imperatives have a semantic force of order and question and a syntactic mood of int e r r o g a t i v e and imperative. Occasionally, the host clause i s d e c l a r a t i v e . Love punctu-ates her tagged imperative examples with question marks, i n d i c a t i n g that they have some int e r r o g a t i v e value. Hudson regards tagged imperatives as s i m i l a r to tagged d e c l a r a t i v e s , i n that they share the s i n c e r i t y condition f o r polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , and thus have a semantic question element. Hudson states, g i v i n g the example: Come here, w i l l you? The proposition here i s 'that you w i l l come here'; the imperative means something l i k e 'I want the proposition to be true'; the inte r r o g a t i v e , 'I believe that you know at le a s t as well as I do whether the proposition i s true'—which i n t h i s case c l e a r l y depends on whether you want to MAKE i t true, so I am leaving i t to you to decide whether to comply or not. S i m i l a r l y , the d i f f e r e n c e between reversed-polarity and constant-polarity tags seems to f i t the rules worked out for tagged d e c l a r a t i v e s . (29) This analysis does not support Hudson's claim that the constant p o l a r i t y imperative "Have some more, w i l l you?" r e f l e c t s a hearer point of view and "Have some more, won't you?" a speaker point of view. I t i s here claimed that both reversed and constant p o l a r i t y tags have a speaker point of view. I t happens that a l l but one of the Imperative eh tags i n the data 48 have p o s i t i v e host clauses. Later observation has shown that negative imperatives with eh do occur. The p o s i t i v e imperative eh tags can usually be paraphrased by w i l l you, but, when the subject of the host clause i s Let's or We'11, the paraphrase s h a l l we i s too formal and there-fore not acceptable. Many of the Imperative eh examples are s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s of the utterance from informant 2, "Look at that eh!" A s i m i l a r utterance i s , " L i s t e n to that eh!" (informant 45). I t seems that eh i n these examples can be paraphrased by w i l l you—would you i s also a p o s s i b i l i t y , although, for some reason, won't you does not seem appropriate. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine a meaning difference between w i l l you, would you, and won't you, and so i t i s assumed that the underlying structure of Imperative eh i s w i l l you. This assumption defines Imperative eh tags with a p o s i t i v e host clause having a constant p o l a r i t y . They are s i m i l a r to Constant P o l a r i t y eh tags i n that a verbal response i s usually not required, but d i f f e r e n t i n that they do not have a response force or a responsive mood. As imperative eh tags do not r e f l e c t a previous speaker's point of view (although they may be comments on a previous or current 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 r e l a t i o n s h i p c r i t e r i o n . Therefore, they are a separate type of eh. There are many sit u a t i o n s i n which the Imperative eh i s used with a force ranging from more order to more question. Some examples where Imperative eh i s used as an order are when the speaker was angry or impatient, e.g., Just don't turn down t h i s proposal b l i n d l y . Think about i t eh! (addressing union members) (informant 40) Well, hurry up eh. (informant 2) 49 Oh lay o f f eh. (informant 3) Come on eh. (informant 17) In the above usage of Imperative eh, the stress on eh i s often exaggerated and r i s i n g . The l a s t three were often used by informants under 20 years of age. Requests are also a function of Imperative eh, as the following two examples show. Give me a c a l l on Monday, make sure I c a l l that guy eh. (informant 45) Wait a minute. Just l e t me look at the f i l e eh? (telephone conversa-tion) (informant 19) Just or you j u s t frequently begin the Imperative eh data, as i n "Patrick, we're t a l k i n g . You j u s t play over there eh", from informant 53 and "You jus t r o l l over and l i e on the pi l l o w and hug the white cat and get stroked eh", from informant 46. This type of eh can also be used to tease. Some examples are, "Be good, eh'.", "After you think of one t e l l me about i t eh", and "Fancy having a night out with Deborah eh!", from informants 24, 8 and 56 re s p e c t i v e l y . A favourite imperative example i s , "Think of a l l t h i s competence and not much performance eh", which informant 53 said when the types of eh had been explained to her. In the following examples, eh can be substituted by okay. So t r y and top i t eh. (informant 26) Speaker A: Number s i x . Speaker B: That's supposed to be seven. Speaker A: Oh, make i t seven then eh. (informant 8) You have to t e l l me what happened to Yvonne eh. (informant 45) The above imperative examples have you for the subject of the host clause. In the next examples, we i s the subject. Let's be r e a l i s t i c . Eh? (speaking of her own ambitious plans) (informant 25) 50 Let's get together t h i s weekend and figure out what's shaking eh. (informant 45) We'll take our car eh Judd? (persuasive) (informant 2) We'll j u s t s i t here for a l i t t l e b i t eh? (comforting) (informant 3) A r b i n i (1969) claims that negative imperatives are never tagged, but i n Canadian English at l e a s t , reversed p o l a r i t y examples such as "Don't be l a t e , w i l l you?" are grammatical. Negative constant p o l a r i t y tags, such as "Don't be l a t e , won't you?", however, are not acceptable. The under-l y i n g structure of imperative eh tags with a negative host clause i s assumed to be p o s i t i v e . This type therefore have a reversed p o l a r i t y , but they are not Reversed P o l a r i t y eh tags as they do not f i t the reversed p o l a r i t y c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r semantic force, syntactic mood, speaker-hearer r e l a t i o n s h i p , or s i n c e r i t y conditions. Love claims: I t was . . . noted that i n an imperative construction when the p o l a r i t y of the main sentence and that of the eh p a r t i c l e ' s tag paraphrase d i f f e r , the command i s an information question. In a l l such cases eh can be construed as a request f o r a yes or no response. (15) Love does not state whether she i s r e f e r r i n g to a structure such as "Have some more, won't you?", where the tag i s negative, or to a structure such as "Don't have some more, w i l l you", where the host clause i s negative. These two examples have very d i f f e r e n t meanings, neither of which can be said to be an information question, although the f i r s t i s a more probable candidate. There i s only one example i n the data of a negative host clause Imperative eh. I t i s , "Come on now. Not i n the parking l o t eh." (informant 46) 51 Type 4. Exclamation Eh Hudson i s o l a t e s two types of exclamations: 1) those which are s y n t a c t i c a l l y exclamatives, e.g., "What a pretty g i r l she i s ! " , and can be tagged, and 2) those which are s y n t a c t i c a l l y polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , e.g., "Isn't she a pretty g i r l ! " , and can't be tagged. Hudson claims that sentences l i k e , "Is she a pretty g i r l ? " are not exclamations, but questions only. He does not mention constructions such as, "Is she ever a pretty g i r l ! " , which are also exclamations. Hudson defines the s i n c e r i t y condi-t i o n of exclamations as, "The speaker i s impressed by the degree to which a property defined i n the proposition i s present." (16) In "Is she ever a pretty g i r l " , ever i s an i n t e n s i f i e r which indicates a degree to which a property i s present. When a tag i s added to the f i r s t type of exclamation, i . e . , "What a pretty g i r l she i s , i s n ' t she?", t h i s becomes a question as well as an exclamation. Hudson states: The analysis of 'exclamations' also reveals a syntactic f a c t : that tags on exclamatives appear to be excl u s i v e l y reversed-polarity tags: 72) a. What a nice g i r l she i s , i s n ' t she? b. *What a nice g i r l she i s , i s she? The explanation for t h i s i s , of course, that the tag i s an 'exclamation' and must therefore be p o s i t i v e , but as an i n t e r -rogative 'exclamation' i t must have the (non-negative) marker of 'exclamation', namely n't. Far from being reversed-polarity tags, these are constant-polarity tags . . . (28) The c r i t e r i a f o r Constant P o l a r i t y eh tags offered here supports Hudson's an a l y s i s . The Exclamation eh generally does not require a response, as i t has more response than question force. It often r e f l e c t s a previous speaker's point of view, or i s a comment on what the speaker himself has j u s t said. The eh usually has f a l l i n g intonation. The Exclamation eh therefore, although i t may be paraphrased as a reversed polarity tag, has an underlying constant polarity tag. Love's analysis of this type of eh, which she calls a "rhetorical question", is similar. She states: Eh can . . . be considered an optional element in any rhetorical question, e.g., How about that (eh)? Wasn't i t lucky (eh)? Neither of these constructions is expected to evoke a response; with the addition of eh, although the listener i s encouraged to agree, the question remains rhetorical. (18) The f i r s t examples of this type of eh are exclamations which are syntactically 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 he l l eh. (informant 18) What a way to spend Christmas eh. (informant 37) What a poet eh. (the speaker had just said something that rhymed) (informant 61) The next examples are semantically exclamations and syntactically Wh questions. Love calls these Wh Rhetorical questions. How time goes eh. (informant 24) How do you like that eh? (accompanied by a wink, leer, and nudge) (informant 38) Look at these women. How'd they end up looking that way anyway eh. (informant 45) The following data are polar interrogative exclamatives. Love calls these Yes-no rhetorical questions. Speaker A: You're saying that because you want to end this conversa-tion. Speaker B: Oh, is 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" occurs many times i n the data as a non-sarcastic response, s i m i l a r to " r e a l l y " , f o r example, Speaker A: We pay $220 a month. Speaker B: Is that r i g h t eh? (informant 7) This example has a p o s i t i v e polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e host clause, which d i f f e r s from the following example where the host clause i s negative. Speaker A: We can get some dynamite acid and take i t up there, (teasing) Speaker B: Oh wouldn't that be fun, eh B i l l , (teasing a t h i r d p a r t i c -ipant i n the conversation) (informant 3) Occasionally, i s i t ever occurs i n a p o s i t i v e polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e -exclamative host clause, as i n "I'm reading t h i s book on the Bermuda Triangle and i s i t ever fucking weird eh" from informant 39. There are some data which are s y n t a c t i c a l l y more l i k e responsives than exclamatives, but they have an exclamation force. For example, "Oh dear eh" (informant 4, as well as other speakers), "Not again eh" (informant 4), and "Freak, freak, freak eh" (informant 6). They are a l l responses to a s i t u -a t i o n or an action taking place. Type 5. Polar Interrogative Eh This i s the smallest category i n the d a t a — t h e r e are only two examples, although Avis has c i t e d more. Love states that eh functions as a redundant, optional question p a r t i c l e i n t h i s type, which can occur simultaneously with i n v e r s i o n and "dummy" do. Avis notes that these can take either r i s i n g or f a l l i n g intonation. In both examples below inversion doesn't take place, as the a u x i l i a r y and do_ are deleted. The host clause can not be tagged by a paraphrase of eh. Speaker A: You see the game l a s t night eh? (informant 44) Speaker B: No. The above example requires a response, and either yes or no i s an 54 acceptable response, as polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e s are not conducive. The eh tag does not appear to add a conducive element, as i t does i n Reversed and Constant P o l a r i t y type eh. The other example i s , "Ready to go to bed my darling? Eh?" (informant 53) Here, the intonation was r i s i n g on both d a r l i n g and eh. This was asked of a cat, therefore no response was expected. Type 6. Wh Question Eh This i s also a small category. This type of eh requires 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 , semantically a question, and has the s i n c e r i t y condition for questions. The host clauses can't be tagged with an eh paraphrase. Love makes the following claim about the function of eh i n types 5 and 6: In both Wh questions and yes-no questions there are several i n t e r -rogative markers throughout the sentence, as i n How would you l i k e to play for us (eh)? The question word, the inversion of subject and a u x i l i a r y and the r i s i n g intonation each contribute to the int e r r o g a t i v e nature of the sentence. Not a l l of these factors need to be present i n order to form the question i . e . , they are to some extent redundant. The eh p a r t i c l e , although e n t i r e l y optional, serves the same purpose as the aforementioned markers. (18) The following examples,, "How was i t eh?" (informant 4) and "What do you say eh? Well, w e l l , w e l l , what do you know" (informant 14), were imitations of "Canadian accents", by informants from Vancouver. Being imitations, they did not require a response. In the second example the eh does not bestow the s i l e n c e , and the en t i r e utterance functions as a conver-s a t i o n a l turn-taker. Its function i s to take a turn i n order to give a turn to the next speaker. The following three examples, what's wrong with my monkey eh? (informant 46) What are you t r y i n g to say eh? (informant 4) Well, what do you think eh Poon? (informant 46) 55 a l l require a response, whereas "What are you doing up there? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?" (informant 62), does not, as i t was spoken to a cat. As i n the polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e example "Ready to go to bed my darling? Eh?", t h i s Wh question asked of a cat has the redundant question features, such as r e p e t i t i o n and exaggeratedly r i s i n g intonation, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a mother's speech when she i s t a l k i n g to a c h i l d too young to answer. The example, Speaker A: What year was that? 1960? Were you married then? Oh, what does i t matter eh? (informant 3) Speaker B: Yeah. i s i n t e r e s t i n g because an affi r m a t i v e response i s given to a Wh question. This i s perhaps a function of the fac t that tags i n general (and eh us u a l l y ) , are p o s i t i v e l y conducive, or perhaps a r e s u l t of the fact that a response was not given nor required ( i n that the s i l e n c e was not bestowed) for the whole series of questions. The following examples a l l require a response. Speaker A: You promised me you wouldn't be vulgar tonight. Speaker B: Who started t h i s vulgar t a l k anyway eh? (informant 45) Where's my endless French novel eh? (informant 46) Where's the pen eh B i l l ? (informant. 3) Why don't you go to sleep? Get an early night? Eh? (informant 3) Why don't you j u s t relax eh? (informant 3) Love claims that eh occurs "simultaneously with question words and the f r o n t - s h i f t i n g of the a u x i l i a r y i n yes-no questions." (22) The Polar Interrogative eh data c o l l e c t e d for t h i s study have a deleted a u x i l i a r y , therefore f r o n t - s h i f t i n g does not occur with eh i n these data. The Wh question data, however, do support Love's claim, as eh occurs with the question words, who, where, why, what and how. 56 Type 7. Pardon Eh This category has been defined by lexographers and l i n g u i s t s as a paraphrase of "What did you say?" Avis has sub-divided h i s data into those occurrences which are a request for r e p e t i t i o n and those which express astonishment and d i s b e l i e f . This analysis regards 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 , although t h i s i s the only type of eh which i s independent of a host clause. Eh has both question and response force. The speaker of Pardon eh i s i n a hearer r e l a t i o n s h i p , as he i s responding to a preceding utterance, but t h i s eh also requires a response. The following i s an example of a request for r e p e t i t i o n . Speaker A: He did i t on purpose! He did i t on purpose! Didn't you B i l l ? Didn't you? Speaker B: Eh? (hasn't been paying attention) (informant 46) The next examples are both requests for r e p e t i t i o n and expressions of astonishment and d i s b e l i e f . They are not h e s i t a t i o n phenomena as Love considers t h i s type to be, because they r e f e r to the preceding utterance, not to that which follows. However, as they were both spoken by the same B r i t i s h speaker, they may 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 Avis c i t e s . Speaker A: You'd better f i n d out before you get intimate with him. Speaker B: Yeah . . . eh?! (informant 53) Speaker B has agreed to A's remark before she r e a l i z e s i t s meaning. In the following example, Speaker A i s using eh to s t a l l f o r time, r e a l i z i n g that she i s i n a t h e o l o g i c a l hole. . Eh i s a fake request for r e p e t i t i o n . Speaker A: But you can repent a f t e r , (after death) Speaker B: You can repent r i g h t up to the judgement seat?? What kind of a church did you go to? Speaker A: Eh? Never mind, (informant 53) 57 Type 8. Anecdotal Eh Neither Avis nor Love regard t h i s type of eh as a question. Love states that examples of Avis' 'narrative-interrogative' eh: are not int e r r o g a t i v e at a l l , but rather they constitute a purely na r r a t i v e device. . . . This eh can be considered the equivalent of the narrative you know and can occur i n any part of a sentence where a pause i s natural . . . they are narrative devices designed to maintain the l i s t e n e r ' s attention. (6) This analysis agrees with Love's regarding the placement of eh and i n that the anecdotal eh usually does not bestow the si l e n c e and requires a response only insofar as a non-verbal response i s required. However, t h i s type of eh has a semantic question force, because the eh speaker i s questioning the hearer's understanding of what the eh speaker has j u s t s a i d . The hearer can be supposed to know as much as the speaker about the proposition. The use of eh i s an i n v i t a t i o n to the hearer to prove h i s hearership with a non-verbal response. Avis notes that t h i s eh often lacks r i s i n g intonation. In data c o l l e c t e d from telephone conversations, t h i s eh has a r i s i n g intonation and a short verbal response i s required, as a non-verbal response would obvious-l y not s u f f i c e . Occasionally, anecdotal eh has a r i s i n g intonation i n face-to-face conversations as we l l , e s p e c i a l l y when the speaker i s explain-ing something. Anecdotal eh can be paraphrased by such n a r r a t i v e devices as you  know, r i g h t , okay, check, and do you follow me? When i t can be para-phrased by a tag, one of the above would also be an appropriate synonym. It i s d i f f i c u l t to decide on a c r i t e r i o n for the appropriate paraphrase of eh, as not a l l of those l i s t e d above can substitute for eh i n every occur-rence. Those utterances which can only be paraphrased by okay are usually used to ask permission. The examples i n the data require a response and 58 are sentence f i n a l . In t h i s example, "Just before I go—one l i t t l e short story eh?" (telephone conversation), informant 10 i s requesting permission to t e l l an anecdote. Another example i s , " I ' l l take everybody but the g i r l eh." Here, informant 18 has stopped to pick up a queue of h i t c h -hikers, among whom i s a g i r l acquaintance he i s teasing. An example i n which eh can be paraphrased by okay, but which does not request permission i s , Speaker A: Have a drink. Speaker B: Just a l i t t l e shot eh. (informant 61). Okay, you know, and r i g h t / a l l r i g h t can substitute for eh and, i n about an equal number of examples, eh can be paraphrased by only r i g h t / a l l r i g h t , and you know, not by okay. This claim, however, i s based on the author's i n t u i t i o n , and no explanation i s offered. The next two examples, as well as several others i n t h i s section, can substitute okay, you know and r i g h t for eh. It' s not that. I'm j u s t t i r e d and I want to get home before I'm too t i r e d eh. (informant 46) See, what I used to do with mine, I have a seven-inch r e e l at home too eh, now a l l tape recorders work the same way, . . . (informant 6) These examples would be strange i f a tag was used i n place of eh, as the speaker can not be expected to be questioning the hearer about the speaker's own fee l i n g s and knowledge. Both are explanations, although the f i r s t i s an i n d i r e c t request for permission. The second example i s t y p i c a l of many anecdotal eh's i n that the eh follows a sentence i n t e r n a l p arenthetical explanation. The following three examples were accompanied by a demon-s t r a t i o n from the speaker. The anecdotal s t y l e i s shown by the use of you and he subjects i n the f i r s t two examples, to replace I'm showing you, and by the use of the present tense to r e l a t e an anecdote that took place 59 in the past, in the second and third examples. Now you put your fingers in and turn i t a l l the way around eh so i t ' s like this, (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. What's the matter. It's just the way I dress eh." (informant 6) The f i r s t eh in the last example is an Imperative eh. There was an angry tone of voice used throughout this example. The following examples can be paraphrased only by you know and right, not by okay, according to the writer's intuition. I didn't get a sticker this year, I got here too late eh. (informant 15) Speaker A: You've got too big of a category. Speaker B: You're not kidding. My wife has six 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 is 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 is a f i r s t person subject. The next three examples have eh in sentence internal position. Speaker A: How's Jon doing? Speaker B: Five years i t takes eh Deb, five years, but f i n a l l y he's getting fantastic jobs, (informant 26) At hockey, we go to a lot of rinks eh, the coffee's 20 or 30 cents a cup. (informant 7) The people in Beacon H i l l eh, they're Boston Bay types, (informant 7) In the last example, eh is used to question the hearer's familiarity with a a television show. The example, Bring in the latest 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 is interesting because eh does not tag the question "what's the name", but is a sentence tag, inviting the audience to show they have understood the explanation. That anecdotal e_h is not a hesitation phenomena, is shown by the next example, which contains both uh (a hesitation device) and eh. I'm a pretty good hummer (sic) and hawer but people don't uh really . . . like I have to talk to guys at work eh so I've got thirty guys out in front of me. (informant 6) Uh refers forward to an area of greater lexical or syntactic choice. It indicates a groping for words, which resulted in a pause and the paren-thetical explanation, "like I have to talk to guys at work eh". Eh refers back to the clause, "like I have to talk to guys at work", and is a question by the speaker to see i f the hearer has understood. It is not the result of hesitation; 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 in one utterance. The following passage is taken from a half-hour interview, (in which the speaker was explaining the nature of his 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 easily, like run i t myself eh? (Yeah) but by this time I had acquired other things, like a house and so forth and so on, like 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 bit sceptical 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. The hearer inserted a response after a rising intonation on eh, although the speaker did not pause long enough to bestow silence. 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. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that many anecdotal eh examples were c o l -lected from speakers who were from Ontario, either phoning Vancouver, or v i s i t i n g for a short time. There are a small 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 analysis of eh types. A l l but one of these were addressed to cats. These "cat" eh's are examples of mother-language, as they were delivered i n a baby-talk s t y l e , with exaggerated intonation. Some l i t t l e f u rry white man eh. (informant 46) Hi Pushkin eh. (informant 2) Pushie, eh? Pushie, eh? (informant 3) Oh there, Pushkin eh. (informant 3) It has been suggested that, as a l l the informants above are 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 to a p a r t i c u l a r family. The f i n a l example was a sincere expression of thanks, directed to the maitre d', on leaving a restaurant. Thanks a l o t eh. (informant 74) This example was also c o l l e c t e d from other informants, used s a r c a s t i c a l l y . 3.3 Some s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c aspects of the use of eh It has been noted throughout t h i s chapter that some types of eh were used more (occasionally, used more by a p a r t i c u l a r group of speakers) than were others. Table 7 shows the diffe r e n c e i n amount that the types of eh were used, and the amount that each type of eh was used by the representat-ive n a t i o n a l groups. Table 7 indicates that eh i s used most often by a l l national groups where i t could be generally paraphrased as a tag, (Reversed P o l a r i t y , Constant P o l a r i t y , Exclamation and Imperative eh) with the notable TABLE 7 The amount of use of each type of eh by national groups type of eh Canadian American B r i t i s h Non-native Unknown Totals Reversed P o l a r i t y 70 25 Constant P o l a r i t y 122 52 Imperative 25 10 Exclamation 14 2 Polar Interrogative 6 2 Wh Question 4 2 Pardon 5 1 Anecdotal 163 1 Totals 405 98 15 5 3 118 6 1 2 183 3 - - 38 1 - - 17 1 - 9 1 - 7 3 - 9 1 5 170 32 7 11 550+ 63 exception of Anecdotal eh from Canadian informants. Constant P o l a r i t y eh i s used the most, and Anecdotal eh the next, according to the data c o l l e c t e d for t h i s study. There were, however, other factors which must be taken into consideration regarding the quantitative production of Anecdotal eh. Because two informants (6 and 7—see Table 8) used anecdotal eh so often, i t was not always possible to write down i t s every occurrence. Pardon eh was also not recorded as often as i t was heard, as the inve s t i g a t o r f e l t , at the time of c o l l e c t i o n , that simply w r i t i n g down eh? was not of i n t e r e s t for a l i n g u i s t i c a n alysis, as there are no host clauses with Pardon eh. However, i n terms of the quantitative production of eh and the s o c i a l v a r i -able of national i d e n t i t y , t h i s decision was an error. Table 8 shows the quantitative production of each type of eh_ by the ten informants who used eh most often. Again, Table 8 l i k e Table 7 indicates that Constant P o l a r i t y eh i s used most often, followed by Anecdotal eh, Reversed P o l a r i t y eh, Imperative eh, and Exclamation eh. Polar Interrogative eh, Wh question eh and Pardon eh d i f f e r i n order from Table 7. A l l but one r e s i d u a l (odd) eh i n the data i s produced by the above informants. No one speaker produced every type of eh i n the presence of the inve s t i g a t o r during the time of data c o l l e c t i o n . Inform-ant number 46 (an American) i s c l o s e s t , missing only the Polar Interrogative eh. Informant number 1 i s remarkable for having produced the most eh's, i n the shortest c o l l e c t i o n time (30 minutes), and for producing only one type of eh. As stated above, informants 6 and 7 a c t u a l l y produced f a r more Anecdotal eh's than could be recorded. See Table 5 i n Chapter 2 for the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s of each of the ten informants used i n Table 8. 64 TABLE 8 The amount of use of each type of eh by the ten most productive users of eh Type of eh Informant numbers t o t a l s 1 45 2 46 3 4 5 6 7 8 Reversed P o l a r i t y - 13 12 10 5 7 10 1 1 4 63 Constant P o l a r i t y - 27 23 20 18 23 24 1 3 9 148 Imperative - 7 2 2 5 - - - - 2 18 Exclamation - 1 - 1 2 3 - 1 2 - 10 Polar Interrogative - 1 1 - - 1 - - - - 3 Wh Question - 1 - 3 7 2 - - - - 13 Pardon - - 1 1 - 2 - - - - 4 Anecdotal 114 - - 1 - - - 16 9 - 140 Residual - - 2 1 1 - - - - - 4 Totals 114 50 42 39 38 38 34 19 15 15 404 FOOTNOTES "Intonation has not been used as a c r i t e r i a for differentiating the types of eh. question mark indicates rising intonation. 3 This example is impossible to tag, or paraphrase except by yes, which indicates the difference in degree to which this sub-type is more of a response, in contrast to seeking confirmation sub-type which is more of a question. CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY Lingui s t s and speakers of Canadian English have long regarded eh as a feature of Canadian English. Aside from a few mentions i n e a r l i e r studies, l i t t l e research had been done on eh u n t i l the studies of Avis (1972) and Love (1973). These studies used occurrences of eh i n l i t e r a -ture as a primary source of data. This study has used spoken language as a data base, using a f r e e - f i e l d observation method to c o l l e c t instances of eh i n natural speech. One of the f i r s t findings was that most instances of eh occurred i n informal s i t u a t i o n s . Although the f r e e - f i e l d technique p o t e n t i a l l y included formal speech used i n contexts such as t e l e v i s i o n , radio, classroom s i t u a t i o n s , etc., very few examples of eh resulted from these. When eh was used i n a formal s i t u a t i o n , i t was usually at times when the speaker had h i s guard down and relaxed into casual speech through anger, ease, or an attempt to make a point. The l i n g u i s t i c analysis of eh involved research on tag questions, ( C a t t e l l , 1973; Hudson, 1975), and discourse analysis (Sacks, 1967). I t was found that the d i f f e r e n t types of eh could only be understood by examining the synta c t i c mood, the semantic force, and the pragmatic aspects of the utterance i n which eh occurred. The analysis resulted i n eight d i s t i n c t types. In order to analyse eh, i t was necessary to go beyond a grammar capable of analysing sentence length utterances and include the pragmatic components of a discourse grammar. Most generally, the range of eh i s f a r greater than 66 67 that of ordinary tags. Eh can also tag host clauses which are Wh ques-ti o n s , polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e s , a l l exclamations, including those with polar in t e r r o g a t i v e host clauses, i n t e r j e c t i o n s such as "Oh dear" and "Thank you", and tags themselves. Eh occurs sentence f i n a l l y , as do ordinary tags, and also sentence i n t e r n a l l y , and i n i t i a l l y (the l a t t e r occur only i n examples such as "Eh, what?", and do not occur i n my data), and i n i s o l a t i o n ( i n Pardon eh). The universe for eh excludes only places i n a sentence where a pause i s not n a t u r a l . None of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s of age, c l a s s , sex, natio n a l or regional i d e n t i t y , or native language of the informants 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 with the amount or type of eh produced. The s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s of the' informants, however, were merely a r e f l e c t i o n of the s o c i a l v a r i -ables of the investigator's friends and associates during the period of data c o l l e c t i o n , and were not co n t r o l l e d for a balance. I t was found that some speakers used eh more than others, p a r t i c u l a r l y Anecdotal eh. While a l l the data were c o l l e c t e d i n Vancouver, B.C., and 23 informants were natives of t h i s area, no claim i s made regarding eh as a d i a l e c t feature of t h i s area. It was impossible to determine i f eh was used more by speakers native to or now l i v i n g i n Vancouver than by speakers not native to Vancouver. Many informants f e e l , on somewhat anecdotal evidence, that eh i s used le s s i n the United States and more i n Eastern Canada than i n Vancouver, while others said that eh i s used more i n r u r a l than urban areas. Neither of these suggestions i s pursued i n the present study. Another area unexplored i n the present study i s the h i s t o r y of eh. A l l e n (1959:20) claims that eh " i s also frequently heard i n England, where the expression doubtless comes from". Avis (1972) l i m i t s h i s corpus to the l a s t two centuries, although he c i t e s e a r l i e r occurrences of eh i n 68 B r i t i s h l i t e r a t u r e . Many informants had strong, i f dubiously informed and contradictory, opinions on the o r i g i n of eh. A Scot claimed that eh originated i n Scotland, while a New Zealander stated that i t came from New Zealand. Other informants placed the o r i g i n of eh i n Canada—some claimed that i t spread from eastern to western Canada with the movement of popula-t i o n (with a corresponding lessening quantitative frequency of production), others that i t originated i n Quebecois. The l a t t e r two claims were held by western informants who regarded eh as a stigmatized form. No B r i t i s h , American or native Vancouver informants claimed that eh originated i n t h e i r regional d i a l e c t area. It was suggested that eh was used more i n the United States p r i o r to World War I I , and has been l a r g e l y replaced by huh. Another hypothesis i s that Anecdotal eh i s a newer form i n Canada than are the other types of eh, and i s used more by Canadians than by other national groups. It has been suggested (personal communication, Horvath) that 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 tag or question p a r t i c l e . This analysis does not support the above suggestion, as Creoles s i m p l i f y both the complexity of form and function, whereas eh i s f u n c t i o n a l l y more complex than are tags. The present study suggests future research r e l a t e d to eh. Appendix A o f f e r s a preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the a t t i t u d e s toward eh. Also, a study i n which the context of s i t u a t i o n were con t r o l l e d for speech s t y l e s , and the informants c o n t r o l l e d f or s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , could investigate 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. Regional v a r i a t i o n i n the use of eh i s a re l a t e d topic worthy of i n v e s t i g a -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 (a form associated with American English) and eh. 69 REFERENCES A l l e n , H. B. (1959) "Canadian-American Speech Differences Along the Middle Borders," Journal of the Canadian L i n g u i s t i c Association, _5: 17-24. A r b i n i , R. (1969) "Tag-questions and tag-imperatives i n English," Journal of L i n g u i s t i c s , _5:205-14. Avis, W. S. (1972) "So eh? i s Canadian, eh?", The Canadian Journal of L i n g u i s t i c s , 17:89-105. Bolinger, D. L. (1957) Interrogative structures of American English. (University Press, Alabama). C a t t e l l , R. (1973) "Negative Transportation and Tag Questions," Language, 49:612-39. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of The Theory of Syntax. (The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge). The Dictionary of Canadian English: The Intermediate Dictionary. (1963), (W. J . Gage Ltd., Toronto). The Dictionary of Canadian English: The Senior Dictionary. (1967), (W. J. Gage Ltd., Toronto). The Gage Canadian Dictionary. (1973) (Gage Educational Publishing Limited, Toronto). Huddleston, R. (1970) "Two Approaches to the Analysis of Tags," Journal of L i n g u i s t i c s , 6J215-22. Hudson, R. A. (1975) "The Meaning of Questions," Language, 51:1-31. Hymes, D. (1962) "The Ethnography of Speaking," i n Anthropology and  Human Behaviour, Gladwin, T. , and Sturtevant, W. C , eds. (Anthropological Society of Washington Press, Washington, D.C.), 15-53. Katz, J . J . , and P o s t a l , P. M. (1964) An Integrated Theory of L i n g u i s t i c  Descriptions. (The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge). Labov, W. (1963) "The S o c i a l Motivation of a Sound Change," Word, 19: 273-309 Labov, W. (1972) S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Patterns. (The U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsyl-vania Press, Inc.). 70 Lakoff, R. (1969) "Language i n Context," Language, 48_: 907-27. Love, T. (1973) "An Examination of Eh as Question P a r t i c l e , " (B.A. essay, The University of Alb e r t a ) . Orkin, M. (1970) Speaking Canadian English. (General Publishing Co. Ltd., Toronto). Orkin, M. (1973) Canajun, eh. (General Publishing Co. Ltd., Don M i l l s ) . Sacks, H. (1967) (Mimeo le c t u r e notes, I II Spring Quarter, A p r i l 10). S c a r g i l l , M. H., and Warkentyne, H. J . (1972) "The Survey of Canadian English: A Report," English Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3:47-104. Weinreich, U., Labov, W., and Herzog, M. I. (1968) "Empirical Founda-tions for a Theory of Language Change," i n Directions for 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 Press, Austin), 95-195. \ 71 APPENDIX A ATTITUDES TOWARD EH Although the study of the attitudes toward the use of eh was not a focus of t h i s t h e s i s , c e r t a i n general impressions w i l l be presented i n th i s appendix. Attitudes toward eh varied from unconscious production and comprehension, to complete h o s t i l i t y , to a p o s i t i v e reaction to eh as a feature of Canadian English. The f i r s t two attitudes were not mutually e x c l u s i v e — q u i t e often an informant noticed neither h i s own nor other people's use of eh, but when asked about h i s re a c t i o n toward t h i s use, he was very negative. The p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e was mainly confined to an occasional commercial use of eh i n advertisements and bumper-stickers. An example i s an ad f o r Canadian c i g a r e t t e s , Export A, whose copy reads "Export, eh?". Had the copy-writers been aware of the p r e v a i l i n g negative 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 informants o r i g i n a l l y claimed never to use eh, or thought they only used Pardon eh. Their comments included such statements as, I never used eh t i l l I met you. (informant 21) We picked i t up i n the two weeks we've been i n Canada. I t started as a joke, now i t ' s a habit, (informants 56, 57 and 61, who l a t e r agreed that they used eh i n t h e i r native Scotland) I only use i t when I'm t a l k i n g to my Mum. (informant 5) Informants also generalized about who uses eh and how much i t i s used, compared to i t s previous usage. Many claimed that people i n the Maritimes and/or working class people use eh more. Other comments include, "Older people use i t more with meaning." (informant 60) and "Army people use i t more." (informant 10) The following comments are from four teachers of English. Teachers use i t more because they need confirmation from the students on what they've j u s t explained, (informant 25) People use i t more i n Manitoba than B.C. I t ' s used more i n B.C. now than before; people used to say l i k e , now they say eh and r i g h t . Young people don't have t h i s problem now. Those informants who had a negative a t t i t u d e toward eh usually did 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 of eh, but, when giving an example of a stigmatized use of eh, would i n v a r i a b l y choose either Pardon eh or Anecdotal eh. Eight speakers' comments are, 72 I hate i t . I t's j u s t a stupid thing 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 everything you say. I t means "that's why". I don't notice when people use i t but I don't l i k e i t when they do. (informant 16) Isn't eh l i k e hey most of the time? I t ' s low. "He went to her apartment eh and picked up her suitcase eh, you betcher sweet l i f e " , (informant 14 used r a i s e d and centered vowels i n h i s i m i t a t i o n of a "low" Canadian accent.) People t a l k l i k e that because conversation has di s i n t e g r a t e d since TV. (informant 55) I had trouble with eh i n Manitoba. They say, "There's a meeting tomorrow eh?" and I say, "I don't know. Is there?", and they say, "I'm t e l l i n g you, there's a meeting tomorrow eh?". I heard my f r i e n d say, "I went downtown yesterday eh". I don't l i k e i t . I t ' s demeaning, and i t means you're insecure. (informant 33) People use i t because they've l o s t the richness 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 , (informant 47) I bet Lord Denning doesn't use i t . He speaks b e a u t i f u l l y , (informant 18) Avis (1972:96) comments that eh, " i s not slang, thought i t may be t r i t e ; i t i s not necess a r i l y rude or vulgar, though i t may be used i n an ill-mannered way." He notes that h i s English father 'abhorred' Pardon eh, and Avis himself would appear to regard Anecdotal eh as stigmatized. He comments, The "narrative eh?"—found p r i m a r i l y i n o r a l evidence of Canadian o r i g i n — o c c u r s i n extended discourse, often with disconcerting frequency. . . . While the narrative eh? i s probably not a recent innovation, i t has c e r t a i n l y increased 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 occurrence p a r a l l e l s that of see? and you know?, both of which intrude h a b i t u a l l y i n the nar-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 questionnaire, she read a varying number of examples from each of her s i x sets of eh (which did not include Anecdotal or Pardon eh, see Table 2) to her subjects and asked the subject to judge whether eh was acceptable or not. Her study allowed for only an acceptable/not acceptable judgement, and did not permit the subjects to compare the types of eh or to give a more-or-less a c c e p t a b i l i t y judgement within her sets. The a c c e p t a b i l i t y judgements of the types of eh presented i n t h i s thesis were: 73 Percentage of Informants who  Type accepted the examples Reversed or Constant P o l a r i t y eh (Set I, 6 examples) 89% Imperative eh (sets I and I I , 2 examples) 58% Wh Question eh (Set I I I , 4 examples) 59% Exclamation eh (Sets IV and VI, 5 examples) 83% Polar Interrogative eh (Set V, 7 examples) 36% Love states, Although the sentences of Set I were considered acceptable by the majority, many informants noted that eh seemed to lend a pejorative connotation to these sentences. Those informants who rejected sentences i n Set I did so not because they considered eh to be 'ungrammatical' but rather they objected to eh on the grounds that i t was i n d e l i c a t e . (10) It i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the Polar Interrogative examples decreases as the length and complexity of the host clause increases. In data which Love presumably invented, as she notes they are supplemental to Avis' data, the a c c e p t a b i l i t y judgements are: Example Percentage of Ihformants_who accepted the examples W i l l you eh? 45% W i l l you drive eh? 37% W i l l you drive the c h i l d r e n to school eh? 28% W i l l you drive the c h i l d r e n to school and then pick up a few things at the store eh? 17% The f i r s t example above, " W i l l you eh?" has a responsive mood and a response force which the other examples don't have. Perhaps t h i s makes i t more acceptable. In the data c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s t h e s i s , there were no long or complex polar i n t e r r o g a t i v e host clauses preceding eh. Love gave her questionnaire to 35 subjects and claims that, "No one of the . . . factors of age, educational l e v e l , and sex seemed to produce a d e f i n i t e pattern i n responses given." (10) A co n t r o l l e d study of the attitudes toward eh would be an i n t e r e s t -ing topic for future research. I d e a l l y , a few examples of each type and 74 sub-type of eh would be presented orally to the informants, who would be representative of the social variables of age, class and sex, and include Canadian, American and British English speakers. The informant would rank each use of eh in such a manner that the acceptability of each type and sub-type could be compared, and related to the social variables of the informants. It i s the writer's impression, based on the attitudes reflected 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 unti 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 in any observers. 75 APPENDIX B Appendix B i s a table l i s t i n g a l l the informants who used eh, information of t h e i r age, sex, nation a l i d e n t i t y and regional background, and/or length 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 data from him or her. Each informant i s numbered, with the most frequent producer of eh having the lowest number of his/her national group. However, when informants produced the same number of eh's as did other informants 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 informants a l l produced one eh each. There was a random assign-ment of numbers to these informants. The number of each informant i s the number used i f the informant's eji utterance was quoted i n the body of t h i s paper. Not a l l the data were quoted. Informant No. of Number eh's Time Sex Age Region Canadian 1 114 E M 32 Rural Saskatchewan/Vancouver 2 41 A F 25 Vancouver 3 38 A F 29 Vancouver 4 38 A M 28 Vancouver 5 34 A F 28 Vancouver 6 19 B M 32 Toronto 7 15 D F 50 Toronto 8 15 B M 63 Vancouver 9 . 12 B F 63 Vancouver 10 9 D M 27 Vancouver/New Brunswick 11 8 D M 50s Vancouver 12 7 C M 32 Nova Scotia/Vancouver 13 5 E M 25 Rural B.C./Vancouver 14 4 B M 28 Vancouver 15 4 E . M 25 Vancouver 16 3 C M 32 Vancouver 17 3 A F 26 Rural Saskatchewan/Vancouver 18 2 C M 27 Vancouver 19 2 E F 40s Vancouver 20 2 C F 30 Vancouver 21 2 C F 29 Rural Northern B.C./Vancouver 22 2 D M 50 Toronto 23 2 D M 26 Saskatoon/Vancouver 24 2 E M ? Rural Saskatchewan 25 2 D F 40s Vancouver 26 2 E F 29 Toronto 27 1 E M 30s Vancouver 28 1 D M 32 Toronto/Vancouver 29 1 D F 26 Toronto/Vancouver 30 1 E F 20s Vancouver 76 Informant Number No. of eh's Time Sex Age Region 31 1 B F 31 London/Vancouver 32 1 E M 4 Vancouver 33 1 D F 30 Vancouver 34 1 D M 30s Vancouver 35 1 E M 30s Vancouver 36 1 C M 29 Vancouver 37 1 C M 40s Toronto 38 1 c F 30 Toronto/Vancouver 39 1 c F 30 Toronto/Vancouver 40 1 E M ? 1 41 1 D F 25 Vancouver 42 1 C F 29 Vancouver 43 1 D M 20s 1 44 1 E M 20s 7 405 F=19 M=25 Informant No. of Number eh's Time Sex Age Length of Time in Canada in Year: American 45 50 A M 32 7 46 39 A M 27 7 47 3 E M 20s 7 48 2 D M 30s 7 49 1 D M 30s 4 50 1 D M 50s 4 51 1 A F 30s 2 52 1 E M 30s 7 98 F=l M=8 British 53 14 A F 34 13 54 6 B F 29 6 55 2 A F 30 15 56 2 D M 60s 1 week 57 2 D F 60s 1 week 58 1 D F 40s 12 59 1 D M 35 13 60 1 D F 50s 5 61 1 D M 20s 1 week 62 1 D M 51 20 63 1 D M 20s ? 32 F=6 M=5 Informant No. of Number eh's Time Sex Age Native Language Non-Native Speakers of English 66 4 D M 50s French 65 2 E F 30s Japanese 66 1 D M 30s Swedish Unknown F=l M=2 67 2 E M 302 68 2 E M 30s 69 2 E F 40s 70 1 E M 50s 71 1 E F 50s 72 . 1 E f 1 73 1 E F 50s 74 1 E m 30s A l l presumably Native Canadian speakers 11 F=4 M=4 553 F=31 M=44 

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