3 . 6 . 1 Ta g c h a l l e n g e s
If one wishes to perform the eliminative tactic with a tag question, one must choose a sentence-type in which both polarity shift and inversion obtain, since these are the forms of sentence used to ask closed questions. Tag challenges are distinct from tag questions in that they show no polarity shift; but like tag
The Speciation of Challenges 71 questions we find both positive and negative forms; alongside Oh, so you’re the Queen of Sheba, are you?, there is also So you aren’t required to take logic, aren’t you?¹⁵
Are tag challenges open or closed? I will argue that they are open. Recall the reasoning that tag questions cannot be open, since a speaker would be impeaching himself by making an assertion and then presenting himself as considering it an open question whether the polar opposite is true. A speaker can, however, be pursuing the eliminative tactic without impeaching himself, so therefore tag questions must be closed.
In contrast with tag questions, tag challenges show no polarity shift. Therefore they cannot be used in pursuit of the eliminative tactic, since instead of examining a further point, the tag challenge re-examines the original point in question. Therefore the tag challenge must be open. But if a tag challenge is open, does the speaker impeach himself? In fact, no. Consider what the speaker is doing when he says Oh, so you’re the Queen of Sheba, are you? The speaker is certainly not asserting that the addressee is the Queen of Sheba; in fact the point of the utterance is to say that the speaker believes no such thing. With the tag challenge, the speaker goes on to ask the open question whether what was just said is true. By making as if to assert that P, and then asking whether-P, the speaker immediately calls into question what has just been mouthed. The speaker does this without impeaching himself, because he intends the belief expressed to be attributed to someone other than himself. In this case, the speaker is presenting how (he believes) the addressee is representing himself, as can be seen from the fact that tag challenges fail to hit their target if the addressee is not representing himself in the manner in question, in this case, as the Queen of Sheba. By expressing how the addressee is representing himself and then asking the open question whether that self-representation is genuine, the speaker expresses non-acceptance. And that is to challenge the representation.
3 . 6 . 2 No n - a c c e p t a n c e a n d d i s b e l i e f ; a s t o n i s h m e n t a n d s u r p r i s e Unlike tag questions, tag challenges can stand on their own if said in direct response. Suppose you say I’m the king of the castle! and I respond (perhaps in a grave tone of voice) Are you? I have presented myself as considering it an open question whether you are the king of the castle. Since you have just committed yourself on a point that I have immediately called into question, I indicate that I do not accept what you said. There is, however, another way to pronounce the response, which might be punctuated Are you?! (Wow!)—and here
¹⁵ These cases are to be distinguished from the sequence of a confirmation question and a (positive) open question, such as It’s hot, is it?, said with a steadily rising intonation. This locution is common at least in the form of British English used by BBC interviewers, but not in American English, and I will not treat it here.
astonishment is expressed. Astonishment, as I am using the term, is expressed when one represents oneself as reporting that nothing had been further from one’s mind. So depending on how they are wielded, (open) tag challenges may express non-acceptance or astonishment.
Suppose, when you say I’m the king of the castle, I choose instead to respond with the uninverted form You are? Since this uninverted type of direct response always stands on its own, never as a tag, I will call such responses confirmation challenges. As with its open counterpart, variations in tone and stress allow speakers to wield the confirmation challenge in different ways. Similar to the tag challenge, the confirmation challenge might be directed at how the addressee has represented himself or at the speaker’s own grounds for believing what the addressee has said. In the latter case, You are? expresses surprise. Surprise, as I am using the term, is expressed when one represents oneself as having thought otherwise. In the former case, You are? expresses disbelief. You have asserted that you are king of the castle. And now I ask you to confirm that you believe that you are king of the castle. Note that, by seeking to confirm your belief, I am not actually disagreeing with you as to whether you are king of the castle, but questioning your belief that you are. It is at this point that non-acceptance and disbelief separate. These must be distinguished, since there is the possibility that you really are the king of the castle, that you believe that you are not the king of the castle, and that you nevertheless dishonestly but accurately assert I’m the king of the castle! In such a case, in uttering the confirmation question You are? seeking to confirm your belief that you are the king of the castle, I challenge your honesty, not your veracity. So, depending on how they are wielded, confirmation challenges may express disbelief or surprise.
What is the relationship between non-acceptance and astonishment? And, what is the relationship between disbelief and surprise? Furthermore, what is the relationship between the distinction between non-acceptance and astonishment on the one hand, and disbelief and surprise on the other? For clarity, let me repeat each of the four terms in the precise senses I have used them:
One does not accept something when one does not think that. One disbelieves something when one thinks otherwise.
One is astonished at something when one never would have thought that. One is surprised at something when one has thought otherwise.
As I have defined the terms, disbelief and surprise are felt when there is conflict with what has been assumed, and non-acceptance and astonishment are felt when nothing one way or the other has been assumed. This is the distinction between having negative expectations and having no expectations. And since, in the case of disbelief and surprise, there is conflict between what has been said and what has been assumed, it is natural that disbelief and surprise would be expressed through the asking of a confirmation question. And equally since, in the case of
The Speciation of Challenges 73
Table 3.1. The speciation of challenges (said in response to I’m the king of the castle)
(Open) tag challenges, example: Are you?
Confirmation challenges, example: You are? Nothing assumed, no
expectations
Conflict with what is assumed Questioning addressee’s grounds non-acceptance disbelief
Questioning own grounds astonishment surprise
non-acceptance and astonishment, there has been no assumption one way or the other at all, it follows that non-acceptance and astonishment would be expressed through the asking of an open question. As a result, uninverted forms, those used to ask confirmation questions, are the sentence-types used to express either disbelief or surprise, while the inverted forms, those used to ask open questions, are used to express either non-acceptance or astonishment. This is summarized in Table 3.1.
Let’s digress for a few moments to consider these distinctions and the facts that underlie them. Untangling the uses of questions to express such things as non-acceptance, disbelief, astonishment, or surprise is a murky business, but, now that I have discussed part of that terrain, it is possible that some would complain that I am making it far too clear-cut, that the distinctions are not as sharp as I have claimed. To offset that criticism, let me introduce some murk. If I introduce just enough of it, the reader will, I hope, complain that things must be more clear-cut than I am making them out to be, and the proper balance will have been achieved.
To begin with, there is a natural tendency to say such things as Unbelievable! or Incredible! even when we perfectly well believe what we have heard, but are either astonished or surprised by it. This seems to indicate that, in common English, what is surprising or astonishing is hard to believe, and that, when we say Unbelievable! in such circumstances, we exaggerate; we often do believe it, but it is hard to believe, and we are not actually in a state of disbelief (or non-acceptance), but in a state of astonishment (or surprise). This kind of exaggeration can be felt in the use of questions as well. Suppose you say The New York Post has just published a slanted editorial!, and I respond It has?! What a surprise! A sarcastic intonation helps this reading along. Here, overtly, I register surprise, and I do that so as to bring to mind that I am not at all surprised to learn that the New York Post has published a slanted editorial. I make as if to confirm an unexpected belief, a belief that in fact is not unexpected at all. Suppose, on the other hand, I react to your news by saying: Has it?! Gadzooks! Who would have thought? The wide-eyed wonderment of a simpleton may be an effective accompaniment in making this response. Here I overtly express astonishment when I feel that there is nothing in the least bit astonishing about it; I make as if nothing had been
further from my mind, when in fact I’ve thought that all along. It should be clear that, in these kinds of performances, the distinction between astonishment and surprise, as well as sarcasm and false wonderment, can be mixed and confounded in all sorts of ways. It is natural that this sort of looseness would be found in these circumstances, since here, by posing Has it? and It has? as questions, the speaker intends it to become clear that he is not posing them so as to receive answers at all. So there are certainly circumstances in which the distinctions I have drawn are not directly in point, and are just used for effect. In such cases, we do not always distinguish surprise from astonishment or disbelief from non-acceptance, at least not very carefully.
Furthermore, the truth is that we do not, and in many circumstances cannot, really distinguish those beliefs we have never considered before from those beliefs that we have turned against. Sometimes, when we address a belief, we realize we have never considered it before. Suppose you are told Pigs can’t eat pumpkins. Unless you have raised livestock, that is probably a new one on you, not a belief that you have turned against. But suppose you are told Pigs can’t play basketball. Is that a new one on you, or one you have turned against? Certainly there are things that you believe about pigs that entail that pigs cannot play basketball. In contrast, you really never may have considered the difficulty pigs might have eating uncut pumpkins given the shapes of their snouts. So the distinction between beliefs we have never considered and beliefs that we have turned against can, in practice, be unclear. That lack of clarity makes it difficult in many cases to distinguish non-acceptance from disbelief. We can, furthermore, express either one, and add in either astonishment or surprise to boot, by saying I can’t believe my ears! All that said, just because there are gray cats, it does not follow that we cannot tell white ones from black ones. There are clear cases.
Returning to the speciation of challenges, let’s examine the same ground in the negative. As we have seen, a speaker may express non-acceptance by asking an (open) tag challenge or disbelief by asking a confirmation challenge. Whereas a positive statement may be non-accepted by asking its positive, inverted, open question counterpart, one may show non-acceptance of a negative statement by uttering its negative, inverted, open question counterpart. If you say I’m not responsible! I can show non-acceptance by saying Aren’t you? (Recall that unlike tag challenges, the polarity-reversing tag questions cannot stand on their own. So when the polarity is reversed the responses fail: to the utterance I’m not responsible! the response Are you? fails, and to the utterance I’m responsible, the response Aren’t you? fails as well.) By asking the open question Aren’t you? in response to I’m not responsible!, a speaker can show non-acceptance since to ask such a question indicates that that speaker does not consider the point in question settled. Furthermore, a speaker can be a pest about it, and continue with Aren’t you? Aren’t you?, varying the intonation in ominous ways, and thus shade over into accusation, where here no answer is demanded, only defense being called for. But things need not go that far, and in those cases, only non-acceptance is
Kinds of Wh-questions 75 registered. Similarly, a speaker may register disbelief of a negative statement by asking a confirmation challenge in the negative. If you say I’m not guilty! I may express disbelief by saying You aren’t? By expressing disbelief, I seek to confirm your belief. And since you have just affirmed that very belief, trying to get you to confirm your belief is tantamount to saying that you did not say what you believed. Both astonishment and surprise can also be displayed with the negative, when instead of the addressee, it is the speaker’s own grounds that are being questioned. When you say I’m not responsible! and I respond Aren’t you?, I can be expressing astonishment—I never would have thought that you were not responsible. Similarly, when you say I’m not guilty! and I respond You aren’t?, I can be expressing surprise because I had thought you were guilty. And so we see the same four-way speciation of challenges in the negative that we do in the positive.