When a question is the answer

[Drone]

I think what irks me more than any of the constructions that one hears repetitively, most likely because the speaker can't think of anything else to say, you know, being the time honored example, is the inflection that some people exhibit, most commonly, at the end of a sentence that makes the conclusion of their point sound like a question. That upward intonation serves to make the statement or response seem less grounded in certainty IMO, or at the least, quickly becomes immensely annoying, especially when the person speaking is addressing a rather involved matter and one hears this grating mode of expression profusely.

It seems surprising to me that for people that publicly represent a significant entity (business, government, sports franchise) and regularly display this trait in their official communications, efforts aren't attempted to adapt it to a more measured, normative mode of speech by those who have appointed these folks to their position as point person. This may very well be hard to accomplish, though, for someone that has basically had the mannerism for most of their life. Or maybe it just isn't recognized by a lot of people, perhaps proving to be below their level of awareness.

Thoughts on perceiving this quality and the reaction that it elicits? As a corollary point, does it seem to be more frequently exhibited by men or women?

 

[Tosk]

Yes.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It has a name: high rising terminal.

 

[thestrangequark]

Also called Australian Question Intonation. It is more frequently used by women --outside places like Australia where most everyone uses it -- and the primary theory as to why is that it is a learned response to society's negative view of female authority, i.e. assertive speech is deemed favorable and encouraged in men but deemed a negative quality in women. There is debate over whether criticism of AQI is a feminist issue (which is why I've read up on it). Personally, I think there is a valid point, but as it's on the rise among youth of both genders, it'll likely be inconsequential soon anyway, and there are more important issues to focus on.

Frankly, I think it's a pretty stupid thing to get worked up about, anyway. Language is in constant flux. I'm sure your own manner of speech might sound weird, unlearned, or unprofessional to someone 80, 100, or 150 years ago.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I've only ever heard young Australians of both genders use it. It does make them seem insecure about their pronouncements. I attributed it their constantly being verbally put in their place by their elders -- without any evidence for such.

 

[RoJoHen]

I can't think of any instances where this would annoy me. Maybe if one person did it all the time it would start to grate, but I can't say I encounter it often enough for it to even be noticeable.

 

[hux]

So you're basically asking... does upspeak bother you?

No, not really. Though people who use three hundred words when five will do, sometimes get on my tits.

 

[thestrangequark]

So you're basically asking... does upspeak bother you?

No, not really. Though people who use three hundred words when five will do, sometimes get on my tits.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

 

[Locutus of Bored]

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtiNzF30AAE[/yt]

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Generally implies either uncertainty in your statement or timidity toward the audience.

 

[thestrangequark]

^Eye (ear) of the beholder.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I didn't know it irritated people until I saw a video in which Stephem Fry talked about it. However, as an Australian, it sound quite normal to me.

[yt]http://youtu.be/OluCvL0lRnI[/yt]

 

[Locutus of Bored]

^ Link's not working. I assume this is the right video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OluCvL0lRnI

 

[Kor]

On the game show "Jeopardy," all of the answers are questions.

Should I be irked by this?

Kor

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Do you find questions as answers to be offensive?

 

[trekkiedane]

Am I the only one reading every sentence in this thread in AQI???

It's getting to the point that I can't take it any more!

 

[Miss Chicken]

^ Link's not working. I assume this is the right video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OluCvL0lRnI

Thanks for posting it.,Oddly, the link I posted doesn't even show up on my iPad which is why I couldn't test it.

 

[Drone]

QUOTE=thestrangequark;11348327]Also called Australian Question Intonation. It is more frequently used by women --outside places like Australia where most everyone uses it -- and the primary theory as to why is that it is a learned response to society's negative view of female authority, i.e. assertive speech is deemed favorable and encouraged in men but deemed a negative quality in women. There is debate over whether criticism of AQI is a feminist issue (which is why I've read up on it). Personally, I think there is a valid point, but as it's on the rise among youth of both genders, it'll likely be inconsequential soon anyway, and there are more important issues to focus on.

Frankly, I think it's a pretty stupid thing to get worked up about, anyway. Language is in constant flux. I'm sure your own manner of speech might sound weird, unlearned, or unprofessional to someone 80, 100, or 150 years ago.[/QUOTE]


Well, I'm thankful that you and a number of others here are quite familiar with the phenomenon, to the point of going into some subtext on it. However, at least in my usage of them, irksome, annoying, or grating don't equal to getting worked up about something. As to my remarks about someone with the trait being vetted before being allowed to be a public spokesperson, my meaning is only to wonder if that mode of presentation would be seen as effective by the concern being advocated for, not that I won't buy their toothpaste or more seriously, have a coronary or stroke. So, aside from your misinterpretation of the fairly benign tone that I think I presented the topic in just to sample other's experience of it, I don't much appreciate or find justified your characterization of broaching it as stupid, nor seeming to impugn my manner of speech personally, but not anyone else's in the present day, apparently, to have been perceived in a wide array of times past as negatively as the terms you're applying to it.

Well, I guess in your exalted position in these parts, you've been bestowed the privilege of being the arbiter of what topics are worthy of introduction, as well as throwing some derogatory comments in for good measure. Now, that is really good information that you have dispensed that I'm truly thankful to have been provided.

So you're basically asking... does upspeak bother you?

No, not really. Though people who use three hundred words when five will do, sometimes get on my tits.

What your five words basically answer is that you don't care to respond to what I clearly asked, but rather lacquer it over with what some would wishfully like to describe as acerbic wit. As to what you claim to be troubled by, in your oh so colorfully subtle colloquialism, I would only say better three hundred words of a honestly, carefully, and genuinely thought out response to a subject or question with maybe some further reflections to engagingly advance the conversation, than five words of morose, self-important bile, in other words narrow minded piffle.

Comprendez?

 

[hux]

What your five words basically answer is that you don't care to respond to what I clearly asked, but rather lacquer it over with what some would wishfully like to describe as acerbic wit. As to what you claim to be troubled by, in your oh so colorfully subtle colloquialism, I would only say better three hundred words of a honestly, carefully, and genuinely thought out response to a subject or question with maybe some further reflections to engagingly advance the conversation, than five words of morose, self-important bile, in other words narrow minded piffle.

Comprendez?

So what you're saying is... you disagree.