This kind of saying something then asking if it isnt so, seems on the surface, wasteful and pointless.
- "I do (X), don't I?"
- "I (do) (X)."
- "Do I (X)?"
- "Don't I (X)?"
Examples:
"This is delicious food!"
"I do make good pasta, don't I?""This is delicious food!"
"It is, isn't it?""You're a good friend."
"I am, aren't I?"
On the surface the extra phrase seems to gain nothing and be a contrition with little value. The replies could as easily be rephrased, with possible alternatives
"This is delicious food!"
- "I usually make good pasta."
- "Yes, I'm good at it."
- "I do make it well; I'm glad you think so."
"This is delicious food!"
- "It is."
- "Yep."
- "Yes, and did you like how the basil tasted?" (Or some other comment to engage dialogue)
"You're a good friend."
- "I care about you."
- "I like to think so."
- "Yeah." (Optionally: But you're worth it)
But the reflexive phrasing is so ubiquitous it must have value in human communication even if not having value within a strictly logical interpretation of language.
What is the name of that kind of specific structure, where something is asserted then questioned in the negative, rather than either just asserted, or just questioned?
What is its actual functional impact, which makes it so used? (Alternative question, how does phrasing it that way enhance impact?) If say, "politeness" or "impact", what about that structure makes it seem so much more polite or impactful to a listener that it's worth the contortion?