Adamson, Sylvia (2000). A lovely little example: word order options and category shift in the premodfying string. In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A., and Stein, D. (eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Phildadelphia: John Benjamins, 39–66.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin (1985a). Just. In Bäckman, S. and Kjellmer, G. (eds.), Papers on Language and Literature Presented to Alvar Ellegård and Erik Frykman. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1–10.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin (1985b). What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance final tags introduced by “and” and “or.” In Togeby, O. (ed.), Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Copenhagen: Institut for Philologie, 366–389.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin (1997). I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, T. and Westvick, O. J. (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–47.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altenberg, Bengt (1990). Spoken English and the dictionary. In Svartvik, J. (ed), The London–Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund University Press, 193–211.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle (1996). The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (eds.), Discourse Markers: Selected Papers from the 5th International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle (1997a). They gave us these yeah, and they like wanna see like how we talk and all that: the use of like and other discourse markers in London teenage speech. In Kostsinas, U.-B., Stenström, A.-B., and Karlsson, A.-M. (eds.), Ungdomsspråk i Norden. Stockholm: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Stockholm University, 82–95.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle (1997b). They like wanna see like how we talk and all that: the use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In Ljung, M. (ed.), Corpus-Based Studies in English: Papers from the 17th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 37–48.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle (1998). The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 147–170.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle (2001). Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Androutsopolous, Jannis (ed.) (2014). Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Axtman, Kris (2002). “r u online?”: the evolving lexicon of wired teens. Christian Science Monitor, December 12: www.csmonitor.com/2005/0311/p2001s2002-ussc.html.

Bäcklund, Ulf (ed.) (1973). The Collocation of Adverbs of Degree in English. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Bailey, Guy (2002). Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 312–332.Google Scholar

Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan, and Sand, Lori (1991). The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3: 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, Naomi S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: the linguistics of email. Language and Communication 18: 133–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, Naomi S. (2003a). Language of the internet. In Farghali, A. (ed.), The Stanford Handbook for Language Engineers. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1–63.Google Scholar

Baron, Naomi S. (2003b). Why email looks like speech: proof-reading pedagogy and public face. In Atichison, J. and Lewis, D. M. (eds.), New Media Language. London and New York: Routledge, 85–94.Google Scholar

Baron, Naomi S. (2004). See you online: gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, Naomi S. (2008). Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, Naomi S. and Ling, Rich (2003). IM and SMS: a linguistic comparison. Presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Toronto, October 16–19.Google Scholar

Bayley, Robert (1994). Consonant cluster reduction in Tejana English. Language Variation and Change 6: 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (1994). Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Blyth, Carl Jr., Recktenwald, Sigrid, and Wang, Jenny (1990). I'm like, “say what?!”: a new quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech 65: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight (1972). Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Breban, Tine (2008). Grammaticalization, subjectification and leftward movement of English adjectives of difference in the noun phrase. Folia Linguistica 42: 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brebieri, Federica (2009). Quotative “be like” in American English: ephemeral or here to stay?English World-Wide 30: 68–90.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brooke, Julian and Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2012). Hunting the linguistic variable: using computational techniques for data exploration and analysis. Presented at the Georgetown University Round Table 12 [GURT], Measured Language: Quantitative Approaches to Acquisition, Assessment, Processing and Variation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, March 9–11.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary (1999). “Why be normal?” Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28: 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary (2011). White Kids: Language, Race and Styles of Youth Identity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle (2013). Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle and D'Arcy, Alexandra (2009). Localized globalization: a multi-local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13: 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle, Rickford, John R., Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Wasow, Thomas, and Zwicky, Arnold (2010). The sociolinguistics of a short-lived innovation: tracing the development of quotative all across spoken and internet newsgroup data. Language Variation and Change 22: 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butters, Ronald R. (1982). Editor's note [on “be+like”]. American Speech 57: 149.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Scheibman, Joanne (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't inEnglish. Linguistics 37: 575–596.Google Scholar

Cedergren, Henrietta J. (1973). The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Cedergren, Henrietta J. (1984). Panama revisited: sound change in real time. Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English 13. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Cedergren, Henrietta J. (1988). The spread of language change: verifying inferences of linguistic diffusion. In Lowenberg, P. (ed.), Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications, and Case Studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 45–60.Google Scholar

Cedergren, Henrietta J. and Sankoff, David (1974). Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50: 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, Wallace (1984). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 35–53.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K. (2003a). Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K. (2003b). Sociolinguistics of immigration. In Britain, D. and Cheshire, J. (eds.), Social Dialectology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 97–113.Google Scholar

Channell, Joanna (1994). Vague Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny (1987). Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable, and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25: 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny (1998). English negation from an interactional perspective. In van Ostade, I. Tieken-Boon, Tottie, G., and Wurff, W. van der (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 29–54.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny (2003). Social dimensions of syntactic variation. In Britain, D. and Cheshire, J. (eds.), Social Dialectology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 245–261.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11: 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny and Fox, Sue (2007). “This is me”: an innovation in waiting and other quotative use among adolescents in London. Presented at the International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE) 4. Cyprus.

Cheshire, Jenny and Fox, Sue (2009). Multiracial vernacular in London: age-grading or language change? Paper presented at UK-LVC 7. University of Newcastle.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue, Kerswill, Paul, Khan, Arfaan, and Torgersen, Eivind (2007–2010). Multicultural London English: the emergence, acquisition and diffusion of a new variety. Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC) Grant.

Crystal, David (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Crystal, David (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crystal, David (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crystal, David (2006). Language and the Internet, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cukor-Avila, Patricia (2002). She say, she go, she be like: verbs of quotation over time in African American vernacular English. American Speech 77: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpepper, Jonathon and Kytö, Merja (2000). The conjunction and in early Modern English: frequencies and uses in speech-related writing and other texts. In Bermúdez-Otero, R., Denison, D., Hogg, R. M., and McCully, C. B. (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 299–326.Google Scholar

D'Arcy, Alexandra (2005). Like: syntax and development. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

D'Arcy, Alexandra (2006). Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81: 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D'Arcy, Alexandra (2007). Like and language ideology: disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82: 386–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D'Arcy, Alexandra (2008). Canadian English as a window to the rise of like in discourse. In Meyer, M. (ed.), Focus on Canadian English. Special issue of Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies. Heidelberg: Winter, 125–140.Google Scholar

D'Arcy, Alexandra (2014). Evolving intensifiers: stability, stasis, and change. Presented at Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change (DiPVaC) 2. Newcastle University, April.Google Scholar

D'Arcy, Alexandra (forthcoming). Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins.

Davies, Diane (2005). Varieties of Modern English: An Introduction. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar

Denis, Derek (2011). Innovators and innovation: tracking the innovators of and stuff in York English. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 17: Article 8.Google Scholar

Denis, Derek (2015). The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Dines, Elisabeth R. (1980). Variation in discourse and stuff like that. Language in Society 9: 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). Where have all the adjectives gone?Studies in Language 1: 19–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobson, Roger (2003). Text messaging is spoiling teenagers’ sleep. British Medican Journal 327: 582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dubois, Sylvie (1992). Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change 4: 163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durham, Mercedes, Haddican, Bill, Zweig, Eytan, Johnson, Daniel Ezra, Baker, Zipporah, Cockeram, David, Danks, Esther, and Tyler, Louise (2012). Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like. English Language and Linguistics 40: 316–337.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope (1988). Adolescent social structure and the spread of linguistic change. Language in Society 17: 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope (1989). Jocks and Burnouts. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope (1997). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 151–167.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope (2000). Language Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope (2003). Language and gender in adolescence. In Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope (2005). Stylistic practice and social order. In Williams, A. and Thurlow, C. (eds.), Talking Adolescence: Perspectives in the Teenage Years. New York: Peter Lang, 93–110.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope (2011). Language and power in the preadolescent heterosexual market. American Speech 86: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enkvist, Nils Erik (1972). Old English adverbial þa – an action marker?Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73: 90–96.Google Scholar

Entwhistle, Doris R. and Garvey, Catherine (1969). Adjective Usage. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for the Study of Social Organization of Schools.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt (1995). Grammaticalization in progress: the case of or something. In Moen, I., Simonsen, H. Gram, and Lødrup, H. (eds.), Papers from the XVth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Oslo, January 13–15, 1995. Oslo: Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo, 136–147.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt (1997). “Guy's just such a dickhead”: the context and function of just in teenage talk. Proceedings from the Conference on Teenage Language, 14–16 June 1996, Stockholm, Sweden.

Erman, Britt (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1337–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fasold, Ralph (1972). Tense Marking in Black English: A Linguistic and Social Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Ferguson, Charles A. (1994). Dialect, register, and genre: working assumptions about conventionalization. In Biber, D and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford University Press, 15–30.Google Scholar

Ferrara, Kathleen and Bell, Barbara (1995). Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: the case of be+like. American Speech 70: 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferrara, Kathleen, Brunner, Hans, and Whittemore, Greg (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent grammar. Written Communication 8: 8–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Olga and Rosenbach, Anette (2000). Introduction. In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A., and Stein, D. (eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

FormyDuval, Deborah L., Williams, John E., Patterson, Donna J., and Fogle, Ellen E. (1995). A “big five” scoring system for the item pool of the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality Assessment 65: 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forston, Benjamin (2003). An approach to semantic change. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 648–666.Google Scholar

Fortman, Jennifer (2003). Adolescent language and communication from an intergroup perspective. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, Henry W. (1927). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38: 19–33.Google Scholar

Fries, Charles Carpenter (1940). American English Grammar. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.Google Scholar

Gauchat, Louis (1905). L'unité phonétique dans le patois d'une commune. In Aus romanischen sprachen und literaturen: Festschrift Heinrich Mort. Halle: Niemeyer, 175–232.Google Scholar

Ghenu, Mike (2005). Ill communication: how email, text and instant messaging affect language. The Varsity.

Gough, Harrison G. and Heilbrun, Alfred B. Jr. (1965). The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar

Gough, Harrison G. and Heilbrun, Alfred B. Jr. (1983). The Adjective Check List: 1980 Edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar

Grant, Lynn (2013). The frequency and function of just in British and New Zealand engineering lectures. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 56: 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grinter, Rebecca E. and Palen, Leysia (2002). Instant messaging in teen life. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM, 21–30.Google Scholar

Guy, Gregory R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: the case of final stop deletion. In Labov, W., (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press, 1–36.Google Scholar

Guy, Gregory R. (1991). Explanation in variable phonology: an exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harvey, Mark (2011). Lexical change in pre-colonial Australia. Diachronica 28: 345–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania (2005). Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hermann, M. E. (1929). Lautverändergungen in der individualsprache einer Mundart. Nachrichten der gesellschaft der wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 11: 195–214.Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C. (ed.) (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herring, Susan C. (2003). Gender and power in on-line communication. In Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 202–228.Google Scholar

Herring, Susan C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society 6: 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herring, Susan C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet 4.

Herring, Susan C. and Paolillo, John C. (2006). Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10: 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars (2010). How to spell the vernacular: a multivariate study of Jamaican e-mails and blogs. In Jaffe, A., Androutsopoulos, J., Sebba, M., and Johnson, S. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity, and Power. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 325–58.Google Scholar

Hook, Peter Edwin (1991). The emergence of perfective aspect in Indo-Aryan languages. In Traugott, E. Closs and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 59–89.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. Closs and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–35.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey, K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne and Mair, Christian (1999). “Agile” and “uptight” genres: the corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4: 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ito, Rika and Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2003). Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 32: 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Itzhar-Nabarro, Sohar, Silberschatz, George, and Curtis, John (2009). The Adjective Check List as an outcome measure: assessment of personality change in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research 19: 707–717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jespersen, Otto H. (1922). Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto H. (1933). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Part VI. Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Jones, Graham M. and Schieffelin, Bambi B. (2009). Enquoting voices, accomplishing talk: uses of be + like in instant messaging. Language and Communication 29: 77–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (2003). On language, change, and language change: or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joshi, S. T. (1990). The Weird Tale. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael (eds.) (1998). Discourse Markers. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kerswill, Paul (1996). Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change 8: 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kerswill, Paul and Cheshire, Jenny (2004–2007). Linguistic innovators: the English of adolescents in London. ESRC Research Grant (RES-000-23-0680).

Kiesler, Sara, Siegel, Jane, and McGuire, Timothy W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist 39: 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiesling, Scott F. (2001). Stances of whiteness and hegemony in fraternity men's discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11: 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kishner, Jeffrey M. and Gibbs, Raymond W. (1996). How “just” gets its meanings: polysemy and context in psychological semantics. Language and speech 39: 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kleiner, Brian (1998). Whatever: its use in “pseudo-argument.”Journal of Pragmatics 30: 589–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, Anthony S. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Labov, William (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 23: 30–87.Google Scholar

Labov, William (1972a). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William (1972b). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In Labov, William, Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 354–396.Google Scholar

Labov, William (1981). What can be learned about change in progress from synchronic descriptions? In Sankoff, D. and Cedergren, H. J. (eds.), Variation Omnibus [NWAV VIII]. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc., 177–200.Google Scholar

Labov, William (1982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–92.Google Scholar

Labov, William (1984). The interpretation of zeroes. In Dressler, W. U. (ed.), Phonologica 1984: Proceedings of the Fifth International Phonology Meeting, Eisenstadt. Cambridge University Press,135–156.Google Scholar

Labov, William (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2: 205–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, William (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, William (2002). Driving forces in linguistic change. Presented at the International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul National University, South Korea, August 2. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/DFLC.htm.Google Scholar

Labov, William, Cohen, Paul, Robins, Clarence, and Lewis, John (1968). A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar

Labov, William and Waletzky, Joshua (1967). Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal experience. In Helm, J. (ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 12–44.Google Scholar

Lavandera, Beatriz R. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?Language in Society 7: 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lenhart, Amanda, Rainie, Lee, and Lewis, Oliver (2001). Teenage life online: the rise of the instant-message generation and the internet's impact on friendships and family relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Levey, Stephen (2012). General extenders and grammaticalization: insights from London pre-adolescents. Applied Linguistics 33: 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liebersen, Stanley (2001). A Matter of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lindemann, Stephanie and Mauranen, Anna (2001). “It's just real messy”: the occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Specific Purposes 20: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ling, Rich (2005). The sociolinguistics of SMS: an analysis of SMS use by a random sample of Norwegians. In Ling, R. and Pedersen, P. E. (eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-negotiation of the Social Sphere. London: Springer-Verlag, 335–349.Google Scholar

Longacre, Robert E. (1976). Mystery particles and affixes. In Mufwene, S. S., Walker, C. A., and Steever, S. B. (eds.), Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistics Society, 468–475.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald (2001). You're like “why not?” The quotative expression of Glasgow adolescents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald (2007). Pure grammaticalization: the development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change 18: 267–283.Google Scholar

Mayer, John D. (2004). How does psychotherapy influence personality? A theoretical integration. Journal of Clinical Psychology 60: 1291–1315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Media and Language Change (2014). Special Issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics 18.

Meehan, Teresa (1991). It's like, “What's happening in the evolution of like?” A theory of grammaticalization. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 37–51.Google Scholar

Meillet, Antoine (1912). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Mencken, Henry Louis (1971). The American Language. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Méndez-Naya, Belén (2003). Intensifiers and grammaticalization: the case of swipe. English Studies 84: 372–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyerhoff, Miriam and Niedzielski, Nancy (2003). The globalization of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 534–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, Jim and Weinert, Regina (1995). The function of LIKE in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 365–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, Kristie (2009). Stuff. American Philosophical Quarterly 46: 1–18.Google Scholar

Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (1985). Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milroy, Lesley (1980). Language and Social Networks. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar

Milroy, Lesley (1987). Observing and Analysing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Milroy, Lesley (2007). Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes. In Cain, C. M. and Russom, G. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language III. Managing Chaos: Strategies for Identifying Change in English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 149–172.Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja (2006). The decline of be to and the rise of be going to in late Modern English: connection or coincidence? In Houswitschka, C., Knappe, G., and Müller, A. (eds.), Anglistentag 2005 Bamberg Proceedings. Trier: WVT, 515–529.Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja (2007a). Diachronic analysis with the internet? Will and shall in ARCHER and in a corpus of e-texts from the web. In Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N., and Biewer, C. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 287–305.Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja (2007b). The spread of the progressive and its “future” use. English Language and Linguistics 11: 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu (1991). But, Only, Just: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (2003). Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, and Mannila, Heikki (2011). The diffusion of language change in real time: progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation and Change 23: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Orwell, George (1946). Politics and the English Language. London: Horizon.Google Scholar

Östman, Jan-Ola (1995). Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In Wårvik, B., Tanskanen, S.-K., and Hiltunen, R. (eds.), Organization in Discourse. University of Turku, Department of English, 95–108.Google Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann (1999). Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann and Yule, George (1997). On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics 25: 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Overstreet, Robert M. and Carter, Gary M. (2000). The Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Oxford English Dictionary (1989). Oxford University Press.

Paolillo, John C. (2001). Language variation on Internet Relay Chat: a social network approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5: 180–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Partington, Alan (1993). Corpus evidence of language change: the case of intensifiers. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 177–192.Google Scholar

Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (ed.) (2010). Kinds, Things, and Stuff: Mass Terms and Generics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Peters, Hans (1994). Degree adverbs in early modern English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 269–288.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike (2007). Form–function relations in discourse: the case of I DON'T KNOW. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 174–187.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike (2009). The functional and social reality of discourse variants in a northern English dialect: I DON'T KNOW and I DON'T THINK compared. Intercultural Pragmatics 6: 561–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, Heike (2010). Methods in discourse variation analysis: reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14: 581–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, Heike (2013). The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen (2010). Variability in the co-occurrence of discourse features. In O'Brien, L. J. and Giannoni, D. S. (eds.), University of Reading: Language Studies Working Papers. University of Reading, 17–27.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen (2011). In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: general extenders in north-east England. English Language and Linguistics 15: 441–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pintzuk, Susan (1995). Variation and change in Old English clause structure. Language Variation and Change 7: 229–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pintzuk, Susan (2003). Variationist approaches to syntactic change. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 509–528.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, Susan and Kroch, Anthony S. (1989). The rightward movement of complements and adjuncts in the Old English of Beowulf. Language Variation and Change 1: 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poplack, Shana and Tagliamonte, Sali A. (1999). The grammaticalization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11: 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poplack, Shana and Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2001). African American English in the Diaspora: Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Randall, Neil (2002). Lingo Online: A Report of the Language of the Keyboard Generation. University of Waterloo.Google Scholar

Richard, E. Grandy (1975). Stuff and things. Synthese 31: 479–485.Google Scholar

Rickford, John R. (1975). Carrying the new wave into syntax: the case of Black English BIN. In Fasold, R. and Shuy, R. (eds.), Analyzing Variation in Language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 162–183.Google Scholar

Rickford, John R., Wasow, Thomas, Zwicky, Arnold, and Buschtaller, Isabelle (2007). Intensive and quotative all: something old; something new. American Speech 82: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Julie (2002). Child language variation. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell,349–372.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne (1994). On the creation and expansion of registers: sports reporting in Tok Pisin. In Biber, D. (ed.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Cambridge University Press, 59–81.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: a case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66: 227–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, David (1973). Mathematical developments in lexicostatistical theory. In Sebeok, T., Hoenigswald, H., and Longacre, R. (eds.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 11. The Hague: Mouton, 93–112.Google Scholar

Sankoff, David (1988a). Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Cambridge University Press, 140–161.Google Scholar

Sankoff, David (1988b). Variable rules. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., and Mattheier, K. J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Volume 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 984–997.Google Scholar

Sankoff, David and Sankoff, Gillian (1973). Sample survey methods and computer-assisted analysis in the study of grammatical variation. In Darnell, R. (ed.), Canadian Languages in their Social Context. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc., 7–63.Google Scholar

Sankoff, David and Thibault, Pierrette (1981). Weak complementarity: tense and aspect in Montreal French. In Johns, B. B. and Strong, D. R. (eds.), Syntactic Change. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 205–216.Google Scholar

Sankoff, David, Thibault, Pierrette, and Bérubé, Hélène (1978). Semantic field variability. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press, 23–43.Google Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian (1971). Language use in multilingual societies: some alternate approaches. In Sankoff, G. (ed.), The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 29–46.Google Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian (1973). Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In Bailey, C.-J. N. and Shuy, R. W. (eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 44–62.Google Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian (1974). A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence. In Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge University Press, 18–49.Google Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian (1980). The origins of syntax in discourse: a case study of Tok Pisin relatives. In Sankoff, G. (ed.), The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 211–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian (1990). The grammaticalization of tense and aspect in Tok Pisin and Sranan. Language Variation and Change 2: 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian and Blondeau, Hélène (2007). Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83: 560–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian and Brown, Penelope (1976). The origins of syntax in discourse. Language 52: 631–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian and Evans Wagner, Suzanne (2006). Age grading in retrograde movement: the inflected future in Montreal French. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 12.Google Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian and Laberge, Suzanne (1980). On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. In Sankoff, G. (ed.), The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Santa Ana, Otto A. (1996). Sonority and syllable structure in Chicano English. Language Variation and Change 8: 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheibman, Joanne (2000). I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiano, Diane J., Chen, Coreena P., Ginsberg, Jeremy, Gretarsdottir, Unnur, Huddleston, Megan, and Isaacs, Ellen (2002). Teen use of messaging media. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Minneapolis, April 20–25, 594–595.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah (1982). Discourse markers. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schilling-Estes, Natalie and Wolfram, Walt (1997). Symbolic identity and language change: a comparative analysis of post-insular /ay/ and /aw/. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.1.

Schourup, L. C. (1985). Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Segerstad, Ylva af Hård (2005). Language in SMS: a socio-linguistic view. In Harper, R., Palen, L., and Taylor, A. (eds.), The Inside Text: Social, Cultural and Design Perspectives on SMS. Dordrecht: Springer, 33–51.Google Scholar

Siegel, Muffy E. A. (2002). Like: the discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 19: 35–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Squires, Lauren (2007). Whats the use of apostrophes? Gender difference and linguistic variation in instant messaging. American University TESOL Working Papers 4: www.american.edu/tesol?CMCSquiresFinal.pdf.Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita (1999). He was really gormless – She's bloody crap: girls, boys and intensifiers. In Hasselgård, H. and Okesfjell, S. (eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 69–78.Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita (2000). It's enough funny, man: intensifiers in teenage talk. In Kirk, J. (ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English: Papers from the Nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 1998). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 177–190.Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita and Andersen, Gisle (1996). More trends in teenage talk: a corpus-based investigation of the discourse items cos and innit. In Percy, C. E., Meyer, C. F., and Lancashire, I. (eds.), Synchronic Corpus Linguistics. Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Toronto 1995. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 189–203.Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita, Andersen, Gisle, and Hasund, Ingrid Kristine (2002). Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stoffel, Cornelis (1901). Intensives and Down-Toners. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Stuart-Smith, Jane (1999). Glottals past and present: a study of T-glottalling in Glaswegian. Leeds Studies in English 30: 181–204.Google Scholar

Stuart-Smith, Jane (2002–2005). Contributory factors in accent change in adolescents. Economic and Social Science Research Council of the United Kingdom. Grant #R000239757.

Stubbe, Maria and Holmes, Janet (1995). You know, eh and other “exasperating expressions”: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language & Communication 15: 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (2003). “Be going to” versus “will/shall”: does syntax matter?Journal of English Linguistics 31: 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (1996–1998). Roots of identity: variation and grammaticization in contemporary British English. Economic and Social Sciences Research Council (ESRC) of Great Britain. Reference #R000221842.

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (1998). Was/were variation across the generations: view from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10: 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2002). Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 729–763.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2003–2006). Linguistic changes in Canada entering the 21st century. Research Grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). #410-2003-0005. http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/.

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2005). So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue, Guest Editors: Anna-Brita Stenström and Karin Aijmer 37: 1896–1915.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006a). Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006b). “So cool, right?” Canadian English entering the 21st century. Canadian English in a Global Context. Theme Issue of Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2/3): 309–331.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2007). Representing real language: consistency, trade-offs and thinking ahead! In Beal, J., Corrigan, K., and Moisl, H. (eds.), Using Unconventional Digital Language Corpora. Volume 1: Synchronic Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 205–240.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2007–2010). Directions of change in Canadian English. Research Grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). #410-070-048.

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Canadian English. Special Issue of English Language and Linguistics: Intensifiers, Guest Editor: Belén Mendez-Naya 12: 361–394.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2010–2013). Transmission and diffusion in Canadian English. Standard Research Grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC). #410-101-129.

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2012). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2013). Roots of English: Exploring the History of Dialects. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2013–2018). Social determinants of linguistic systems. Insight Grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC).Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Brooke, Julian (2014). A weird (language) tale: variation and change in the adjectives of strangeness. American Speech 89: 4–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and D'Arcy, Alexandra (2007a). Frequency and variation in the community grammar: tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 19: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and D'Arcy, Alexandra (2007b). The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28: 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and D'Arcy, Alexandra (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85: 58–108.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A., D'Arcy, Alexandra, and Jankowski, Bridget (2010). Social work and linguistic systems: marking possession in Canadian English. Language Variation and Change 22: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A., D'Arcy, Alexandra, and Rodrigues-Louro, Celeste (2014a). Outliers, Impact and Rationalization in Linguistic Change. Minneapolis: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Denis, Derek (2008a). Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging, teen language and linguistic change. American Speech 83: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Denis, Derek (2008b). The stuff of change: general extenders in North American English. American Dialect Society Annual Meeting, Chicago, January 4.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Denis, Derek (2010). The stuff of change: general extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38: 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Denis, Derek (2014). Expanding the transmission/diffusion dichotomy: evidence from Canada. Language 90: 90–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A., Durham, Mercedes, and Smith, Jennifer (2009). Grammaticalization in time and space: tracing the pathways of FUTURE going to across the British Isles. UK LVC 7 (Language Variation and Change) conference, Newcastle, UK, September 1–3.

Tagliamonte, Sali A., Durham, Mercedes, and Smith, Jennifer (2014b). Grammaticalization at an early stage: future “be going to” in conservative British dialects. English Language and Linguistics 18: 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Hudson, Rachel (1999). Be like et al. beyond America: the quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Roberts, Chris (2005). So cool, so weird, so innovative! The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech 80: 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Uscher, Dylan (2009). Queer youth in the speech community: a comparative analysis of variation and change. Presented at NWAV 38 (New Ways of Analyzing Variation) conference, Ottawa, Canada, October 22–25.Google Scholar

Thibault, Pierette and Vincent, Diane (1990). Un corpus de français parlé. Québec: Bibliothèque nationale du Québec.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). “Object complements” and conversation: towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26: 125–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 313–329.Google Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin (2003). Generation Txt? Exposing the sociolinguistics of young people's text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online 1.Google Scholar

Thurlow, Crispin (2006). From statistical panic to moral panic: the metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 11: 667–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torres-Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A. (2009a). On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: a variationist study of that. Linguistics 47: 1–43.Google Scholar

Torres-Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A. (2009b). The present of the English future: grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85: 321–354.Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel (2015). Uh and uhm in British and American English: are they words? In Dion, N., Torres-Cacoullos, R., and LaPierre, A. (eds.), Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory. New York: Routledge, 38–54.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1997). Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: the case of promise and threaten. In Swan, T. and Westvik, O. (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter, 185–210.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2013). I must wait on myself, must I? On the rise of pragmatic markers at the right periphery of the clause in English. Paper presented at Lund University, September 4.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (1991a). Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (1991b). Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter J. (1972). Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in urban British English. Language in Society 1: 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trudgill, Peter J. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter J. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter J. (2011). Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tsui, Amy B. M. (1991). The pragmatic functions of I don't know. Text 11: 607–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Underhill, Robert (1988). Like is like, focus. American Speech 63: 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

University of Helsinki (1991). The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.

Van Herk, Gerard (2009). That's so tween: intensifier use in on-line subcultures. Department of Linguistics, Memorial University, Newfoundland.Google Scholar

Vincent, Diane (1992). The sociolinguistics of exemplification in spoken French in Montréal. Language Variation and Change 4: 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vincent, Diane and Sankoff, David (1992). Punctors: a pragmatic variable. Language Variation and Change 4: 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Schneidemesser, Luanne (2000). Lexical change, language change. American Speech 75: 420–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, Suzanne Evans and Sankoff, Gillian (2011). Age grading in the Montréal French inflected future. Language Variation and Change 23: 275–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, Suzanne Evans and Tagliamonte, Sali A. (submitted-a). Incrementation in adolescence: tapping the force that drives linguistic change.

Wagner, Suzanne Evans and Tagliamonte, Sali A. (submitted-b). What makes a panel study work? Researcher and participant in real time. In Wagner, S. Evans and Buchstaller, I. (eds.), Panel Studies of Language Variation and Change. New York: Routledge.

Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, and Herzog, Marvin (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95–188.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). Oats and wheat: mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In Wierzbicka, A., The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 499–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, Christopher (2015). Changes in the verb phrase in legislative language in English. In Aarts, B., Close, J., Leech, G., and Wallis, S. A. (eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge University Press, 353–371.Google Scholar

Winter, Joanne and Norrby, Catrin (2000). Set marking tags “and stuff.” In Henderson, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society.www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als1999/winter&norrby.pdf.

Witten, Ian H. and Eibe, Frank (2005). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Wolfram, Walt (1969). A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Yates, Simeon J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: a corpus-based study. In Herring, S. C. (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 29–46.Google Scholar

Youssef, Valerie (1993). Marking solidarity across the Trinidad speech community: the use of an Ting in medical counseling to break down power differentials. Discourse & Society 4: 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar