Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T16:38:29.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Sali A. Tagliamonte  and
Alexandra D'Arcy
Sali A. Tagliamonte*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Alexandra D'Arcy*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury
*
Tagliamonte, Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Room 6076, 130 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H1, Canada [sali.tagliamonte@utoronto.ca]
D'Arcy, Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand [alexandra.darcy@canterbury.ac.nz]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is the mechanism by which a linguistic change advances across successive generations of speakers? We explore this question by using the model of incrementation provided in Labov 2001 and analyzing six current changes in English. Extending Labov's focus on recent and vigorous phonological changes, we target ongoing morphosyntactic(-semantic) and discourse-pragmatic changes. Our results provide a striking validation of the incrementation model, confirming its value as a key to understanding the evolution of linguistic systems. However, although our findings reveal the predicted peak in the apparent-time progress of a change and corroborate the female tendency to lead innovation, there is no absolute contrast between men and women with respect to incrementation. Instead, quantitative differences in the social embedding of linguistic change correlate with the rate of the change in the speech community.

Keywords

language changeadolescenceincrementationvernacular reorganization

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 58 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altmann, Gabriel H., von Buttlar, Haro, Rott, Walter; and Strauss, Udo. 1983. A law of change in language. Historical linguistics, ed. by Brainerd, Barron, 104–15. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that: The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. Corpus-based studies in English: Papers from the 17th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, ed. by Ljung, Magnus, 37–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49. 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, Sherry. 1982. The vocalization of Ill in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Bäcklund, Ulf (ed.) 1973. The collocation of adverbs of degree in English, vol. 13. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles J. N. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy. 2002. Real and apparent time. In Chambers et al. 2002, 312–32.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan; and Sand, Lori. 1991. The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3. 241–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, and Bauer, Winifred. 2002. Adjective boosters in the English of young New Zealanders. Journal of English Linguistics 30. 244–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Renée, and Josey, Meredith. 2003. The /ay/ diphthong in a Martha's Vineyard community: What can we say 40 years later? Language in Society 32. 451–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondeau, Hélène. 2001. Real-time changes in the paradigm of personal pronouns in Montreal French. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4. 453–74.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. 215–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2004. Real and apparent time in language change: Late adoption of changes in Montreal English. American Speech 79. 250–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., and Boltanski, L.. 1975. Le fétichisme de la langue [Juillet]. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 4. 2–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, Lars, and Lund, Jørn. 1979. Social factors in the sound changes of modern Danish. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli, Rischel, Jørgen, and Thor-sen, Nina, 196–203. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal ‘have to’ in English. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Origin and Development of Verbal Periphrases, 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 10), Amsterdam, August 16, 1991. Online: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/lbrinton/.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2001a. ‘He goes and I'm like’: The new quotative revisited. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English (NWAVE) 30, October 11–13, 2001, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2001b. An alternative view of ‘like’: Its grammaticalisation in conversational American English and beyond. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 11. 21–41.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2002. BE like USE? BE goes USE? Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English (NWAVE) 31, October 10–13, 2002, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006. Social stereotypes, personality traits and regional perception displaced: Attitudes towards the ‘new’ quotatives in the U.K. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10. 362–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2009. He goes, and I'm like: The new quotatives re-visited. American Speech, to appear.Google Scholar
Butters, Ronalds R. 1982. Editor's note [on ‘be + like‘]. American Speech 57.149.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Slobin, Dan I.. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58. 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J. 1973. The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J. 1988. The spread of language change: Verifying inferences of linguistic diffusion. Language spread and language policy: Issues, implications, and case studies, ed. by Lowenberg, Peter, 45–60. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J., and Sankoff, David. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50. 333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chae, Seo-Yong. 1995. External constraints on sound change: The raising of /o/ in Seoul Korean. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, ms.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1992. Dialect acquisition. Language 68. 673–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2003. Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. (Language in society.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K., and Hardwick, Margaret F.. 1985. Dialect homogeneity and incipient variation: Changes in progress in Toronto and Vancouver. Sheffield working papers in language and linguistics, ed. by Harris, John and Hawkins, Roger, 28–49. Sheffield: School of Modern Language and Linguistics, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter; and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.) 2002. The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crowell, Thomas L. 1955. Predating ‘have to’, ‘must‘? American Speech 30. 68–69.Google 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
D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2004. Contextualizing St. John's Youth English within the Canadian quotative system. Journal of English Linguistics 32. 323–45.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2005. Like: Syntax and development. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2006. Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81. 339–57.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. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 19. 125–40. (Special issue: Focus on Canadian English, ed. by Matthia Meyer.).Google Scholar
Dailey-O'Cain, Jennifer. 2000. The distribution of and attitudes towards focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4. 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, Gerald, Foulkes, Paul, Dodd, B.; and Milroy, Lesley. 2002. The emergence of structured variation in the speech of Tyneside infants. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. The handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. by Coulmas, Florian, 151–67. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Language variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.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. 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, Docherty, Gerard; and Watt, Dominic. 2005. Phonological variation in child-directed speech. Language 81. 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2009. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, ed. by Dianne Jonas and John Whitman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Gauchat, Louis. 1905. L'unité phonétique dans le patois d'une commune. Aus romanischen sprachen und literaturen: Festschrift Heinrich Morf, 175–232. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John Joseph, and Wilson, Robert. 1971. Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border. Pidginization and creolization of languages, ed. by Hymes, Dell, 151–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1980. Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. Locating language in time and space, ed. by Labov, William, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1988. Advanced VARBRUL analysis. Linguistic change and contact: Proceedings of the sixteenth annual conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation, ed. by Ferrara, Kathleen, Brown, Becky, Walters, Keith, and Baugh, John, 124–36. Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1993. The quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. American dialect research, ed. by Preston, Dennis, 223–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.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
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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. 257–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1999. Accounts of phonemic split have been greatly exaggerated—but not enough. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 14. 329–32.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto H. 1922. Language: Its nature, development, and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto H. 1961a. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part 6: Morphology. London: Bradford and Dickens.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto H. 1961b. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part 1: Sounds and spellings. London: George Allen & Unwin, and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. Talker variability in speech processing, ed. by Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John W., 145–65. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D.. 2003. On language, change, and language change—or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 3–180. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., and Schourup, Lawrence. 1982/83. More on (i)-wa(r). Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96. 56–59.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 1994. Dialects converging: Rural speech in urban Norway. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 1995. Children, adolescents and language change. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 68–90.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 1996a. Milton Keynes and dialect levelling in south-eastern British English. English: History, diversity and change, ed. by Graddol, David, Leith, Dick, and Swann, Joan, 292–300. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 1996b. Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change 8. 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul, and Williams, Ann. 1994. A new dialect in a new city: Children's and adults' speech in Milton Keynes. Final report presented to the Economic and Social Research Council, July.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul, and Williams, Ann. 2000. Creating a New Town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29. 65–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of Language 4. 30–57.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 171–202. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. Clause structure and language change, ed. by Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian, 140–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne. 1980. The changing distribution of indefinite pronouns in discourse. Language use and the uses of language, ed. by Shuy, Roger W. and Shnukal, Anna, 76–87. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google 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. 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1970. The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 23. 30–87.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1971. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1. 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1985. Intensity. Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications, ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 43–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2. 205–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83. 344–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and woman's place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 81.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeSourd, Philip. 1976. ‘Got’ insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 509–16.Google Scholar
Levey, Stephen. 2004. The sociolinguistic distribution of ‘like’ in preadolescents. London: Queen Mary College, University of London, ms.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1997. Catastrophic change and learning theory. Lingua 100. 171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. (Maryland lectures in language and cognition.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammatialization of intensifiers in Modern English. New reflections on grammaticalization, ed. by Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele, 144–61. Amsterdam John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, Ronald. 2007. Pure grammaticalization: The development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change 18. 267–83.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. The spread of the going-to-future in written English: A corpusbased investigation into language change in progress. Language history and linguistic modelling, ed. by Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanislaw, 1537–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Manly, J. 1930. From generation to generation. A grammatical miscellany offered to Otto Jespersen on his 70th birthday, ed. by Bøgholm, Niels, Brusendorff, Aage, and Bodelson, C. A., 287–89. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1952. Function, structure and sound change. Word 8. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Economie de changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
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
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2003. Intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swipe. English Studies 84. 372–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim, and Weinert, Regina. 1995. The function of like in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 23. 365–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1999. Towards a speaker-based account of language change. Language change: Advances in historical sociolinguistics, ed. by Jahr, Ernst Hákon, 21–36. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, Naomi, and Reynolds, Bill. 1997. Optimality theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9. 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahkola, Kari, and Saanilahti, Marja. 2004. Mapping language changes in real time: A panel study on Finnish. Language Variation and Change 16. 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1997. The processes of adverb derivation in Late Middle and Early Modern English. Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long term developments in English, ed. by Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, and Heikkonen, Kirsi, 145–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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, and Rissanen, Matti. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24. 359–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, Shawn. 1985. To have and have got. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 14, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nordberg, Bengt. 1975. Contemporary social variation as a stage in a long-term phonological change. The Nordic languages and modern linguistics, ed. by Dahlstedt, Karl-Hampus, 587–608. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Nordberg, Bengt, and Sundgren, Eva. 1998. On observing real-time language change: A Swedish case study. (FUMS report 190.) Uppsala: Enhenten för Sociolingvistik, Institutionen för Nordiska Språk vid Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Palander, Marjatta. 2005. Changes in an idiolect from childhood to middle age. Paper presented at Methods in Dialectology 12, August 1–5, 2005, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1997. A medieval case of grammaticalization, methinks. Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in English, ed. by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, and Kirsi Heikkonen, 371–403. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, John. 2002. Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford, CA: CSU Publications.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000. It's well weird: Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English: Papers from the nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 1998), ed. by Kirk, John M., 147–60. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of intensifiers. Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Baker, Mona, Francis, Gill, and Tognini-Bonelli, Elena, 177–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paunenen, Heikki. 1996. Language change in apparent time and in real time. Samspel & Variation: Sprakliga studier tillägnade Bengt Nordberg pa 60-ardsdagen, 375–86. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, Institutionen för Nordiska Språk.Google Scholar
Payne, Arvilla C. 1980. Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state children. Locating language in time and space, ed. by Labov, William, 143–78. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Hans. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. Studies in Early Modern English, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter, 269–88. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul, 137–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pope, Jennifer, Meyerhoff, Miriam; and Ladd, D. R.. 2007. Forty years of language change on Martha's Vineyard. Language 83. 615–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 1998. Nothing in context: Variation, grammaticization and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English. Changing meanings, changing functions: Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages, ed. by Baker, Philip and Syea, Anand, 71–94. Westminster: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 1999. The grammaticalization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11. 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2009. Alienability and stative HAVE in New Zealand English. Grammatical change: Theory and description, ed. by Rachel Hendery and Jennifer Hendriks. Canberra: Australian National University, to appear.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2005. Language change in adulthood: Historical letters as evidence. European Journal of English Studies 9. 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2009. Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen. The language of daily life in England (1450–1800), ed. by Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi, and Minna Palander-Collin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Robson, Barbara. 1975. Jenepher revisited: Adult language change. Analyzing variation in language: Papers from the second colloquium on New Ways of Analyzing Variation, ed. by Fasold, Ralph W. and Shuy, Roger W., 283–90. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.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. 227–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel; and Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50. 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1982. Sociolinguistic method and linguistic theory. Logic, methodology, philosophy of science 6, ed. by Cohen, L. Jonathan, Los, Jerzy, Pfeiffer, Helmut, and Podewski, Klaus Peter, 677–89. Amsterdam: North Holland, and Warsaw: Polish Scientific.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1985. Statistics in linguistics. Encyclopedia of the statistical sciences, vol. 5, ed. by Johnson, Samuel Kotz and. Norman L., 74–81. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988a. Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J., 140–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988b. Variable rules. Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 2, ed. by Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, and Mattheier, Klaus J., 984–97. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, and Rousseau, Pascale. 1979. Categorical contexts and variable rules. Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation, Stockholm, May 18–19, 1979, ed. by Jacobson, Sven, 7–22. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A.; and Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X. Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Online: http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, and Thibault, Pierrette. 1981. Weak complementarity: Tense and aspect in Montreal French. Syntactic change, ed. by Johns, Brenda B. and Strong, David R., 205–16. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 1973. Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. New ways of analyzing variation in English, ed. by Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W., 44–62. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 1980a. The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. In Sankoff 1980b, 211–55.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian (ed.) 1980b. The social life of language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.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. 2004. Adolescents, young adults and the critical period: Two case studies from ‘Seven up’. Sociolinguistic variation: Critical reflections, ed. by Fought, Carmen, 121–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 2006. Apparent time and real time. Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 1, 2nd edn., ed. by Brown, Keith, 110–16. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Blondeau, Hélène. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83. 560–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, Blondeau, Hélène; and Charity, Anne. 2001. Individual roles in a real-time change: Montreal (r->R) 1947–1995. R-atics: Sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/, ed. by van Hout, Roeland and van de Velde, Hans, 141–57. Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles, Institute des Langues Vivantes et de Phonétique.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Wagner, Suzanne Evans. 2005. Age grading in the future. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 34, 22 October 2005, New York University, NY.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Thibault, Pierrette. 1980. The alternation between the auxiliaries avoir and être in Montréal French. In Sankoff 1980b, 311–45.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1982. Common discourse particles in English conversation. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1985].Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 1994. The grammaticalization of an anterior in progress: Evidence from a peninsular Spanish dialect. Studies in Language 18. 71–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1999. He was really gormless—She's bloody crap: Girls, boys and intensifiers. Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, ed. by Hasselgård, Hide and Okesfjell, Signe, 69–78. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 2000. It's enough funny, man: Intensifiers in teenage talk. Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English: Papers from the nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 1998), ed. by Kirk, John, 177–90. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and down-toners: A study in English adverbs. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2000. The grammaticalization of the present perfect in English: Tracks of change and continuity in a linguistic enclave. Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, ed. by Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette, and Stein, Dieter, 329–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002a. Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers et al. 2002, 729–63.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002b. Variation and change in the British relative marker system. Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral, ed. by Poussa, Patricia, 147–65. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003. ‘Every place has a different toll’: Determinants of grammatical variation in cross-variety perspective. Determinants of grammatical variation in English, ed. by Rhodenberg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta, 531–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003–2006. Linguistic changes in Canada entering the 21st century. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) research grant #410–2003–0005. Online: http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2004. Have to, gotta, must: Grammaticalization, variation and specialization in English deontic modality. Corpus research on grammaticalization in English, ed. by Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian, 37–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2005. So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1896–915. (Special issue ed. by Anna-Brita Stenström and Karin Aijmer.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. ‘So cool, right?‘: Canadian English entering the 21st century. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51.2/3.309–31. (Theme issue: Canadian English in a global context).Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2007. Quantitative analysis. Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods, and applications, ed. by Bayley, Robert and Lucas, Ceil, 190–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Canadian English. English Language and Linguistics 12. 361–94. (Special issue: Intensifiers, ed. by Belén Mendez-Naya).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2004. He's like, She's like: The quotative system in Canadian Youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8. 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2007a. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28. 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2007b. 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., D'Arcy, Alexandra; and Jankowski, Bridget. 2007. We have change and we've got stability: Variable have (got) in Toronto, Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto, ms.Google 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. 147–72.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 Smith, Jennifer. 2006. Layering, change and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica 23. 341–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra, and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. Approaches to grammaticalization, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, 313–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tillery, Jan, and Bailey, Guy. 2003. Approaches to real time in dialectology and sociolinguistics. World Englishes 22. 351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres-Cacoullos, Rena. 1999. Variation and grammaticalization in progressives: Spanish -ndo constructions. Studies in Language 23. 25–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1997 [1995]. The role of the development of discourse markers in theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the twelfth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Manchester, 1997, Manchester, England. Online: http://www.standford.edu/~traugott/ect.papersonline.html.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. Why must is not moot. Paper presented at the fourteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1988. Norwich revisited: Recent linguistic changes in an English urban dialect. English World-Wide 9. 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1988. Like is, like, focus. American Speech 63. 234–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhulst, Pierre-François. 1845. Recherches mathématiques sur la loi d'accroissement de la population. Nouv. mém. de l'Académie Royale des Sci. et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, Judith, and Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19. 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William; and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Clara, and Jiménez, Elena. 1979. El ensordecimiento del yeísmo porteño [Devoicing of Bueons Aires /z/]. Estudio s lingüístico s y dialectológicos, ed. by Barrenechea, Ana María, 115–45. Buenos Aires: Hachette.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1993. Identifying and interpreting variables. American dialect research, ed. by Preston, Dennis, 193–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Robert, and Bayley, Robert. 1996. VARBRUL analysis for second language acquisition research. Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, ed. by Bayley, Robert and Preston, Dennis R., 253–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar