Aaron, Jessi Elana. 2010. Pushing the envelope: looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 22: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aarts, Jan. 2011. Corpus analysis. In Östman, Jan-Ola and Verschueren, Jef (eds) Pragmatics in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 118–29.Google Scholar

Abraham, Werner (ed.). 1991. Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ädel, Annelie and Reppen, Randi. 2008. The challenges of different settings: an overview. In Ädel, Annelie and Reppen, Randi (eds) Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agha, Asif. 2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15: 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1984. Sort of and kind of in English conversation. Studia Linguistica 38: 118–28.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1985. What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance-final tags introduced by ‘And’ and ‘Or’. In Togeby, Ole (ed.) Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Copenhagen: Institut for Philologie. 366–89.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In Tottie, Gunnel and Bäcklund, Ingegerd (eds) English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium. Uppsala: Studia Anglistica Uppsaliensia. 119–29.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf 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: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Algeo, John. 1988. The tag question in British English: it’s different, i’n’it? English World-Wide 9: 171–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Algeo, John. 1990. It’s a myth, innit? Politeness and the English tag question. In Ricks, Christopher and Michaels, Leonard (eds) The State of the Language. London: Faber and Faber. 443–50.Google Scholar

Allerton, David. 2009. Tag questions in British and American English. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds) One Language, Two Grammars? Differences Between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 306–23.Google Scholar

Altenberg, Bengt. 1991. Amplifier collocations in spoken English. In Johannson, Stig and Stenström, Anna-Brita (eds) English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 127–48.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Gisle. 2010a. A contrastive approach to vague nouns. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan (eds) New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald. 35–48.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle. 2010b. How to use corpus linguistics in sociolinguistics. In O’Keeffe, Anne and McCarthy, Michael (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge. 547–61.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle. 2011. Corpus-based pragmatics I: qualitative studies. In Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal R. (eds) Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 587–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Gisle. 2015. Relevance. In Rühlemann, Christoph and Aijmer, Karin (eds) Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 143–68.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle. 2016. Semi-lexical features in corpus transcription: consistency, comparability, standardisation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21.Google Scholar

Andersen, Gisle and Hofland, Knut. 2012. Building a large monitor corpus based on newspapers on the web. In Andersen, Gisle (ed.) Exploring Newspaper Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anthony, Lawrence. 2011. AntConc. Version 3.2.2. Available for download from: www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/.Google Scholar

Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1985. The discourse functions of given information. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: an overview. In Sanders, Ted, Schlipperoord, Joost and Spooren, Wilbert (eds) Text Representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 29–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony and Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76: 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Avis, Walter S. 1972. So eh? is Canadian, eh? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17: 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bailey, Charles-James N. 1973. Variation and Linguistic Theory. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bailey, Guy. 2002. Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. 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

Baird, Sarah. 2001. How ‘to be like’ a Kiwi: verbs of quotation in New Zealand English. New Zealand English Journal 15: 6–19.Google Scholar

Baker, Paul. 2010. Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Bakht, Maryam M. 2010. Lexical variation and the negotiation of linguistic style in a Long Island Middle School. Unpublished PhD thesis, New York University, USA.Google Scholar

Balasubramanian, Chandrika. 2009. Register Variation in Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ball, Catherine and Ariel, Mira. 1978. Or something, etc. Penn Review of Linguistics 3: 35–45.Google Scholar

Bao, Zhiming and Hong, Huaqing. 2006. Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English. World Englishes 25: 105–14.Google Scholar

Barbieri, Federica. 2007. Older men and younger women: a corpus-based study of quotative use in American English. English World-Wide 28: 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbieri, Federica. 2012. ‘Another god called Allah or something’ and so on: general extenders and register variation in American talk. Paper presented at the 1st Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change conference, April, Salford, UK.Google Scholar

Barnfield, Kate and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2010. Intensifiers on Tyneside: longitudinal developments and trends. English World-Wide 31: 252–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Dehé, Nicole and Wichmann, Anne (eds). 2009. Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayley, Robert. 2002. The quantitative paradigm. In Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. 117–41.Google Scholar

Beal, Joan C. and Corrigan, Karen P.. 2013. Working with unconventional existing data resources. In Mallinson, Christine, Childs, Becky and van Herk, Gerard (eds) Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications. London: Routledge. 213–16.Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate and Detges, Ulrich (eds). 2014a. Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beeching, Kate and Detges, Ulrich. 2014b. Introduction. In Beeching, Kate and Detges, Ulrich (eds) Discourse Functions and the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benor, Sarah Bunin. 2001. The learned /t/: phonological variation in Orthodox Jewish English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 29: 1–16.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1992. The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: an overview of methodology and findings. Language Resources and Evaluation 26: 331–45.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1996. Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses of association patterns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1: 171–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006. University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2009a. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2009b. Multi-dimensional approaches. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds) Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 822–55.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Cortes, Viviana. 2004. ‘If you look at …’: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1986. An initial typology of English text types. In Aarts, Jan and Meijis, Willem (eds) Corpus Linguistics II. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Black, Paul. 1976. Multidimensional scaling applied to linguistic relationships. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 3: 43–92.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blyth, Carl, 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

Bohman, Thomas M., Bedore, Lisa M., Peña, Elizabeth D., Mendez-Perez, Anita and Gillam, Ronald B.. 2010. What you hear and what you say: language performance in Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13: 325–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalisation and Discourse Function. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In van Kemenade, Hans and Los, Bettelou (eds) The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell. 307–34.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalisation and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Britain, David and Sudbury, Andrea. 2002. There’s sheep and there’s penguins: convergence, ‘drift’ and ‘slant’ in New Zealand and Falkland Island English. In Jones, Mari C. and Esch, Edith (eds) Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 211–40.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bublitz, Wolfram. 1998. ‘I entirely dot dot dot’: copying semantic features in collocations with up-scaling intensifiers. In Schulze, Rainer (ed.) Making Meaningful Choices in English: On Dimensions, Perspectives, Methodology and Evidence. Tübingen: Narr. 11–32.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 1998. Geek the girl: language, femininity and female nerds. In Warner, Natasha, Ahlers, Jocelyn, Bilmes, Leela, Oliver, Monica, Wertheim, Suzanne and Chen, Melinda (eds) Gender and Belief Systems: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: University of California. 119–31.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 2006. Word up: social meanings of slang in California youth culture. In Goodman, Jane and Monaghan, Leila (eds) Interpersonal Communication: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. 243–67.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 2009. From stance to style: gender, interaction and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 146–70.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 2010. White Kids: Language, Race and Styles of Youth Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2004. The sociolinguistic constraints on the quotative system: British English and US English compared. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006a. Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behaviour: the case of the quotative system. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006b. Social stereotypes, personality traits and regional perception displaced: attitudes toward the ‘new’ quotatives in the UK. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10: 362–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2008. The localisation of global linguistic variants. English World-Wide 29:15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2009. The quantitative analysis of morpho-syntactic variation: constructing and quantifying the denominator. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 1010–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2011. Quotations across the generations: a multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7: 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Localised globalisation: a multi-local, multivariate investigation of be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13: 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle and Van Alphen, Ingrid (eds). 2012. Quotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burnard, Lou. 2007. Reference guide for the British National Corpus: XML edition. Research Technologies Service at Oxford University Computing Services. Last accessed 24 March 2015, from: www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/.Google Scholar

Butters, Ronald. 1980. Narrative go ‘say’. American Speech 55: 304–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butters, Ronald. 1982. Editor’s note [on be like ‘think’]. American Speech 57: 149.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticisation: the role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds) The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 602–23.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah, McAlinden, Fiona and O’Leary, Kathy. 1988. Lakoff in context: the social and linguistic functions of tag questions. In Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah (eds) Women in Their Speech Communities. London: Longman. 74–93.Google Scholar

Cameron, Richard. 2005. Aging and gendering. Language in Society 34: 23–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn, Eckert, Penelope, Mendoza-Denton, Norma and Moore, Emma. 2006. The elements of style. Poster presented at the 35th New Ways of Analysing Variation conference, November, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar

Carbaugh, Donal. 1988. Talking American: Cultural Discourses on Donahue. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar

Carroll, Ruth. 2008. Historical English phraseology and the extender tag. Selim 15: 7–37.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. 27–55.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1984. How people use adverbial clauses. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 437–49.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1996. Inferring identifiabilty and accessibility. In Fretheim, Thorstein and Gundel, Jeanette K. (eds) Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chambers, J.K. 2002. Studying language variation: an informal epistemology. In Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. 3–14.Google Scholar

Chambers, J.K. 2009. Sociolinguistic Theory. Rev. ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 1981. Variation in the use of ain’t in an urban British English dialect. Language in Society 10: 365–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 1987. Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25: 257–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 2003. Social dimensions of syntactic variation: the case of when clauses. In Britain, David and Cheshire, Jenny (eds) Social Dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 245–61.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and beyond: gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9: 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11: 155–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 2013. Grammaticalisation in social context: the emergence of a new English pronoun. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17: 608–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny, Adger, David and Fox, Sue. 2013. Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua 126: 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue, Kerswill, Paul and Torgersen, Eivind. 2008. Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica 22: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul, Fox, Sue and Torgersen, Eivind. 2011. Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: the emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15: 151–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul and Williams, Ann. 2005. Phonology, grammar, and discourse in dialect convergence. In Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans and Kerswill, Paul (eds) Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 135–67.Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny and Williams, Ann. 2002. Information structure in male and female adolescent talk. Journal of English Linguistics 30: 217–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Childs, Claire. in prep. Variation and change in English negation: a cross-dialectal perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis, Newcastle University, UK.Google Scholar

Cieri, Christopher, Graff, David, Kimball, Owen, Miller, Dave and Walker, Kevin. 2004. Fisher English Training. Part 1: Transcripts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar

Cieri, Christopher, Graff, David, Kimball, Owen, Miller, Dave and Walker, Kevin. 2005. Fisher English Training. Part 2: Transcripts. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar

Clancy, Brian and Vaughan, Elaine. 2012. It’s lunacy now: a corpus-based pragmatic analysis of the use of now in contemporary Irish English. In Migge, Bettina and Chosáin, Máire Ní (eds) New Perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 225–46.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. and Gerrig, Richard. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66: 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. and Krych, Meredyth A.. 2004. Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50: 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. and Wilkes-Gibbes, Deanna. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clift, Rebecca. 2001. Meaning in interaction: the case of actually. Language 77: 245–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clift, Rebecca. 2003. Synonyms in action. International Journal of English Studies 3: 167–87.Google Scholar

Collins, Peter. 2002. Some discourse functions of existentials in English. Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society. Last accessed 21 March 2015, from: www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2001.html.Google Scholar

Columbus, Georgina. 2010. A comparative analysis of invariant tags in three varieties of English. English World-Wide 31: 288–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coronel, Lilian. 2011. Patterns of intensifier usage in Philippine English. In Bautista, Maria Lourdes S. (ed.) Studies of Philippine English: Exploring the Philippine Component of the International Corpus of English. Manila: Anvil. 93–116.Google Scholar

Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: 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

Cukor-Avila, Patricia. 2012. Some structural consequences of diffusion. Language in Society 41: 615–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cukor-Avila, Patricia and Bailey, Guy. 2013. Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J.K. and Schilling, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 239–62.Google Scholar

Cullicover, Peter W. 1992. English tag questions in Universal Grammar. Lingua 88: 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, Ceclia A. 1999. Yorkville crossing: white teens, hip hop and African American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 428–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4: 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2004. Contextualising St. John’s youth English within the Canadian quotative system. Journal of English Linguistics 32: 323–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2005. Like: syntax and development. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2006. Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81: 339–57.Google Scholar

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

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2010. Quoting ethnicity: constructing dialogue in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14: 60–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2012. The diachrony of quotation: evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 24: 343–69.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2015. Quotation and advances in understanding syntactic systems. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra. in prep. Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 159–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert and Pietrandrea, Paola (eds). 2013. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorisation and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds). 2011. Grammaticalisation, Pragmaticalisation and/or (Inter)Subjectification: Methodological Issues for the Study of Discourse Markers. Thematic issue: Linguistics 49.Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole and Braun, Bettina. 2013. The prosody of question tags in English. English Language and Linguistics 17: 129–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole and Wichmann, Anne. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in discourse: prosodic cues to the semantic-pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Klerk, Vivian. 2005. Expressing levels of intensity in Xhosa English. English World-Wide 26: 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denis, Derek. 2011. Innovators and innovation: tracking the innovators of and stuff in York English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 61–70.Google Scholar

Denis, Derek. 2013. The social meaning of eh in Canadian English. In Luo, Shan (ed.) Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Victoria: Canadian Linguistics Association. Last accessed 25 March 2015, from: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2013/actes2013.html.Google Scholar

Denis, Derek. 2015. The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 2011. Presidential address. Paper presented at the 2nd International Society for the Linguistics of English conference, June, Boston, USA.Google Scholar

Deutschmann, Mats. 2006. Social variation in the use of apology formulae in the British National Corpus. In Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds) The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 205–21.Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 403–25.Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalisation (defined) as grammaticalisation of discourse functions. Linguistics 49: 365–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dines, Elizabeth R. 1980. Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9: 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diskin, Chloé. 2015. Discourse-pragmatic variation and language ideologies among native and non-native speakers of English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar

Dixon, W.J. 1950. Analysis of extreme values. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21: 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drager, Katie. 2009. A sociophonetic ethnography of Selwyn Girls’ High. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Drager, Katie. 2010. Sensitivity to grammatical and sociophonetic variability in perception. Laboratory Phonology 1: 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drager, Katie. 2011. Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics 39: 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drager, Katie and Hay, Jennifer. 2012. Exploiting random intercepts: two case studies in sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change 24: 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dress, Andreas W.M. and Huson, Daniel H.. 2004. Construction splits graphs. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 1: 109–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 139–82.Google Scholar

Dubois, Sylvie. 1992. Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change 4: 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dubois, Sylvie and Horvath, Barbara. 1999. When the music changes, you change too: gender and language change in Cajun English. Language Variation and Change 11: 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope. 1996. (ay) goes to the city: exploring the expressive use of variation. In Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah and Baugh, John (eds) Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honour of William Labov. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ely, Richard and McCabe, Allyssa. 1993. Remembered voices. Journal of Child Language 20: 671–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Embleton, Sheila. 1986. Statistics in Historical Linguistics. Bochum: Studienverlag Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt. 1992. Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-gender and mixed-gender interaction. Language Variation and Change 4: 217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erman, Britt. 1995. Grammaticalisation in progress: the case of or something. In Moen, Inger, Simonsen, Hanne Gram and Lødrup, Helga (eds) Papers from the Fifteenth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Oslo: Department of Linguistics, University of Oslo. 136–47.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt. 1998. ‘Just wear the wig innit!’ From identifying and proposition-oriented to intensifying and speaker-oriented: grammaticalisation in progress. In Haukioja, Timo (ed.) Papers from the Sixteenth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Turku: Department of Finnish and General Linguistics, University of Turku. 87–100.Google Scholar

Fernandez, Julieta and Yuldashev, Aziz. 2011. Variation in the use of general extenders and stuff in instant messaging interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2610–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferrara, Kathleen W. 1997. Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics 35: 343–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferrara, Kathleen W. and Bell, Barbara. 1995. Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: the case of be + like. American Speech 70: 265–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fetzer, Anita. 2010. Hedges in context: form and function of sort of and kind of. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud and Schneider, Stefan (eds) New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald. 49–71.Google Scholar

Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006a. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Kerstin. 2006b. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forster, Peter and Renfrew, Colin. 2006. Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar

Foulkes, Paul, Docherty, Gerard and Watt, Dominic. 2005. Phonological variation in child-directed speech. Language 81: 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Sue. 2010. Ethnicity, religion and practices: adolescents in the East End of London. In Llamas, Carmen and Watt, Dominic (eds) Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 144–56.Google Scholar

Fox, Sue. 2012. Performed narrative: the pragmatic function of this is + speaker and other quotatives in London adolescent speech. In Buchstaller, Isabelle and van Alphen, Ingrid (eds) Quotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 231–58.Google Scholar

Fox, Susan. 2015. The New Cockney: New Ethnicities and Adolescent Speech in the Traditional East End of London. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Fox Tree, Jean E. 2006. Placing like in telling stories. Discourse Studies 8: 723–43.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuchs, Robert. 2012. Focus marking and semantic transfer in Indian English: the case of also. English World-Wide 33: 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuchs, Robert. 2016. The frequency of the present perfect in varieties of English around the world. In Werner, Valentin, Suárez-Gómez, Cristina and Seoane, Elena (eds) Re-Assessing the Present Perfect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Fuchs, Robert and Coronel, Lilian. 2011. Intensifiers across varieties of English. Paper presented at the 17th International Association of World Englishes conference, November, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar

Fussell, Susan R. and Krauss, Robert M.. 1989. The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25: 203–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left-Dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In Givón, Talmy and Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (eds) Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 59–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Godfrey, John and Holliman, Edward. 1997. Switchboard-1 Release 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Gold, Elaine and Tremblay, Mireille. 2006. Eh? and Hein? Discourse particles or national icons? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51: 247–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goodell, Elizabeth and Sachs, Jacqueline. 1992. Direct and indirect speech in English-speaking children’s retold narratives. Discourse Processes 15: 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, Elizabeth, Hay, Jennifer and Maclagan, Margaret. 2007. The ONZE corpus. In Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P. and Moisl, Hermann L. (eds) Creating and Digitising Language Corpora. Vol. 2: Diachronic Databases. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 82–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gray, Mark. 2012. On the interchangeability of actually and really in spoken English: quantitative and qualitative evidence from corpora. English Language and Linguistics 16: 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1974. Some verb-intensifier collocations in American and British English. American Speech 49: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1991. ICE: the International Corpus of English. English Today 7: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan and Hilpert, Martin. 2010. Variability-based neighbour clustering: a bottom-up approach to periodisation in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 134–44.Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy and Zacharsky, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guy, Gregory. 1988. Advanced Varbrul analysis. In Ferrara, Kathleen, Brown, Becky, Walters, Keith and Baugh, John (eds) Linguistic Change and Contact. Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin. 124–36.Google Scholar

Haddican, William and Zweig, Eytan. 2012. The syntax of manner quotative constructions in English and Dutch. Linguistic Variation 12: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haeri, Niloofar. 1994. A linguistic innovation of women in Cairo. Language Variation and Change 6: 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: final particles in English. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 182–204.Google Scholar

Hasselgård, Hilde. 2010. Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalisation. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds) The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 575–601.Google Scholar

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

Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania and Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2014. Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralisation: some correlations. Language and Cognition 6: 146–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henderson, Anita. 1996. The short ‘a’ pattern of Philadelphia among African-American speakers. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 127–40.Google Scholar

Hickey, Leo. 1991. Surprise, surprise, but do so politely. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 367–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hickmann, Maya. 1993. The boundaries of reported speech in narrative discourse: some developmental aspects. In Lucy, John (ed.) Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalisation and grammaticalisation: opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Bjӧrn (eds) What Makes Grammaticalisation? A Look From Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in early and late Modern English: historical description and theoretical implications. Anglistik 17: 35–55.Google Scholar

Höhn, Nicole. 2012. ‘And they were all like “what’s going on?”’: new quotatives in Jamaican and Irish English. In Hundt, Marianne and Gut, Ulrike (eds) Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 263–90.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1982. The functions of tag questions. English Language Research Journal 4: 40–65.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1984. Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo 27: 47–62.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1986. Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society 15: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication 10: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet, Vine, Bernadette and Johnson, Gary. 1998. The Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English: A Users’ Guide. Wellington: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticisation. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds) Approaches to Grammaticalisation. Vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalisation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horton, William S. and Gerrig, Richard J.. 2005. The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition 96: 127–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hulk, Aafke and Müller, Natascha. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 227–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huson, Daniel H. and Bryant, Daniel. 2006a. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23: 254–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Huson, Daniel H. and Bryant, Daniel. 2006b. User Manual for SplitsTree4, V4.6. Last accessed 10 March 2015, from: www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=12883&pt=2&p=15266.Google Scholar

The ICE Project. 2009. Corpus Design. Last accessed 30 January 2014, from: http://ice-corpora.net/ice/design.htm.Google Scholar

Irvine, Judith T. 2001. ‘Style’ as distinctiveness: the culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R. (eds) Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 21–43.Google Scholar

Ito, Rika and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 32: 257–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Izutsu, Katsunobu and Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2013. From discourse markers to modal/final particles: what the position reveals about the continuum. In Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert and Pietrandrea, Paola (eds) Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorisation and Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Sven. 1978. On the Use, Meaning, and Syntax of English Preverbal Adverbs. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalisation. Language Sciences 23: 265–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1990. List-construction as a task and resource. In Psathas, George (ed.) Interaction Competence. Lanham: University Press of America. 63–92.Google Scholar

Jeffery, Chris and van Rooy, Bertus. 2004. Emphasiser now in colloquial South African English. World Englishes 23: 269–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: introducing Rbrul for mixed effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Marion. 1976. Canadian eh. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 153–60.Google Scholar

Johnstone, Barbara. 1987. ‘He says … so I said’: verb tense alternation and narrative depictions of authority in American English. Linguistics 25: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, Bob Morris. 1990. Constraints on Welsh English tags: some evidence from children’s language. English World-Wide 11: 173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael. 1998. Discourse markers: introduction. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Ziv, Yael (eds) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kallen, Jeffrey and Kirk, John. 2007. ICE-Ireland: local variations on global standards. In Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P. and Moisl, Hermann L. (eds) Creating and Digitising Corpora. Vol. 1: Synchronic Databases. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 121–62.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions with a Focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalisations: the what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenesei, István, Vago, Robert M. and Fenyvesi, Anna. 1998. Hungarian Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Graeme. 2002. Absolutely diabolical or relatively straightforward? Modification of adjectives by degree adverbs in the British National Corpus. In Fischer, Andreas, Tottie, Gunnel and Lehmann, Hans Martin (eds) Text Types and Corpora. Tübingen: Narr. 151–63.Google Scholar

Kern, Joseph. 2014. Como in commute: the travels of a discourse marker across languages. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 7: 279–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kerswill, Paul. 2013. Identity, ethnicity and place: the construction of youth language in London. In Auer, Peter, Hilpert, Martin, Stukenbrock, Anja and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (eds) Space in Language and Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 128–64.Google Scholar

Kerswill, Paul, Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue and Torgersen, Eivind. 2007. Linguistic Innovators: The English of Adolescents in London: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-23-0680. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar

Kerswill, Paul, Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue and Torgersen, Eivind. 2010. Multicultural London English: The Emergence, Acquisition and Diffusion of a New Variety: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-062-23-0814. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar

Kerswill, Paul, Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue and Torgersen, Eivind. 2013. English as a contact language: the role of children and adolescents. In Schreier, Daniel and Hundt, Marianne (eds) English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 258–82.Google Scholar

Keysar, Boaz, Barr, Dale J., Balin, Jennifer and Paek, Tomothy S.. 1998. Definite reference and mutual knowledge: process models of common ground in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiesling, Scott. 1998. Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: the case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2: 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiesling, Scott. 2004. English input to Australia. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 418–39.Google Scholar

Kiesling, Scott. 2005. Variation, style, and stance: word-final -er, high rising tone, and ethnicity in Australian English. English World-Wide 26: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiesling, Scott F. 2009. Style as stance: stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation. In Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 171–94.Google Scholar

Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin and Cornillie, Bert. 2014a. A speech function analysis of tag questions in British English spontaneous dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 66: 64–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin and Cornillie, Bert. 2014b. The speech function of tag questions and their properties: a comparison of their distribution in COLT and LLC. In Davidse, Kristin, Gentens, Caroline, Ghesquière, Lobke and Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds) Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 321–50.Google Scholar

Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Knowles, John. 1980. The tag as a parenthetical. Studies in Language 4: 379–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd and Wolk, Christoph. 2012. Morphosyntactic variation in the Anglophone world: a global perspective. In Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds) The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 906–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kovac, Ceil and Adamson, Douglas. 1981. Variation theory and first language acquisition. In Sankoff, David and Cedergren, Henrietta (eds) Variation Omnibus. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 403–10.Google Scholar

Krause, Jean C. and Braida, Louis D.. 2004. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rate. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115: 362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert and Krifka, Manfred (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) (Working Papers of the SFB 632). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam. 13–55.Google Scholar

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

Krug, Manfred. 1998. British English is developing a new discourse marker, innit? A study in lexicalisation based on social, regional and stylistic variation. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 23: 146–97.Google Scholar

Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1949. La nature des procès dits ‘analogiques’. Acta Linguistica 5: 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1966. The linguistic variable as structural unit. The Washington Linguistics Review 3: 4–22.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1972a. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972c. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1: 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Baugh, John and Sherzer, Joel (eds) Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 28–54.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Labov, William. 2001a. The anatomy of style. In Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John (eds) Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 85–108.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2001b. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2005. Quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. In Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J. and Trudgill, Peter (eds) Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik. Vol. 1: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 6–21.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83: 344–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 2012. What is to be learned: the community as the focus of social cognition. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10: 265–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lam, Zoe W., Thoma, Sonja and Wiltschko, Martina. 2013. The syntax of grounding. Poster presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, June, Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lavandera, Beatriz R. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7: 171–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lave, Jean and Wenger, Étienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 2002. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalisation: A Programmatic Sketch. Vol. 1: Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48. Cologne: Universität zu Köln, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar

Lenk, Uta. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar

Levey, Stephen. 2006a. The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker like in preadolescent speech. Multilingua 25: 413–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levey, Stephen. 2006b. Tense variation in preadolescent narratives. Journal of English Linguistics 34: 126–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levey, Stephen. 2007. The next generation: aspects of grammatical variation in the speech of some London preadolescents. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London, UK.Google Scholar

Levey, Stephen. 2012. General extenders and grammaticalisation: insights from London preadolescents. Applied Linguistics 33: 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levey, Stephen, Groulx, Karine and Roy, Joseph. 2013. A variationist perspective on discourse-pragmatic change in a contact setting. Language Variation and Change 25: 225–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levey, Stephen and McIntyre, Rebecca. MS. Quoting self and other: the acquisition of quotative strategies by 4–12-year-old children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar

Levon, Erez and Holmes-Elliot, Sophie. 2013. East End boys and West End girls: /s/-fronting in southeast England. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 111–20.Google Scholar

Lewis, Diana. 2006. Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, Charles N. 1986. Direct speech and indirect speech: a functional study. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 28–45.Google Scholar

Lim, Joo Hyuk. 2012. The grammatical relatedness of Asian Englishes. Paper presented at the 18th International Association of World Englishes conference, December, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, China.Google Scholar

Llamas, Carmen. 2007. Age. In Llamas, Carmen, Mullany, Louise and Stockwell, Peter (eds) The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge. 69–76.Google Scholar

Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Luckmann de Lopez, Kathrin. 2013. Clause-final man in Tyneside English. In Andersen, Gisle and Bech, Kristin (eds) English Corpus Linguistics: Variation in Time, Space and Genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 139–62.Google Scholar

Lutzky, Ursula. 2012. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyse, Gunn Inger and Andersen, Gisle. 2012. Collocations and statistical analysis of n-grams: multiword expressions in newspaper text. In Andersen, Gisle (ed.) Exploring Newspaper Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 1985. The narrative skills of a Scottish coal miner. In Görlach, Manfred (ed.) Focus on Scotland. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 101–24.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 1991. Locating Dialect in Discourse: The Language of Honest Men and Bonnie Lassies in Ayr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 1995. The adverbs of authority. English World-Wide 16: 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2001. You’re like ‘why not?’ The quotative expressions of Glasgow adolescents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2002. Discourse variation. In Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. 283–305.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2003. Repeat after me: the value of replication. International Journal of English Studies 3: 77–92.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2005. Talk That Counts: Age, Gender, and Social Class Differences in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2006. Pure grammaticalisation: the development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change 18: 267–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2013. Discourse variation. In Chambers, J.K. and Schilling, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 220–36.Google Scholar

Maechler, Martin, Rousseeuw, Peter, Struyf, Anja, Hubert, Mia and Hornik, Kurt. 2002. Cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 1.14.2.Google Scholar

Maguire, Warren, McMahon, April, Heggarty, Paul and Dediu, Dan. 2010. The past, present and future of English dialects: quantifying convergence, divergence and dynamic equilibrium. Language Variation and Change 22: 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: statistics, frequencies and beyond. In Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian (eds) Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalisation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 120–50.Google Scholar

Manning, Christopher D. and Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Margerie, Hélène. 2014. ‘He was angry awful’: intertwining paths of development to new degree modifier constructions in American English. American Speech 89: 257–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, J.R. and White, P.R.R.. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matras, Yaron. 2010. Contact, convergence and typology. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) The Handbook of Language Contact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mazzaro, Natalia. 2005. Speaking Spanish with style: /s/ deletion in Argentine Spanish and Labov’s decision tree. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 171–90.Google Scholar

McEnery, Tony and Hardie, Andrew. 2012. Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard and Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-Based Language Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

McGregor, William. 1995. The English ‘tag question’: a new analysis, is(n’t) it? In Hasan, Ruqaiya and Fries, Peter H. (ed.) On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMahon, April, Heggarty, Paul, McMahon, Robert and Maguire, Warren. 2007. The sound patterns of Englishes: representing phonetic similarity. English Language and Linguistics 11: 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meillet, Antoine. 1912. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Méndez Naya, Belén. 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: on the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27: 141–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 2008. Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice among Latina Youth Gangs. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1992. ‘A sort of something’ – hedging strategies on nouns. Working Papers on Language, Gender and Sexism 2: 59–73.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1994. Sounds pretty ethnic, eh? A pragmatic particle in New Zealand English. Language in Society 23: 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyerhoff, Miriam and Schleef, Erik. 2013. Hitting an Edinburgh target: immigrant adolescents’ acquisition of variation in Edinburgh English. In Lawson, Robert (ed.) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Scotland. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 103–28.Google Scholar

Millar, Martin and Brown, Keith. 1979. Tag questions in Edinburgh speech. Linguistische Berichte 60: 24–45.Google Scholar

Miller, Karen and Schmitt, Cristina. 2010. Effects of variable input in the acquisition of plural in two dialects of Spanish. Lingua 120: 1178–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milroy, James, Milroy, Lesley, Hartley, Sue and Walshaw, David. 1994. Glottal stops and Tyneside glottalisation: competing patterns of variation and change in British English. Language Variation and Change 6: 327–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, Emma and Podesva, Robert. 2009. Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society 38: 447–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Natascha and Hulk, Aafke. 2001. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual first language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murphy, Brona. 2009. ‘She’s a fucking ticket’: the pragmatics of fuck in Irish English – an age and gender perspective. Corpora 4: 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myhill, John. 1992. Typological Discourse Analysis: Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Linguistic Functions. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Nelson, Gerry, Wallis, Sean and Aarts, Bas. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neumann, Stella. 2012. Applying register analysis to varieties of English. In Fludernik, Marianne and Kortmann, Bernd (eds) Proceedings of Anglistentag 2011, Freiburg. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. 75–94.Google Scholar

Neumann, Stella. 2013. Contrastive Register Variation: A Quantitative Approach to the Comparison of English and German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, Johanna and Warnow, Tandy. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 760–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nordqvist, Åsa. 2001. Speech About Speech: A Developmental Study on Form and Function of Direct and Indirect Speech. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.Google Scholar

Norrby, Catrin and Winter, Joanne. 2002. Affiliation in adolescents’ use of discourse extenders. In Allen, Cynthia (ed.) Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Last accessed 25 March 2015, from: www.als.asn.au.Google Scholar

Norrick, Neal R. 2011. Interjections. In Andersen, Gisle and Aijmer, Karin (eds) Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 243–92.Google Scholar

OED Online: Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Last accessed 6 March 2015, from: www.oed.com.Google Scholar

Oh, Sun-Young. 2000. Actually and in fact in American English: a data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4: 243–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Keeffe, Anne. 2004. ‘Like the wise virgins and all that jazz’: using a corpus to examine vague categorisation and shared knowledge. Language and Computers 52: 1–26.Google Scholar

Opdahl, Lise. 2000. LY or Zero Suffix? A Study in Variation of Dual-Form Adverbs in Present-Day English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Östman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You Know: A Discourse Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Overstreet, Maryann. 2005. And stuff und so: investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1845–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann and Yule, George. 1997. On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics 25: 250–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palacios Martínez, Ignacio. 2011. ‘I might, I might go I mean it depends on money things and stuff’: a preliminary analysis of general extenders in British teenagers’ discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2452–70.Google Scholar

Palacios Martínez, Ignacio. 2015. Variation, development and pragmatic uses of innit in the language of British adults and teenagers. English Language and Linguistics 19: 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Paradis, Carita. 2000. It’s well weird: degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: the nineties. In Kirk, John (ed.) Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 147–60.Google Scholar

Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: the case of the intensifier. In Baker, Francis and Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (eds) Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 177–92.Google Scholar

Parviainen, Hanna. 2012. Focus particles in Indian English and other varieties. World Englishes 31: 226–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parviainen, Hanna and Fuchs, Robert. MS. Indian English as a super-central variety. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar

Peckham, Aaron. 2009. Urban Dictionary: Fularious Street Slang Defined. Kansas City: Andrew McMeel.Google Scholar

Peter, Lothar and Wolf, Hans-Georg. 2007. A comparison of the varieties of West African Pidgin English. World Englishes 26: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle 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: 561–96.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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, Heike. 2014. Discourse function and clause periphery, innit? Paper presented at the 2nd Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change conference, April, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike. MS. Positional and functional innovations in innit in Multicultural London English. Unpublished manuscript, Newcastle University, UK.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen. 2010. Variability in the co-occurrence of discourse features. Language Studies Working Papers 2: 17–27.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen. 2011. In search of grammaticalisation in synchronic dialect data: general extenders in northeast England. English Language and Linguistics 15: 441–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, Heike and Torgersen, Eivind. 2013. Negative-polarity question tags in contemporary London English: variation and innovation. Paper presented at the 3rd i-mean conference, April, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar

Podesva, Robert. 2004. On constructing social meaning with stop release bursts. Paper presented at the 15th Sociolinguistics Symposium, April, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.Google Scholar

Podesva, Robert. 2007. Three sources of stylistic meaning. Texas Linguistic Forum 51: 134–43.Google Scholar

Poplack, Shana. 1989. The care and handling of a mega-corpus: the Ottawa-Hull French project. In Fasold, Ralph and Schiffrin, Deborah (eds), Language Change and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 411–51.Google Scholar

Poplack, Shana and Malvar, Elisabete. 2007. Elucidating the transition period in linguistic change: the expression of the future in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus 19: 121–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poplack, Shana and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1991. African American English in the diaspora: evidence from old-line Nova Scotians. Language Variation and Change 3: 301–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poplack, Shana and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2001. African American English in the Diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Preston, Dennis R. 1996. Whaddayaknow? The modes of folk linguistic awareness. Language Awareness 5: 40–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–54.Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: subject, definiteness and information status. In Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandara A. (eds) Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fundraising Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Rampton, Ben. 2013. Styling in a language learned later in life. The Modern Language Journal 97: 360–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena and Nurmi, Arja. 2011. Grammaticalisation and language change in the individual. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 251–62.Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available for download from: www.R-project.org.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rickford, John. 1975. Carrying the new wave into syntax: the case of Black English bín. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Shuy, Roger W. (eds) Analysing Variation in Language: Papers from the Second Colloquium on New Ways of Analysing Variation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 162–83.Google Scholar

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

Roberts, Julie. 1996. Acquisition of variable rules: (-t,d) deletion and (ing) production in preschool children. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science (IRCS) Report 96–09.Google Scholar

Roberts, Julie. 1997. Hitting a moving target: acquisition of sound changes by Philadelphia children. Language Variation and Change 9: 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Julie. 2005. Acquisition of sociolinguistic variation. In Ball, Martin (ed.) Clinical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 153–64.Google Scholar

Roberts, Julie. 2013. Child language variation. In Chambers, J.K. and Schilling, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 263–76.Google Scholar

Roberts, Julie and Labov, William. 1995. Learning to talk Philadelphian. Language Variation and Change 7: 101–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rodríguez Louro, Celeste. 2013. Quotatives down under: be like in cross-generational Australian English speech. English World-Wide 34: 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rodríguez Louro, Celeste. 2015. Story-telling across the generations: quotative be like changes the face of Australian English narratives. Paper presented at the Changing English conference, June, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar

Rodríguez Louro, Celeste. under construction. UWA Corpus of English in Australia. Discipline of Linguistics, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar

Rodríguez Louro, Celeste and Ritz, Marie-Eve. 2014. Stories down under: tense variation at the heart of Australian English narratives. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34: 540–56.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1984a. The Language of Children and Adolescents. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1984b. On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica 18: 409–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1989. The role of children in linguistic change. In Breivik, Leiv-Egil and Jahr, Ernst Håkon (eds) Language Change: Contributions to the Study of Its Causes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: a case of grammaticalisation in progress. American Speech 66: 227–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romesburg, H. Charles. 1984. Cluster Analysis for Researchers. Belmont: Lifetime Learning.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, Christoph. 2011. Corpus-based pragmatics II: quantitative studies. In Bublitz, Wolfram and Norrick, Neal R. (eds) Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 629–56.Google Scholar

Rutter, Ben. 2013. The acquisition of newly emerging phonetic variation: /str-/ in American English. Journal of Child Language 41: 1166–78.Google ScholarPubMed

Sag, Ivan A., Baldwin, Timothy, Bond, Francis, Copestake, Ann and Flickinger, Dan. 2002. Multiword expressions: a pain in the neck for NLP. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2276: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanford, Daniel. 2008. Discourse and metaphor: a corpus-driven inquiry. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4: 209–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, David. 1988. Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. 4: Language: The Socio-Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 140–61.Google Scholar

Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X: a variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Canada. Available for download from: http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.html.Google Scholar

Sankoff, David and Thibault, Pierrette. 1981. Weak complementarity: tense and aspect in Montreal French. In Johns, Brenda B. and Strong, David R. (eds) Syntactic Change. Vol. 25. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 205–16.Google Scholar

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

Sankoff, Gillian. 1973. Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W. (eds) New Ways of Analysing Variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 44–62.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 and Brown, Penelope. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse. Language 52: 631–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Language 57: 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2002. Investigating stylistic variation. In Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. 375–401.Google Scholar

Schilling, Natalie. 2013. Sociolinguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: from identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79: 233–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 2012. Colonisation, globalisation, and the sociolinguistics of World Englishes. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 335–53.Google Scholar

Schneider, Klaus P. 2010. Variational pragmatics. In Fried, Mirjam, Östman, Jan-Ola and Verschueren, Jef (eds) Variation and Change: Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schneider, Klaus P. and Barron, Anne. 2008. Where pragmatics and dialectology meet: introducing variational pragmatics. In Schneider, Klaus P. and Barron, Anne (eds) Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers: tutorial overview. Lingua 107: 227–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence. 2001. Rethinking well. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1025–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence. 2011. Discourse marker now: a relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2110–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwenter, Scott A. and Cacoullos, Rena Torres. 2008. Defaults and indeterminacy in temporal grammaticalisation: the ‘perfect’ road to perfective. Language Variation and Change 20: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scott, Mike. 2004. WordSmith Tools, Version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sebba, Mark. 1993. London Jamaican: Language Systems in Interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Sebba, Mark and Tate, Shirley. 1986. You know what I mean? Agreement marking in British Black English. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 163–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secova, Maria. 2014. ‘Je sais et tout mais …’: might the general extenders in European French be changing? Journal of French Language Studies 24: 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secova, Maria. MS. General extenders in Paris French and London English: are they changing or something? Unpublished manuscript, Queen Mary, University of London, UK.Google Scholar

Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Willems, Dominique. 2011. Cross-linguistic data as evidence for grammaticalisation. Linguistics 49: 333–64.Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 2005. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Singler, John. 2001. Why you can’t do a VARBRUL study of quotatives and what such a study can show us. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 257–78.Google Scholar

Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes and Fortune, Liane. 2007. ‘Mam, my trousers is fa’in doon!’ Community, caregiver, and child in the acquisition of variation in a Scottish dialect. Language Variation and Change 19: 63–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes and Richards, Hazel. 2013. The social and linguistic in the acquisition of sociolinguistic variation. Linguistics 51: 285–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Sara W., Noda, Hiromi Pad, Andrews, Steven and Jucker, Andreas H.. 2005. Setting the stage: how speakers prepare listeners for the introduction of referents in dialogues and monologues. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1865–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar