Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-m4fzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-07T13:03:28.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expanding the Transmission/Diffusion Dichotomy: Evidence from Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Sali A. Tagliamonte  and
Derek Denis
Sali A. Tagliamonte*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sid Smith Hall, Room 4077, 4th Floor 100 St George Street Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3 Canada
Derek Denis*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sid Smith Hall, Room 4077, 4th Floor 100 St George Street Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3 Canada
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sid Smith Hall, Room 4077, 4th Floor 100 St George Street Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3 Canada [sali.tagliamonte@utoronto.ca] [derek.denis@mail.utoronto.ca]
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sid Smith Hall, Room 4077, 4th Floor 100 St George Street Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3 Canada [sali.tagliamonte@utoronto.ca] [derek.denis@mail.utoronto.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present analyses of linguistic features undergoing change in South Eastern Ontario, Canada: stative possession, deontic modality, intensifiers, and quotatives. The largest urban center of the country (Toronto) and three towns outside the city are analyzed from the comparative sociolinguistic perspective. Parallel frequency and constraints are found in changes with a time depth of 200 years or more, corroborating the parallel transmission of complex systems over time and space. However, changes that began more recently show marked differences across communities. While the youngest generations in the small towns have appropriated the incoming forms, the accompanying suite of functional constraints found in the urban center is absent. This confirms that diffusing changes do not perfectly replicate the model system. There is, however, notable divergence within patterns of diffusion. The expanding changes exhibit varying configurations, depending on the community, its founders, and the stage of development of the change. The results suggest that increasingly complex contact situations will continue to expand the possible outcomes of diffusion.

Keywords

linguistic changevariationtransmissiondiffusiondrift

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 90 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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

Footnotes

*

The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for Standard Research Grant #410 070 048 ‘Directions of change in Canadian English’. The second author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for the Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship (Masters) (2008-2009) and Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship (Doctoral) (2009-2012). The SE Ontario project was made possible by the help and generosity of many friends and friends of friends. The initial impetus came from Cori Hansen, who has family roots in Burnt River and who conducted all of the Burnt River interviews as well as many of those in Lakefield and Belleville. The Belleville Historical Society was also instrumental in our research, and we thank them for their interest and support. We extend our appreciation to Bev and Gerry Boyce for facilitating the fieldwork in Belleville, to Christine Berger for helping us make connections in Lakefield, and to Sandy Boyle, Jon Dennis, Ryan McIssac, and Judy Preece for their superb interviewing skills. The extensive data extraction and coding for the four studies was completed by a skilled team of research assistants, including Cori Hansen, Ryan McIssac, Bridget Jankowski, Dylan Uscher, and Michael Ritter. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at NWAV 37 in Houston, Texas, November 6-9, 2008. We thank our audience for their responses and questions. This article underwent considerable revision subsequent. We are indebted to our astute Language referees, to associate editor Shana Poplack, and to the wise counsel of Harald Baayen on statistical matters.

References

Adamson, Sylvia, and González-Díaz, Victorina. 2004. Back to the very beginning: The development of intensifies in Middle English. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Vienna, Austria, August 23-28, 2004.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan; and Sand, Lori. 1991. The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3. 241–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tillery, Jan; and Sand, Lori. 1993. Some patterns of linguistic diffusion. Language Variation and Change 5. 359–90.10.1017/S095439450000154XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin; and Bolker, Ben. 2011. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42. Online: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan; and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blyth, Carl Jr., Recktenwald, Sigrid; and Wang, Jenny. 1990. I'm like, ‘say what?!’: Anew quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech 65. 215–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2000. Geolinguistic diffusion and the U.S.-Canada border. Language Variation and Change 12. 1–24.10.1017/S0954394500121015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, Gerald E. 1967. Historic Hastings. Belleville: Hastings County Council.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal ‘have to’ in English. Paper presented at the Workshop on Verbal Periphrases, Amsterdam. Online: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/lbrinton/.Google Scholar
Brunger, Alan G. 1985. The cultural landscape. Peterborough and the Kawarthas, ed. by Adams, Peter and Taylor, Colin, 95–116. Peterborough: Heritage.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle, and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Localized globalization: A multi-local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13. 291–331.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00412.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butters, Ronald R. 1982. Editor's note [on ‘be + like’]. American Speech 57. 149.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1975. Canadian English: Origins and structures. Toronto: Metheun.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1991. Canada. English around the world, ed. by Cheshire, Jenny, 89–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1993. ‘Lawless and vulgar innovations’: Victorian views of Canadian English. Focus on Canada, ed. by Clarke, Sandra, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2003. Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2010. English in Canada. Canadian English: A linguistic reader (Occasional papers 6), ed. by Gold, Elaine and McAlpine, Janice, 1–37. Kingston, ON: Strathy Language Unit, Queen's University. Online: http://www.queensu.ca/strathy/apps/OP6v2.pdf.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. k., and Trudgill, Peter. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cole, A. O. C. (ed.) 1988. Illustrated historical atlas of Peterborough County 1825-1875. Peterborough: The Peterborough Historical Atlas Foundation.Google Scholar
Crowell, Thomas L. 1955. Predating ‘have to’, ‘must’? American Speech 30. 68–69.Google Scholar
Crowell, Thomas L. 1959. ‘Have got’, a pattern preserver. American Speech 34. 280–86.10.2307/453706CrossRefGoogle 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. 3–31.10.1215/00031283-77-1-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2012. The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 24. 343–69.Google Scholar
Delledonne, Bob. 1999. Nelson's Falls to Lakefield. Lakefield: Lakefield Historical Society.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4: 1776-1997, ed. by Romaine, Suzanne, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dion, Nathalie, and Poplack, Shana. 2005. ‘I'm like: “I know, I do the same thing” ’: Can minority speakers keep up with the Joneses? Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 34, New York University, October 21, 2005.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. Μ. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1. 19–80.10.1075/sl.1.1.04dixCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2005. Conservative Early Canadian English? Modal auxiliaries in the Corpus of Early Ontario English, pre-Confederation section. Paper presented at Canadian English in the Global Context, Toronto, January 28-30, 2005.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2008. New-dialect formation in Canada: Evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by Haiman, John, 343–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Durham, Mercedes, Haddican, Bill, Zweig, Eytan, Johnson, Daniel Ezra, Baker, Zipporah, Cockeram, David, Danks, Esther; and Tyler, Louise. 2012. Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like. Journal of English Linguistics 40. 316–37.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wikwell.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. 265–90.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203880920CrossRefGoogle 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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle 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
Jankowski, Bridget L. 2004. A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23. 85–113. Online: http://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6209.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L. 2005. ‘We've got our own little ways of doing things here’: Cross-variety variation, change and divergence in the English stative possessive. ‘We've got our own little ways of doing things here’: Cross-variety variation, change and divergence in the English stative possessive: University of Toronto generals paper.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto H. 1961. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part 4: Morphology. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 359–83.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00108.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 1996. Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change 8. 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of Language 4. 30–57.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1978. Toward a theory of social dialect variation. Language in Society 7. 17–36.10.1017/S0047404500005315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1. 199–244.10.1017/S0954394500000168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 1998. Gotta—the tenth central modal in English? Social, stylistic and regional variation in the British National Corpus as evidence of ongoing grammaticalization. The major varieties of English, ed. by Lindquist, Hans, Klintborg, Staffan, Levin, Magnus, and Estling, Maria, 177–91. Växjö: Växjö University Press.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2003. Pursuing the cascade model. Social dialectology: In honour of Peter Trudgill, ed. by Britain, David and Cheshire, Jenny, 9–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/impact.16.03labCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83. 344–87.10.1353/lan.2007.0082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961-1992. Modality in contemporary English, ed. by Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred, and Palmer, Frank, 223–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. New reflections on grammaticalization, ed. by Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele, 143–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maier, Hana. 2007. Long-life concrete pavements in Europe and Canada. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Online: http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl07027/llcp_07_02.cfm, accessed May 1, 2012.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, ed. by Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian, 121–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2003. On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swipe. English Studies 84. 372–91.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam, and Niedzielski, Nancy. 2003. The globalisation of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7. 534–55.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00241.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 2007. Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes. Studies in the history of the English language III: Managing chaos: Strategies for identifying change in English, ed. by Cain, Christopher M. and Russom, Geoffrey, 149–72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vols. 2, 3. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modaressi-Tehrani, Yahya. 1978. A sociolinguistic analysis of modern Persian. Lawrence: University of Kansas dissertation.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald. 2004. Negation of lexical have in conversational English. World Englishes 23. 299–308.10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00353.xCrossRefGoogle 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
Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of the intensifier. 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
Peters, Hans. 1992. English boosters: Some synchronic and diachronic aspects. Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition, ed. by Kellermann, Günter and Morrissey, Michael D., 529–45. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Peters, Hans. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. Studies in Early Modern English, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter, 269–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Phelps, Edward (ed.) 2000. Belden's illustrated historical atlas of the county of Victoria, Ontario, 1881, millennium edition. Ancaster: Alexander Publications.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8. 305–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Thomas W. 1867. A sketch of the early settlement and subsequent progress of the town of Peterborough, and of each township in the county of Peterborough. Toronto: Sabin Americana database, University of Toronto, accessed March 6, 2012.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Sankoff, David; and Miller, Christopher. 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26. 47–104.10.1515/ling.1988.26.1.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 1999. The grammaticization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11. 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2001. African American English in the diaspora: Tense and aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Walker, James A.; and Malcolmson, Rebecca. 2006. An English ‘like no other’?: Language contact and change in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51. 185–213.Google Scholar
Priestly, F. E. L. 1951. Canadian English. British and American English since 1900, ed. by Partridge, Eric and Clark, John W., 72–79. London: Andrew Dakers.Google Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2004. Possessive have and (have) got in New Zealand English. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 33, Ann Arbor, MI, October 1, 2004. Online: http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/3468/1/12593194_HQuinnNWAV33.pdf.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste. 2013. Quotatives down under: Be like in cross-generational Australian English speech. English World-Wide 34. 1. 48–76.10.1075/eww.34.1.03rodCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988a. Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. 4: Language: The socio-cultural context, 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, Tagliamonte, Sali A.; and Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X. Goldvarb X: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Online: http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/goldvarb.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
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1992. Trust the text: The implications are daunting. Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice, ed. by Davies, Martin and Ravelli, Louise, 5–19. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Singler, John Victor. 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 (Selected papers from NWAV 29) 7. 257–78.Google Scholar
Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and down-toners. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002. Comparative sociolinguistics. The handbook of language variation and change, ed. by Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie, 729–63. Oxford: Blackwell.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 Rohdenburg, 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. Research grant, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) #410-2003-0005.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2004. Have to, gotta, must?: Grammaticalisation, variation and specialization in English deontic modality. Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, ed. by Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian, 33–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.13.04tagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006a. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006b. ‘So cool, right?’: Canadian English entering the 21st century. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics (Special issue: Canadian English in a global context) 51. 2. 3.309-31.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics (Special issue on English intensifiers, ed. by Belén Méndez-Naya) 12. 361–94.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012a. Comparative sociolinguistics. The handbook of language variation and change, 2nd edn., ed. by Chambers, J. K. and Schilling, Natalie, 128–56. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012b. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012c. The verb phrase in contemporary Canadian English. The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora, ed. by Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey, and Wallis, Sean, 133–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2013. Roots of English: Exploring the history of dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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. 493–514.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00271.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007a. Frequency and variation in the community grammar: Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 19. 199–217.10.1017/S095439450707007XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007b. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28. 47–87.10.1075/eww.28.1.04tagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., and D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85. 58–108.10.1353/lan.0.0084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., D’Arcy, Alexandra; and Jankowski, Bridget. 2010. Social work and linguistic systems: Marking possession in Canadian English. Language Variation and Change 22. 149–73.10.1017/S0954394510000050CrossRefGoogle 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. 147–72.10.1111/1467-9481.00070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., Molfenter, Sonja; and King, Matthew. 2004. Taking it to the streets! A sociolinguistic survey of old-line Toronto. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 33, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., and Roberts, Chris. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech 80. 280–300.10.1215/00031283-80-3-280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., and Smith, Jennifer. 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9. 289–309.10.1017/S1360674305001644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., and Smith, Jennifer. 2006. Layering, competition and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica 23. 341–80.10.1075/dia.23.2.06tagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and Walker, James A.. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that. Linguistics 47. 1–43.10.1515/LING.2009.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. Why must is not moot. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 1999.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1. 179–95.10.1017/S0047404500000488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1974. Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society 3. 215–46.10.1017/S0047404500004358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J., Nevalainen, Terttu; and Wischer, Ilse. 2002. Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English. English Language and Linguistics 6. 1–15.10.1017/S1360674302001016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1963-73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511752995CrossRefGoogle 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