Cover not available

In:New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban and José Vicente Lozano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 202] 2018
► pp. 381–430

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Cross-varietal diversity in constructional entrenchment

The final-tag construction in Irish and American English

 | Fuji Women’s University
 | Hokkaido University of Education
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.202.16izu
The present study analyzes clauses with final tags as a construction, i.e., a symbolic form-meaning pairing, which is formulated as [[ANCHi FTj] ↔ [S conclude verbalization of propositioni with attitudej]] (ANCH: Anchor, FT: Final Tag, S: Speaker). The final-tag construction is observed in most varieties of English. However, a comparison of two spoken corpora of English (SPICE-Ireland and the Santa Barbara Corpus) reveals that the degree of the constructional entrenchment of this symbolic unit differs markedly between Irish and American English. Our analysis illustrates that both type and token frequencies of final tags are higher in Irish English than American English. Interpreting the results in terms of the three characteristics of grammatical constructionalization: increase in schematicity, increase in productivity, and decrease in compositionality (Traugott & Trousdale 2013), our study concludes that the final-tag construction is more entrenched in the minds of Irish English speakers than American English speakers. This observation points to a greater development of the construction in Irish English, where the final position has become a more accommodating slot of broader versatility in which the speakers can put a wider variety of expressions for emotive and/or interactive purposes. In addition to conceivable motivations (sub- and superstrate influences) responsible for the development, the constructional approach can also illustrate the impact of a well-entrenched schema on incremental language use.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Final tags
    • 3.1Final tags as retrospective types of pragmatic markers
    • 3.2Final tags as pragmatic markers at grammatical completion points
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Type and token frequencies
    • 4.2Some notable differences between the two varieties
      • 4.2.1AUX-tags
      • 4.2.2Clausal FIX-tags
      • 4.2.3Lexical FIX-tags
        • 4.2.3.1Like
        • 4.2.3.2Now
        • 4.2.3.3But
        • 4.2.3.4So
        • 4.2.3.5Adverbs of factuality
        • 4.2.3.6Adverbs of totality
        • 4.2.3.7‘Yes’ or ‘no’ words
        • 4.2.3.8Non-word phonological sequences
        • 4.2.3.9Right
  • 5.A constructional account of final-tagged structures
    • 5.1Grammatical constructionalization (Grammatical Cxzn)
    • 5.2Constructionalization and final-tagged structures
    • 5.3Constructional entrenchment of final-tagged structures in Irish and American English
    • 5.4Motivating factors for the development of the final-tag construction in Irish English
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (106)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers. A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aitken, Adam Jack. 1979. Scottish speech: A historical view, with special reference to the Standard English of Scotland. In Languages of Scotland, Adam Jack Aitken & Tom McArthur (eds), 85–118. Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allerton, David J. 2009. Tag questions. In One Language, Two Grammars? Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds), 306–323. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amador-Moreno, Carolina P. 2010. An Introduction to Irish English. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amador-Moreno, Carolina. P. 2015. “There’s, like, total silence again, roysh, and no one says anything”: Fictional representations of “new” pragmatic markers and quotatives in Irish English. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 370–389.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amador-Moreno, Carolina. P., McCafferty, Kevin & Vaughan, Elaine. 2015a. Introduction. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 1–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 2015b. Pragmatic Markers in Irish English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 258]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2004. The varieties of English spoken in the Southeast of England: Morphology and syntax. In A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 2: Morphology & Syntax, Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider & Clive Upton (eds), 175–195. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Axelsson, Karin. 2011. Tag Questions in Fiction Dialogue. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barron, Anne. 2015. “And your wedding is the twenty-second <.> of June is it?” Tag questions in Irish English. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 203–228.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barron, Anne & Pandarova, Irina. 2016. The sociolinguistics of language use in Ireland. In Sociolinguistics in Ireland. Raymond Hickey (ed.), 107–130. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barron, Anne, Pandarova, Irina & Muderack, Karoline. 2015. Tag questions across Irish and British English: A corpus analysis of form and function. Multilingua 34(4): 495–525.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. 2004. English dialects in the North of England: Morphology and syntax. In A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 2: Morphology & Syntax, Bernd Kortmann, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, Edgar W. Schneider & Clive Upton (eds.), 114–141. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Binchy, James. 2005. Three forty two so please: Politeness for sale in Southern-Irish service encounters. In The Pragmatics of Irish English, Anne Barron & Klaus P. Schneider (eds), 313–335. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2013. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English. Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia J., Tomasello, Michael, Dodson, Kelly & Lewis, Lawrence B. 1999. Children’s tendency to overgeneralize their argument structure constructions: The entrenchment hypothesis. Child Development 70: 1325–1337.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael. 2006. The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christensen, Lis. 1996. A First Glossary of Hiberno-English. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clancy, Brian & Vaughan, Elaine. 2012. “It’s lunacy now”: A corpus-based pragmatic analysis of the use of ‘now’ in contemporary Irish English. In New Perspectives on Irish English [Varieties of English around the World G44], Bettina Migge & Máire Ní Chiosáin (eds), 225–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M., Thompson, Sandra A., Suzuki, Ryoko & Tao, Hongyin. 1996. The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 355–387.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Columbus, Georgie. 2009a. A corpus-based analysis of invariant tags in five varieties of English. In Corpus Linguistics. Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 401–414. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009b. Irish like as an invariant tag: Evidence from ICE-Ireland. Paper presented at American Association for Corpus Linguistics (AACL) 2009. Edmonton, Canada. <[URL]> (27 September 2015).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P. 2010. Dialects of English. Irish English, Vol. 1: Northern Ireland. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “I always think of people here, you know, saying like after every sentence”: The dynamics of discourse-pragmatic markers in Northern Irish English. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds.), 37–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2005. LIKE: Syntax and Development. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. LIKE and language ideology: Disentangling the fact from fiction. American Speech 82(4): 386–419.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denis, Derek & Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2016. Innovation, right? Change, you know? Utterance-final tags in Canadian English. In Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English. New Methods and Insights, Heike Pichler (ed.), 86–112. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dolan, Terence P. 2012. A Dictionary of Hiberno-English, 3rd edn. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna & Paolino, Danae. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Talking Data. Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds), 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles & Thompson, Sandra A. 2000. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part One. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A. & Martey, Nii. 2003. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part Two. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. & Englebretson, Robert. 2004. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part Three. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part Four. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64: 501–538.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 134–184. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2008. Constructions and constructs: Mapping a diachronic process. In Constructions and Language Change, Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 47–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam, Östman, Jan-Ola & Verschueren, Jef. 2010. Variation and Change. Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas & Patten, Amanda. 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 92–104. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Perspectives on Grammaticalization, William Pagliuca (ed.), 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander & Post, Margje. 2015. Final Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1991. Conservatism versus substratal transfer in Irish English. In Dialects of English. Studies in Grammatical Variation, Peter Trudgill & Jack K. Chambers (eds), 191–212. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In English Historical Linguistics 2010. Selected Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 23–27 August 2010 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 325], Irén Hegedűs & Alexandra Fodor (eds), 153–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54: 77–101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedevind, Bertil. 1967. The Dialect of Dentdale in the West Riding of Yorkshire[Studia anglistica upsaliensia 5]. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hewings, Ann & Hewings, Martin. 2005. Grammar and Context. An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2007. Irish English. History and Present Forms. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The pragmatics of Irish English and Irish. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 17–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal? In What Makes Grammaticalization. A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izutsu, Mitsuko N. & Izutsu, Katsunobu. 2014. Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1): 62–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Smith, Sara W. 1998. And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In Discourse Markers. Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 171–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kallen, Jeffrey L. 2005. Silence and mitigation in Irish English discourse. In The Pragmatics of Irish English, Anne Barron & Klaus P. Schneider (eds), 47–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Arrah, like, you know: The dynamics of discourse marking in ICE-Ireland. Presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 16, University of Limerick, 6–8 July 2006. <[URL]> (29 September, 2015).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Irish English, Vol. 2: The Republic of Ireland. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “Actually, it’s unfair to say that I was throwing stones”: Comparative perspectives on uses of actually in ICE-Ireland. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 135–155.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kallen, Jeffrey L. & Kirk, John M. 2012. SPICE-Ireland. A User’s Guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirk, John M. & Kallen, Jeffrey L. 2010. How Scottish is Irish Standard English? In Northern Lights, Northern Words. Selected Papers from the FRLSU Conference, Kirkwall 2009, Robert McColl Millar (ed.), 178–213. Aberdeen: Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ireland. <[URL]> (25 August 2015).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirk, John M., Kallen, Jeffrey L., Lowry, Orla, Rooney, Anne & Mannion, Margaret. 2011. The SPICE-Ireland Corpus. Systems of Pragmatic Annotation for the Spoken Component of ICE-Ireland. Version 1.2.2. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast and Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lucek, Stephen. 2011. “I came up and I seen this haze of smoke, like”: How Irish are invariant tags? Trinity College Dublin Journal of Postgraduate Research 18: 95–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Migge, Bettina. 2015. Now in the speech of newcomers to Ireland. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 390–407.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Jim & Weinert, Regina. 1995. The function of LIKE in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 365–393.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed.), 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean, Thompson, Sandra A. & Penry Williams, Cara. 2009. Final but in Australian English conversation. In Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English. Grammar and Beyond [Varieties of English around the World G39], Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds), 339–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, Bróna. 2015. A corpus-based investigation of pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation in Irish English. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 65–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 1995. Hunh-tags and evidentiality in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 687–692.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That. General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really . In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds), 191–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Jan, Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]>Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-Driven Approaches, Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 101–133. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 9–35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P. & Barron, Anne. 2008. Variational Pragmatics. A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schweinberger, Martin. 2012. The discourse marker LIKE in Irish English. In New Perspectives on Irish English [Varieties of English around the World G44], Bettina Migge & Máire Ní Chiosáin (eds.), 179–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The Discourse Marker LIKE: A Corpus-based Analysis of Selected Varieties of English. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. A comparative study of the pragmatic marker like in Irish English and in south-eastern varieties of British English. In Amador-Moreno, McCafferty & Vaughan (eds), 114–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter, Maier, Georg & Schweinberger, Martin. 2009. Towards a more fine-grained analysis of the areal distributions of non-standard features of English. In Language Contacts Meet English Dialects. Studies in Honour of Markku Filppula, Esa Penttilä & Heli Paulasto (eds), 20–45. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siertsema, Berthe. 1980. Sidelights on tag questions. In The Melody of Language, Linda R. Waugh & Cornelis H. van Schooneveld (eds), 299–314. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1986. What does really really do? Strategies in speech and writing. In English in Speech and Writing. A Symposium, Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds), 149–163. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2005. So who? Like how? Just what?: Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1896–1915.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Roots of English. Exploring the History of Dialects. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(4): 283–311.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Tag questions in English: The first century. Journal of English Linguistics. 37(2): 130–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2014. Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. In Grammaticalization –Theory and Data [Studies in Language Companion Series 162], Sylvie Hancil & Ekkehard König (eds), 87–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Grammar 18], Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds), 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(1): 26–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walshe, Shane. 2016. Irish society as portrayed in Irish film. In Sociolinguistics in Ireland, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 320–343. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita, Katsunobu Izutsu & Yong-Taek Kim
2023. The final-appendage construction in Japanese and Korean. In Different Slants on Grammaticalization [Studies in Language Companion Series, 232], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Katsunobu Izutsu
2022. American and Irish English speakers’ perceptions of the final particles so and but. World Englishes 41:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue