Acton, E. K. 2011. On gender differences in the distribution of um and uh. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 1–9.Google Scholar

Adger, D. 2007. Variability and modularity: A response to Hudson. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3), 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Afantenos, S., Asher, N., Benamara, F. et al. 2012. An empirical resource for discovering cognitive principles of discourse organization: The ANNODIS corpus. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association, 2727–2734.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. 1985. What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance final tags introduced by and and or. In Togeby, O., ed., Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet, Institut for Nordisk Filologi, 366–389.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, T. and Westvik, O. J., eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1–48.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. 2004. Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. 2011. Are you totally spy? A new intensifier in present-day American English. In Hancil, S., ed., Marqueurs discursifs et subjectivité. Rouen: Universités de Rouen and Havre, 155–172.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. 2009. Pragmatic markers. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics, Vol. 13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–30.Google Scholar

Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2008. Las fórmulas rutinarias en el español actual, PhD thesis, University of Alicante.Google Scholar

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

Andersen, G. 2014. Pragmatic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, G. 2015. Pseudo-borrowings as cases of pragmatic borrowing: Focus on Anglicisms in Norwegian. In Furiassi, C. and Gottlieb, H., eds., Pseudo-English: Studies on False Anglicisms in Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, G., Furiassi, C., and Mišić Ilić, B. 2017. The pragmatic turn in studies of linguistic borrowing: Introduction to special issue on pragmatic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ando, S. 2005. Lectures on Modern English Grammar [Genai Eibunpo Kogi]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Anthony, L. 2018. AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [MacIntosh]. Tokyo: Waseda University. www.laurenceanthony.net/software.Google Scholar

Arndt, W. 1960. Modal particles in Russian and German. Word, 16(3), 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Athanasiadou, A. 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, 29(4), 554–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, P. and Eastman, C. M. 2010. Code-switching. In Jaspers, J., Östman, J.-O., and Verschueren, J., eds., Society and Language Use: Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights, Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 84–112.Google Scholar

Backus, A. 2014. Towards a usage-based account of language change: Implications of contact linguistics for linguistic theory. In Nicolaï, R., ed., Questioning Language Contact: Limits of Contact, Contact at Its Limits. Leiden: Brill, 91–118.Google Scholar

Bailey, C.-J. N. 1973. Variation and Linguistic Theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bailey, G. 2004. Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, 312–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balteiro, I. 2018. Oh wait: English pragmatic markers in Spanish football chatspeak. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., and Johnson, T. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bayer, J. and Obenauer, H. G. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review, 28(4), 449–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beeching, K. 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beltrama, A. 2015. Intensification and sociolinguistic variation: A corpus study. In Jurgensen, A. E., Sande, H., Lamoureux, S., Baclawski, K., and Zerbe, A., eds., Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Vol. 41. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 15–30.Google Scholar

Beltrama, A. 2018. Totally between subjectivity and discourse: Exploring the pragmatic side of intensification. Journal of Semantics, 35(2), 219–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beltrama, A. and Staum Casasanto, L. 2017. Totally tall sounds totally younger: Intensification at the socio‐semantics interface. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(2), 154–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beniak, É., Mougeon, R., and Valois, D. 1985. Contact des langues et changement linguistique: Étude sociolinguistique du français parlé à Welland. Quebec: Centre International de Recherche sur le Bilinguisme.Google Scholar

Bertrand, A. 2014. Exclamatives en -tu, donc et assez en français québécois: Types et sous-types, MA thesis, University of Montreal.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., and Sheehan, M. 2010. Parametric Syntax: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Birdsong, D., Gertken, L.M., and Amengual, M. 2012. Bilingual Language Profile: An Easy-to-Use Instrument to Assess Bilingualism. Austin: COERLL and University of Texas at Austin. https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual/.Google Scholar

Bittencourt, V. 1999. Gramaticalização e discursivização no português oral do Brasil: O caso “tipo (asim).” Scripta, 2(4), 39–53.Google Scholar

Blondeau, H. and Moreno, A. 2018. On a fait comme “c’est fou là” ou l’émergence de comme et sa concurrence avec genre et d’autres formes d’introduction de discours direct dans le français de Montréal. In Barthelmebs-Raguin, H., Komur-Thilloy, G., Lopez-Muñoz, J. M., Marnette, S., and Rosier, L., eds., Le Discours rapporté: Temporalité, histoire, mémoire et patrimoine discursive. Paris: Classiques Garnier, 41–58.Google Scholar

Blondeau, H., Tremblay, M., Bertrand, A., and Michel, E. 2021. A new milestone for the study of variation in Montréal French: The Hochelaga-Maisonneuve sociolinguistic survey. Corpus, 22, 1–16.Google Scholar

Blondeau, H, Mougeon, R., and Tremblay, M. 2019. Analyse comparative de ça fait que, alors, donc et so à Montréal et à Welland: Mutations sociales, convergences, divergences en français laurentien. Journal of French Language Studies, 29(1), 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: H. Holt and Company.Google Scholar

Blühdorn, H., Foolen, A., and Loureda, O. 2017. Diskursmarker: Begriffsgeschichte – Theorie – Beschreibung. Ein bibliographischer Überblick. In Blühdorn, H., Deppermann, A., Helmer, H., and Spranz-Fogasy, T., eds., Diskursmarker im Deutschen: Reflexionen und Analysen. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, 7–48.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S, House, J., and Kasper, G. (eds.). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar

Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. 2014. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer Program]. Version 5. 3.82. www.praat.org/.Google Scholar

Bolden, G. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker “so” in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borkin, A. and Reinhart, S. M. 1978. Excuse me and I’m sorry. TESOL Quarterly, 12(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., and Brennan, S. E. 2001. Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bowie, D. 2015. Phonological variation in real time: Patterns of adult linguistic stability and change. In Gerstenberg, A. and Voeste, A., eds., Investigating the Lifespan Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury, S., Lefeuvre, F., and Pires, M. 2012. Discours sur la ville. Présentation du corpus de français parlé parisien des années 2000, CFPP2000, New Sorbonne University Paris 3. http://cfpp2000.univ-paris3.fr/.Google Scholar

Brezina, V., Gablasova, D., and Reichelt, S. 2018. BNClab. Lancaster University. http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnclab/.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Brinton, L. J. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. 2020. The development and pragmatic function of a non-inference marker: This is not to say (that). In Rautionaho, P., Nurmi, A., and Klemola, J., eds., Corpora and the Changing Society: Studies in the Evolution of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, L. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization in Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brody, J. 1987. Particles borrowed from Spanish as discourse markers in Mayan languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 29(4), 507–21.Google Scholar

Brody, J. 1995. Lending the unborrowable: Spanish discourse markers in Indigenous American Languages. In Silva-Corvalán, C., ed., Spanish in Four Continents: Studies in Language Contact and Bilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 132–148.Google Scholar

Brook, M. and Pichler, H. 2021. Orthographic variation reflects constituency variation, am I right or amirite? Paper presented at DiPVaC 5, University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar

Brooks, M. E., Kristensen, K., van Benthem, K. J. et al. 2017. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal, 9(2), 378–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brunner, L. J. 1979. Smiles can be back channels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5), 728–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, I. 2006. Social stereotypes, personality traits and regional perception displaced: Attitudes towards the “new” quotatives in the U.K. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(3), 362–381.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, I. 2009. The quantitative analysis of morphosyntactic variation: Constructing and quantifying the denominator. Linguistics and Language Compass, 3(4), 1010–1033.Google Scholar

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

Buchstaller, I. 2016. Investigating the effect of socio-cognitive salience and speaker-based factors in morpho-syntactic life-span change. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, I. and D’Arcy, A. 2009. Localised globalisation: A multi-local, multivariate investigation of be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(3), 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Burchfield, R. W. 1996. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Bürkner, P.-C. 2017. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bürkner, P.-C. 2018. Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. The R Journal, 10(1), 395–411.Google Scholar

Buysse, L. 2010. Discourse markers in the English of Flemish university students. In Witczak-Plisiecka, I., ed., Speech Actions in Theory and Applied Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 461–484.Google Scholar

Buysse, L. 2017. The pragmatic marker you know in learner Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 40–57.Google Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cacchiani, S. 2005. Local vehicles for intensification and involvement: The case of English intensifiers. In Cap, P., ed., Pragmatics Today. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 401–419.Google Scholar

Calhoun, S., Nissim, M., Steedman, M., and Brenier, J. 2005. A framework for annotating information structure in discourse. In Meyer, A., ed., Proceedings of the Workshop on Frontiers in Corpus Annotations II: Pie in the Sky. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics, 45–52.Google Scholar

Cameron, D., McAlinden, F., and O’Leary, K. 1989. Lakoff in context: The form and function of tag questions. In Coates, J. and Cameron, D., eds., Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. London: Longman, 74–93.Google Scholar

Cameron, R. 1998. A variable syntax of speech, gesture, and sound effect: direct quotations in Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 10(1), 43–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell-Kibler, K. 2007. Accent, (ING) and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech, 82(1), 32–64.Google Scholar

Campbell-Kibler, K. 2008. I’ll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING). Language in Society, 37(5), 637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell-Kibler, K. 2009. The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change, 21(1), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlson, L., Marcu, D., and Okurowski, M. E. 2001. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In SIGDIAL ’01: Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, Vol. 16. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D. et al. 2017. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software, 76(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstensen, B. and Busse, U. 1993–1996. Anglizismen-Wörterbuch: Der Einfluss des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz nach 1945. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Castelano, K. L. and Terezinha Ladeira, W. 2010. Funções discursivo-interacionais das expressões assim, tipo e tipo assim em narrativas orais. Letra Magna, 6(12), 1–17.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K. 2006. The development of Canadian English. In Bolton, K. and Kachru, B. B., eds., World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. London: Routledge, 383–395.Google Scholar

Channell, J. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J. 1981. Variation in the use of ain’t in an urban British dialect. Language in Society, 10(3), 113–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, J. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheshire, J. and Secova, M. 2018. The origins of new quotative expressions: The case of Paris French. Journal of French Language Studies, 28(2), 209–234.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Christensen, R. H. B. 2019. Ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019.4–25. www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/.Google Scholar

Cieri, C., Miller, D., and Walker, K. 2004. The Fisher corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text. In Lino, M. T., Xavier, M. F., Ferreira, F., Costa, R., and Silva, R., eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’04). Lisbon: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 9–71.Google Scholar

Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., and Tao, H. 1996. The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(3), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Fox Tree, J. E. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, L. and Schleef, E. 2010. The acquisition of sociolinguistic evaluations among Polish-born adolescents learning English: Evidence from perception. Language Awareness, 19(4), 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coleman, J., Baghai-Ravary, L., Pybus, J., and Grau, S. 2012. Audio BNC: The Audio Edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford. www.phon.ox.ac.uk/AudioBNC/.Google Scholar

Cortés, L. 2005. La serie enumerativa: Cuestiones de partida. In Santos Río, L., Borrego Nieto, J., García Santos, J. F. et al., eds., Palabras, norma, discurso. En memoria de Fernando Lázaro Carreter. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 365–380.Google Scholar

Cortés, L. 2006a. Los elementos de final de serie enumerativa del tipo y todo eso, o cosas así, y tal, etc. Perspectiva interactiva. Boletín de lingüística, 18(26), 102–129.Google Scholar

Cortés, L. 2006b. Los elementos de final de serie enumerativa del tipo y todo eso, o cosas así, y tal, etcétera en el discurso oral en español. Perspectiva textual. BISAL, 1, 82–106.Google Scholar

Costello, A. B. and Osborne, J. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit.Google Scholar

Coupé, C. 2018. Modeling linguistic variables with regression models: Addressing non-Gaussian distributions, non-independent observations, and non-linear predictors with random effects and generalized additive models for location, scale, and shape. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cresti, E. and Moneglia, M. (eds.). 2005. C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crible, L. 2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency. Forms and Functions Across Languages and Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crible, L. and Cuenca, M. J. 2017. Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and challenges for corpus annotation. Dialogue and Discourse 8(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crible, L. and Degand, L. 2019a. Domains and functions: A two-dimensional account of discourse markers. Discours 24, 1–35.Google Scholar

Crible, L. and Degand, L. 2019b. Reliability vs. granularity in discourse annotation: What is the trade-off? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 15(1), 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crible, L., Dumont, A., Grosman, I., and Notarrigo, I. 2019. (Dis)fluency across spoken and signed languages: Application of an interoperable annotation scheme. In Degand, L., Gilquin, G., Meurant, L., and Simon, A. C., eds., Fluency and Disfluency Across Languages and Language Varieties. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 17–40.Google Scholar

Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 1988. Another look at, well, you know … English Today, 13(1), 47–49.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 2017. The Story of Be: A Verb’s-Eye View of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1975. Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, A. 2005. Like: Syntax and development. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, A. 2008. Canadian English as a window to the rise of ‘like’ in discourse. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 19(2), 125–140.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, A. 2012. The diachrony of quotative: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change, 24(3), 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, A. 2017. Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context: Eight Hundred Years of Like. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dailey-O’Cain, J. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser ‘like’ and quotative ‘like’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dajko, N. and Carmichael, K. 2014. But qui c’est la difference? Discourse markers in Louisiana French: The case of but vs. mais. Language in Society, 43(2), 159–183.Google Scholar

Davydova, J., Tytus, A. E., and Schleef, E. 2017. Acquisition of sociolinguistic awareness by German learners of English: A study in perceptions of quotative be like. Linguistics, 55(4), 783–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Rooij, V. A. 2000. French discourse markers in Shaba Swahili conversations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Degand, L., Martin, L., and Simon, A. C. 2014. LOCAS-F: Un corpus oral multigenre annoté. In Neveu, F., Toke, M., Durand, J. et al., eds., Proceedings of Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Paris: EDP Science, 2613–2626.Google Scholar

Delin, J. 1992. Re: 3.174 All’s. The LINGUIST List. https://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-179.html/.Google Scholar

Denis, D. 2016. Oral histories as a window to sociolinguistic history and language history: Exploring earlier Ontario English with the Farm Work and Farm Life Since 1890 oral history collection. American Speech, 91(4), 513–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denis, D. 2017. The development of and stuff in Canadian English: A longitudinal study of apparent grammaticalization. Journal of English Linguistics, 45(2), 157–185.Google Scholar

Denniston, J. D. 1934. The Greek Particles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Dessureault-Dober, D. 1974. Étude sociolinguistique de (ça) fait que: “coordonnant logique” et “marqueur d’interaction.” PhD thesis, University of Quebec.Google Scholar

Digesto, S. 2019. Verum a fontibus haurire: A variationist analysis of subjunctive variability across space and time: From contemporary Italian back to Latin. PhD thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar

Dines, E. R. 1980. Variation in discourse: And stuff like that. Language in Society, 9(1), 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diskin, C. 2015. Discourse-pragmatic variation and language ideologies among native and non-native speakers of English: A case study of Polish and Chinese migrants in Dublin, Ireland. PhD thesis, University College Dublin.Google Scholar

Diskin, C. 2017. The use of the discourse-pragmatic marker ‘like’ by native and non-native speakers of English in Ireland. Journal of Pragmatics, 120, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diskin, C. and Levey, S. 2019. Going global and sounding local: Quotative variation and change in L1 and L2 speakers of Irish (Dublin) English. English World-Wide, 40(1), 53–78.Google Scholar

Drummond, K. and Hopper, R. 1993. Some uses of yeah. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, J. 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, J., ed., Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dubois, B. and Crouch, I. 1975. The question of tag questions in women’s speech: They don’t really use more of them, do they? Language in Society, 4(3), 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dubois, S. 1992. Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change, 4(2), 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duncan, S. and Fiske, D. W. 1977. Face-to-Face Interaction: Research, Methods, and Theory, Vol. 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Duncan, S. and Niederehe, G. 1974. On signalling that it’s your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(3), 234–247.Google Scholar

Dupont, M. and Zufferey, S. 2017. Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora. A case study of English and French concessive connectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 270–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100.Google Scholar

Egbert, J. and Staples, S. 2019. Doing multi-dimensional analysis in SPSS, SAS & R. In Sardinha, T. B. and Pinto, M. V., eds., Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

Eiswirth, M. 2020a. It’s all about the interaction: Listener responses as a discourse-organisational variable. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Eiswirth, M. 2020b. Increasing interactional accountability in the quantitative analysis of sociolinguistic variation. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 171–188.Google Scholar

Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic Expressions in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

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

Erman, B. 2001. Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(9), 1337–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

European Commission. 2012. Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and Their Languages. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf/.Google Scholar

Evison, J., McCarthy, M., and O’Keeffe, A. 2007. “Looking out for love and all the rest of it”: Vague category markers as shared social space. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. London: Springer, 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fellegy, A. M. 1995. Patterns and functions of minimal response. American Speech, 70(2), 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fernández, J. 2015. General extender use in spoken peninsular Spanish: Metapragmatic awareness and pedagogical implications. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 2(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, K. 2000. Discourse particles, turn-taking, and the semantics-pragmatics interface. Revue de sémantique et pragmatique, 8, 111–132.Google Scholar

Fischer, K. 2014. Discourse markers. In Schneider, K. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter, 271–294.Google Scholar

Fischer, R. and Pułaczewska, H. 2008. Anglicisms in Europe: Linguistic Diversity in a Global Context. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Fleischman, S. and Yaguello, M. 2004. Discourse markers across languages. In Moder, C. and Martinovic-Zic, A., eds., Discourse Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flesch, M. 2019. “That spelling tho’”: A sociolinguistic study of the non-standard form of though in a corpus of Reddit comments. EuJAL, 7(2), 163–188.Google Scholar

Follett, W. 1998/1966. Modern American Usage, rev ed. E. Wensberg. New York: Hall & Wang.Google Scholar

Foolen, A. 2008. New quotative markers in spoken discourse. In Ahrenholz, B., Bredel, U., and Klein, W., et al., eds., Empirische Forschung und Theoriebildung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 117–128.Google Scholar

Ford, C. E. and Thompson, S. A. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, S. 2012. Performed narrative: The pragmatic function of this is + speaker and other quotatives in London adolescent speech. In Buchstaller, I. and van Alphen, I., eds., Quotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox Tree, J. E. 2015. Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox Tree, J. E. and Schrock, J. C. 2002. Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 727–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fruehwald, J. 2016. Filled pause choice as a sociolinguistic variable. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 22(2), 41–49.Google Scholar

Fruehwald, J. and Wallenberg, J. C. 2013. Optionality is stable variation is competing grammars. Paper presented at the Twenty-Fifth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Formal Ways of Analyzing Variation Workshop. Háskóli Íslands, May 13–15.Google Scholar

Fujii, K. 2006. English in America: Its Usage and Pronunciation [Amerika no Eigo: Goho to Hatsuon]. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar

Fuller, J. M. 2001. The principle of pragmatic detachability in borrowing: English-origin discourse Markers in Pennsylvania German. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 39(2), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuller, J. M. 2003. Discourse marker use across speech contexts: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance, Multilingua, 22(2), 185–208.Google Scholar

Fung, L. and Carter, R. 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Furiassi, C. and Gottlieb, H. (eds.). 2015. Pseudo-English: Studies on False Anglicisms in Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Furiassi, C., Pulcini, V., and Rodríguez Gonzalez, F. (eds.). 2012. The Anglicization of European Lexis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gadanidis, T. 2018. Um, about that, uh, variable. MA thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Galinsky, H. 1967. Stylistic aspects of linguistic borrowing. In Carstensen, B. and Galinsky, H., eds., Amerikanismen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Heidelberg: Winter, 35–72.Google Scholar

Gallois, C., Callan, V. J., and Johnstone, M. 1984. Personality judgments of Australian Aborigine and white speakers: Ethnicity, sex, and context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, R. 1998. Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garside, R. 1993. The marking of cohesive relationships: Tools for the construction of a large bank of anaphoric data. ICAME Journal, 17, 5–27.Google Scholar

Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., Trudgill, P., and Lewis, A. 1974. The imposed norm hypothesis: A validation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60(4), 405–410.Google Scholar

Gille, J. 2006. Iraq y cosas así: Conversational appendices in colloquial Spanish. Moderna Språk, 100(1), 157–166.Google Scholar

Gille, J. and Häggkvist, C. 2006. Los niveles del diálogo y los apéndices conversacionales. In Falk, J., Gille, J., and Wachtmeister Bermúdez, F., eds., Discurso, interacción e identidad. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 65–80.Google Scholar

Gille, J. and Häggkvist, C. 2010. Apéndices generalizadores introducidos por o. Oralia, 13, 127–144.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1989. Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., and McDaniel, J. 1992. Switchboard: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. [Proceedings] ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1, 517–520.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 1984. Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In Atkinson, J. M., ed., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225–246.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. 1986. Between and within: Alternative treatments of continuers and assessment. Human Studies, 9(2), 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görlach, M. 2001. A Dictionary of European Anglicisms: A Usage Dictionary of Anglicisms in Sixteen European Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goss, E. and Salmons, J. 2000. Evolution of a bilingual discourse marking system: Modal particles and English markers in German American dialects. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graedler, A.-L. 1998. Morphological, Semantic and Functional Aspects of English Lexical Borrowings in Norwegian. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

Graedler, A.-L. and Johansson, S. 1997. Anglisismeordboka: engelske lånord i norsk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

Greenwald, A. G. 1976. Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 314–320.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Seminar Press, 225–242.Google Scholar

Grieve, J., Nini, A., and Guo, D. 2016. Analyzing lexical emergence in Modern American English online. English Language and Linguistics 21(1), 99–127.Google Scholar

Guardamagna, C. 2010. When doing is saying: A constructional account of fare (‘to do’) as a verbum dicendi in Italian. In Bota, G., Hargreaves, H., Chia‐Chun, L., and Rong, R., eds., Papers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching, Vol. 4: Papers from LAEL PG 2009. Lancaster: University of Lancaster, 1–24Google Scholar

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

Gumperz, J. J. 1984. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Halbe, D. 2013. English in Business Meetings: A Corpus Study of Directives and Lexis in National and International Settings. Berlin: epubli Verlag.Google Scholar

Hardie, A. 2018. Using the spoken BNC2014 in CQP web. In Brezina, V., Love, R., and Aijmer, K., eds., Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech. Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken BNC2014. New York and London: Routledge, 27–30.Google Scholar

Hasselgreen, A. 2004. Testing the Spoken English of Young Norwegians: A Study of Test Validity and the Role of “Smallwords” in Contributing to Pupils’ Fluency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. [1953] 1969. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Hay, J., Drager, K., and Warren, P. 2010. Short-term exposure to one dialect affects processing of another. Language and Speech, 53(4), 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, J., Warren, P., and Drager, K. 2006. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 458–484.Google Scholar

Heine, B. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heine, B. 2014. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51(6), 1205–1247.Google Scholar

Heine, B., Claudi, U., and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hellermann, J. and Vergun, A. 2007. Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157–179.Google Scholar

Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. 2013. Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hesson, A. and Shellgren, M. 2015. Discourse marker like in real time: Characterizing the time-course of sociolinguistic impression formation. American Speech, 90(2), 154–186.Google Scholar

Hickey, R. 2010. The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hickey, T. 2009. Code-switching and borrowing in Irish. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(5), 670–688.Google Scholar

Hilgendorf, S. K. 1996. The impact of English in Germany. English Today, 12(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hlavac, J. 2006. Bilingual discourse markers: Evidence from Croatian-English code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1870–1900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höglund, M. and Syrjänen, K. 2016. Corpus of early American literature. ICAME Journal, 40, 17–38.Google Scholar

Holmes, J. 1986. Functions of you know in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society, 15(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

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

Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–35.Google Scholar

House, J. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of bitte and please. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G., eds., Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

House, J. 2009. Subjectivity in English as lingua franca discourse: The case of you know.Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, R. D. and Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ilbury, C. 2019. “Beyond the offline”: Social media and the social meaning of variation in East London. PhD thesis, Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar

Irwin, P. 2014. SO [TOTALLY] speaker-oriented: An analysis of “drama SO.” In Zanuttini, R. and Horn, L. R., eds., Microsyntactic Variation in North American English. New York: Oxford University Press, 29–70.Google Scholar

Isosävi, J. 2020. Cultural outsiders’ evaluations of (im)politeness in Finland and in France. Journal of Politeness Research, 16(2), 249–280.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 2004. The pragmatics of polarity. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 701–723.Google Scholar

Jaramillo, J. A. 1995. The passive legitimization of Spanish: A macrosociolinguistic study of a quasi-border: Tucson, Arizona. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 114, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, G. 1991. List construction as a task and resource. In Psathas, G., ed., Interactional Competence. New York: Irvington Publishers, 63–92.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. 1993. Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 1–30.Google Scholar

Jokela, H. 2012. Nollapersoonalause suomessa ja virossa: Tutkimus kirjoitetun kielen aineistosta, PhD thesis, University of Turku.Google Scholar

Jones, M. C. 1998. Language Obsolescence and Revitalization: Linguistic Change in Two Sociolinguistically Contrasting Welsh Communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, B. D. 2001. Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization?”. Language Sciences, 23(2/3), 163–186.Google Scholar

Kallen, J. 2005. Silence and mitigation in Irish English discourse. In Barron, A. and Schneider, K. P., eds., The Pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 47–71.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, G. 2013. The development of comment clauses. In Aarts, B., Close, J., Leech, G., and Wallis, S., eds., The Verb Phrase in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286–317.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., and Kuteva, T. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35(4), 848–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.). 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kastronic, L. 2011. Discourse like in Quebec English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 17(2), 105–114.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. H. 2017. Using conversation analysis in the lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 1–11.Google Scholar

Kern, J. 2020a. Like in English and como, como que, and like in Spanish in the speech of Southern Arizona bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(2), 187–207.Google Scholar

Kern, J. 2020b. Quotatives in English and Spanish among bilinguals. Sociolinguistic Studies, 14(1–2), 85–110.Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J. et al. 2014. The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36.Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, A., Reddy, S., Pomikálek, J., and Avinesh, P. V. S. 2010. A corpus factory for many languages. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Maegaard, B. et al., eds., Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 10’). Valetta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 904–910.Google Scholar

Kinkade, M. D. 1976. Interior Salishan particles. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Salish Languages (ICSL). Seattle, Washington, August 12-14.Google Scholar

Kirk, J. M. 2016. The pragmatic annotation scheme of the SPICE Ireland Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(3), 299–322.Google Scholar

Kitzinger, C. 2012. Repair. In Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 229–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgebrauch. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36, 15–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohn, K. 2012. Pedagogic corpora for content and language integrated learning: Insights from the BACKBONE project. The Eurocall Review, 20(2), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krippendorff, K. 2004a. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Krippendorff, K. 2004b. Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.Google Scholar

Krippendorff, K. 2011. Computing Krippendorff ’s Alpha-Reliability. https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43/.Google Scholar

Kriwonossow, A. 1966. Die Rolle der Modalen Partikeln in der Kommunikativen Gliederung der Aussagesätze, der Fragesätze, der Befehlssätze und der Nebensätze in Bezug auf die Haubtsatzglieder. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 19(1/2), 131–140.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1(3), 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol. 2. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 180–201.Google Scholar

Kunz, K. and Lapshinova-Koltunski, E. 2015. Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 258–288.Google Scholar

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., and Christensen, R. H. B. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.Google Scholar

Labelle-Hogue, S.-P. 2013. Kids say the darndest things? Discours des préadolescents, changement linguistique et évolution de like discursif par la méthode. MA thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19(3), 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

Labov, W. 2001a. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Labov, W., Ash, S., Ravindranath, M. et al. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(4), 431–463.Google Scholar

Labov, W. and Rosenfelder, I. 2011. The Philadelphia Neighborhood Corpus. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. http://fave.ling.upenn.edu/pnc.html/.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1972. Language in context. Language, 48(4), 907–927.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1989. The way we were; or; The real actual truth about generative semantics: A memoir. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 939–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., and Fillenbaum, S. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51.Google Scholar

Lappalainen, Hanna. 2008. Kelan virkailijoiden henkilötunnuspyynnöt. Tutkimus rutiininomaisista toiminnoista. Virittäjä, 112(4), 483–516.Google Scholar

Laserna, C. M., Seih, Y.-T., and Pennebaker, J. W. 2014. Um … who like says you know: Filler word use as a function of age, gender, and personality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(3), 328–338.Google Scholar

Lavandera, B. R. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop. Language in Society, 7(2), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., and Smith, N. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lehtonen, H. 2015. Tyylitellen. Nuorten kielelliset resurssit ja kielen sosiaalinen indeksisyys monietnisessä Helsingissä. PhD thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Leppänen, S., Pitkänen-Huhta, A. Nikula, T. et al. 2011. National Survey on the English Language in Finland: Uses, meanings and attitudes. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English.Google Scholar

Leppänen, S., Nikula, T., and Kääntä, L. 2008. Kolmas kotimainen: lähikuvia englannin käytöstä Suomessa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. 1994. Responsive list construction. A conversational resource for accomplishing multifaceted social action. Language and Social Psychology, 13(1), 20–33.Google Scholar

Lerner, G. H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In Lerner, G. H., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 225–256.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levey, S. 2006. The sociolinguistic distribution of discourse marker ‘like’ in preadolescent speech. Multilingua, 25, 413–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levey, S., Groulx, K., and Roy, J. 2013. A variationist perspective on discourse-pragmatic change in a contact setting. Language Variation and Change, 25(2), 225–251.Google Scholar

Levon, E. and Fox, S. 2014. Social salience and the sociolinguistic monitor: A case study of (ING) and TH-fronting in Britain. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(3), 185–217.Google Scholar

Levshina, N. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Liao, S. 2009. Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the U.S. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lippi-Green, R. 2012. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lo, S. and Andrews, S. 2015. To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Love, R. 2017. The Spoken British National Corpus 2014: Design, compilation and analysis. University of Lancaster.Google Scholar

Love, R. Dembry, C., Hardie, A. et al. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 311–318.Google Scholar

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

Macaulay, R. 2002. You know, it depends. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 749–767.Google Scholar

Maclay, H. and Osgood, C. E. 1959. Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15(1), 19–44.Google Scholar

Maddeauz, R. and Dinkin, A. 2017. Is like like like? Evaluating the same variant across multiple variables. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(1).Google Scholar

Malinowski, B. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A., The Meaning of Meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 296–336.Google Scholar

Marcus, M., Santorini, B., and Marcinkiewicz, M. A. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 313–330.Google Scholar

Margerie, H. and Muller, P. 2019. Excuse me vs. (I’m) sorry as two contrasting markers of interlocutive relations. CORELA: Cognition, représentation, langage, 17(2).Google Scholar

Markkanen, R. 1985. Cross-language studies in pragmatics. Kielikello, 11, 15–42.Google Scholar

Marnette, S. 2005. Speech and Thought Presentation in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Martineau, F. 2019. Réseaux et frontières en français canadien: L’éclairage réciproque des variétés. Travaux de linguistique, 1(78), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martineau, F. and Séguin, M.-C. 2016. Le Corpus FRAN: réseaux et maillages en Amérique française. Corpus, 15, 1–24.Google Scholar

Maschler, Y. and Schiffrin, D. 2015. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H., and Schiffrin, D., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 189–221.Google Scholar

Massam, D., Starks, D., and Ikiua, O. 2006. On the edge of grammar: Discourse particles in Niuean. Oceanic Linguistics, 45(1), 191–205.Google Scholar

Matras, Y. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics, 36(2), 281–332.Google Scholar

Matras, Y. 2000. Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 505–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maynard, S. K. 1990. Conversation management in contrast: Listener response in Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 397–412.Google Scholar

McCawley, J. D. 1994. Generative Semantics. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O., and Blommaert, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 311–319.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. 2011. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mencken, H. L. [1948] 1952. The American Language. Supplement II. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Mendes, R. B. 2013. Projeto SP2010: Amostra da fala paulistana. http://projetosp2010.fflch.usp.br/.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M. 1999. Sorry in the Pacific: Defining communities, defining practices. Language in Society, 28(2), 225–238.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M. 2014. Variation and Gender. In Ehrlich, S., Meyerhoff, M., Holmes, J., eds., The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 85–102.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M. and Ehrlich, S. 2019. Language, gender, and sexuality. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5(1), 455–475.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M. and Niedzielski, N. 2003. The globalization of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 534–555.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M. and Schleef, E. 2014. Hitting an Edinburgh target: Immigrant adolescents’ acquisition of variation in Edinburgh English. In Lawson, Robert, ed., Sociolinguistics in Scotland. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 103–128.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M., Schleef, E., and MacKenzie, L. 2015. Doing Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide to Data Collection and Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mihatsch, W. 2009. The approximators French comme, Italian come, Portuguese como and Spanish como from a grammaticalization perspective. In Rossari, C., Ricci, C., and Spiridion, A., eds., Grammaticalization and Pragmatics: Facts Approaches, Theoretical Issue. Bingley: Emerald, 65–91.Google Scholar

Mihatsch, W. 2018. From ad hoc category to ad hoc categorization: The proceduralization of Argentinian Spanish tipo. Folia Linguistica Historica, 52(s39-1), 147–176.Google Scholar

Milroy, L. 1987. Language and Social Networks, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mišić Ilić, B. 2017. Pragmatic borrowing from English into Serbian: Linguistic and sociocultural aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 103–115.Google Scholar

Moore, E. and Podesva, R. 2009. Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society, 38(4), 447–485.Google Scholar

Morris, C. W. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In Neurath, O., Bohr, N., Dewey, J. et al., eds., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1:2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–59.Google Scholar

Mortier, L. and Degand, L. 2009. Adversative discourse markers in contrast: the need for a combined corpus approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 338–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B. 1998. The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mougeon, R. and Beniak, É. 1991. Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact and Restriction: The Case of French in Ontario, Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mougeon, R., Frenette, Y., and Gagnon, M.-A. 2018. Genèse, essor et refondation de la communauté francophone de Welland, en Ontario. In Martineau, F., Boudreau, A., Frenette, Y., and Gadet, F., eds., Francophonies nord-américaines: langues, frontières et idéologies. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mougeon, R., Hallion, S, Bigot, D., and Papen, R. 2016. Convergence et divergence sociolinguistique en français laurentien: l’alternance rien que/juste/ seulement/seulement que/ne … que. Journal of French Language Studies, 26(2), 115–154.Google Scholar

Mougeon, R., Hallion, S., Papen, R., and Bigot, D. 2010. Convergence vs divergence. Variantes morphologiques de la première personne de l’auxiliaire aller dans les variétés de français laurentien du Canada. In Leblanc, C., Martineau, F., and Frenette, Y., eds., Vues sur les français d’ici. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 131–184.Google Scholar

Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., and Rehner, K. 2009. Évolution de l’usage des conjonctions et locutions de conséquence par les adolescents franco-ontariens de Hawkesbury et Pembroke (1978–2005). In Martineau, F., Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., and Tremblay, M., eds., Le français d’ici: études linguistiques et sociolinguistiques sur la variation du français au Québec et en Ontario. Toronto: GREF. 175–214.Google Scholar

Müller, S. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Murphy, B. 2010. Corpus and Sociolinguistics. Investigating Age and Gender in Female Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Murphy, B. 2012. Exploring response tokens in Irish English: A multidisciplinary approach: Integrating variational pragmatics, sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 325–348.Google Scholar

Nahkola, K. and Saanilahti, M. 2004. Mapping language change in real time: A panel study of Finnish. Language Variation and Change, 16(2), 75–92.Google Scholar

Neary Sundquist, C. 2014. The use of pragmatic markers across proficiency levels in second language speech. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 637–663.Google Scholar

Nelson, G., Wallis, S., and Aarts, B. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nestor, N., Ní Chasaide, C., and Regan, V. 2012. Discourse ‘like’ and social identity: A case study of Poles in Ireland. In Migge, B. and Ní Chiosáin, M., eds., New Perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 327–353.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2003. Historical Linguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Núñez Pertejo, P. and Palacios Martínez, I. M. 2014. That’s absolutely crap, totally rubbish: The use of the intensifiers absolutely and totally in the spoken language of British adults and teenagers. Functions of Language, 21(2), 210–237.Google Scholar

O’Keeffe, A. 2004. Like the wise virgins and all that jazz: Using a corpus to examine vague categorization and shared knowledge. Language and Computers, 52(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

O’Keeffe, A. and Adolphs, S. 2008. Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Variational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

OSF (Official Statistics of Finland). 2015. Use of Information and Communications Technology by Individuals. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/2015/sutivi_2015_2015-11-26_tie_001_en.html/.Google Scholar

OSF (Official Statistics of Finland). 2016. Population Structure. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/index_en.html/.Google Scholar

Onysko, A. 2007. Anglicisms in German: Borrowing, Lexical Productivity and Written Codeswitching. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Oreström, B. 1983. Turn-Taking in English Conversation. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Osborne, J. W., Costello, A. B., and Kellow, J. T. 2008. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. In Osborne, J. W., ed., Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. London: Sage, 86–99.Google Scholar

Östman, J.-O. 1981. You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Östman, J.-O. 1982. The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In Enkvist, N. E., ed., Impromptu Speech: A Symposium. Turku: The Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation, 147–177.Google Scholar

Östman, J.-O. 1986. Pragmatics as implicitness. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar

Östman, J.-O. 1995. Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In Wårvik, B., Tanskanen, S.-K., and Hiltunen, R., eds., Organization in Discourse. Turku: University of Turku, 95–108.Google Scholar

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

Overstreet, M. 2005. And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1845–1864.Google Scholar

Overstreet, M. 2014. The role of pragmatic function in the grammaticalization of English general extenders. Pragmatics, 24(1), 105–129.Google Scholar

Overstreet, M. and Yule, G. 1997. On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 25(3), 250–258.Google Scholar

Overstreet, M. and Yule, G. 2002. The metapragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 785–794.Google Scholar

Palacios Martínez, I. M. 2014. The quotative system in Spanish and English youth talk: A contrastive corpus-based study. Miscelánea, 49, 95–114.Google Scholar

Palmer, M., Kingsbury, P., and Gildea, D. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1), 71–106.Google Scholar

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

Partington, A. 2004. “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 131–156.Google Scholar

Parton, S. R., Siltanen, S. A., Hosman, L. A., and Langenderfer, J. 2002. Employment interview outcomes and speech style effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 144–161.Google Scholar

Parvaresh, V., Tavangar, M., Rasekh, A. E., and Izadi, D. 2012. About his friend, how good she is, and this and that: General extenders in native Persian and non-native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(3), 261–279.Google Scholar

Paunonen, H. and Paunonen, M. 2000. Tsennaaks Stadii, bonjaaks slangii: Stadin slangin suursanakirja. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar

Peterson, E. 2004. Social appropriateness and language variation: A study of Finnish requests. PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Peterson, E. 2010. Perspective and politeness in Finnish requests. Pragmatics, 20(3), 401–423.Google Scholar

Peterson, E. 2017. The nativization of pragmatic borrowings in remote language contact situations. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 116–126.Google Scholar

Peterson, E. and Vaattovaara, J. 2014. Kiitos and pliis: The relationship of native and borrowed politeness markers in Finnish. Journal of Politeness Research, 10(2), 247–269.Google Scholar

Peterson, E. and Beers Fägersten, K. 2018. Introduction to the special issue: Linguistic and pragmatic outcomes of contact with English. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 105–108.Google Scholar

Pęzik, P. 2015. Spokes: A search and exploration service for conversational corpus data. In Odijk, J., ed., Selected Papers from the CLARIN 2014 Conference, October 24–25,2014, Soesterberg, The Netherlands. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 99–109.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. 2010. Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(5), 581–608.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. 2013. The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pichler, H. (ed.). 2016a. Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. 2016b. Introduction: discourse-pragmatic variation and change. In Pichler, H., ed., Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–18.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. 2016c. Uncovering discourse-pragmatic innovations: Innit in Multicultural London English. In Pichler, H., ed., Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English: New Methods and Insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–85.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. 2021. Tagging monologic narratives of personal experience: Utterance-final tags and the construction of adolescent masculinity. In Beaman, K., Buchstaller, I., Fox, S., and Walker, J., eds., Advancing Socio-Grammatical Variation and Change: Sociolinguistic Research in Honour of Jenny Cheshire. London: Routledge, 377–398.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. In Press. Grammaticalization and language contact in a discourse-pragmatic change in progress: Innit in London English. Language in Society.Google Scholar

Pichler, H. and Levey, S. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: general extenders in northeast England. English Language and Linguistics, 15(3), 441–471.Google Scholar

Pike, K. L. [1954] 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Plümer, N. 2000. Anglizismus – Purismus – Sprachliche Identität. Eine Untersuchung zu den Anglizismen in der deutschen und französischen Mediensprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.Google Scholar

Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., and Miller, C. 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26, 47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poplack, S. and Tagliamonte, S. A. 2001. African American Vernacular English in the Diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Poplack, S. and Torres Cacoullos, R. 2015. Linguistic emergence on the ground: A variationist paradigm. In MacWhinney, B. and O’ Grady, W., eds., The Handbook of Language Emergence. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 267–291.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1987. Toleration and intellectual responsibility. In Mendus, S. and Edwards, D., eds., On Toleration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–34.Google Scholar

Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A. et al., 2008. The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Maegaard, B. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Marrakech: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 2961–2968.Google Scholar

Prasad, R., Webber, B., and Joshi, A. 2014. Reflections on the Penn Discourse Treebank, Comparable Corpora, and Complementary Annotation. Computational Linguistics, 40(4), 921–950.Google Scholar

Prćić, T. [2005] 2011. Engleski u srpskom: Drugo izdanje. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.Google Scholar

Preston, D. 2002. Language with an attitude. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 40–66.Google Scholar

Preston, D. 2010. Variation in language regard. In Gilles, P., Scharloth, J., and Zeigler, E., eds., Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation. Frankfurth am Main: Peter Lang, 7–27.Google Scholar

Preston, D. 2011. The power of language regard: Discrimination, classification, comprehension and production. Dialectologia, Special Issue II, 9–33.Google Scholar

Putnam, M. T. and van Koppen, M. 2011. All there is to know about the alls-construction. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 14(2), 81–109.Google Scholar

Pya, N., Voinov, V., Makarov, R., and Voinov, Y. 2016. MvnTest: Goodness of Fit Tests for Multivariate Normality. R package version 1.1–0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvnTest/.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J., 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

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

Reid, J. 1995. A study of gender differences in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(5), 489–512.Google Scholar

Revelle, W. R. 2018. psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Version 1. 8.12. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych/.Google Scholar

Rissanen, M. 2008. From ‘quickly’ to ‘fairly’: On the history of rather. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 345–359.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rodríguez Louro, C. and Harris, T. 2013. Evolution with an attitude: The grammaticalisation of epistemic/evidential verbs in Australian English. English Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 415–443.Google Scholar

Romero Trillo, J. 2002. The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769–784.Google Scholar

Russell, B., Perkins, J. and Grinnel, H. 2008. Interviewees’ overuse of the word ‘like’ and hesitations: Effects in simulated hiring decisions. Psychological Reports, 102(1), 111–118.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. 1995. Spring 1970. In Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 213–288.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar

Salmons, J. 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: Code switching, borrowing, and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics, 28(3), 453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, D., Sankoff, G., Laberge, S., and Topham, M. 1976. Méthodes d’échantillonnage et utilisation de l’ordinateur dans l’étude de la variation grammaticale. Cahiers de Linguistique de l’Université du Québec, 6, 85–125.Google Scholar

Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S., and Smith, E. 2005. GoldVarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. http://recombcg.uottawa.ca/lab/software.html/.Google Scholar

Sankoff, G. 2005. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J., and Trudgill, P., eds., An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1003–1013.Google Scholar

Sankoff, G. 2018. Before there were corpora: The evolution of the Montreal French project as a longitudinal study, In Wagner, S. E. and Buchstaller, I., eds., Panel Studies of Variation and Change. London: Routledge, 21–51.Google Scholar

Sankoff, G. 2019. Language change across the lifespan: three trajectory types. Language, 95(2), 197–229.Google Scholar

Sankoff, G. and Wagner, S. E., 2020. The long tail of language change: A trend and panel study of Québecois French futures. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 65(2), 246–275.Google Scholar

Sato, S. 2008. Use of “please” in American and New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1249–1278.Google Scholar

Sayers, D. 2014. The mediated innovation model: A framework for researching media influence in language change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 185–212.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, D., ed., Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 71–93.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organisation in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schleef, E. 2013. Written surveys and questionnaires in sociolinguistics. In Holmes, J. and Hazen, K., eds., Research Methods in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 42–57.Google Scholar

Schleef, E. 2019. The evaluation of unfilled pauses: Limits of the prestige, solidarity and dynamism dimensions. Lingua, 228, 1–16.Google Scholar

Schleef, E. 2020. Identity and indexicality in the study of World Englishes. In Schreier, D., Hundt, M., and Schneider, E. W., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 609–632.Google Scholar

Schmid, H.-J. 2012. Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable: Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context. In Schmid, H.-J., ed., Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–22.Google Scholar

Scholman, M., Evers-Vermeul, J., and Sanders, T. 2016. A step-wise approach to discourse annotation: Towards a reliable categorization of coherence relations. Dialogue and Discourse, 7(2), 1–28.Google Scholar

Schourup, L. C. 1983. Common discourse particles in English conversation. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, 28, i–vi, 1–119.Google Scholar

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

Schubiger, M. 1965. English intonation and German modal particles: A comparative study. Phonetica, 12, 65–84.Google Scholar

Schweinberger, M. 2015. A comparative study of the pragmatic marker like in Irish English and in southeastern varieties of British English. In Amador-Moreno, C. P., McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E., eds., Pragmatic Markers in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 114–134.Google Scholar

Schweitzer, A. and Lewandowski, N. 2012. Accommodation of backchannels in spontaneous speech. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Imitation and Convergence in Speech. Aix-en-Provence, September 3–5.Google Scholar

Secova, M. 2014. “Je sais et tout mais”: Might the general extenders in European French be changing? Journal of French Language Studies, 24(2), 281–304.Google Scholar

Shibasaki, R. 2019. From parataxis to amalgamation: The emergence of sentence-final is all constructions in the history of American English. In Bech, K. and Möhlig-Falke, R., eds., Grammar – Discourse – Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation and Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 221–248.Google Scholar

Shriberg, E. 1994. Preliminaries to a theory of speech disfluencies. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar

Solin, A. and Östman, J.-O. 2016. The notion of responsibility in discourse studies. In Östman, J.-O. and Solin, A., eds., Discourse and Responsibility in Professional Settings. Sheffield: Equinox, 3–18.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. 2005. Near-nativeness. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 130–151.Google Scholar

Sorjonen, M.-L. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L., and Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2017. Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Requests in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Spooren, W. and Degand, L. 2010. Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 241–266.Google Scholar