Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-xmwfq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T09:10:21.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Play is Language Variation: Quantitative Evidence and What it Implies About Language Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Marisa Brook  and
Emily Blamire
Marisa Brook*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Emily Blamire*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 4th floor, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada, [marisa.brook@utoronto.ca], [emily.blamire@utoronto.ca]
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 4th floor, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada, [marisa.brook@utoronto.ca], [emily.blamire@utoronto.ca]
Get access

Abstract

This article argues that language play is intimately related to linguistic variation and change. Using two corpora of online present-day English, we investigate playful conversion of adjectives into abstract nouns (e.g. made of awesome∅), uncovering consistent rule-governed patterning in the grammatical constraints in spite of this option stemming from deliberate subversion of standard overt suffixation. Building on Haspelmath's (1999) notion of ‘extravagance’ as one of the keys to language change, we account for the systematic patterning of deliberate linguistic subversion by appealing to tension between the need to stand out and the need to remain intelligible. While we do not claim that language play is the only cause of linguistic change, our findings position language play as a constant source of new linguistic variants in very large numbers, a small proportion of which endure as changes. Our conclusion is that language play goes a long way toward accounting for linguistic innovations—with respect to where they come from and why languages change at all.

Keywords

sociolinguisticslinguistic variationlanguage playmorphologylanguage changeEnglishcomputer-mediated communication

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 491 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aaron, Jessi Elana. 2010. Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 22. 1–36. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394509990226.10.1017/S0954394509990226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acton, Eric. 2014. Pragmatics and the social meaning of determiners. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. Online: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10604877.Google Scholar
Adams, Michael. 2018. Because much? American Speech 92(4). 533–46. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-4395226.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Nominal derivation. The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology, ed. by Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol, 235–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641642.013.0014.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2011. From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computermediated discourse. Digitial discourse: Language in the new media, ed. by Thurlow, Crispin and Mroczek, Kristine, 277–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795437.003.0013.Google Scholar
Anis, Jacques. 2007. Neography: Unconventional spelling in French SMS text messages. The multilingual Internet: Language, culture, and communication online, ed. by Danet, Brenda and Herring, Susan C., 87–115. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0004.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anshen, Frank, and Aronoff, Mark. 1988. Producing morphologically complex words. Linguistics 26. 641–55. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1988.26.4.641.10.1515/ling.1988.26.4.641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc. Version 3.4.2. Tokyo: Waseda University.Google Scholar
Arche, María J., and Marín, Rafael. 2015. On the edge: Nominalizations from evaluative adjectives in Spanish. Romance linguistics 2012: Selected papers from the 42nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), ed. by Smith, Jason and Ihsane, Tabea, 261–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine. 2014. Analogy in suffix rivalry: The case of English -ity and -ness. English Language & Linguistics 18(3). 497–548. DOI: 10.1017/S136067431400015X.10.1017/S136067431400015XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1983. Potential words, actual words, productivity and frequency. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Linguists, 163–71.Google Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore. 2017. Humor and pragmatics. The Routledge handbook of language and humor, ed. by Attardo, Salvatore, 174–88. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315731162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, John W., Caputi, Theodore L., Nebeker, Camille; and Dredze, Mark. 2018. Don't quote me: Reverse identification of research participations in social media studies. Nature Partner Journals Digital Medicine 1:30. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-018-0036-2.Google ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. Harald, and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72(1). 69–96. DOI: 10.2307/416794.10.2307/416794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeskow, Heike. 2012. -ness and -ity: Phonological exponents of n or meaningful nominalizers of different adjectival domains? Journal of English Linguistics 40(1). 6–40. DOI: 10.1177/0075424211405156.10.1177/0075424211405156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basso, Keith. 1979. Portraits of ‘the whiteman’: Linguistic play and cultural symbols among the Western Apache. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511618147.10.1017/CBO9780511618147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2005. Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In Bauer & Valera Hernández 2005b, 19–30.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle; and Plag, Ingo. 2013. English morphology: A reference guide to contemporary English word-formation and inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, and Hernández, Salvador Valera. 2005a. Conversion or zero-derivation: An introduction. In Bauer & Valera Hernández 2005b, 7–18.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, and Hernández, Salvador Valera (eds.) 2005b. Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation. Munich: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Jason. 2015. Complete public Reddit comments corpus. Internet Archive. Online: https://archive.org/details/2015_reddit_comments_corpus.Google Scholar
Beltrama, Andrea. 2020. Social meaning in semantics and pragmatics. Language and Linguistics Compass 14:e12398. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12398.10.1111/lnc3.12398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2018. Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist (Picasso): Linguistic aberrancy from a constructional perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 277–93. DOI: 10.1515/zaa-2018-0025.10.1515/zaa-2018-0025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Max. 1968. The labyrinth of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Blamire, Emily. 2016. A syntactic analysis of because x in English … because linguistics. Toronto: University of Toronto, ms.Google Scholar
Blashki, Katherine, and Nichol, Sophie. 2005. Game geek's goss: Linguistic creativity in young males within an online university forum (94/\/\3 933k'5 9055oneone). Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 3(2). 77–86.Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Language change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative use of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. English in computermediated communication: Variation, representation, and change, ed. by Squires, Lauren, 149–78. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110490817-008.Google Scholar
Bolander, Brook, and Locher, Miriam A.. 2014. Doing sociolinguistic research on computer-mediated data: A review of four methodological issues. Discourse, Context & Media 3. 14–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcm.2013.10.004.10.1016/j.dcm.2013.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, Marisa. 2018. Taking it up a level: Copy-raising and cascaded tiers of morphosyntactic change. Language Variation and Change 30. 231–60. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394518000078.10.1017/S0954394518000078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Stuart, and Vaughan, Christopher. 2009. Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. ‘Why be normal?‘: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28. 203–23. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404599002043.10.1017/S0047404599002043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 2004. Blooming English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butters, Ronald R. 2001. Chance as a cause of language variation and change. Journal of English Linguistics 29(3). 201–13. DOI: 10.1177/00754240122005332.10.1177/00754240122005332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillois, Roger. 1961. Man, play and games. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Kendra, and Fawcett, Alexia. 2022. ‘They edited out her nip nops’: Linguistic innovation as textual censorship avoidance on TikTok. Paper presented at the 96th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC, January 6–9.Google Scholar
Cekaite, Asta. 2018. Microgenesis of language creativity: Innovation, conformity and incongruence in children's language play. Language Sciences 65. 26–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.01.007.10.1016/j.langsci.2017.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, Asta, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Grøver, Vibeke; and Teubal, Eva (eds.) 2014. Children's peer talk: Learning from each other. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139084536.10.1017/CBO9781139084536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2009. Sociolinguistic theory. Revised edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Childs, Becky, and Van Herk, Gerard. 2014. Work that -s!: Drag queens, gender, identity and traditional Newfoundland English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(5). 634–57. DOI: 10.1111/josl.12094.10.1111/josl.12094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Elaine W. 2004. Ideologies of legitimate mockery: Margaret Cho's revoicings of Mock Asian. Pragmatics 14(2–3). 263–89. DOI: 10.1075/prag.14.2-3.10chu.Google Scholar
Clankie, Shawn. 1999. On brand name change: A theory of genericization. Manoa: University of Hawai'i dissertation.Google Scholar
Cowie, Claire Susan. 1998. Diachronic word-formation: A corpus-based study of derived nominalizations in the history of English. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation. DOI: 10.17863/CAM.16202.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1998. Language play. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cutler, Cecelia A. 1999. Yorkville crossing: White teens, hip hop and African American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(4). 428–42. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9481.00089.10.1111/1467-9481.00089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda, and Herring, Susan C.. 2007. Introduction: Welcome to the multilingual Internet. The multilingual Internet: Language, culture, and communication online, ed. by Danet, Brenda and Herring, Susan C., 3–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.003.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda, Ruedenberg-Wright, Lucia; and Rosenbaum-Tamari, Yehudit. 1997. ‘Hmm, where's that smoke coming from?‘ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2(4). DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00195.x.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2017. Discourse-pragmatic variation in context: Eight hundred years of like. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Eirlys E. 1987. Eyeplay: On some uses of nonstandard spelling. Language & Communication 7(1). 47–58. DOI: 10.1016/0271-5309(87)90013-9.10.1016/0271-5309(87)90013-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3). 601–33. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0056.10.1353/lan.2012.0056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del-Teso-Craviotto, Marisol. 2006. Language and sexuality in Spanish and English dating chats. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(4). 460–80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00288.x.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00288.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek. 2021. Raptors vs. bucktees: The Somali influence on Toronto Slang. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42(6). 565–78. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2021.1895181.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1999. Syntax. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4: 1776–1997, ed. by Romaine, Suzanne, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CHOL9780521264778.004.10.1017/CHOL9780521264778.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana. 2005. The unbearable lightness of being bilingual: English-Afrikaans language contact in South Africa. Language Sciences 27. 113–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2004.10.002.10.1016/j.langsci.2004.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana. 2014. The performance of a ludic self on social networking sites. The language of social media: Identity and community on the Internet, ed. by Seargeant, Philip and Tagg, Caroline, 23–45. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9781137029317_2.10.1057/9781137029317_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, Randy L., and Kolodzey, Katherine F.. 1981. Spaka: A private language. Language 57(2). 406–24. DOI: 10.2307/413697.10.2307/413697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron J. 2016. Variant-centered variation and the like conspiracy. Linguistic Variation 16(2). 221–46. DOI: 10.1075/lv.16.2.03din.10.1075/lv.16.2.03dinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorleijn, Margreet. 2019. Metalinguistic comments as a tool for bottom-up language policy. Language Dynamics and Change 9. 192–219. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-00901002.10.1163/22105832-00901002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eble, Connie. 1996. Slang and sociability: In-group language among college students. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 453–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2019. The individual in the semiotic landscape. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):14. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.640.Google Scholar
Edwards, Gavin. 2014. Dropping science: ‘XKCD’ cartoonist Randall Munroe on his new book. Rolling Stone, September 2, 2014. Online: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/dropping-science-xkcd-cartoonist-randall-munroe-on-his-new-book-67847.Google Scholar
Fiesler, Casey, and Proferes, Nicholas. 2018. ‘Participant’ perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media + Society 4(1). DOI: 10.1177/2056305118763366.10.1177/2056305118763366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flesch, Marie. 2019. ‘That spelling tho’: A sociolinguistic study of the nonstandard form of though in a corpus of Reddit comments. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(2). 163–88. DOI: 10.1515/eujal-2019-0007.10.1515/eujal-2019-0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Gill. 2013. Are adjectives the new nouns? Macmillan Dictionary Blog. Online: http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/are-adjectives-the-new-nouns, accessed 4 May 2015.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren, and Vaughan, Jill. 2011. I can haz language play: The construction of language and identity in LOLspeak. Australian Linguistic Society Conference 42. 97–122. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/9398.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 183–206. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Robert Lane. 2013. Think similar. 1843 Magazine, May 21, 2013. Online: https://www.economist.com/1843/2013/05/21/think-similar.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack, Nini, Andrea; and Guo, Diansheng. 2016. Analyzing lexical emergence in Modern American English online. English Language and Linguistics 21(1). 99–127. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674316000113.10.1017/S1360674316000113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72. DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1962.11659765.10.1080/00437956.1962.11659765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Patrick. 2013. Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001.10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–68. DOI: 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043.10.1515/ling.37.6.1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempelmann, Christian, and Miller, Tristan. 2017. Puns: Taxonomy and phonology. The Routledge handbook of language and humor, ed. by Attardo, Salvatore, 95–108. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315731162-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2007. A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet 4:1. Online: https://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2007/761.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. 1998. Language, race, and white public space. American Anthropologist 100(3). 680–89. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.680.10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jane H. 2008. The everyday language of white racism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444304732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilte, Lisa, Vandekerckhove, Reinhild; and Daelemans, Walter. 2019. Adolescents' perceptions of social media writing: Has non-standard become the new standard? European Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(2). 189–224. DOI: 10.1515/eujal-2019-0005.10.1515/eujal-2019-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochster, Anita. 1973. Subordinate clause raising and lexical gap. Paper in Linguistics (now called Research on Language and Social Interaction) 6(1–4). 273–311. DOI: 10.1080/08351817309370344.10.1080/08351817309370344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, Nicole R., and Squires, Lauren. 2021. Sociolinguistic labor, linguistic climate, and race(ism) on campus: Black college students' experiences with language at predominantly white institutions. Journal of Sociolinguistics 25(3). 418–37. DOI: 10.1111/josl.12438.10.1111/josl.12438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316423530.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huizinga, Johan. 1955 [1938]. Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Ilbury, Christian. 2019. ‘Sassy Queens’: Stylistic orthographic variation in Twitter and the enregisterment of AAVE. Journal of Sociolinguistics 24(2). 245–64. DOI: 10.1111/josl.12366.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. 2001. ‘Style’ as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. Stylistic variation, ed. by Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R., 21–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511613258.002.Google Scholar
Ito, Rika, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 32. 257–79. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404503322055.10.1017/S0047404503322055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K., and Salmons, Joseph C.. 2005. Filling the gap: English tense vowel plus final /š/. Journal of English Linguistics 33(3). 207–21. DOI: 10.1177/0075424205282561.10.1177/0075424205282561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwamura, Susan Grohs. 1980. The verbal games of pre-school children. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Jayawardhana, Ray. 2013. Neutrino hunters. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, and Baumgardt, Dan. 2004. ‘Pittsburghese’ online: Vernacular norming in conversation. American Speech 79(2). 115–45. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-79-2-115.10.1215/00031283-79-2-115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Megan, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2004. From Somerset to Samaná: Preverbal did in the voyage of English. Language Variation and Change 16. 93–126. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394504162029.10.1017/S0954394504162029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2005. Conversion and/or zero: Word-formation theory, historical linguistics, & typology. In Bauer & Valera Hernández 2005b, 31–50.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language, trans. by Nerlich, Brigitte. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203993286.Google Scholar
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara, and Sherzer, Joel. 1976. Introduction. Speech play: Research and resources for the study of linguistic creativity, ed. by Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara, 1–16. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI: 10.9783/9781512803150-002.10.9783/9781512803150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972a. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972b. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500006576.10.1017/S0047404500006576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83(2). 344–87. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2007.0082.10.1353/lan.2007.0082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3: Cultural and cognitive factors. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444327496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 643–86. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x.10.1007/s10988-005-0596-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laycock, Donald. 1972. Towards a typology of ludlings or play-languages. Linguistic Communications 6. 61–113.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, Natalie J. 1989. Verlan: Talking backwards in French. The French Review 63(2). 312–22. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/394763.Google Scholar
Lefler, Jordan. 2011. I can has thesis? A linguistic analysis of LOLspeak. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University MA thesis. Online: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/1271.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez, and Fox, Sue. 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. DOI: 10.1177/0075424214531487.10.1177/0075424214531487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. Introducing morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511808845.10.1017/CBO9780511808845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberson, Stanley. 2000. A matter of taste: How names, fashion, and culture change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lighter, Jonathan. 2013. Re: Engineering amazing. American Dialect Society list, December 31, 2013. Online: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2013-December/130051.html.Google Scholar
Lighter, Jonathan. 2015. Re: Engineering amazing. American Dialect Society List, April 12, 2015. Online: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2015-April/136608.html.Google Scholar
Manning, Emma Sophia. 2015. I accidentally this thesis because East: The influence of the Internet on spoken language in Eastspeak. Claremont, CA: Scripps College BA thesis. Online: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/622.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. Categories and types of present-day English word-formation. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Maybin, Janet, and Swann, Joan. 2007. Everyday creativity in language: Textuality, contextuality, and critique. Applied Linguistics 28(4). 497–517. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amm036.10.1093/applin/amm036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, Gretchen. 2014. A linguist explains the grammar of doge. Wow. The Toast, February 6, 2014. Online: http://the-toast.net/2014/02/06/linguist-explains-grammar-doge-wow.Google Scholar
McCulloch, Gretchen. 2019. Because internet: Understanding the new rules of language. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Merrill, Amber. 2022. Censorship evasion on TikTok: Methods of verbal word substitution. Paper presented at the Toronto Undergraduate Linguistics Conference (TULCON) 15, Toronto, ON, March 5–6, 2022.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Allan. 2002. Predicting new words: The secrets of their success. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Allan. 2011. OK: The improbable story of America's greatest word. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 2003. On the role of the speaker in language change. Motives for language change, ed. by Hickey, Raymond, 143–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.010.Google Scholar
Milroy, James, and Milroy, Lesley. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21(2). 339–84. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700010306.10.1017/S0022226700010306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modra, Penny. 2018. Grammar gripes: Why do we love to complain about language? The Guardian, March 11, 2018. Online: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/12/grammar-gripes-why-do-we-love-to-complain-about-language.Google Scholar
Namyalo, Saudah. 2015. Linguistic strategies in Luyaaye: Word play and conscious language manipulation. Youth language practices in Africa and beyond, ed. by Nassenstein, Nico and Hollington, Andrea, 313–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9781614518525-017.Google Scholar
Nassenstein, Nico. 2015. The emergence of Langila in Kinshasa (DR Congo). Youth language practices in Africa and beyond, ed. by Nassenstein, Nico and Hollington, Andrea, 81–98. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781614518525-006.10.1515/9781614518525-006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1994. Aspects of adverbial change in Early Modern English. Studies in Early Modern English, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter, 243–60. New York: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110879599.243.Google Scholar
OED online (Oxford English Dictionary online). OK, adj., int.1, n.2 & adv. Online: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/130925, accessed 15 December 2019.Google Scholar
Perlman, Marcus, Dale, Rick; and Lupyan, Gary. 2015. Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science 2:150152. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150152.10.1098/rsos.150152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, Britt. 2015. Linguists are like, ‘Get used to it!‘: Why a new way to quote people has taken English by storm. The Boston Globe, January 25, 2015. Online: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/01/25/linguists-are-like-get-used/ruUQoV0XUTLDjx72JojnBI/story.html.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Levey, Stephen. 2010. Contact-induced grammatical change. Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation. Vol. 1: Theories and methods, ed. by Auer, Peter and Schmidt, Jürgen Erich, 391–419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220278.391.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2005. Yoda's syntax the Tribune analyzes; supply more details I will! Language Log, May 18, 2005. Online: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002173.html.Google Scholar
Punske, Jeffrey, and Butler, Elizabeth. 2019. Do me a syntax: Doggo memes, language games and the internal structure of English. Ampersand 6:100052. DOI: 10.1016/j.amper.2019.100052.10.1016/j.amper.2019.100052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language & environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: https://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Read, Allen Walker. 1963. The first stage in the history of O.K. American Speech 38(1). 5–27. DOI: 10.1215/-86-1-123.10.2307/453580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Allen Walker. 1964. The folklore of ‘O.K.‘ American Speech 39(1). 5–25. DOI: 10.2307/453922.10.2307/453922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth M. 1985. A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. Historical semantics—Historical word-formation, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 435–61. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110850178.435.Google Scholar
Roberts, Gareth. 2017. The linguist's Drosophila: Experiments in language change. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1):20160086. DOI: 10.1515/lingvan-2016-0086.10.1515/lingvan-2016-0086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Wesley C. 2022. ‘Ojisan gokko shiyo [Let's pretend to be old men!]‘: Contested graphic ideologies in Japanese online language play. Japanese Studies 42(1). 23–42. DOI: 10.1080/10371397.2021.2020087.10.1080/10371397.2021.2020087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1985. Variability in word formation patterns and productivity in the history of English. Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 451–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosa, Jonathan. 2016. From mock Spanish to inverted Spanglish: Language ideologies and the racialization of Mexican and Puerto Rican youth in the United States. Raciolinguistics, ed. by Alim, H. Samy, Rickford, John R., and Ball, Arnetha F., 65–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.003.0004.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Aliza. 2010. Iz in ur meme / aminalizin teh langwich: A linguistic study of LOLcats. Verge 7. 1–12.Google Scholar
Roth-Gordon, Jennifer, Harris, Jessica; and Zamora, Stephania. 2020. Producing white comfort through ‘corporate cool’: Linguistic appropriation, social media, and @BrandsSayingBae. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 265. 107–28. DOI: 10.1515/ijsl-2020-2105.Google Scholar
Säily, Tanja. 2011. Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1). 119–41. DOI: 10.1515/cllt.2011.006.10.1515/cllt.2011.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmons, Joseph C., and Purnell, Thomas C.. 2010. Contact and the development of American English. The handbook of language contact, ed. by Hickey, Raymond, 454–77. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444318159.ch22.Google Scholar
Sanders, Nathan. 2020. A primer on constructed languages. Language invention in linguistics pedagogy, ed. by Punske, Jeffrey, Sanders, Nathan, and Fountain, Amy V., 6–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198829874.003.0002.10.1093/oso/9780198829874.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebba, Mark. 2007. Spelling and society: The culture and politics of orthography around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486739.10.1017/CBO9780511486739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1976. Play languages: Implications for (socio)linguistics. Speech play: Research and resources for studying linguistic creativity, ed. by Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara, 19–36. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI: 10.9783/9781512803150-003.10.9783/9781512803150-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 2002. Speech play and verbal art. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI: 10.7560/777682.10.7560/777682-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel, and Webster, Anthony K.. 2015. Speech play, verbal art, and linguistic anthropology. Oxford handbook topics in linguistics. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.33.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.33.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.33.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobe, Tyanna. 2018. Style, stance, and social meaning in mock white girl. Language in Society 47(4). 541–67. DOI: 10.1017/S004740451800060X.10.1017/S004740451800060XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smitherman, Geneva. 1998. Word from the hood: The lexicon of African American Vernacular English. African-American English: Structure, history and use, ed. by Mufwene, Salikoko S., Rickford, John R., Bailey, Guy, and Baugh, John, 203–25. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smitherman, Geneva. 2006. Word from the mother: Language and African Americans. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203006665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneller, Betsy, and Roberts, Gareth. 2018. Why some behaviors spread while others don't: A laboratory simulation of dialect contact. Cognition 170. 298–311. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.014.10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobkowiak, Włodzimierz. 1990. On spoonerisms. Word 41. 277–92. DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1990.11435824.10.1080/00437956.1990.11435824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, Lauren. 2017. Mini-experiments for teaching across the English linguistics syllabus. American Speech 92(2). 231–52. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-4202042.10.1215/00031283-4202042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanlaw, James. 2020. Language and creativity: Introduction. The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology, ed. by Stanlaw, James. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118786093.iela0188.10.1002/9781118786093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 487–525. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4.10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, Anne. 2019. Games with names: Naming practices and deliberate language change. Language Dynamics and Change 9. 162–91. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-00902003.10.1163/22105832-00902003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002. Comparative sociolinguistics. The handbook of language variation and change, ed. by Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie, 729–63. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511801624.10.1017/CBO9780511801624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2016. So sick or so cool? The language of youth on the internet. Language in Society 45. 1–32. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404515000780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and Ito, Rika. 2002. Think really different: Continuity and specialization in the English dual form adverbs. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(2). 236–66. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9481.00186.10.1111/1467-9481.00186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 1997. On mechanisms of interference. Language and its ecology: Essays in memory of Einar Haugen, ed. by Eliasson, Stig and Jahr, Ernst Håkon, 181–207. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110805369.181.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2007. Language contact and deliberate change. Journal of Language Contact 1. 41–62. DOI: 10.1163/000000007792548387.10.1163/000000007792548387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin. 2012. Determined creativity: Language play in new media discourse. Discourse and creativity, ed. by Jones, Rodney, 169–90. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Tobin, Meaghan, and Lee, Katherine. 2022. How Chinese citizens use puns to get past internet censors. Rest of World, October 11, 2022. Online: https://restofworld.org/2022/china-social-media-censorship/.Google Scholar
Tsou, Andrew. 2016. How does the front page of the Internet behave? Readability, emoticon use, and links on Reddit. First Monday 21(11). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v21i11.7013.Google Scholar
Van Herk, Gerard. 2012. What is sociolinguistics? Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2011. Language games. The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., ed. by Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan C. L., 722–50. Malden, MA: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781444343069.ch22.10.1002/9781444343069.ch22.10.1002/9781444343069.ch22.10.1002/9781444343069.ch22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veale, Tony. 2012. Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Veale, Tony. 2021. Does not compute: Why machines need a practical sense of humor. The MIT Reader. Online: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/why-machines-need-a-practical-sense-of-humor.Google Scholar
Verheijen, Lieke. 2013. The effects of text messaging and instant messaging on literacy. English Studies 94(5). 582–602. DOI: 10.1080/0013838X.2013.795737.10.1080/0013838X.2013.795737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2017. The actuation problem. The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, ed. by Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian, 403–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781107279070.020.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William; and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, Michael. 1973. Toward a phenomenological psycholinguistics of multilingualism. The Macleod Symposium, ed. by Kreich, David, 1–17. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED104115.pdf.Google Scholar
Whitman, Neal. 2009. ‘Full of win.‘ American Dialect Society list, May 31, 2009. Online: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2009-May/090476.html.Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. 2008. Why dat now? Linguistic-anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 432–52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00375.x.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00375.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Continuum.10.5040/9781472541642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Benjamin. 2009. Oh boy, that'll be the day to rave on and not fade away. Language Log, February 3, 2009. Online: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1104.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Benjamin, Wright, Kelly E.; and Carson, Charles E.. 2021. Among the new words. American Speech 96(1). 105–23. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-3442150.10.1215/00031283-9089600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Benjamin, Wright, Kelly E., Hughes, Brianne; and Carson, Charles E.. 2022. Among the new words. American Speech 97(3). 412–28. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-10096035.10.1215/00031283-10096035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2009. Re: ‘Full of win’. American Dialect Society list, May 31, 2009. Online: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2009-May/090481.html.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 2010. Noun that adjective! Arnold Zwicky's Blog. Online: http://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/07/09/short-shot-49-noun-that-adjective.Google Scholar