Tables
1.4Survey of candidates for discourse-pragmatic innovation in London adolescent speech (identified through corpus-driven data analysis)
1.5Examples from diff score lists (5-grams) that contain the sequence you get
3.1Proportion of different neg-tag positions by social group in LIC
4.1Distribution of speakers included in the analysis of UFTs in the TEA
4.4Binomial logistic regression testing the fixed effects of sex in interaction with a polynomial (degree 2) for age (centred) on the realisation of UFTs as right
4.5Distribution of discourse contexts of you know by age group
4.7Results of zero-inflated Poisson regression of the number of discourse contexts in which right is used by each speaker
5.3Co-occurrence of GEs and other discourse-pragmatic features
6.1Details of existing longitudinal studies on English quotatives
6.3Contribution of linguistic and social factors to the use of say among speakers born between 1870 and 1890
6.4Contribution of linguistic and social factors to the use of say among speakers born between 1920 and 1930
6.5Contribution of linguistic and social factors to the use of say among speakers born between 1950 and 1960
6.6Contribution of linguistic and social factors to the use of say among speakers born between 1970 and 1980
6.7Longitudinal development of sociolinguistic constraints on say in AusE
7.3Sample constitution: Ottawa-Hull Spoken Language Archives 1982 (OHSLA)
7.4Distribution of quotative variants by age and sex in the Ottawa English Corpus (OEC)
7.5Distribution of quotative variants by age and sex in the Ottawa Child Language Corpus (OCLC)
7.6Distribution of major quotative variants by age in the 1982 Ottawa-Hull Spoken Language Archives (OHSLA)
7.7Nine independent multivariate analyses of the factors contributing to the probability that be like, say and zero will be selected in the speech of eight- to nine-year-olds, eleven- to twelve-year-olds (OCLC) and twenty- to thirty-year-olds (OEC)
8.3Computation of differences in variable use in the data presented in Table 8.2
8.5Intensifier frequency in selected varieties and registers
8.6Intensifier variant and intensifier group variation across IndE, PhiE and SinE private conversations
8.7Intensifier variant and intensifier group variation across IndE, PhiE and SinE public conversations
9.4‘Personal’ style and pragmatic function in LCS and Fisher
10.1List of the Common Room and non-Common Room groups discussed in this chapter
10.2Summary of realisations of quotative and discourse particle like reported in Drager (2011)
E.1Contribution of external and internal factors to the use of be like in MLE
