Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?
-
Markus Freudinger
Abstract
In this paper, the contractions shoulda, coulda, woulda are compared with their respective full forms should have, would have, and could have. Although the full forms are used much more frequently and are, therefore, considered canonical, the non-canonical forms have increased in frequency throughout the better part of the twentieth century. They are predominantly used in American English – in conversation as well as in fictional writing to imitate speech. With respect to their syntactic environment, shoulda, coulda, and woulda behave differently than their full counterparts since they are often used without subjects and without lexical verbs. Some of these uses can be explained by the fact that shoulda, coulda, and woulda are not always used as verbal items but also as nouns, adjectives, and interjections. Due to their overall low frequency and their restriction to a particular register, however, it appears they will keep their non-canonical status for the foreseeable future.
Works Cited
Butterfield, Jeremy, ed. (2015). Fowler’s Concise Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark (2004). BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press. <http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/>.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca> and <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/help/spoken.asp>.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. <http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/>.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark (2013). Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). <http://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/>.Search in Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar
Kersten, Holger (2000). “The Creative Potential of Dialect Writing in Later-Nineteenth-Century America.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 55, 92–117.10.2307/2903058Search in Google Scholar
Krapp, George (1926). “The Psychology of Dialect Writing.” The Bookman 6, 522–527.Search in Google Scholar
Lorenz, David (2013). “From Reduction to Emancipation: Is gonna a Word?” Hilde Hasselgard, Jarle Ebeling and Signe Ebeling, eds. Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis. Amsterdam, Benjamins, 133–152.10.1075/scl.57.11lorSearch in Google Scholar
Mair, Christian (2006). Twentieth-Century English. History, Variation, and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486951Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter (2014). Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Quick Reference.Search in Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster (2015). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/>.Search in Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (2016). Oxford English Dictionary: The Definitive Record of the English language (OED). Oxford University Press. <http://www.oed.com/>.Search in Google Scholar
Preacher, Kristopher (2001). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. <http://quantpsy.org>.Search in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Jan Svartvik and Geoffrey Leech (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
The ICE Project. International Corpus of English. <http://ice-corpora.net/ice/index.htm>.Search in Google Scholar
Article note:
This paper benefitted enormously from the input generously provided by Ashleigh Möller (TU Dresden), whose editorial commitment went far beyond issues of formatting. The author as well as the editors of this special issue would like to extend their gratitude to her for her constructive criticism and insightful suggestions.
©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Non-Canonical Grammar!?
- Articles
- “Hard to Beat Dickens’ Characters”: Non-Canonical Syntax in Evaluative Texts
- Non-Canonical Syntax in South Asian Varieties of English: A Corpus-Based Pilot Study on Fronting
- Typological Interference in Information Structure: The Case of Topicalization in Asia
- Non-Canonical Speech Acts in the History of English
- Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?
- Chosen
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Non-Canonical Grammar!?
- Articles
- “Hard to Beat Dickens’ Characters”: Non-Canonical Syntax in Evaluative Texts
- Non-Canonical Syntax in South Asian Varieties of English: A Corpus-Based Pilot Study on Fronting
- Typological Interference in Information Structure: The Case of Topicalization in Asia
- Non-Canonical Speech Acts in the History of English
- Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?
- Chosen
