@article{46141,
  abstract     = {{<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>
               <jats:p>In this paper, the contractions <jats:italic>shoulda, coulda, woulda</jats:italic> are compared with their respective full forms <jats:italic>should have</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>would have</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>could have</jats:italic>. 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, <jats:italic>shoulda, coulda</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>woulda</jats:italic> 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 <jats:italic>shoulda, coulda</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>woulda</jats:italic> 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.</jats:p>}},
  author       = {{Freudinger, Markus}},
  issn         = {{2196-4726}},
  journal      = {{Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik}},
  keywords     = {{Literature and Literary Theory, Linguistics and Language, Language and Linguistics}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{319--337}},
  publisher    = {{Walter de Gruyter GmbH}},
  title        = {{{<i>Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda</i> – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?}}},
  doi          = {{10.1515/zaa-2017-0031}},
  volume       = {{65}},
  year         = {{2017}},
}