Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?

<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>