---
res:
  bibo_abstract:
  - "<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>\r\n               <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>@eng"
  bibo_authorlist:
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Markus
      foaf_name: Freudinger, Markus
      foaf_surname: Freudinger
      foaf_workInfoHomepage: http://www.librecat.org/personId=34058
  bibo_doi: 10.1515/zaa-2017-0031
  bibo_issue: '3'
  bibo_volume: 65
  dct_date: 2017^xs_gYear
  dct_isPartOf:
  - http://id.crossref.org/issn/2196-4726
  - http://id.crossref.org/issn/0044-2305
  dct_language: eng
  dct_publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH@
  dct_subject:
  - Literature and Literary Theory
  - Linguistics and Language
  - Language and Linguistics
  dct_title: <i>Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda</i> – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?@
...