{"page":"319-337","status":"public","type":"journal_article","publication_status":"published","department":[{"_id":"384"}],"publisher":"Walter de Gruyter GmbH","volume":65,"year":"2017","issue":"3","date_updated":"2023-09-20T16:18:39Z","publication_identifier":{"issn":["2196-4726","0044-2305"]},"citation":{"chicago":"Freudinger, Markus. “Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?” Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 65, no. 3 (2017): 319–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2017-0031.","ama":"Freudinger M. Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik. 2017;65(3):319-337. doi:10.1515/zaa-2017-0031","short":"M. Freudinger, Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 65 (2017) 319–337.","mla":"Freudinger, Markus. “Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?” Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, vol. 65, no. 3, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2017, pp. 319–37, doi:10.1515/zaa-2017-0031.","apa":"Freudinger, M. (2017). Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move? Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 65(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2017-0031","bibtex":"@article{Freudinger_2017, title={Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?}, volume={65}, DOI={10.1515/zaa-2017-0031}, number={3}, journal={Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik}, publisher={Walter de Gruyter GmbH}, author={Freudinger, Markus}, year={2017}, pages={319–337} }","ieee":"M. Freudinger, “Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?,” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 319–337, 2017, doi: 10.1515/zaa-2017-0031."},"abstract":[{"text":"Abstract\r\n 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.","lang":"eng"}],"doi":"10.1515/zaa-2017-0031","date_created":"2023-07-25T11:22:55Z","intvolume":" 65","user_id":"14931","language":[{"iso":"eng"}],"publication":"Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik","_id":"46141","author":[{"full_name":"Freudinger, Markus","last_name":"Freudinger","id":"34058","first_name":"Markus"}],"title":"Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda – Non-Canonical Forms on the Move?","keyword":["Literature and Literary Theory","Linguistics and Language","Language and Linguistics"]}