Previewpdf

Corpus Linguistics and the Analysis
of Sociolinguistic Change
‘Joan O’Sullivan has carried out a comprehensive analysis of sociolinguistic change over
time, based on a detailed case study of a diachronic corpus of Irish radio adverts. The careful
consideration of issues relating to both corpus building and analysis offers much of value to
students and researchers embarking on their own sociolinguistic projects.’
Paul Baker, Lancaster University, UK
‘This study is a welcome addition to corpus linguistics, using its technology and methods
to gain linguistic insights. Joan O’Sullivan has successfully demonstrated the sociolinguistic
motivation of language variation and change with compelling data from the domains of
media and advertising.’
Raymond Hickey, University of Duisburg and Essen, Germany
Corpus Linguistics and the Analysis of Sociolinguistic Change demonstrates how particular styles
and varieties of language are chosen and represented in the media, to reveal changing lan-
guage ideologies and sociolinguistic change. Drawing on a corpus of ads broadcast on an
Irish radio station between 1977 and 2017, this book shows how corpus linguistic tools can
be creatively employed, in conjunction with frameworks and concepts such as audience and
referee design and indexicality, and examines how accents and dialects (vernacular and pres-
tige) are exploited in the ads across the decades. In addition, this book:
• illustrates the key principles of corpus design for sociolinguistic studies and offers a
framework for future diachronic corpus studies of advertising on social media;
• provides a model for analysing corpus data at both inter-varietal and intra-varietal levels
in terms of both accent and dialectal features and explores the efficacy of using par-
ticular corpus linguistic tools;
• identifies key factors which can be used by researchers as evidence for sociolinguistic
change and links these factors to relevant theories and frameworks;
• demonstrates how corpus tools can be used to compare advertising discourse with naturally
occurring discourse, with particular reference to markers of (pseudo) intimate discourse.
Building on the growing body of research relating to variation and change in Irish English,
this book is key reading for researchers and advanced students undertaking research within
the areas of sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics.
Joan O’Sullivan is a Lecturer in Applied Linguistics in the Department of English Language

and Literature at Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland.
ROUTLEDGE APPLIED CORPUS LINGUISTICS
SERIES EDITOR: MICHAEL McCARTHY

Michael McCarthy is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of
Nottingham, UK, Adjunct Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Limerick,
Ireland and Visiting Professor in Applied Linguistics at Newcastle University, UK. He is co-
editor of the Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, editor of the Routledge Domains of
Discourse series and co-editor of the Routledge Corpus Linguistics Guides series.
SERIES EDITOR: ANNE O’KEEFFE

Anne O’Keeffe is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics and Director of the Inter-Varietal
Applied Corpus Studies (IVACS) Research Centre at Mary Immaculate College, University
of Limerick, Ireland. She is co-editor of the Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics and co-
editor of the Routledge Corpus Linguistics Guides series.
SERIES CO-FOUNDER: RONALD CARTER

Ronald Carter (1947–2018) was Research Professor of Modern English Language in the
School of English at the University of Nottingham, UK. He was also the co-editor of the
Routledge Corpus Linguistics Guides series, Routledge Introductions to Applied Linguistics
series and Routledge English Language Introductions series.
Editorial Panel: IVACS (Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies Group), based at Mary
Immaculate College, University of Limerick, is an international research network linking
corpus linguistic researchers interested in exploring and comparing language in different
contexts of use.
The Routledge Applied Corpus Linguistics Series is a series of monograph studies exhibiting
cutting-edge research in the field of corpus linguistics and its applications to real-world
language problems. Corpus linguistics is one of the most dynamic and rapidly developing
areas in the field of language studies, and it is difficult to see a future for empirical language
research where results are not replicable by reference to corpus data. This series showcases
the latest research in the field of applied language studies where corpus findings are at the
forefront, introducing new and unique methodologies and applications which open up new
avenues for research.
OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES INCLUDE
Corpus Perspectives on the Spoken Models used by EFL Teachers

Angela Farrell
More information about this series can be found at www.routledge.com/series/RACL
Corpus Linguistics and the
Analysis of Sociolinguistic
Change
Language Variety and Ideology

in Advertising
Joan O’Sullivan
First published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Joan O’Sullivan
The right of Joan O’Sullivan to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by
her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: O’Sullivan, Joan, author.
Title: Corpus linguistics and the analysis of sociolinguistic change:
language variety and ideology in advertising / Joan O’Sullivan.
Description: London ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. |
Series: Routledge applied corpus linguistics |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019026215 (print) | LCCN 2019026216 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781138556881 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429356827 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages in advertising. |
Sociolinguistics–Ireland. | Corpora (Linguistics) |
Advertising–Language. | English language–Spoken
English–Ireland. | Radio advertising–Ireland.
Classification: LCC HF5821.5 .O88 2019 (print) |
LCC HF5821.5 (ebook) | DDC 659.101/4–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019026215
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019026216
ISBN: 978-1-138-55688-1 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-35682-7 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Newgen Publishing UK
For my family, past, present and future, whose voices form their own
pattern of sociolinguistic change.
Contents
List of figures x
List of tables xiii
Acknowledgements xiv
List of abbreviations xvi
1 Analysing sociolinguistic change through a radio ad corpus 1

1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Using corpus linguistics in sociolinguistic research 4
1.2 Terminology 9
1.3 Examining sociolinguistic changes through language ideological
change in advertising discourse 11
1.4 Chapter overview 12
2 Language variety as a variable: The case of Irish English 15
2.0 Introduction 15
2.1 The emergence of a variety: The case of Irish English 15
2.2 Irish English studies and corpus linguistics 16
2.3 Features of Irish English 17
2.4 Salient phonological markers for the differentiation of Irish English and
Standard Southern British English (SSBE) 23
2.5 Prestige varieties in Ireland 24
2.6 Categorising Irish English 27
2.7 Classification of variety in the corpus 30
2.8 Conclusion 31
3 Language ideology and sociolinguistic change 33
3.0 Introduction 33
3.1 Language ideology as a social construct 33
3.2 Language ideology and the media 34
viii Contents
3.3 Nationalist language ideology and the Irish context 35

3.4 Standard language ideologies and the Irish context 37
3.5 An ideology of communication 39
3.6 New authenticities 42
3.7 Authenticity as an ideological construct: The case of Advanced
Dublin English (AdvD) 44
3.8 Using corpus linguistics tools to identify language ideology in the
Irish context 49
3.9 Conclusion 49
4 Examining language ideology in analysing sociolinguistic
change: Frameworks and theories 52
4.0 Introduction 52
4.1 Heteroglossia and the voices of the advert 53
4.2 Indexicality 57
4.3 Audience and referee design 61
4.4 Conclusion 68
5 Designing, building and using a radio ad corpus for
diachronic analysis 71
5.0 Introduction 71
5.1 Irish Radio Advertisement Corpus (IRAC): Establishing the context 71
5.2 Building the Irish Radio Advertisement Corpus (IRAC) 76
5.3 Mark-up and annotation of the corpus 87
5.4 Quantification of accent and dialect: Some challenges 96
5.5 Qualitative analysis 97
5.6 Analysis of pseudo-intimacy in the corpus 97
5.7 Conclusion 98
6 Investigating sociolinguistic change through audience
and referee design: Inter-varietal analysis 100
6.0 Introduction 100
6.1 Quantifying broad variety in the Irish Radio Advertisement Corpus
(IRAC) to investigate audience and referee design strategies 101
6.2 Standard Southern British English (SSBE) and Irish English accent
variety in the Irish Radio Advertisement Corpus (IRAC) as audience
and referee design 105
6.3 Ingroup referee design 108
6.4 Outgroup referee design 124
6.5 Audience design 128
6.6 Conclusion 130
Contents ix
7 Investigating sociolinguistic change through audience

and referee design: Intra-varietal analysis 133
7.1 Quantifying Irish English accent sub-varieties in the Irish Radio
Advertisement Corpus (IRAC) 134
7.2 Outgroup referee design 136
7.3 Audience design 140
7.4 Ingroup referee design 145
7.5 Conclusion 150
8 Investigating indexicality 152
8.1 Examining indexicality of Irish English and Standard Southern
British English (SSBE) 153
8.2 Examining indexicality of Irish English sub-variety 159
8.3 Indexicality and ‘other’ varieties 169
8.4 Pragmatic markers and indexicality 173
8.5 Conclusion 179
9 Exploring pseudo-intimate discourse 182
9.1 Pronouns as markers of intimate discourse 183
9.2 Vocatives as markers of intimate discourse 193
9.3 Co-construction of the turn as a marker of intimate discourse 203
9.4 Modality and intimate discourse 206
9.5 Imperatives and intimate discourse 209
9.6 Conclusion 212
10 Conclusions 215
10.1 Audience and referee construction and sociolinguistic change 216
10.2 Indexicality and sociolinguistic change 221
10.3 Conversationalisation of discourse and sociolinguistic change 222
10.4 Corpus linguistics: A valuable addition to the sociolinguistics
work belt? 223
10.5 Some caveats 226
10.6 A corpus convert 227
Appendix:Transcription conventions 229

References 230
Index 244
Figures
1.1 Sample concordance lines from IRAC for the word Ireland 8
5.1 Corpus building process 78
5.2 ‘Action only’ ad 80
5.3 ‘Comment only’ ad 80
5.4 ‘Action and Comment’ ad 80
5.5 Subcorpora for general analysis of genre: Action combined
subcorpus and Comment combined subcorpus 81
5.6 Subcorpora for diachronic analysis 81
5.7 Praat spectogram showing pronunciation of the vowel in the
GOOS E lexical set, termed G O O SE -fronting (Hickey 2013/2018) 86
5.8 Ad transcript extracts showing headers containing metadata
for 1977 Action subcorpus 89
5.9 Ad transcript extract showing speaker tags 90
5.10 Ad transcript extract showing tags used to indicate accent
and dialectal variety, pragmatic markers and vocatives 91
5.11 Sample concordance lines for <Nrh (non-rhotic) accent 92
5.12 Sample concordance lines for search on tag <Dia_IrE
(dialectal Irish English) 95
6.1 Comment component transcript showing accent tag to
indicate Advanced Dublin English (AdvD) 102
6.2 Action component transcript showing accent tag to indicate
Spanish (European) language items 102
6.3 Action component transcript showing IrE dialectal feature 103
6.4 Percentage of Action components displaying broad
inter-varietal features 104
6.5 Percentage of Comment components displaying broad
inter-varietal features 104
6.6 Percentage of ad components displaying rhotic (IrE) and
non-rhotic (SSBE) accent 106
6.7 Percentage of ad components displaying IrE dialectal and
accent variety 109
List of figures xi
6.8 Keyword list for Action combined subcorpus using Comment

combined subcorpus as reference corpus 111
6.9 Frequency of Ireland and Irish (normalised per million words) in
IRAC across the decades (Action and Comment combined) 114
6.10 Collocates of Irish in IRAC 115
6.11 Sample concordance lines for Irish sorted one item to the
left (L1) 115
6.12 Sample concordance lines for Irish sorted one item to the
right (R1) 116
6.13 Collocates of Ireland in IRAC 116
6.14 Sample concordance lines for Ireland sorted one item to the
right (R1), then two items to the right (R2) 116
6.15 Sample concordance lines resulting from the search on
tag <rhReg 120
6.16 Sample concordance lines resulting from the search on
tag <rhLD 120
6.17 Percentage of ad components displaying non-rhotic SSBE
(NrhSSBE) and non-rhotic IrE (NrhIrE) pronunciation
(1977 and 1987 subcorpora) 125
6.18 Percentage of ad components displaying IrE accent sub-variety
(1977 subcorpus) 129
7.1 Sample concordance lines for <rhAdvD (Advanced Dublin
English) (2017 Comment subcorpus) 135
7.2 Percentage of Comment components displaying IrE accent
sub-variety 136
7.3 Percentage of Action components displaying IrE accent
sub-variety 136
7.5 Concordance lines for <rhAdvD (1997 Action subcorpus) 137
7.6 Concordance lines for <rhAdvD (1997 Comment subcorpus) 139
7.8 Concordance lines for <rhAdvD (2007 Action subcorpus) 142
7.9 Concordance lines for tag <rhAdvD (2017 Action subcorpus) 142
8.1 Concordance lines for search term 1977A&C to select Action
and Comment ads from the 1977 subcorpus 154
8.2 Percentage of ‘Action and Comment’ (A&C) ads displaying
particular accent combination patterns (rhotic/non-rhotic) 156
xii List of figures
8.3 Sample concordance lines resulting from search on tag

<Nrh in 1977 and 1987 Action subcorpora 157
8.4 Percentage of ‘Action and Comment’ (A&C) ads displaying
particular accent sub-variety combination patterns
(local/non-local) 160
8.5 Sample concordance lines resulting from search on tag <rh 164
8.6 Sample concordance lines for AdvD accent variety 166
8.7 Concordance lines for ‘other’ varieties 169
8.8 Concordance lines for French 171
8.9 Concordance lines for France 171
8.10 Sample concordance lines for pragmatic marker well 174
9.1 Personal pronoun frequency comparison: LINT and IRAC
(normalised per million words) 185
9.2 Sample concordance lines for search term your showing
collocations with ‘local’ in IRAC Comment 187
9.3 Sample concordance lines for vocatives (sorted R2 then
R3 then R4) 195
9.4 Vocative types in IRAC Action and Comment: Percentage of
total vocative count 196
9.5 Concordance lines for the vocative type endearment 198
9.6 Function of vocatives in LINT and IRAC 199
9.7 Sample concordance lines for initial vocatives sorted L1 to show
relationship of vocative position to vocative function 202
9.8 Frequency of modal verbs in IRAC subcorpora (normalised per
million words) 207
9.9 Frequency of modal verbs in LINT, IRAC Action and IRAC
Comment (normalised per million words) 208
9.10 Sample concordance lines for search term you can in IRAC
Comment combined subcorpus 208
9.11 Imperative use in IRAC Action and Comment (normalised
per million words) 210
9.12 Concordance lines for imperatives co-occurring with please
(Comment combined subcorpus) 210
Tables
5.1 Corpus design 85

5.2 British English accent sub-varieties: Tags 92
5.3 Irish English accent sub-varieties: Tags 93
6.1 Action combined subcorpus keywords (excluding transcription
features) (Comment combined subcorpus as reference corpus) 111
6.2 Comment combined subcorpus keywords (excluding transcription
features) (Action combined subcorpus as reference corpus) 112
6.3 Comment combined subcorpus keywords (excluding
transcription features) (LINT subcorpus as reference corpus) 113
7.1 Tags for Irish English sub-varieties 135
8.1 Comparison of top five most frequent pragmatic markers:
ICE-Ireland and IRAC 174
9.1 Wordlist highlighting I/You frequency patterns for IRAC
and LINT 184
9.2 Wordlists highlighting I/You frequency patterns across the
Comment subcorpora for each year 185
9.3 Wordlists highlighting I/You frequency patterns across
the Action subcorpora for each year 185
Acknowledgements
The radio was always playing in the house where I grew up, and so radio
programmes and radio advertisements have always been part of my ‘everyday
experience’. Analysing the ads which feature in this book, in order to investigate
sociolinguistic change, has been a fascinating experience for me. In expanding
my initial research in order to write this book, I have gained deeper insights
into the ads by looking at them with a new eye through corpus linguistics.
I owe a great deal to a great many people for this book, and for getting me to
the point of writing it.
First of all, to Pascal Houlihan for giving me a fire in my belly for linguistics;
to Helen Kelly-Holmes who opened up the world of sociolinguistics to me
and who inspired and guided me through my initial research on advertising
and language ideology; to Anne O’Keeffe for inviting me to write the book, for
allowing me to see the possibilities of corpus linguistics in sociolinguistics and
for ultimately making me a corpus convert; also to Anne O’Keeffe and Mike
McCarthy for their invaluable feedback and their support and encouragement
throughout this endeavour.
I would also like to acknowledge the help and support of many others.
Lizzie Cox and the Routledge team, Anitta Benice of Newgen Publishing,
and copy editor Katie Finnegan for their help, advice and patience throughout
the writing and editing process; Kate Neachtain for her technical input; John
Drennan who compiled the original data for the research; Mike Scott for
developing WordSmith Tools and for permission to produce screenshots from the
programme; Ray Hickey whose work on the sounds of Irish English paved the
way for the analysis in the book and also for permission to reproduce a screen-
shot from his work; Brian Clancy whose book on intimate discourse and LINT
data helped me to make connections with the intimate contexts of radio ads;
Angela Farrell who encouraged me to take on the initial research on which
the book is based; all my wonderful supportive colleagues at MIC and UL; the
many radio ad presenters in IRAC, whose voices are still part of my everyday
experience.
Acknowledgements xv
Finally, I want to thank my family, my parents, Margaret and Francie Darcy,

who always loved the radio; the extended Darcy and O’Sullivan clans for all the
fun, laughter and new voices that come with a family and its new generations;
Brendan, Aidan, Alice and Ronan, Jack and Hannah, for always keeping it real.
Special thanks to Brendan, whose journey with me spans the decades of the
IRAC corpus; thanks for making me believe, in the words of Leonard Cohen,
in ringing the bells that still can ring.
List of abbreviations
AdvD Advanced Dublin English

CL Corpus linguistics
Fr French
Ger German
Ir Irish (language)
IrE Irish English
LD Local Dublin
ModD Moderate Dublin English
NonStBrE Non-standard British English
NthAm North American
Reg Regional
RP Received Pronunciation
SpanEur European Spanish
SpanSthAm South American Spanish
SrS Supraregional Southern Irish English
SSBE Standard Southern British English
Chapter 1
Analysing sociolinguistic change

through a radio ad corpus
1.0 Introduction
When a well-known Irish radio broadcaster died suddenly in 2010, a blog post
on an Irish social media forum ran as follows:
So sad, I feel as if a member of my family has passed away… I never met

you Gerry, but you came into my house everyday and were always on the
road with me even if it was only going for a pint of milk.
(http://blog.marketing.ie 2010)
The blog post is referring to the presenter’s radio show, broadcast each week,
Monday to Friday mornings, on an Irish radio station. To the writer of this
post, the broadcaster was not just a radio personality but an essential part of her
everyday life, a daily presence in her home and in her car, by means of radio
broadcast.
A regular feature of such shows is the radio advertisement; ads are interspersed
throughout radio shows and also become part of the ‘everyday’ experience of
the listener. Indeed, whether it be through social and interactive media or more
traditional media such as newspapers, television and radio, media communica-
tion is very much part of this ‘everyday experience’ in most societies.
It is crucial to the success of the advertising medium that such ads are in
touch with the consciousness of the receivers of the ad, both in terms of getting
their attention and promoting a positive attitude towards the product or ser-
vice. Because advertisers are required to reflect the attitudes and aspirations
of their audience, the analysis of advertising can function as a way of ‘taking
the ideological temperature’ in a particular society (Vestergaard and Schroder
1985: 120–121).
Language, of course, is one of the key components in the advertising message
and in media communication generally. Given its ubiquity, the media has the
power not only to promote and propagate linguistic change but also to influence
2 Sociolinguistic change in radio ads
how language is evaluated and ideologised in societies (Coupland 2010: 56,

69) (Androutsopoulus 2017a). Due to the diversity of the broadcast media with
regard to format and genre, we are exposed to an increasing range of ‘dialect’
and ‘style’ dimensions of variation. This, together with ideological changes, is
leading to the establishment of a more multi-centred sociolinguistic culture.
Coupland suggests that we must look for connections between changes such as
these in the mediated world and the world of ‘everyday language’ (Coupland
2009a: 45).
The issue of the changing nature of the sociolinguistic situation of any
given linguistic community and its interaction with market discourses has been
highlighted. In investigating the use of language variety in advertising, Kelly-
Holmes (2005a: 116) refers to the ‘interesting case-study’ provided by the Irish
context which, like most linguistic situations, is complex.While under the Irish
Constitution, Irish is the first official language of Ireland, Irish English1 (IrE) has
effectively replaced the Irish language as the first language of the majority of the
population for all practical purposes; this has come about as a result of Ireland’s
colonisation by Britain up to the early twentieth century as well as factors such
as famine and emigration (Filppula 1999: 9–11). In spite of ongoing efforts to
revive the Irish language (at least as a second language) which began in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century, according to the 2016 Census (Central
Statistics Office 2017), less than 40 percent of the population declare themselves
as able to speak Irish and the number who use Irish on a daily basis is far lower.
In looking at Ireland’s linguistic situation and its potential in the context of
advertising, Kelly-Holmes (2005a: 117) observes three elements available for
exploitation by advertisers in Ireland: the Irish language as a symbol of Irishness;
the Irish language as a communication tool in relation to the minority of the
population who are everyday speakers of Irish; and finally, English with an Irish
accent or dialect. Additional varieties available for exploitation are other var-
ieties of English (e.g. Standard Southern British English [see section 1.2], North
American English etc.), foreign language elements (e.g. French and German
words), and English spoken with a ‘foreign’ (e.g. French) accent. The choice of
variety at any given time is necessarily influenced by the operation of prevailing
ideologies of language; for example, the use of Standard Southern British English
can be indicative of the prevalence of standard language ideology (see Chapter 3).
The analysis of language use in advertising, therefore, can shed light on the
way in which the relationship between language and society changes over time,
in other words, on sociolinguistic change (Androutsopoulos 2014; Coupland
2009a, 2014a). Sociolinguistic change has been defined as ‘the changing rela-
tionship between language and society’, and as encompassing ‘changes that are
socially consequential in one way or another for language users’ (Coupland
Sociolinguistic change in radio ads 3
et al, 2016: 37). Changes in language ideology are seen as clear examples of
sociolinguistic change.
In researching sociolinguistic change, the processes of change being
considered are not language change in the Labovian sense, but rather changes
in the relationship between language and society, ‘when change is detectable in
shifting ideologies of language, possibly resulting in new language practices, but
not necessarily resulting in changed formal features of language or in a changed
structure of a language or dialect system’ (Coupand 2016: 422).The concept of
sociolinguistic change, therefore, brings together the concepts of linguistic and
social change and challenges ‘the dualism that underlies [these] two traditions
in the study of change’ (Coupland 2014a: 72).
Androutsopoulus (2017a: 409) highlights two patterns of sociolinguistic
change, conversationalisation (Fairclough 1994) and vernacularisation (Coupland
2014a). The conversationalisation process refers to a leaning towards the use
in the public forum of less formal forms of discourse than have been trad-
itionally associated with public discourse. Similarly, vernacularisation is a pro-
cess by which vernacular linguistic styles, features and genres ‘gain access into
domains that have been the preserve of standardness’ (Coupand 2014a: 87).
Vernacularisation can be understood as an aspect of conversationalisation
(Androutsopoulus 2017a: 409); however, while conversationalisation is
concerned more with informality rather than non-standardness, the focus of
vernacularisation is on elements of regional or social varieties which are non-
standard, or even stigmatised (Bell 2011: 180).
The value of media data in research on sociolinguistic change has been
highlighted (Coupland 2016: 423). Media data has the capacity, not only to
reflect language variation and change, but also to show how particular styles
and varieties are contextualised in the media. A movement in broadcasting
towards newsreaders with regional rather than standard accents, for example,
can indicate language ideological change. This book uses a corpus of radio ads,
the Irish Radio Advertisement Corpus (IRAC), by way of case study, to explore
the way in which sociolinguistic change can be identified in a particular society,
and the extent to which corpus linguistics (CL) tools can be of benefit in this
analysis. The main focus is on the use of CL tools in the analysis of variety
choice in terms of accent and dialect in the ads. However, in exploring the
conversationalisation of public discourse, which is characterised by informality
and pseudo-intimacy (Fairclough 1994), the analysis exploits existing corpus-
based research and goes beyond the examination of accent and dialect to focus
at a more micro-level on specific markers of (pseudo) intimacy which have
been identified using corpus data, both in media communication (O’Keeffe
2006) and in naturally occurring intimate discourse (Clancy 2016).
The following section will look at how CL is exploited more generally in

sociolinguistic research.
1.1 Using corpus linguistics in sociolinguistic research

1.1.1 Corpus linguistics in sociolinguistic research: Adding an
additional tool to the sociolinguistics work belt
The rationale for including corpus methods in this sociolinguistic analysis is
based on the premise, that, as Baker puts it, sociolinguists ‘might want to add
an additional tool to their work belt’ as opposed to substituting CL for their
existing methods.
No method of linguistic analysis is ever ‘complete’ in that it alone can pro-

vide the answer to every research question about language that is asked.
Instead, I believe that it is useful to be aware of the benefits and limitations
of a range of methodologies, so that we are equipped with a good sense of
when a method should be utilised (alone or in conjunction with others) or
abandoned for the moment.
(Baker 2010: 12)
CL methods are increasingly being used in variationist sociolinguistic research

(Andersen 2010: 558), for example at the levels of phonetics (e.g. Fletcher
et al 2004; Kerswill et al 2008), syntax (The Nordic Dialect Corpus within
the framework of the ScanDiaSyn project [Bentzen and Vangsnes 2007]) and
pragmatics (Stenström et al 2002; Cheshire et al 2008). CL and sociolinguistics
have been attributed with sharing ‘fundamental tenets of best practice’. Both
approaches involve collecting and analysing naturally occurring language data
with an emphasis on language-in-use and social context; they both employ
quantitative methodologies in carrying out data analysis; both use sampling
techniques in language analysis; both approaches focus on variation across a
broad range of linguistic features and finally, they both attempt to provide
explanations for their findings (Baker 2010: 8–9).
Although CL contrasts with what are considered traditional sociolinguistic
methods such as the sociolinguistic interview or discourse completion tests,
a more flexible understanding of what constitutes a corpus allows for more
specialised corpora which use distinct sampling techniques to be included
(Vaughan and Clancy 2016: 366). The fact that sociolinguists are increas-
ingly viewing their data as corpora, ‘as coherent, self-contained, representative
samples of a language variety’ (Kendall 2013: 41), allows them to be more spe-
cific as to what is included in the data and how it is accessed, as well as facili-
tating the replication of the research. Even though sociolinguistic recording
collections may not aim to meet sampling and size criteria, nevertheless the
reconceptualisation of such data as corpus data may have benefits in terms of
organisation and manageability of data which can help with re-using the data
(either for the creator of the corpus or for other researchers) and can increase
the short and long-term life of the data. Given that CL is viewed more in terms
of a methodology than a theoretical approach, it can be usefully employed as
an additional tool in studies relating to language variation and change (Kendall
2013: 41). Corpus research is extremely valuable in its capacity to support the
notion that language variation is systematic and can be studied using empirical,
quantitative methods (Friginal and Hardy 2014: xiii). Corpus approaches can
be useful in providing information and standards with regard to building rep-
resentative corpora as well as facilitating the identification of language patterns
and frequencies and comparisons across different populations in sociolinguistic
research (Baker 2010: 9).
1.1.2 Diachronic analysis

CL has been found to be useful in analysing linguistic variation both syn-
chronically (how language is at a particular time point) and diachron-
ically (how language develops over a number of time periods) (Andersen
2010: 548). In relation to IrE, the ‘striking paucity of empirical research
taking a long-term diachronic perspective’ has been noted (McCafferty and
Amador-Moreno 2012a: 265). Baker (2010: 50) stresses the importance of
comparability in diachronic studies. The analysis in this book is based on five
subcorpora which provide ‘snapshots’ of radio ad compilations, taken at ten
yearly intervals between 1977 and 2017, and therefore facilitates such com-
parability, in order to look for empirical evidence of diachronic linguistic
change and language ideological change.
The analysis of ‘snapshots’ does, however, come with a caveat; the use of mul-
tiple corpora, with short intervals between them, is recommended to give a
more reliable picture of change (Baker 2010: 69). However, Baker advises that
researchers should not become ‘paralysed’ with regard to making claims based
on analysis of frequencies in diachronic corpora. Qualitative analysis through
the use of contextual information can help overcome the inadequacies of dia-
chronic analysis based on such samples in a given time period. Such contextual
information can be provided by using concordance lines to investigate the lin-
guistic feature at a deeper level and how it is being used; in addition, research
into the historical and social contexts of the time periods in question can be
used to supplement the quantitative data (Baker 2010: 80). This is particularly
relevant to the study on which this book is based, given our concern with the
changing relationship between language and society.
1.1.3 Sociophonetic analysis

An area of primary interest in some sociolinguistic research contexts, and indeed
which is germane to the present study, is that of sociophonetics. Sociophonetic
analysis can encompass pronunciation of words and discourse in terms of seg-
mental (e.g. various vowel and consonant sounds) and suprasegmental (e.g. inton-
ation, rhythm, stress) features. Research has highlighted difficulties associated
with using CL methods in analysing sociophonetic features of speech. Friginal
and Hardy (2014: 64) argue that corpora, as ‘static representations of language’,
limit the potential to investigate the contexts and circumstances in which
speakers make particular choices in relation to accent and pronunciation. Such
choices are influenced by factors such as power dynamics, contextual factors
and psychosocial behaviours, which cannot be captured through CL analysis.
However, the analysis of accent in radio ads is affected to a lesser extent by such
limitations. This type of analysis allows us to explore the context more easily as
the entire ad, and therefore the only admissible context, is available for analysis;
the ads, in that they are attempting to relay a clear and unambiguous message, are
very often quite transparent. Additionally, analysis according to the components
of the ad, whereby the voiceover or slogan is associated with the authorita-
tive voice, allows us to see the extent to which accent is associated with power
relations in the advertising context, and may be ideologically driven.
1.1.4 Small and specialised corpora

The use of specialised corpora can be considered depending on the variety or
varieties of language being analysed and the questions the research wants to
address (Baker 2010: 14). A number of parameters for specialised corpora have
been outlined: Specific purpose for compilation, e.g. to investigate a particular
grammatical or lexical item; Contextualisation: particular setting, participants
and communicative purpose; Genre, e.g. promotional (grant proposals, sales
letters); Type of text/ discourse, e.g. biology textbooks, casual conversation;
Subject matter/topic, e.g. economics; Variety of English, e.g. Learner English
(Flowerdew 2004: 21). In the case of the advertising corpus, the parameters
for specialisation overlap in that they could be said, for example, to be that of
genre, type of text and variety of English. Koester (2010: 68–69) points out that
although specialised corpora are not necessarily small and can in fact vary in size,
such corpora do not need to be as large as more general corpora to produce
reliable results, due to the fact that they are targeted in order to represent a par-
ticular register or genre (see O’Keeffe, McCarthy and Carter 2007: 198).
A ‘reference corpus’ is often used to provide information on the language
‘norms’ for comparison with the specialised corpus. A reference corpus is
usually a larger corpus, which can be used for comparison; for example, in
studies of IrE in specialised contexts, the Limerick Corpus of Irish English
(LCIE) (Farr et al 2004), a one-million-word corpus of recordings of different
types of spoken IrE, might be used as a baseline. Additionally or alternatively,
two specialised corpora may be compared. In this study, in order to examine the
phenomenon of pseudo-intimacy in IRAC, the Limerick Corpus of Intimate
Talk (LINT) (Clancy 2016) (a 500,000-word corpus comprised of data from
the intimate context type in the Limerick Corpus of Irish English [LCIE]) is
used as a reference corpus.
As regards corpus size, corpora in the range of 20,000–200,000 words are
generally classified as ‘small corpora’ (Aston 1997); such corpora tend to be
more specialised in terms of topic and/or genre than large corpora. Researchers
have claimed that there is no ideal size for a corpus and that corpus size and
degree of specialisation should depend on the aims of the research (Flowerdew
2004). Small corpora can have advantages over larger ones; for example, while
de-contextualised large corpora provide insights into lexico- grammatical
patterns at a broad level, small specialised corpora shed light on patterns of lan-
guage use in particular contexts. In addition, the researcher analysing the data
is usually the corpus builder and so is very familiar with the context (Koester
2010: 67). This facilitates the researcher’s ability to use qualitative findings to
support the quantitative data obtained from the use of CL tools, and allows
connections between language patterns and contexts (Flowerdew 2004;
O’Keeffe 2007). In this way, the use of small corpora can help to expand the
boundaries of CL as a field of enquiry (Vaughan and Clancy 2013: 6).
1.1.5 Corpus linguistics tools

There are a number of corpus analysis tools which can be useful in analysing
both large and small corpora. In this section, we will briefly describe these tools
and consider how they may be of benefit for this particular investigation.
Frequency
Frequency refers to the number of times something occurs in a corpus, and is
‘the bedrock of corpus linguistics’ (Baker 2010: 19). The use of frequency lists
in IRAC, for example, can address questions such as which pragmatic markers
or pronouns occur most frequently. Clancy (2016: 59), for example, finds that
the third person singular pronouns he and she are more frequent in intimate
than in other context types in LCIE, while the first person plural pronoun we is
less frequent. In IRAC, linguistic items like pronouns, pragmatic markers, modal
verbs and imperatives can tell us a lot about the ‘synthetic personalisation’ of
discourse (Fairclough 1989), which relates to the conversationalisation of dis-

course (Fairclough 1994), as discussed above. An added advantage of using CL
in analysing such linguistic items is that, even in smaller corpora, items such as
pronouns and modal verbs tend to be relatively frequent and this allows us to
draw conclusions from analysis of frequency.
Concordance
The concordance tool shows us the occurrences of linguistic items in the corpus
in context. As illustrated in Figure 1.1, it allows us to see the linguistic item in
context, which is essential before we can make claims based on frequency.
Although concordance lines can be ‘off-putting’ initially with large corpora
(Baker 2010: 21), most CL software allows for random sampling to overcome
this problem. However, as Baker claims, ‘…nothing beats an examination of
every concordance line’, and this can be done very easily with a small corpus.
In IRAC, the concordance tool is useful in that it can allow us to establish the
frequency of items, both with regard to particular tagged features including
accent, pragmatic markers, vocatives etc. and at the same time provide infor-
mation about context. Concordance lines can also tell us about collocation, the
regularity with which particular words appear next to each other, which can
provide information on subtle meanings (Baker 2010: 22, 25).
Figure 1.1 Sample concordance lines from IRAC for the word Ireland
(WordSmith Tools version 6)
Keywords
Keywords are words that occur with unusual frequency in a particular corpus
compared with another (reference) corpus, which acts a reference point for
comparison. This frequency is termed ‘keyness’ and can reveal information
about genre (see Scott 2010: 149). We can use corpus software to identify
keywords with unusually high frequency, i.e. occurring much more frequently
than would otherwise be expected (positive keywords), or on the other hand,
unusually low frequency, i.e. occurring much less frequently than would other-
wise be expected (negative keywords) (Scott: 2010: 150). Word frequency lists
must first of all be generated for the target corpus as well as the reference corpus
and the statistical significance of the difference between the two corpora is
then calculated by the corpus software, using chi-square or log-likelihood tests
(Clancy 2016: 61) (see also Chapter 6).
In a keyword analysis, the first decision is in relation to the choice of refer-
ence corpus. Depending on the reference corpus we use, different words will
be found to be key in the target corpus. If the reference corpus is ‘close’ to the
target data in terms of genre and content, then the words that are found to be
key will be fewer, but they will be very salient within that context; this means
that the keywords must have been used with a very unusually high frequency, if
they stand out when compared with data that is similar to the target data. On
the other hand, if we take a more general reference corpus, the keywords that
result will be greater in number, because, compared with a more general dataset,
more words in the target corpus will be seen as more unusually frequent.
1.2 Terminology
It is important, at the outset, to clarify the terminology in relation to variety
used in the study.
Irish English (IrE): Irish English (IrE) is used here as a general term to
refer to English as it is spoken in Ireland and encapsulates both accent and dia-
lectal features (these terms are explained more fully below).This term, advocated
as far back as 1909 by Hayden and Hartog, has become more widely used in
recent studies as opposed to Hiberno-English, the term favoured by Filppula
(1999: 34). This latter term, according to Amador-Moreno (2010: 8), is some-
what limiting, due in part to its focus on the influence of the Irish language on
Irish dialects of English.
Broadly speaking, Ireland can be divided, in linguistic terms, into two
sections; one linguistic section is the north (or the province of Ulster), com-
prising the six counties of Northern Ireland (which are part of the UK) but
also the Republic of Ireland county of Donegal (Hickey 2004a: 30); the Ulster
counties of Cavan and Monaghan, also in the repubic, show features from both
northern and southern varieties (Hickey 2004a: 30). The second section is that
of the south which comprises the provinces of Munster, Connacht and Leinster,
encompassing the remaining counties of Ireland. As the study is based on a
corpus from a southern Irish radio station, the variety of IrE described is that
of southern IrE.
Standard English /Standard (British) English: ‘Standard English’ is
defined by Hughes et al (2012: 13) as the dialect of ‘educated people throughout
the British Isles’. Their definition refers to varieties differentiated by grammar
and vocabulary (not accent) and views Standard (British) English as a dialect
of English.
Standard Southern British English (SSBE): This term refers to accent
as distinct from dialect and thus to variations in pronunciation rather than
grammar and vocabulary (Hughes et al 2012: 3, 13). SSBE is a newer ‘less
evaluative’ term for Received Pronunciation (RP). This accent is associated
with high social status as regards education, income and profession rather than
being associated with a specific region (Hughes et al 2012: 3). The term SSBE
has come about due to negative associations with the term RP and also due to
recent changes in the phonetic features of RP. This prestige pronunciation form
is associated with radio and television in the British context and is used in par-
ticular by BBC newsreaders and presenters (Hughes et al 2012: 3–4).
The term ‘standard British English’ (note lower case s in standard to dif-
ferentiate this term from that used to denote dialect as defined above) is used
on occasion in this study to refer generally to standard British English in terms
of accent and dialect.
Variety: ‘…the distinction between dialect and language is a problematical
one. For this reason the term language variety is often used by linguists where
such questions of status can be avoided’ (Graddol et al 1994: 5). The term
variety, in the context of this study, is used as an umbrella term for language
variation; it is used in relation to languages which are not mutually intelli-
gible (e.g. French, English etc.), but also in relation to varieties of the same
language (e.g. IrE, SSBE, North American English etc.).Variations at this level
are referred to as inter-varietal variation. Therefore, the inter-varietal analysis
can include distinct languages as well as distinct varieties of English.This term
encompasses accent and dialectal features in relation to the particular variety.
Dialectal variety: The term dialect refers to varieties differentiated by
differences of grammar and vocabulary (Hughes et al 2012: 3, 130), e.g. Standard
(British) English, Irish English dialectal variety. The term dialectal variety is used
in reference to such varieties in cases where it is important to distinguish them
from accent.
Accent variety: The term accent refers to variations in pronunciation

(Hughes et al 2012: 3, 130), e.g. SSBE2 also termed Received Pronunciation
(RP), IrE accent. The term accent variety is used in this regard in cases where it
is important to distinguish it from dialect.
Accent sub-variety: This term is used to refer to accent subcategories of
IrE (e.g. local Dublin, Advanced Dublin English etc., which are described in
Chapter 2) in the intra-varietal analysis.
1.3 Examining sociolinguistic changes through

language ideological change in advertising discourse
The book is concerned with the extent to which sociolinguistic change, as
evidenced in language ideological change, is manifested through variety choice
at both the inter-varietal (mainly in relation to SSBE and IrE) and intra-varietal
(in terms of sub-varieties of IrE) levels in radio advertising in Ireland. In order
to investigate this, the research examines diachronic change in variety choice in
the subcorpora and analyses this in terms of audience and referee design the-
ories which Bell (1984) proposed in order to explain the style shifts of speakers
in both face-to-face and media communication. The book also examines the
manifestation of sociolinguistic change through the concept of ‘indexicality’,
that is, the social meaning of linguistic forms and the association of such forms
with ‘typical’ persons (Gal and Irvine 1995: 972). The way in which particular
varieties and sub-varieties point to or ‘index’ particular identities and the chan-
ging nature of these indexical values for different varieties can be indicative of
sociolinguistic change (Jaffe 2016).
The book also sheds light on the pattern of sociolinguistic change referred
to as the conversationalisation of discourse (Fairclough 1992, 1994); this con-
cept resonates with Fairclough’s (1989) notion of the ‘synthetic personalization’
of public discourse, that is, the simulation of private, less formal discourse in
public mass audience discourse of print, radio and television.With regard to the
manifestation of this phenomenon in advertising, Fairclough (1994: 260) refers
to Leech (1966) who observes a ‘public-colloquial’ style of advertising and the
simulation of a personal relationship between the advertiser and the audience,
as in the ‘synthetic personalization’ (Fairclough 1989: 62) referred to above.
Hoggart (1957) refers to this phenomenon as ‘fake intimacy’ and a ‘phoney
sense of belonging’, all of which the term ‘conversationalisation’ encompasses
(Fairclough 1994: 260).
As well as using CL in analysing variety choice in terms of accent and dialect,
in focusing on the conversationalisation of discourse, the study also uses these
methods to provide a micro-focus on the extent to which markers of (pseudo)
intimacy are used in the ads and how this use mirrors naturally occurring
intimate discourse in the Irish context. With regard to radio advertising in

Ireland, advertisers must consider the variety and specific features of this variety
which best achieve this ‘synthetic personalization’ so as to further the overall
agenda of the ad.
1.4 Chapter overview

The book is structured as follows:
The focus of Chapter 2 is on the variety which represents the key vari-
able in this study, that of IrE. The sociolinguistic background for the study is
established by briefly describing the origin and development of this variety.
The chapter examines previous research on IrE using corpus-based methods.
Given the book’s concern with language ideology and sociolinguistic
change, the notion of standard and non-standard is of particular relevance.
The chapter considers how IrE is differentiated from the standard British
variety, SSBE. Features of vernacular IrE are described and the question of
what might constitute prestige varieties of English in the Irish context is
discussed. The viability of the concept of a ‘standard’ IrE is considered; the
more general term of ‘non-local’ IrE to cover ‘standard’ or prestige varieties
is proposed and sub-varieties which fall into this category are identified and
described. The chapter also establishes the basis for the identification and
classification of the varieties and sub-varieties in the corpus, in relation to
accent and dialect.
Chapter 3 focuses on language ideology, given its relationship with socio-
linguistic change. It begins by defining the concept of language ideology and
examining the idea of language ideology as a social construct. The issue of
the relationship of ideology and the media is examined, and particular lan-
guage ideologies which are relevant to the study are explored. The nationalist
ideology of language is discussed, both generally and in the Irish context, and
the issue of variety as expressing identity is considered. The chapter examines
the notion of standard language ideology and its relationship with variety
choice. The focus then shifts to more recent ideologies of language which are
seen in terms of patterns of sociolinguistic change. The chapter considers the
concept of the conversationalisation of discourse (Fairclough 1992, 1994) and
that of vernacularisation (Coupland 2014a). How the vernacularisation process
links to the notion of authenticity ‘in crisis’ is discussed; this has led to newer
ideological constructions of the concept of authenticity (Coupland 2003). The
way in which the now mainstream ‘non-local’ pronunciation form of IrE, that
of Advanced Dublin English (Hickey 2013/2018), reflects these and other lan-
guage ideologies is examined. The chapter concludes with a consideration of
the way in which CL can be used in investigating the language ideologies

discussed in the chapter.
Chapter 4 introduces the frameworks and theories to be employed in the
current study in investigating how particular ideologies are manifested through
language and variety choice in the corpus. The concept of heteroglossia
(Bakhtin 1981) or multivoicedness is introduced, prefacing a discussion of the
key framework for analysis, that of ‘Action and Comment’ (Sussex 1989), which
refers to the composition of the ad. How the concept of heteroglossia can be
related to these ad components in terms of the different ‘voices’ associated with
the genres they represent is discussed. The chapter goes on to describe the
main theories on which the analysis is based, indexicality and audience and
referee design, in relation to how they can reflect language ideology and ideo-
logical change.
Having established the context for the study with a short account of the
background and history of Irish radio advertising, Chapter 5 moves on to
focus on issues in the design and compilation process of the diachronic corpus
in terms of sampling, size, representativeness and balance. It describes the pro-
cess for categorising the key variables in the study, accent and dialect, and
the annotation of the corpus, as well as issues with regard to quantitative and
qualitative analysis. The examination of intimate language in the corpus is the
focus of the second part of the chapter. The chapter examines the process of
investigating the concept of the conversationalisation of discourse in the ad
corpus, and the use of the Limerick Corpus of Intimate Talk (LINT) for com-
parative purposes.
Chapter 6 investigates how the strategies of audience and referee design
are exploited in the corpus at the inter-varietal level (mainly through the
use of SSBE and IrE) and what this can reveal about language ideology and
sociolinguistic change. It explores how corpus tools can help to systemat-
ically establish the frequency and position of particular varieties diachron-
ically in the corpus, in terms of the ad components, Action and Comment,
and how this can facilitate the categorisation of variety choice in terms of
the strategies of outgroup referee design, ingroup referee design or audience
design. It considers how the qualitative examination of the ads can support
this classification.
While Chapter 6 deals with the identification of audience and referee design
at the inter-varietal level, Chapter 7 narrows the focus to the intra-varietal level.
Focusing mainly on the later subcorpora of 1997, 2007 and 2017, it investigates
how sub-varieties of IrE can be interpreted as audience and referee design,
given that IrE is the predominant variety used in these subcorpora.The chapter
looks at how the relatively new IrE accent sub- variety, Advanced Dublin
14 Notes
English, can be interpreted in turn as outgroup referee design, audience design

and ingroup referee design through the decades, and how this can be indicative
of sociolinguistic change.
Chapter 8 deals with the concept of indexicality. This refers to the relation-
ship between language forms or styles and social meanings; linguistic forms are
associated with ‘typical’ persons in order to explain difference among linguistic
practices (Gal and Irvine 1995: 972).The chapter shows how the indexicality of
a (sub)variety in the ads can be heightened through the strategy of juxtaposing
variety at both inter-varietal (in relation to SSBE and IrE) and intra-varietal
(in relation to sub-varieties of IrE) levels. The extent to which this strategy
is exploited through the decades on which the corpus is based is explored,
together with how changing orders of indexicality in relation to language var-
iety can be indicative of sociolinguistic change. The indexicality of varieties
other than SSBE and IrE in the corpus is examined, and finally, the chapter
considers the ways in which pragmatic markers can do indexical work.
In Chapter 9, the focus is on a relatively recent language ideological shift, that
of the conversationalisation of discourse (Fairclough 1992, 1994) and how it
manifests itself in IRAC. The concept of the conversationalisation of discourse
is linked with Fairclough’s (1989) notion of the ‘synthetic personalization’ of
public discourse or the simulation of private face-to-face discourse to a public
mass audience. The ad corpus is analysed for particular features, which have
been established as marking intimate discourse, i.e. pronouns, vocatives, turn
co-construction modality and imperatives.
Chapter 10 concludes the book. This chapter revisits the findings in rela-
tion to audience and referee design, indexicality and the conversationalisation
of discourse, as they relate to language ideological and sociolinguistic change.
Finally, the chapter reflects on what the use of CL tools has brought to the
book’s analysis of sociolinguistic change in the advertising context and some
caveats are provided in relation to its use.
Notes
1 See section 1.2 for clarification of terminology.
2 In the definition of SSBE, while this term technically refers to accent, in this study
it also implies standard dialectal features.
1 Substratal refers to those elements in the contact variety which transfer from the
indigenous substratum language of the population shifting to another language and
which are carried on in the speech of subsequent generations (Filppula 1999: 15).
2 Superstratal represents the input from the target language (superstratum) which may
have more prestige and hold a socially superior position in the speech community
(although this is not necessary) (Filppula 1999: 15)
Notes 15
3 Supraregionalisation refers to the process in which more standard features replace

key vernacular features of a variety in order to make the variety less ‘local’.Varieties
of language lose specifically local features and become less regionally bound (Hickey
2004b: 156)
4 Hickey (2005: 208) adds the caveat that we should not attach too much weight to
the stipulation of formal education for speakers of this variety, the salient point being
that it is not the local variety.
5 DART is an acronym for Dublin Area Rapid Transport, a suburban railway serving
commuters in the southern part of Dublin city.
1 DART is an acronym for Dublin Area Rapid Transport, a suburban railway serving
commuters in the southern part of Dublin city.
1 Raidió Teilifís Éireann, Ireland’s national broadcaster.
1 The British National Corpus is comprised of written (90%) and spoken (10%) texts
representing a cross-section of British English. See www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
2 Local Dublin English is weakly rhotic (Hickey 2005: 40).
1 The suffix ín represents the Irish diminutive (Dolan 2004: 84).
2 Dolan (2004: 1) defines the IrE word ‘above’ as loosely meaning ‘up’ as in ‘We were
above [up] in Dublin. The word ‘below’ in this context can be understood in a
similar way, i.e. ‘We were down in the Moonlight ballroom’.
3 www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0-T0KkJzY
4 Banagher is the name of a town in Co. Offaly. The saying ‘That beats [often
pronounced /beːts/] (or bangs) Banagher’ is a common reaction to something
extraordinary or absurd. Banagher was once a ‘pocket borough’, meaning that the
local lord nominated its representatives in Parliament. The town became famous for
this (once-common) undemocratic way of conducting politics, so if something was
really anomalous it was said to ‘beat Banagher’ (Dolan 2004: 14).
1 Travellers are an ethnic minority in Ireland with a strong tradition and culture built
around a nomadic existence. The wider community in Ireland is referred to as the
‘settled’ (as opposed to travelling) community.
References
Aijmer, K. and A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In: J. Zienkowski,

J.O. Östman and J. Verschueren (eds.), Discursive pragmatics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 223–247. doi:10.1075/hoph.8.13aij
Amador-Moreno, C.P. 2005. Discourse markers in Irish English: An example from
literature. In: A. Barron and K.P. Schneider (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 73–100.
Amador-Moreno, C.P. 2010. An introduction to Irish English. London: Equinox.
Amador-Moreno, C.P. 2016. The language of Irish writing in English. In: R. Hickey
(ed.), Sociolinguistics in Ireland. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 299–319.
Amador- Moreno, C.P. and K. McCafferty, 2015. ‘Sure this is a great country for
drink and rowing at elections’: Pragmatic markers in the Corpus of Irish English
Correspondence. In: C.P. Amador-Moreno, K. McCafferty, and E. Vaughan (eds.),
Pragmatic markers in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 270–291.
Amador-Moreno, C. P. and A.M. Terrazas-Calero. 2017. ‘Encapsulating Irish English in
literature’. English World-Wide, 39(1), 254–268.
Amador-Moreno, C.P. and A. O’Keeffe. 2018. ‘He’s after getting up a load of wind’: A
corpus-based exploration of be + after + V-ing constructions in spoken and written
corpora. In: D.Villanueva Romero, C. Amador-Moreno, and M. Sánchez García (eds.)
Voice and discourse in the Irish context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Amador-Moreno, C.P., B. Clancy and E.Vaughan. 2019. ‘The deictics of “there” in Irish
English –Evidence from historical and contemporary sources’, presented at Centre
for Applied Language Studies (CALS) Research Day, 22 May.
Andersen, G. 2010. How to use corpus linguistics in sociolinguistics. In A. O’Keeffe and
M. McCarthy (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London: Routledge,
547–562.
Androutsopoulos, J. 2014. Mediatization and sociolinguistic change: Key concepts,
research traditions, open issues. In: J. Androutsopoulos (ed.), Mediatization and sociolin-
guistic change. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3–48.
Androutsopoulos, J. 2017a. Media and language change. In: C. Cotter and D. Perrin
(eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and media. London: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315673134
Androutsopoulos, J. 2017b. Style, change, and media: A postscript. In: J. Mortensen, N.
Coupland, and J. Thogersen (eds.), Style, mediation and change: sociolinguistic perspectives
on talking media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 239–250.
References 17
Antaki, C. 2002. An introduction to conversation analysis [online], available: http://

homepages.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/sitemenu.htm [accessed 21 September 2010].
Antaki, C. 2017 An introductory tutorial in conversation analysis [online], available: http://
ca-tutorials.lboro.ac.uk/intro1.htm [accessed: 22 April 2018].
Archive.ie. 2013. MBA news Ireland [online], available: http://archive-ie.com/ie/m/
mbaassociation.ie/2012-07-11_109047_19/MBA_NEWS_IRELAND/ [accessed 4
October 2013].
Aston, G., 1997. Large and small corpora in language learning. In: B. Lewandowska-
Tomaszczyk and P.J. Melia (eds.), PALC97: Practical Applications in Language Corpora.
Łodz: Łodz University Press, 51–62.
Bailey, B. 2007. Heteroglossia and boundaries. In: M. Heller (ed.), Bilingualism: A social
approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 257–276.
Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Baker. P. 2014. Corpus linguistics in sociolinguistics. In: J. Holmes and K. Hazen (eds.),
Research methods in sociolinguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 107–118.
Bakhtin, M.M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays (No. 1). Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Barron, A. and I. Pandarova. 2016.The sociolinguistics of language use in Ireland. In: R.
Hickey (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Ireland. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 107–130.
Beal, K. 2012. Is it truly unique that Irish English clefts are? Quantifying the syntactic
variation of it-clefts in Irish English and other post-colonial English varieties. In: B.
Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g44.08bea
Beinhoff, B. and S.M. Rasinger. 2016. The future of identity research: Impact and new
developments in sociolinguistics. In: S. Preece (ed.), The Routledge handbook of lan-
guage and identity. London: Routledge, 572–585.
Bell, A. 1982. ‘“This isn't the BBC”: Colonialism in New Zealand English’. Applied
Linguistics, 3(3), 246–258.
Bell, A. 1984. ‘Language style as audience design’. Language in Society, 13(2), 145–204.
Bell, A. 1991a. The language of news media, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bell, A. 1991b. Audience accommodation in the mass media. In: H. Giles, J. Coupland
and N. Coupland (eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69–102.
Bell, A. 1999. ‘Styling the other to define the self: A study in New Zealand identity
making’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 523–541.
Bell, A. 2001. Back in style: Reworking audience design. In: P. Eckert and J.R. Rickford
(eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
139–169.
Bell, A., 2011. Leaving home: De-europeanisation in a post-colonial variety of broad-
cast news language. In: T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds.), Standard languages and
language standards in a changing Europe. Oslo: Novus Press, 177–198.
Bell, A., 2013. The guidebook to sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Bentzen, K. and Ø. A Vangsnes (eds.) 2007. ‘Scandinavian dialect syntax 2005’, special
issue of Nordlyd. Tromsø: University Library of Tromsø.
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. 1990. ‘Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic
variation’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 5(4), 257–269.
18 References
Biber, D. 1993. ‘Representativeness in corpus design’. Literary and Linguistic Computing,

8(4), 243–257.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of
spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bishop, H., N. Coupland and P. Garrett. 2005. ‘Globalisation, advertising and language
choice: Shifting values for Welsh and Welshness in Y Drych, 1851–2001’. Multilingua,
24(4), 343–378.
Bliss, A.J. 1977.The emergence of modern English dialects in Ireland. In: D. Ó Muirithe
(ed.), The English language in Ireland. Dublin: The Mercier Press, 7–19.
Bliss, A.J. 1984. English in the south of Ireland. In: P. Trudgill (ed.), Language in the
British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 135–151.
Blom, J-P. and J.J. Gumerz 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching
in Norway. In: J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The eth-
nography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 407–434.
Blum-Kulka, S. 2012. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family
discourse. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Oxford: Polity Press.
Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalisation and discourse functions.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110907582
Brown, R. and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok
(ed.), Style in language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 253–276.
Bucholtz, M. 2003. ‘Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity’. Journal
of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 398–416.
Bucholtz, M. and K. Hall 2005. ‘Identity and interaction: A sociocultural lin-
guistic approach’. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461445605054407
Cameron, D. 2003. Gender and language ideologies. In: J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff
(eds.), The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell, 447–467.
Castles, S. 2011. Foreword: Diversity and post-tiger Ireland. In: B. Fanning and R.
Munck (eds.), Globalization, migration and social transformation: Ireland in Europe and the
world. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, xix–xx.
Central Statistics Office. 2016. Census 2016 results [online], available: www.cso.ie/en/
media/csoie/newsevents/documents/pressreleases/2017/prCensussummarypart1.
pdf [accessed 12 January 2019].
Central Statistics Office. 2017. Census 2016 summary results: Part 1 [online], avail-
able: www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/presspages/2017/census2016summaryresults-
part1/[accessed 5 June 2018].
Cheshire, J., S. Fox, P. Kerswill and E. Torgersen. 2008. ‘Ethnicity, friendship network
and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London’.
Sociolinguistica Jahrbuch, 22, 1–23.
Clancy, B. 2005.You're fat.You’ll eat them all: Politeness strategies in family discourse. In:
A. Barron and K.P. Schneider (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 177–199.
Clancy, B. 2015. ‘Hurry up baby son all the boys is finished their breakfast’: Examining
the use of vocatives as pragmatic markers in Irish Traveller and settled family discourse.
References 19
In: C. Amador Moreno, K. McCafferty and E.Vaughan (eds.), Pragmatic markers in Irish
English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229–247.
Clancy, B. 2016. Investigating intimate discourse: Exploring the spoken interaction of families,
couples and friends. London: Routledge.
Clancy, B. and E. Vaughan. 2012. ‘It’s lunacy now’: A corpus-based pragmatic analysis
of the use of ‘now’ in contemporary Irish English. In: B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin
(eds.), New perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 203–223.
Clancy, B. and M. McCarthy. 2015. Co-constructed turntaking. In: K. Aijmer and C.
Rühlemann (eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 430–453.
Clarke, S. 2012. From Ireland to Newfoundland: What’s the perfect after doing? In: B.
Benjamins, 101–130.
Cook, G. 2001. The discourse of advertising. London: Routledge.
Coupland, N. 1995. Pronunciation and the rich points of culture. In: J.Windsor Lewis
(ed.), Studies in English and general phonetics: In honour of Professor J. D. O’Connor.
London: Routledge, 310–319.
Coupland, N. 2001a.‘Dialect stylization in radio talk’. Language in Society, 30(3), 345–375.
Coupland, N. 2001b. Language, situation, and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-
style in sociolinguistics. In: P. Eckert and J.R. Rickford (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic
variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 185–210.
Coupland, N. 2003.‘Sociolinguistic authenticities’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 417–431.
Coupland, N. 2007. Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coupland, N. 2009a. Dialects, standards and social change. In: M. Maegaard, F.
Gregersen, P. Quist and N. Jorgensen (eds.), Language attitudes, standardization and lan-
guage change: Perspectives on themes raised by Tore Kristiansen on the occasion of his 60th
birthday. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 27–49.
Coupland, N. 2009b. Dialect style, social class and metacultural performance: The
pantomime dame. In: N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds.), The new sociolinguistics
reader. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 311–325.
Coupland, N. 2010. Language, ideology, media and social change. In: K. Junod and D.
Maillat (eds.), Performing the Self (SPELL: Swiss papers in English language and literature,
vol. 24). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 127–151.
Coupland, N. 2014a. Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization and broadcast British
media. In: J. Androutsopoulos (ed.), Mediatization and sociolinguistic change. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 67–96.
Coupland, N. 2014b. Language, society and authenticity: Themes and perspectives.
In: V. Lacoste, J. Leimgruber and T. Breyer (eds.), Indexing authenticity: Sociolinguistic
perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter, 14–41.
Coupland, N. 2016. ‘Labov, vernacularity and sociolinguistic change’. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 409–430.
Coupland, N., J.R. Thøgersen and J. Mortensen. 2016. Introduction: Style, media and
language ideologies. In J.R. Thøgersen, N. Coupland and J. Mortensen (eds.), Style,
media and language Ideologies. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 11–49.
20 References
Croghan, M. 1986. The brogue: Language as political culture. In: J. Harris, D. Little
and D. Singleton (eds.), Perspectives on the English language in Ireland: Proceedings of the
first symposium on Hiberno-English, Dublin 1985. Dublin: Centre for Language and
Communication Studies, 259–269.
Cronin, M. 2011. ‘Ireland in translation’. English Today, 27(2), 53–57.
Davies, B. and R. Harré 1990. ‘Positioning: The discursive production of selves’. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–
5914.1990.tb00174.x
Davies, E. 1986. The English imperative. London: Croom Helm.
De Fréine, S. 1977. The dominance of the English language in the 19th century. In: D.
Ó Muirithe (ed.), The English language in Ireland. Dublin: The Mercier Press, 71–87.
Dickson, V. and Y. Turner. 2015. ‘Pulling out all the stops: Referee design and phonetic
correlates of gay men’s English’. Lifespans and Styles, 1, 3–11.
Divita, D. 2014. ‘Language ideologies across time: Household Spanish handbooks from
1959 to 2012’. Critical Discourse Studies, 11(2), 194–210.
Dolan, T.P. 2004. A dictionary of Hiberno-English. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Downey, C. 1991. ‘Factors in the growth of the English language in 18th and 19th cen-
tury Ireland’. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Studies in
the History of the Language Science, 62, 81–91.
Drennan, J. 2009. An exploration of the link between changes in Irish society over
four decades and their reflection in the ads on RTE Radio 1 during this period.
Unpublished thesis (M.A.), Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick.
Economic and Social Research Institute. 2013. The Irish economy, available: www.esri.ie/
[accessed 20 December 2013].
Elliot, L. 2011 ‘Ireland becomes poster child for implementing austerity programmes’.
The Guardian, 27 November, available: www.theguardian.com/business/economics-
blog/2011/nov/27/ireland-poster-child-for-austerity-programmes [accessed 6
May 2017].
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. 1994. Conversationalization of public discourse and the authority of the
consumer. In: R. Keat, N. Whiteley and N. Abercrombie (eds.), The authority of the
consumer. London: Routledge, 235–249.
Farr, F. 2008. ‘“Taboo or not taboo?”: Swearing and profane language use in spoken
Irish English’. 17th Sociolinguistic Symposium, Amsterdam, 5–8 April.
Farr, F. and A. O’Keeffe. 2002. Would as a hedging device in an Irish context. In: R.
Reppen, S.M. Fitzmaurice and D. Biber (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic vari-
ation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 25–48.
Farr, F., B. Murphy and A. O’Keeffe. 2004.‘The Limerick Corpus of Irish English: Design,
description and application’. Teanga, 21. 5–29.
Ferrara, K. 1997. ‘Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for
discourse analysis’. Linguistics, 35, 343–378.
Ferriter, D. 2004. The transformation of Ireland, 1900–2000. Dublin: Profile.
References 21
Filppula, M. 1991. ‘The relevance of linguistic constraints on inter- language

transfer: Evidence from Irish English’. Teanga, 11, 9–19.
Filppula, M. 1999. The grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian style. London:
Routledge.
Filppula, M. 2012. Exploring grammatical differences between Irish and British
English. In: B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g44.05fil
Fletcher, J., E. Grabe and P. Warren 2004. Intonational variation in four dialects of
English: The high rising tune. In: S.-A. Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of
intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 390–410.
Flowerdew, L. 2004. The argument for using specialised corpora to understand aca-
demic and professional language. In: U. Connor and T. Upton (eds.), Discourse in the
professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–33.
Flurbyrock 2010. ‘Barry’s tea Christmas’ [video online], available: www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Ab0-T0KkJzY [accessed 23 March 2011].
Foulkes, P. and G. Docherty. 1999. Urban voices: Overview. In: P. Foulkes and G. Docherty
(eds.), Urban voices: Variation and change in British accents. London: Arnold, 1–24.
Friginal, E. and J.A. Hardy. 2014. Corpus-based sociolinguistics. London: Routledge.
Gal, S. and J. Irvine. 1995. ‘The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies
construct difference’. Social Research, 62(4), 967–1001.
Goddard, A. 2002. The language of advertising: Written texts. London: Psychology Press.
Graddol, D., J. Cheshire and J. Swann. 1994. Describing language, 2nd ed. Buckingham:
Oxford University Press.
Haarman, H. 1986. Language in ethnicity: A view of basic ecological relations. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Harris, J. 1984. ‘Syntactic variation and dialect divergence’. Journal of Linguistics, 20(2),
303–327.
Harris, J. 1993. The grammar of Irish English In: J. Milroy and L Milroy (eds.), Real
English: The grammar of English dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, 139–186.
Harrison, B. 2002. ‘McCann-Erickson wins €10m Heineken account with local know-
ledge and humour’. The Irish Times, 31 October, available: www.irishtimes.com/
business/mccann-erickson-wins-10m-heineken-account-with-local-knowledge-
and-humour-1.1103346 [accessed 23 April 2017].
Hayden, M. and M. Hartog. 1909. ‘The Irish dialect of English: Its origins and vocabu-
lary’. Fortnightly Review, 8, 775–785, 933–947.
Heller, M. 2014. The commodification of authenticity. In: V. Lacoste, J. Leimgruber
and T. Breyer (eds.), Indexing authenticity: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter,
136–157.
Hickey, R. 1997. Arguments for creolisation in Irish English. In: R. Hickey and S.
Puppel (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his
60th birthday. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter, 969–1038.
Hickey, R. 1999. Dubln English: Current changes and their motivation. In: P. Foulkes and
G. Docherty (eds.), Urban voices: Variation and change in British accents. London: Arnold,
265–281.
22 References
Hickey, R. 2003. Corpus Presenter: Software for language analyis with a manual and ‘A corpus
of Irish English’ as sample data.Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hickey, R. 2004a. A sound atlas of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton.de Gruyter.
Hickey, R. 2004b. Irish English: Phonology. In: B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie,
E.W. Schneider and C. Upton (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English. Volume
1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 68–97.
Hickey, R. 2005. Dublin English: Evolution and change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hickey, R. 2007a. Irish English: History and present-day forms. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hickey, R. 2007b. Southern Irish English. In: D. Britain (ed.), Language in the British Isles.
Hickey, R. 2011. ‘Present and future horizons for Irish English’. EnglishToday, 27(2), 3–16.
Hickey, R. 2012. Standard Irish English. In: R. Hickey (ed.), Standards of English: Codified
varieties around the world, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96–116.
Hickey, R. 2013/2018. Variation and change in Dublin English [online], available: www.
uni-due.de/VCDE/ [accessed 3 January 2013].
Hickey, R. 2016. (ed.). Sociolinguistics in Ireland. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hickey, R. 2017. Early recordings of Irish English. In: R. Hickey (ed.), Listening to
the past: Audio records of accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
199–231.
Hill, J.H. 1995. ‘Junk Spanish, covert racism, and the (leaky) boundary between public
and private spheres’. Pragmatics, 5(2), 197–212.
Hoggart, R. 1957. The uses of literacy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hughes, A., P. Trudgill and D. Watt. 2012. English accents and dialects, 5th ed.
New York: Routledge.
Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huspek, M. (1989). ‘Linguistic variability and power: An analysis of you know/I think
variation in working-class speech’. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 661–683.
Irvine, J.T., S. Gal and P.V. Kroskrity. 2009. Language ideology and linguistic differenti-
ation. In: A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (Vol. 1). Oxford: John Wiley
& Sons, 402–434.
Jaffe, A. 2016. Indexicality, stance and fields in sociolinguistics. In: N. Coupland (ed.),
Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 86–112.
Jary, M. and M. Kissine. 2014. Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jaworski, A. 2007. Language in the media: Authenticity and othering. In: S. Johnson
and A. Ensslin (eds.), Language in the media: Representation, identities, ideologies.
London: Continuum, 271–280.
Jefferson, G. 1973. ‘A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapping
tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences’. Semiotica, 9, 47–96.
Johnson, S. and A. Ensslin. 2007. Language in the media: Theory and practice. In: S.
Johnson and A. Ensslin (eds.), Language in the media: Representation, identities, ideologies.
London: Continuum, 3–22.
Joseph, J.E. 2016. Historical perspectives on language and identity. In: S. Preece (ed.),
The Routledge handbook of language and identity. London: Routledge, 19–33.
References 23
Jucker, A.H. 1993. ‘The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account’. Journal
of Pragmatics, 19, 435–452. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9
Kallen, J.L. 1989. ‘Tense and aspect categories in Irish English’. English World-Wide,
10(1), 1–39.
Kallen, J.L. 1994. English in Ireland. In: R.W. Burchfield (ed.), The Cambridge history
of the English Language (Vol. 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 148–196.
Kallen, J. L. 2006. ‘Arrah, like, you know: The dynamics of discourse marking in ICE-
Ireland’, presented at 16th Sociolinguistics Symposium, Limerick, 6–8 July, avail-
able: http://hdl.handle.net/2262/50586 [accessed 31 July 2011].
Kallen, J. L. 2013. Irish English volume 2: The Republic of Ireland. Berlin: Mouton.de
Gruyter.
Kallen, J.L. and J.M. Kirk. 2001. Convergence and divergence in the verb phrase in Irish
Standard English: A corpus-based approach. In: J. Kirk & D. Ó. Baoill (eds.), Language
links: The languages of Scotland and Ireland. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona, 59–79.
Kallen, J.L and J.M. Kirk. 2007. ICE-Ireland: Local variations on global standards.
In: J.C. Beal, K.P. Corrigan, and H.L. Moisl (eds.), Creating and digitizing language cor-
pora.Vol. 1: Synchronic databases. London, Palgrave, 121–162.
Kelly-Holmes, H. 2005a. Advertising as multilingual communication. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kelly-Holmes, H. 2005b. A relevance approach to Irish-English advertising: The case of
Brennan’s Bread. In: A. Barron and K.P. Schneider (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 367–388.
Kendall, T. 2013. Data in the study of variation and change. In: N. Schilling-Estes
and J. Chambers (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 2nd ed.
Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell, 38–56.
Kerswill, P., E. Torgersen and S. Fox. 2008. ‘Reversing “drift”: Innovation and diffusion
in the London diphthong system’. Language Variation and Change, 20(3), 451–491.
Kirk, J.M., 2011. ‘What is Irish Standard English?’. English Today, 27(2), 32–38.
Kirk, J.M., 2017. ‘The present perfect in Irish English’. World Englishes, 36(2), 239–253.
Kirk, J.M. and Kallen, J.L. 2006. Irish Standard English: How standardised? How celticised?
In: H.L.C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes 4. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press,
88–113.
Kirk, J.M. and J.L. Kallen 2007. ICE-Ireland: Local variations on global standards.
In: J.C. Beal, K.P. Corrigan and H. Moisl (eds.), Creating and digitizing language cor-
pora: Synchronic databases. London: Palgrave-Macmillan, 121–162.
Koester, A. 2010. Building small specialised corpora. In: A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy
(eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London: Routledge, 66–79.
Koslow, S., P.N. Shamdasani and E.E. Touchstone. 1994. ‘Exploring language effects in
ethnic advertising: A sociolinguistic perspective’. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4),
575–585.
Labov, W. 1966a. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington D.C.:
Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. 1966b. Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic
change. In: W. Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 84–113.
24 References
Lambert, W.E., R. Hodgson, R.C. Gardner and S. Fillenbaum. 1960. ‘Evaluational

reactions to spoken languages’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51.
Lee, D. 1992. Competing discourses: Perspective and ideology in language. London: Longman.
Leech G. 1966. English in advertising. London: Longman
Leech, G. 1993. ‘Corpus annotation schemes’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4),
275–281.
Leech, G. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British
English conversation. In: H. Hasselgard and S. Oksefjell (eds.), Out of corpus.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 107–118.
Leech, G. 2002. Recent grammatical changes in English: Data, description, theory. In: K.
Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 ICAME Conference. Amsterdam
and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 61–81.
Linehan, H. 2016. ‘How the Irish, like, speak now?’, Irish Times, 19 February, avail-
able: www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/how-the-irish-like-speak-now-
1.2541111 [accessed 31 July 2018].
Lippi-Green, R. 1997. English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the
United States. London: Routledge.
Love, R., C. Dembry, A. Hardie, V. Brezina and T. McEnery. 2017. ‘The Spoken
BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations’.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. doi:10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov
Mac Mathúna, S. 2004. Remarks on standardization in Irish English, Irish and Welsh.
In: H.L.C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes 4. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press,
114–129.
Macaulay, R. (2002).‘You know, it depends-Vous savez, cela dépend’. Journal of Pragmatics,
6, 746–767.
Marketing.ie blog. Available: https://marketing.ie/category/blog/ [accessed 20
June 2010].
Maybin, J. 2001. Language, struggle and voice: The Bakhtin/ Volosinov writings.
In: M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S.J. Yates (eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader.
London: Sage, in association with the Open University, 29–38.
McCafferty, K., 2016. Emigrant letters: Exploring the ‘grammar of the conquered’.
In: R. Hickey (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Ireland. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 218–243.
McCafferty, K. and C.P. Amador-Moreno. 2012a. A corpus of Irish English corres-
pondence (CORIECOR): A tool for studying the history and evolution of Irish
English. In: B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265–288.
McCafferty, K. and C.P. Amador-Moreno. 2012b. I will be expecting a letter from you
before this reaches you: Studying the evolution of a new-dialect using a Corpus of
Irish English Correspondence (CORIECOR). In: M. Dossena and G. Del Lungo
Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in late modern Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
179–204.
McCarthy, M.J., and A. O’Keeffe. 2003. ‘“What’s in a name?”: Vocatives in casual
conversations and radio phone-in calls’. Corpus analysis. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi,
153–185.
McDonald, H. 2015 ‘Ireland becomes first country to legalise gay marriage by popular
vote’. The Guardian, 23 May, available: www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/
gay-marriage-ireland-yes-vote [accessed 5 May 2017].
References 25
McEnery,T., R. Xiao and Y.Tono. 2006. Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource
book. London: Routledge.
McWilliams, D. 2006. ‘Is it time for the Celtic Tiger to change stripes?’, 31 May, avail-
able: www.davidmcwilliams.ie/is-it-time-for-the-celtic-tiger-to-change-stripes/
[accessed 3 June 2017].
McWilliams, D. 2007. The generation game. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
Migge, B. and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds.) 2012. New perspectives on Irish English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis, 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Millar, N. 2009. ‘Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006’. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 191–220. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.03mil
Millar, S. 2015. Blathering beauties: The use of pragmatic markers on an Irish beauty
blog. In: C.P. Amador-Moreno, K. McCafferty and E.Vaughan. (eds.), Pragmatic markers
in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 292–317.
Milroy, J. 2000. Historical description and the ideology of the standard language. In: L.
Wright (ed.), The development of Standard English 1300–1800: Theories, descriptions,
conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–28.
Milroy, J. 2001. ‘Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization’. Journal
of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555.
Milroy, L. 2004. Language ideologies and linguistic change. In: C. Fought (ed.),
Sociolinguistic variation: Critical reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 161–177.
Montgomery, M. 1986. ‘DJ talk’. Media, Culture & Society, 8, 421–440.
Montgomery, M. 2001. ‘Defining “authentic” talk’. Discourse Studies, 3(4), 397–405.
Moore, R. 2011. ‘“If I actually talked like that, I’d pull a gun on myself ”: Accent,
avoidance, and moral panic in Irish English’. Anthropological Quarterly, 84(1), 41–64.
Mortensen, J., N. Coupland and J. Thogersen. 2017. Introduction: Conceptualizing
style, mediaton, and change. In: J. Mortensen, N. Coupland and J. Thogersen (eds.),
Style, mediation and change: Sociolinguistic perspectives on talking media. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1–25.
Mugglestone, L. 2003. Talking proper: The rise of accent as social symbol. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Munck, R. 2011. Ireland in the world, the world in Ireland. In: B. Fanning and R.
Munck (eds.), Globalization, migration and social transformation: Ireland in Europe and the
world. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 3–20.
Murphy, B. 2015. A corpus-based investigation of pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic
variation in Irish English. In: C.P. Amador-Moreno, K. McCafferty and E. Vaughan
(eds.), Pragmatic markers in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65–88.
Murphy, B. and F. Farr. 2012. The use of vocatives in spoken Irish English. In: B.
Benjamins, 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g44.10mur
Myers, G. 1994. Words in ads. London: Edward Arnold.
Myers- Scotton, C. 1993. Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Neale, B. and J. Flowerdew. 2003. ‘Time, texture and childhood: The contours of lon-
gitudinal qualitative research’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(3),
189–199.
26 References
Nestor, N., C. Ní Chasaide and V. Regan. 2012. Discourse ‘like’ and social identity –a
case study of Poles in Ireland. In: B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds.), New perspectives
on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 327–353. doi:10.1075/veaw.g44.16nes
Ní Mhurchú, A. 2018. ‘What’s left to say about Irish English progressives? “I’m not
going having any conversation with you”’. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(3), 289–311.
Ó Baoill, D. 1990. Language contact in Ireland: The Irish phonological substratum in
Irish English. In: J.A. Edmondson, C. Feagin and P. Mühlhäusler (eds.), Development
and diversity: Language variation across time and space (a festschrift for Charles- James
N. Bailey. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 147–172.
Ó Faolain, S. 1969. The Irish. West Drayton, Middlesex: Penguin Books
O’Barr, W.M. 1994. Culture and the ad: Exploring otherness in the world of advertising.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
O’Keeffe, A. 2005. “You’ve a daughter yourself?”: A corpus-based look at question
forms in an Irish radio phone-in. In: A. Schneider and K.P. Barron (eds.), The
pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 339–336.
O’Keeffe, A. 2006. Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A. 2007.‘The pragmatics of corpus linguistics’. Keynote paper presented at 4th
Corpus Linguistics conference, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 27–30 July.
O’Keeffe, A. and S. Adolphs. 2008. Response tokens in British and Irish dis-
course: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In: A. Schneider and K.P. Barron
(eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 69–98.
O’Keeffe, A. and C.P. Amador-Moreno. 2009. ‘The pragmatics of the be+ after+ V-ing
construction in Irish English’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 517–534.
O’Keeffe, A., M. McCarthy and R. Carter. 2007. From corpus to classroom: Language use
and language teaching. London: John Benjamins.
Ochs, E. 1992. Indexing gender. In: A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking con-
text: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
335–358.
Ono, T. and S.A. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversa-
tional discourse: Collaboration, overlap, and syntactic dissociation. In: E. Hovy and D.
Scott (eds.), Computational and conversational discourse. Berlin: Springer, 67–96.
Oram, H. 1986. The advertising book: The history of advertising in Ireland. Dublin: MO Books.
Oram, H. 2010. ‘Having their voices heard’, marketing.ie. Available: https://marketing.
ie/articles/straight-talkers/ [accessed 6 February 2016]
O’Sullivan, J. 2013. ‘Advanced Dublin English in Irish radio advertising’, World
Englishes, 32(3), 358–376.
O’Sullivan, J. 2014. Continuity and change in variety choice in radio advertising in
Ireland (1977 to 2007): A language ideological analysis. Thesis (Ph.D.), University of
Limerick, 2014.
O’Sullivan, J. 2015. Pragmatic markers in contemporary radio advertising in Ireland.
In: C.P. Amador-Moreno, K. McCafferty and E. Vaughan (eds.), Pragmatic markers
in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 318–347. https://doi.org/10.1075/
pbns.258.14sul
O’Sullivan, J. 2017. ‘Standard Southern British English as referee design in Irish radio
advertising’. Linguistics, 55(3), 525–551. doi:10.1515/ling-2017-0003
References 27
O’Sullivan, J. 2018. Advanced Dublin English as audience and referee design in Irish
radio advertising. English World-Wide, 39(1), 60–84. https://doi.org/10.1075/
eww.00003.osu
O’Sullivan, J. and Kelly-Holmes, H. 2017. ‘Vernacularisation and authenticity in Irish
radio advertising’. World Englishes, 36(2), 269–282. doi:10.1111/weng.12258
Pennycook, A. 1994. ‘The politics of pronouns’. ELT Journal, 48(2), 173– 178.
doi:10.1093/elt/48.2.173
Piller, I. 2001. ‘Identity constructions in multilingual advertising’. Language in Society,
30(2), 153–186.
Preston, D. 2004. Folk metalanguage. In: A. Jaworski, N. Coupland and D. Galasiński
(eds.), Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
75–101.
Rampton, B. 1999. ‘Crossing’. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1–2), 54–56.
Romaine, S. 2000. Language in society: An introduction to sociolonguistics, 2nd ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rühlemann, C. 2007. Conversation in context: A corpus-driven approach. London: Continuum.
Sammon, P. 2002. Greenspeak: Ireland in her own words. Dublin: TownHouse.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611841
Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. In: D. Schiffrin,
H.E. Hamilton and D.Tannen (eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Basil
Blackwell, 54–75.
Schilling, N., 2013. Investigating stylistic variation. In: J.K. Chambers and N. Schilling
(eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,
325–349.
Schweinberger, M. 2012. The discourse marker LIKE in Irish English In: B. Migge and
M. Ní Chiosáin (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
203–223. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g44.09sch
Scott, M. 2010. What can corpus software do? In: A. O’Keeffe and M.J. McCarthy
(eds.), Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London: Routledge, 136–151.
Scott, M. 2015. Wordsmith Tools manual. Available: https://lexically.net/downloads/
version6/wordsmith6.pdf [accessed 12 December 2015].
Scott, M. 2019. WordSmith Tools Version 6. Stroud. Lexical analysis software.
Sell, K. 2012. [ˈfɪləm] and [ˈfarəm]?: Sociolinguistic findings on schwa epenthesis in
Galway English. In: B. Migge and M. Ní Chiosáin (eds.), New perspectives on Irish
English.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g44.03sel
Shorrocks, G. 1999. A grammar of the dialect of the Bolton area. Part 1: Phonology;
Part 2: Grammar. Bamberg: Peter Lang.
Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In: H.H.
Basso and H.A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: University
of New Mexico Press, 11–55.
Silverstein, M. 1992. ‘The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections’. Pragmatics,
2(3), 311–323.
Silverstein, M. 2003. ‘Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life’. Language
and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.
28 References
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. 1998. I think and its Dutch equivalents in parliamentary

debates. In: S. Johansson and S. Oksefjell (eds.), Corpora and crosslinguistic research: Theory,
method and case studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 297–317.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. 2000. ‘The functions of I think in political discourse’.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 41–63.
Sivulka, J. 2011. Soap, sex, and cigarettes: A cultural history of American advertising, 2nd ed.
Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Smith, K. 2004. ‘“I am me, but who are you and what are we?”: The translation of
personal pronouns and possessive determiners in advertising texts’. Multilingua, 23(3),
283–304. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2004.013
Spilioti, T. 2017. Radio talk, pranks and multilingualism: Styling Greek identities at
a time of crisis. In: J. Mortensen, N. Coupland and J. Thogersen (eds.), Style, medi-
ation and change: Sociolinguistic perspectives on talking media. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 51–76.
Stenström, A.B. 2014. Teenage language = bad language? In: A.B. Stenström (ed.),
Teenage talk: From general characteristics to the use of pragmatic markers in a contrastive per-
spective. London: Palgrave Pivot, 18–23.
Stenström, A.-B., Andersen, G. and Hasund, I. K. 2002. Trends in teenage talk: Corpus
compilation, analysis, and findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sussex, R. 1989. The Americanisation of Australian English: Prestige models in the
media. In: P. Collins and D. Blair (eds.), Australian English: The language of a new society.
Tannen, D., 2003. Power maneuvers or connection maneuvers? Ventriloquizing in
family interaction. In: D. Tannen and J. E. Alatis (eds.), Linguistics, language, and the real
world: Discourse and beyond (Georgetown University round table on languages and lin-
guistics, 2001). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 50–62.
Thakerar, J.N., H. Giles and J. Cheshire. 1982. Psychological and linguistic parameters
of speech accommodation theory. In: C. Fraser and K.R. Scherer (eds.), Advances in
the social psychology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205–255.
Thornborrow, J. and T. Van Leeuwen. 2001. ‘Editorial: Broadcast talk’. Discourse Studies,
3(4), 387–389.
Timmis, I. 2017. Historical spoken language research: Corpus perspectives. London: Routledge.
Todd, L. 1999. Green English: Ireland’s influence on the English language. Dublin:
O’Brien Press.
Tristram, H.L.C. 2007. On the “Celticity” of Irish newspapers –a research report.
In: H.L.C. Tristram (ed.), The Celtic languages in contact. Bonn: Potsdam University
Press, 299–314.
Trudgill, P. 1972. ‘Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English
of Norwich’. Language in Society, 1(2), 175–195.
Tymoczko, M. and C. Ireland. 2003a. ‘Editors’ introduction: Language and identity in
twentieth-century Ireland’. Eire-Ireland: Journal of Irish Studies, 38(1–2), 4–22.
Tymoczko, M. and C. Ireland (eds.) 2003b. Language and tradition in Ireland: Continuities
and displacements. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Van de Velde, H., M. Gerritsen and R. van Hout. 1996. ‘The devoicing of fricatives in
Standard Dutch: A real-time study based on radio recordings’. Language Variation and
Change, 8(1), 149–175.
References 29
Van Gijsel, S., D. Speelman and D. Geeraerts. 2008. ‘Style shifting in commercials’.
Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 205–226.
Vaughan, E. and B. Clancy, 2013. ‘Small corpora and pragmatics’. The Yearbook of Corpus
Linguistics and Pragmatics, 1, 53–73.
Vaughan E. and B. Clancy. 2016. Sociolinguistic information and Irish English cor-
pora. In: R. Hickey (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Ireland. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
365–388.
Vestergaard, T. and K. Schroder. 1985. The language of advertising. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wales, K. 1996. Personal pronouns in present- day English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Weinberger, S. H. and S.A. Kunath. 2011. ‘The Speech Accent Archive: Towards a typ-
ology of English accents’. Language and Computers, 73(1), 265–281.
Wells, J.C. 1982. Accents of English, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, G. 2006. Standard Irish English as a marker of Irish identity. In: T. Omoniyi and
G. White (eds.), The sociolinguistics of identity. London: Continuum, 217–232.
Woolard, K.A. 1998. Language ideology as a field of enquiry. In: B.B. Schieffelin,
K.A. Woolard and P.V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–47.
Woolard, K.A. 2006. Codeswitching. In: A. Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthro-
pology. Oxford: Blackwell, 73–94.
Wright, S. 2000. Community and communication: The role of language in nation state building
and European integration. Clevedon, Somerset: Cromwell Press.
Zwicky, A. 1974. Hey, Whatsyourname!. In: M.W. LaGaly, R.A. Fox and A. Bruck (eds.),
Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society, 787–801.

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpus Linguistics and the Analysis

Joan O’Sullivan is a Lecturer in Applied Linguistics in the Department of English Language

SERIES EDITOR: MICHAEL McCARTHY

SERIES EDITOR: ANNE O’KEEFFE

SERIES CO-​FOUNDER: RONALD CARTER

OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES INCLUDE

Corpus Perspectives on the Spoken Models used by EFL Teachers

Language Variety and Ideology

1 Analysing sociolinguistic change through a radio ad corpus 1

3.3 Nationalist language ideology and the Irish context 35

7 Investigating sociolinguistic change through audience

Appendix:Transcription conventions 229

6.8 Keyword list for Action combined subcorpus using Comment

8.3 Sample concordance lines resulting from search on tag

5.1 Corpus design 85

Finally, I want to thank my family, my parents, Margaret and Francie Darcy,

AdvD Advanced Dublin English

Analysing sociolinguistic change

So sad, I feel as if a member of my family has passed away… I never met

how language is evaluated and ideologised in societies (Coupland 2010: 56,

The following section will look at how CL is exploited more generally in

1.1 Using corpus linguistics in sociolinguistic research

No method of linguistic analysis is ever ‘complete’ in that it alone can pro-

CL methods are increasingly being used in variationist sociolinguistic research

1.1.2 Diachronic analysis

1.1.3 Sociophonetic analysis

1.1.4 Small and specialised corpora

1.1.5 Corpus linguistics tools

discourse (Fairclough 1989), which relates to the conversationalisation of dis-

Accent variety: The term accent refers to variations in pronunciation

1.3 Examining sociolinguistic changes through

intimate discourse in the Irish context. With regard to radio advertising in

1.4 Chapter overview

the way in which CL can be used in investigating the language ideologies

English, can be interpreted in turn as outgroup referee design, audience design

3 Supraregionalisation refers to the process in which more standard features replace

Aijmer, K. and A.M. Simon-​Vandenbergen. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In: J. Zienkowski,

Antaki, C. 2002. An introduction to conversation analysis [online], available: http://​

Biber, D. 1993. ‘Representativeness in corpus design’. Literary and Linguistic Computing,

Filppula, M. 1991. ‘The relevance of linguistic constraints on inter-​ language

Lambert, W.E., R. Hodgson, R.C. Gardner and S. Fillenbaum. 1960. ‘Evaluational

Simon-​Vandenbergen, A.-​M. 1998. I think and its Dutch equivalents in parliamentary

You might also like

SERIES CO-FOUNDER: RONALD CARTER

Aijmer, K. and A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In: J. Zienkowski,

Antaki, C. 2002. An introduction to conversation analysis [online], available: http://

Filppula, M. 1991. ‘The relevance of linguistic constraints on inter- language

Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. 1998. I think and its Dutch equivalents in parliamentary