@article{avis_so_1972,
	title = {So eh? is {Canadian}, eh?},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {0008-4131, 1710-1115},
	shorttitle = {So eh?},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0008413100007039/type/journal_article},
	doi = {10.1017/S0008413100007039},
	language = {en},
	number = {2-3},
	urldate = {2018-09-01},
	journal = {Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique},
	author = {Avis, Walter S.},
	year = {1972},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
	pages = {89--104},
}

@article{columbus_ah_2010,
	title = {“{Ah} lovely stuff, eh?”—invariant tag meanings and usage across three varieties of {English}},
	shorttitle = {“{Ah} lovely stuff, eh?},
	url = {https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789042028012/B9789042028012-s007.xml},
	doi = {10.1163/9789042028012_007},
	abstract = {{\textless}section class="abstract"{\textgreater}{\textless}div id="" class="section"{\textgreater}{\textless}h3 class="abstractTitle text-title my-1" id="d17e3"{\textgreater}Abstract{\textless}/h3{\textgreater}{\textless}p{\textgreater}{\textless}em{\textgreater}Invariant tags, such as {\textless}/em{\textgreater}huh {\textless}em{\textgreater}and {\textless}/em{\textgreater}innit{\textless}em{\textgreater}, are discourse markers that often occur at the end of an utterance to provide attitudinal and/or evidential information above that of the proposition. Many previous studies examined the meaning or usage of these tags in single varieties or dialects of English. Few of these studies, however, have examined variation in invariant tag use. Some studies have investigated sociolinguistic divisions within a dialect, but none have compared usage between varieties. Furthermore, differences in research methodology and aims prevent comparison of the prior results. This study investigates the meaning/functions of four invariant tags—{\textless}/em{\textgreater}eh{\textless}em{\textgreater}, {\textless}/em{\textgreater}yeah{\textless}em{\textgreater}, {\textless}/em{\textgreater}no{\textless}em{\textgreater}, and {\textless}/em{\textgreater}na{\textless}em{\textgreater}—in New Zealand, Indian, and British English. The four most frequent meanings are described in detail. The results show differences in the meanings available as well as in their usage frequencies across both items and varieties. This suggests that varietal differences at the level above propositional understanding could cause problems for intercultural and global communication. This has implications for pedagogy and materials for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and English for Specific/Business Purposes, in that global communication in English requires an awareness of these subtle differences at the varietal level.{\textless}/em{\textgreater}{\textless}/p{\textgreater}{\textless}/div{\textgreater}{\textless}/section{\textgreater}},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-05-22},
	journal = {Corpus-linguistic applications},
	author = {Columbus, Georgie},
	month = jan,
	year = {2010},
	pages = {85--102},
}

\textlesssection class="abstract"\textgreater\textlessdiv id="" class="section"\textgreater\textlessh3 class="abstractTitle text-title my-1" id="d17e3"\textgreaterAbstract\textless/h3\textgreater\textlessp\textgreater\textlessem\textgreaterInvariant tags, such as \textless/em\textgreaterhuh \textlessem\textgreaterand \textless/em\textgreaterinnit\textlessem\textgreater, are discourse markers that often occur at the end of an utterance to provide attitudinal and/or evidential information above that of the proposition. Many previous studies examined the meaning or usage of these tags in single varieties or dialects of English. Few of these studies, however, have examined variation in invariant tag use. Some studies have investigated sociolinguistic divisions within a dialect, but none have compared usage between varieties. Furthermore, differences in research methodology and aims prevent comparison of the prior results. This study investigates the meaning/functions of four invariant tags—\textless/em\textgreatereh\textlessem\textgreater, \textless/em\textgreateryeah\textlessem\textgreater, \textless/em\textgreaterno\textlessem\textgreater, and \textless/em\textgreaterna\textlessem\textgreater—in New Zealand, Indian, and British English. The four most frequent meanings are described in detail. The results show differences in the meanings available as well as in their usage frequencies across both items and varieties. This suggests that varietal differences at the level above propositional understanding could cause problems for intercultural and global communication. This has implications for pedagogy and materials for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and English for Specific/Business Purposes, in that global communication in English requires an awareness of these subtle differences at the varietal level.\textless/em\textgreater\textless/p\textgreater\textless/div\textgreater\textless/section\textgreater

@article{denis_how_2020,
	title = {How {Canadian} was eh? {A} baseline investigation of usage and ideology},
	volume = {65},
	issn = {0008-4131, 1710-1115},
	shorttitle = {How {Canadian} was eh?},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0008413120000304/type/journal_article},
	doi = {10.1017/cnj.2020.30},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2025-06-27},
	journal = {Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique},
	author = {Denis, Derek},
	month = dec,
	year = {2020},
	pages = {583--592},
}

@inproceedings{denis_social_2013,
	title = {The social meaning of eh in {Canadian} {English}.},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2013 {Canadian} {Linguistics} {Association}},
	author = {Denis, Derek},
	year = {2013},
}

@mastersthesis{gibson_thesis_1976,
	address = {Vancouver, Canada},
	title = {A thesis on eh},
	school = {University of British Columbia},
	author = {Gibson, Deborah Jean},
	year = {1976},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
}

@misc{gold_canadian_2005,
	address = {Toronto},
	title = {Canadian {English}, {Eh}? {Canadian} french, {Hein}?},
	shorttitle = {Canadian {English}, {Eh}?},
	abstract = {Eh is widely considered to be a shibboleth of Canadian English, yet there has been surprisingly little recent research into eh's functions and use. There has been even less interest in the Canadian French hein, nor has their been research into the comparative use of eh in Canadian English and hein in Canadian French. The similarity in their use and possible influence of hein on Canadian eh has not, however, gone unnoticed. Avis (1972:102) comments: “Eh? is a common contour-carrier among French Canadians (along with eh bien and hein?), as it has been in the French language for centuries. This circumstance may have contributed to the high popularity of the interjection in Canada generally.” This paper presents a comparison of the results of two surveys: one surveying the use of and attitudes towards eh among a group of anglophone students at the University of Toronto (Gold 2004) and the second surveying the use of and attitudes towards hein (and its alternate pronunciation han) among francophone students at Université Laval. The surveys presents the respondent with ten different constructions with eh or hein- opinions, statements of fact, exclamations, accusations, etc. These questions are based on categories developed by Gibson},
	author = {Gold, Elaine and Tremblay, Mireille},
	month = jan,
	year = {2005},
}

Eh is widely considered to be a shibboleth of Canadian English, yet there has been surprisingly little recent research into eh's functions and use. There has been even less interest in the Canadian French hein, nor has their been research into the comparative use of eh in Canadian English and hein in Canadian French. The similarity in their use and possible influence of hein on Canadian eh has not, however, gone unnoticed. Avis (1972:102) comments: “Eh? is a common contour-carrier among French Canadians (along with eh bien and hein?), as it has been in the French language for centuries. This circumstance may have contributed to the high popularity of the interjection in Canada generally.” This paper presents a comparison of the results of two surveys: one surveying the use of and attitudes towards eh among a group of anglophone students at the University of Toronto (Gold 2004) and the second surveying the use of and attitudes towards hein (and its alternate pronunciation han) among francophone students at Université Laval. The surveys presents the respondent with ten different constructions with eh or hein- opinions, statements of fact, exclamations, accusations, etc. These questions are based on categories developed by Gibson

@article{gold_eh_2006,
	title = {Eh? and {Hein}?: {Discourse} {Particles} or {National} {Icons}?},
	volume = {51},
	issn = {0008-4131, 1710-1115},
	shorttitle = {Eh?},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-linguistics-revue-canadienne-de-linguistique/article/abs/eh-and-hein-discourse-particles-or-national-icons/2DA7B88166D6C6A37E317D4EAA2BFF47},
	doi = {10.1017/S0008413100004096},
	abstract = {We compare the use and function of two discourse particles that show many similarities: Canadian English eh and Canadian French hein. Surveys of anglophone students at the University of Toronto and francophone students at Université Laval reveal that these particles have similar discourse functions and that there are many parallels in their patterns of use. However, francophone students report a higher use of hein than do anglophone students of eh. Moreover, francophones have more positive attitudes towards constructions with hein than do their anglophone counterparts with respect to eh. In addition, eh—used both less often and valued less positively—has taken on additional functions as an identity marker: it is used to identify speakers of Canadian English and, in print, to evoke Canadian solidarity. In contrast, hein does not have an identity marking function. We propose that the development of an identity marking function for eh—and the lack of such a function for hein—reflects differences in how linguistic identities are constructed in English and French Canada., RésuméNous comparons l’usage et la fonction de deux particules de discours qui présentent plusieurs similarités: le eh de l’anglais canadien et le hein du français canadien. Des sondages auprès d’étudiants anglophones à l’Université de Toronto et d’étudiants francophones à l’Université Laval révèlent que les fonctions discursives de ces particules sont similaires et qu’il y a plusieurs parallèles par rapport à leur usage. Cependant, les résultats indiquent que l’usage de hein par les étudiants francophones est plus élevé que ne l’est l’usage de eh par les étudiants anglophones. De plus, les francophones ont une perception plus positive envers les constructions avec hein que leur compères anglophones vis-à-vis eh. Enfin, eh—à la fois moins utilisé et moins valorisé—a acquis des fonctions additionnelles en tant que marque identitaire: eh est souvent utilisé pour identifier les locuteurs de l’anglais canadien, et dans les textes écrits, pour évoquer la solidarité canadienne. Par contre, hein ne fonctionne pas comme marqueur identitaire. Nous proposons que le développement d’une fonction identitaire pour eh—et l’absence d’une telle fonction pour hein—reflète des différences dans la construction de l’identité linguistique au Canada anglais et français.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2-3},
	urldate = {2024-07-05},
	journal = {Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique},
	author = {Gold, Elaine and Tremblay, Mireille},
	month = nov,
	year = {2006},
	pages = {247--263},
}

We compare the use and function of two discourse particles that show many similarities: Canadian English eh and Canadian French hein. Surveys of anglophone students at the University of Toronto and francophone students at Université Laval reveal that these particles have similar discourse functions and that there are many parallels in their patterns of use. However, francophone students report a higher use of hein than do anglophone students of eh. Moreover, francophones have more positive attitudes towards constructions with hein than do their anglophone counterparts with respect to eh. In addition, eh—used both less often and valued less positively—has taken on additional functions as an identity marker: it is used to identify speakers of Canadian English and, in print, to evoke Canadian solidarity. In contrast, hein does not have an identity marking function. We propose that the development of an identity marking function for eh—and the lack of such a function for hein—reflects differences in how linguistic identities are constructed in English and French Canada., RésuméNous comparons l’usage et la fonction de deux particules de discours qui présentent plusieurs similarités: le eh de l’anglais canadien et le hein du français canadien. Des sondages auprès d’étudiants anglophones à l’Université de Toronto et d’étudiants francophones à l’Université Laval révèlent que les fonctions discursives de ces particules sont similaires et qu’il y a plusieurs parallèles par rapport à leur usage. Cependant, les résultats indiquent que l’usage de hein par les étudiants francophones est plus élevé que ne l’est l’usage de eh par les étudiants anglophones. De plus, les francophones ont une perception plus positive envers les constructions avec hein que leur compères anglophones vis-à-vis eh. Enfin, eh—à la fois moins utilisé et moins valorisé—a acquis des fonctions additionnelles en tant que marque identitaire: eh est souvent utilisé pour identifier les locuteurs de l’anglais canadien, et dans les textes écrits, pour évoquer la solidarité canadienne. Par contre, hein ne fonctionne pas comme marqueur identitaire. Nous proposons que le développement d’une fonction identitaire pour eh—et l’absence d’une telle fonction pour hein—reflète des différences dans la construction de l’identité linguistique au Canada anglais et français.

@article{gold_which_2008,
	title = {Which eh is the {Canadian} eh?},
	volume = {27},
	copyright = {Copyright (c)},
	issn = {1718-3510},
	url = {https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6164},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2020-05-22},
	journal = {Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics},
	author = {Gold, Elaine},
	month = jan,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {"Eh", Canadian English, Language Variation},
}

@incollection{gold_canadian_2010,
	address = {Kingston, Ontario},
	series = {Occasional {Papers}},
	title = {Canadian {Eh}? {From} {Eh} to {Zed}},
	number = {Number 6},
	booktitle = {Canadian {English}: {A} {Linguistic} {Reader}},
	publisher = {Queen’s University},
	author = {Gold, Elaine},
	editor = {Gold, Elaine and McAlpine, Janice},
	year = {2010},
}

@inproceedings{gold_canadian_2005-1,
	title = {Canadian {Eh}?: {A} survey of contemporary use},
	booktitle = {Proccedings of the 2004 {Canadian} {Linguistics} {Association} {Annual} {Conference}},
	author = {Gold, Elaine},
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
}

@article{heim_rethinking_2025,
	title = {Rethinking structural growth: {Insights} from the acquisition of interactional language},
	volume = {10},
	copyright = {https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0},
	issn = {2397-1835},
	shorttitle = {Rethinking structural growth},
	url = {https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/16396/},
	doi = {10.16995/glossa.16396},
	abstract = {In this paper, we introduce a novel proposal for the acquisition of syntactic structure. Most studies of syntactic first language acquisition focus on the increasingly complex expression of propositional thought. Layer by layer, from the bottom up, child language matures into adult-like representations. We challenge this account of an upward growing syntax based on evidence from early interactional language, which has largely been ignored in the study of syntactic acquisition. Given that interactional units of language are associated with the topmost layers of syntactic structure, and given that they are acquired early, it follows that syntactic acquisition cannot be characterized by upward growth. Rather, we propose that syntactic acquisition proceeds in an inward fashion. We present a case study of the early uses of utterance-final huh (an interactional unit of language) in North American child English that supports this hypothesis. We thus introduce the Inward Growing Spine Hypothesis as a research agenda.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2025-06-28},
	journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
	author = {Heim, Johannes and Wiltschko, Martina},
	month = may,
	year = {2025},
}

In this paper, we introduce a novel proposal for the acquisition of syntactic structure. Most studies of syntactic first language acquisition focus on the increasingly complex expression of propositional thought. Layer by layer, from the bottom up, child language matures into adult-like representations. We challenge this account of an upward growing syntax based on evidence from early interactional language, which has largely been ignored in the study of syntactic acquisition. Given that interactional units of language are associated with the topmost layers of syntactic structure, and given that they are acquired early, it follows that syntactic acquisition cannot be characterized by upward growth. Rather, we propose that syntactic acquisition proceeds in an inward fashion. We present a case study of the early uses of utterance-final huh (an interactional unit of language) in North American child English that supports this hypothesis. We thus introduce the Inward Growing Spine Hypothesis as a research agenda.

@incollection{kentner_interaction_2020,
	title = {Interaction at the syntax–prosody interface},
	isbn = {9783110650532},
	url = {https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110650532-007/html},
	urldate = {2025-06-28},
	booktitle = {Prosody in {Syntactic} {Encoding}},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Heim, Johannes and Wiltschko, Martina},
	editor = {Kentner, Gerrit and Kremers, Joost},
	month = jul,
	year = {2020},
	doi = {10.1515/9783110650532-007},
	pages = {189--218},
}

@incollection{wiltschko_grounding_2020,
	address = {Newcastle upon Tyne},
	title = {Grounding beliefs: {Structured} variation in {Canadian} discourse particles},
	booktitle = {Exoticism in {English} {Tag} {Questions}: {Strengthening} {Arguments} and {Caressing} the {Social} {Wheel}},
	publisher = {Cambridge Scholars Publishing},
	author = {Wiltschko, Martina and Heim, Johannes},
	editor = {Achiri-Taboh, Blasius},
	year = {2020},
	pages = {37--81},
}

@incollection{wiltschko_syntax_2016,
	title = {The syntax of confirmationals},
	booktitle = {Outside the {Clause}: {Form} and function of extra-clausal constituents},
	author = {Wiltschko, Martin and Heim, Johannes},
	editor = {Kaltenbock, Gunther and Keizer, Evelien and Lohmann, Arne},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
	pages = {305--340},
}

@inproceedings{rodrigues_da_mota_pragmatic_2016,
	address = {Boston, Unknown Region},
	title = {The pragmatic functions of the final particle eh and of {High} {Rising} {Terminals} in {Canadian} {English}: quite similar, eh !},
	shorttitle = {The pragmatic functions of the final particle eh and of {High} {Rising} {Terminals} in {Canadian} {English}},
	url = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01462239},
	doi = {10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-180},
	abstract = {The starting point of the present analysis is the recurrent use of eh in spoken Canadian English. We based our study on oral data from two different sources: recordings of spontaneous conversations by Canadian speakers and two DVDs of humorous shows. The analysis of the corpus attracted our attention on another widely spread phenomenon in Canadian English: the use of high rising terminals (HRTs). The present paper shows that it proves relevant to link the use of the final particle eh when used as a discourse marker and HRT. We based our observations on qualitative analyses of talk-in-interaction. The purpose of this research is an attempt to account for the use of eh and HRT by focusing on different pragmatic aspects allowing us to understand and define them better. The extensive analysis of both features of Canadian English reveals that their function is truly comparable and shows that HRT, which is an intonation contour, can play the role of a final particle. Or is it the opposite?},
	urldate = {2020-05-22},
	booktitle = {International {Conference} on {Speech} {Prosody}},
	author = {Rodrigues Da Mota, Clara and Herment, Sophie},
	month = may,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Canadian English, Canadian eh, HRT, Index Terms: Canadian English, final particles, pragmatic functions, speech markers},
}

The starting point of the present analysis is the recurrent use of eh in spoken Canadian English. We based our study on oral data from two different sources: recordings of spontaneous conversations by Canadian speakers and two DVDs of humorous shows. The analysis of the corpus attracted our attention on another widely spread phenomenon in Canadian English: the use of high rising terminals (HRTs). The present paper shows that it proves relevant to link the use of the final particle eh when used as a discourse marker and HRT. We based our observations on qualitative analyses of talk-in-interaction. The purpose of this research is an attempt to account for the use of eh and HRT by focusing on different pragmatic aspects allowing us to understand and define them better. The extensive analysis of both features of Canadian English reveals that their function is truly comparable and shows that HRT, which is an intonation contour, can play the role of a final particle. Or is it the opposite?

@article{johnson_canadian_1976,
	title = {Canadian eh},
	volume = {21},
	journal = {Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics},
	author = {Johnson, Marion},
	year = {1976},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
	pages = {153--160},
}

@article{lakoff_language_1972,
	title = {Language in context},
	journal = {Language},
	author = {Lakoff, Robin},
	year = {1972},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
	pages = {907--927},
}

@phdthesis{love_examination_1973,
	address = {Calgary, AB},
	type = {B.{A}. thesis},
	title = {An examination of eh as a question particle},
	school = {University of Alberta},
	author = {Love, Tracey},
	year = {1973},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
}

@article{meyerhoff_sounds_1994,
	title = {Sounds pretty ethnic, eh?: {A} pragmatic particle in {New} {Zealand} {English}},
	volume = {23},
	issn = {1469-8013, 0047-4045},
	shorttitle = {Sounds pretty ethnic, eh?},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/sounds-pretty-ethnic-eh-a-pragmatic-particle-in-new-zealand-english/EB2754DD3CE70840A5C0ACB021406ACD},
	doi = {10.1017/S0047404500018029},
	abstract = {A social dialect survey of a working-class suburb in New Zealand provides evidence that eh, a tag particle that is much stereotyped but evaluated negatively in NZ English, may persist in casual speech because it plays an important role as a positive politeness marker. It is used noticeably more by Maori men than by Maori women or Pakehas (British/European New Zealanders), and may function as an in-group signal of ethnic identity for these speakers. Young Pakeha women, though, seem to be the next highest users of eh. It is unlikely that they are using it to signal in-group identity in the same way; instead, it is possible that they are responding to its interpersonal and affiliative functions for Maori men, and are adopting it as a new facet in their repertoire of positive politeness markers. (Gender, ethnicity, politeness, New Zealand English, intergroup and interpersonal communication)},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2020-05-22},
	journal = {Language in Society},
	author = {Meyerhoff, Miriam},
	month = jun,
	year = {1994},
	pages = {367--388},
}

A social dialect survey of a working-class suburb in New Zealand provides evidence that eh, a tag particle that is much stereotyped but evaluated negatively in NZ English, may persist in casual speech because it plays an important role as a positive politeness marker. It is used noticeably more by Maori men than by Maori women or Pakehas (British/European New Zealanders), and may function as an in-group signal of ethnic identity for these speakers. Young Pakeha women, though, seem to be the next highest users of eh. It is unlikely that they are using it to signal in-group identity in the same way; instead, it is possible that they are responding to its interpersonal and affiliative functions for Maori men, and are adopting it as a new facet in their repertoire of positive politeness markers. (Gender, ethnicity, politeness, New Zealand English, intergroup and interpersonal communication)

@inproceedings{rodrigues_da_mota_pragmatic_2016,
	address = {Boston, Unknown Region},
	title = {The pragmatic functions of the final particle eh and of {High} {Rising} {Terminals} in {Canadian} {English}: quite similar, eh !},
	shorttitle = {The pragmatic functions of the final particle eh and of {High} {Rising} {Terminals} in {Canadian} {English}},
	url = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01462239},
	doi = {10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-180},
	abstract = {The starting point of the present analysis is the recurrent use of eh in spoken Canadian English. We based our study on oral data from two different sources: recordings of spontaneous conversations by Canadian speakers and two DVDs of humorous shows. The analysis of the corpus attracted our attention on another widely spread phenomenon in Canadian English: the use of high rising terminals (HRTs). The present paper shows that it proves relevant to link the use of the final particle eh when used as a discourse marker and HRT. We based our observations on qualitative analyses of talk-in-interaction. The purpose of this research is an attempt to account for the use of eh and HRT by focusing on different pragmatic aspects allowing us to understand and define them better. The extensive analysis of both features of Canadian English reveals that their function is truly comparable and shows that HRT, which is an intonation contour, can play the role of a final particle. Or is it the opposite?},
	urldate = {2020-05-22},
	booktitle = {International {Conference} on {Speech} {Prosody}},
	author = {Rodrigues Da Mota, Clara and Herment, Sophie},
	month = may,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Canadian English, Canadian eh, HRT, Index Terms: Canadian English, final particles, pragmatic functions, speech markers},
}

The starting point of the present analysis is the recurrent use of eh in spoken Canadian English. We based our study on oral data from two different sources: recordings of spontaneous conversations by Canadian speakers and two DVDs of humorous shows. The analysis of the corpus attracted our attention on another widely spread phenomenon in Canadian English: the use of high rising terminals (HRTs). The present paper shows that it proves relevant to link the use of the final particle eh when used as a discourse marker and HRT. We based our observations on qualitative analyses of talk-in-interaction. The purpose of this research is an attempt to account for the use of eh and HRT by focusing on different pragmatic aspects allowing us to understand and define them better. The extensive analysis of both features of Canadian English reveals that their function is truly comparable and shows that HRT, which is an intonation contour, can play the role of a final particle. Or is it the opposite?

@article{tagliamonte_so_2006,
	title = {“{So} cool, right?”: {Canadian} {English} {Entering} the 21st {Century}},
	volume = {51},
	issn = {0008-4131, 1710-1115},
	shorttitle = {“{So} cool, right?},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-linguistics-revue-canadienne-de-linguistique/article/so-cool-right-canadian-english-entering-the-21st-century/A0D74929DF3E8C8DD6D9108D7E64D190},
	doi = {10.1017/S0008413100004126},
	abstract = {A socially stratified sample—the Toronto English Corpus—together with the construct of apparent time (with speakers aged 10–90 years) reveal that certain features are declining, including future will, deontic have got to, possessive have got, intensifier very, and the sentence tag you know. On the other hand, some features are on the rise, including future going to, deontic have to, possessive have, intensifiers really and so, and sentences tags such as whatever, so, and stuff like that. The younger generation is pushing these changes forward more rapidly. While some developments date back hundreds of years in the history of English, they are not particular to Canada, and are consistent with research on other English corpora. Other changes appear to be progressing in a unique way in Canada, including deontic and possessive have. I argue that the broader socio-historical context is a critical factor: geographic and economic mobility as well as changes in communication technology may explain the rapid acceleration of certain types of linguistic change.
, 
Résumé
Un échantillon avec stratification sociale—le Toronto English Corpus—en combinaison avec la notion de temps apparent (avec des locuteurs âgés entre 10 et 90 ans) révèlent que certains traits sont en déclin, dont le futur will, le have got to déontique, le have got possessif, l’intensifieur very et l’expression phrastique you know. Par contre, d’autre traits sont en croissance, dont le futur going to, le déontique have to, le possessif have, les intensifieurs really et so et les expressions phrastiques whatever, so et stuff like that. La generation plus jeune pousse ces changements de l’avant plus rapidement. Alors que certains de ces développements datent de plusieurs centaines d’années dans l’histoire de l’anglais, ils ne sont pas spécifique au Canada et apparaissent dans d’autres corpus de l’anglais. D’autres changements semblent progresser de façon unique au Canada, dont le have déontique et possessif. J’argumente ici que le contexte socio-historique est un facteur décisif: une mobilité géographique et économique ainsi que des changements dans la technologie de la communication peuvent expliquer l’accélération rapide de certains types de changements linguistiques.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2-3},
	urldate = {2020-06-11},
	journal = {Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique},
	author = {Tagliamonte, Sali A.},
	month = nov,
	year = {2006},
	pages = {309--331},
}

A socially stratified sample—the Toronto English Corpus—together with the construct of apparent time (with speakers aged 10–90 years) reveal that certain features are declining, including future will, deontic have got to, possessive have got, intensifier very, and the sentence tag you know. On the other hand, some features are on the rise, including future going to, deontic have to, possessive have, intensifiers really and so, and sentences tags such as whatever, so, and stuff like that. The younger generation is pushing these changes forward more rapidly. While some developments date back hundreds of years in the history of English, they are not particular to Canada, and are consistent with research on other English corpora. Other changes appear to be progressing in a unique way in Canada, including deontic and possessive have. I argue that the broader socio-historical context is a critical factor: geographic and economic mobility as well as changes in communication technology may explain the rapid acceleration of certain types of linguistic change. , Résumé Un échantillon avec stratification sociale—le Toronto English Corpus—en combinaison avec la notion de temps apparent (avec des locuteurs âgés entre 10 et 90 ans) révèlent que certains traits sont en déclin, dont le futur will, le have got to déontique, le have got possessif, l’intensifieur very et l’expression phrastique you know. Par contre, d’autre traits sont en croissance, dont le futur going to, le déontique have to, le possessif have, les intensifieurs really et so et les expressions phrastiques whatever, so et stuff like that. La generation plus jeune pousse ces changements de l’avant plus rapidement. Alors que certains de ces développements datent de plusieurs centaines d’années dans l’histoire de l’anglais, ils ne sont pas spécifique au Canada et apparaissent dans d’autres corpus de l’anglais. D’autres changements semblent progresser de façon unique au Canada, dont le have déontique et possessif. J’argumente ici que le contexte socio-historique est un facteur décisif: une mobilité géographique et économique ainsi que des changements dans la technologie de la communication peuvent expliquer l’accélération rapide de certains types de changements linguistiques.

@misc{gold_canadian_2005,
	address = {Toronto},
	title = {Canadian {English}, {Eh}? {Canadian} french, {Hein}?},
	shorttitle = {Canadian {English}, {Eh}?},
	abstract = {Eh is widely considered to be a shibboleth of Canadian English, yet there has been surprisingly little recent research into eh's functions and use. There has been even less interest in the Canadian French hein, nor has their been research into the comparative use of eh in Canadian English and hein in Canadian French. The similarity in their use and possible influence of hein on Canadian eh has not, however, gone unnoticed. Avis (1972:102) comments: “Eh? is a common contour-carrier among French Canadians (along with eh bien and hein?), as it has been in the French language for centuries. This circumstance may have contributed to the high popularity of the interjection in Canada generally.” This paper presents a comparison of the results of two surveys: one surveying the use of and attitudes towards eh among a group of anglophone students at the University of Toronto (Gold 2004) and the second surveying the use of and attitudes towards hein (and its alternate pronunciation han) among francophone students at Université Laval. The surveys presents the respondent with ten different constructions with eh or hein- opinions, statements of fact, exclamations, accusations, etc. These questions are based on categories developed by Gibson},
	author = {Gold, Elaine and Tremblay, Mireille},
	month = jan,
	year = {2005},
}

Eh is widely considered to be a shibboleth of Canadian English, yet there has been surprisingly little recent research into eh's functions and use. There has been even less interest in the Canadian French hein, nor has their been research into the comparative use of eh in Canadian English and hein in Canadian French. The similarity in their use and possible influence of hein on Canadian eh has not, however, gone unnoticed. Avis (1972:102) comments: “Eh? is a common contour-carrier among French Canadians (along with eh bien and hein?), as it has been in the French language for centuries. This circumstance may have contributed to the high popularity of the interjection in Canada generally.” This paper presents a comparison of the results of two surveys: one surveying the use of and attitudes towards eh among a group of anglophone students at the University of Toronto (Gold 2004) and the second surveying the use of and attitudes towards hein (and its alternate pronunciation han) among francophone students at Université Laval. The surveys presents the respondent with ten different constructions with eh or hein- opinions, statements of fact, exclamations, accusations, etc. These questions are based on categories developed by Gibson

@article{gold_eh_2006,
	title = {Eh? and {Hein}?: {Discourse} {Particles} or {National} {Icons}?},
	volume = {51},
	issn = {0008-4131, 1710-1115},
	shorttitle = {Eh?},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-linguistics-revue-canadienne-de-linguistique/article/abs/eh-and-hein-discourse-particles-or-national-icons/2DA7B88166D6C6A37E317D4EAA2BFF47},
	doi = {10.1017/S0008413100004096},
	abstract = {We compare the use and function of two discourse particles that show many similarities: Canadian English eh and Canadian French hein. Surveys of anglophone students at the University of Toronto and francophone students at Université Laval reveal that these particles have similar discourse functions and that there are many parallels in their patterns of use. However, francophone students report a higher use of hein than do anglophone students of eh. Moreover, francophones have more positive attitudes towards constructions with hein than do their anglophone counterparts with respect to eh. In addition, eh—used both less often and valued less positively—has taken on additional functions as an identity marker: it is used to identify speakers of Canadian English and, in print, to evoke Canadian solidarity. In contrast, hein does not have an identity marking function. We propose that the development of an identity marking function for eh—and the lack of such a function for hein—reflects differences in how linguistic identities are constructed in English and French Canada., RésuméNous comparons l’usage et la fonction de deux particules de discours qui présentent plusieurs similarités: le eh de l’anglais canadien et le hein du français canadien. Des sondages auprès d’étudiants anglophones à l’Université de Toronto et d’étudiants francophones à l’Université Laval révèlent que les fonctions discursives de ces particules sont similaires et qu’il y a plusieurs parallèles par rapport à leur usage. Cependant, les résultats indiquent que l’usage de hein par les étudiants francophones est plus élevé que ne l’est l’usage de eh par les étudiants anglophones. De plus, les francophones ont une perception plus positive envers les constructions avec hein que leur compères anglophones vis-à-vis eh. Enfin, eh—à la fois moins utilisé et moins valorisé—a acquis des fonctions additionnelles en tant que marque identitaire: eh est souvent utilisé pour identifier les locuteurs de l’anglais canadien, et dans les textes écrits, pour évoquer la solidarité canadienne. Par contre, hein ne fonctionne pas comme marqueur identitaire. Nous proposons que le développement d’une fonction identitaire pour eh—et l’absence d’une telle fonction pour hein—reflète des différences dans la construction de l’identité linguistique au Canada anglais et français.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2-3},
	urldate = {2024-07-05},
	journal = {Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique},
	author = {Gold, Elaine and Tremblay, Mireille},
	month = nov,
	year = {2006},
	pages = {247--263},
}

We compare the use and function of two discourse particles that show many similarities: Canadian English eh and Canadian French hein. Surveys of anglophone students at the University of Toronto and francophone students at Université Laval reveal that these particles have similar discourse functions and that there are many parallels in their patterns of use. However, francophone students report a higher use of hein than do anglophone students of eh. Moreover, francophones have more positive attitudes towards constructions with hein than do their anglophone counterparts with respect to eh. In addition, eh—used both less often and valued less positively—has taken on additional functions as an identity marker: it is used to identify speakers of Canadian English and, in print, to evoke Canadian solidarity. In contrast, hein does not have an identity marking function. We propose that the development of an identity marking function for eh—and the lack of such a function for hein—reflects differences in how linguistic identities are constructed in English and French Canada., RésuméNous comparons l’usage et la fonction de deux particules de discours qui présentent plusieurs similarités: le eh de l’anglais canadien et le hein du français canadien. Des sondages auprès d’étudiants anglophones à l’Université de Toronto et d’étudiants francophones à l’Université Laval révèlent que les fonctions discursives de ces particules sont similaires et qu’il y a plusieurs parallèles par rapport à leur usage. Cependant, les résultats indiquent que l’usage de hein par les étudiants francophones est plus élevé que ne l’est l’usage de eh par les étudiants anglophones. De plus, les francophones ont une perception plus positive envers les constructions avec hein que leur compères anglophones vis-à-vis eh. Enfin, eh—à la fois moins utilisé et moins valorisé—a acquis des fonctions additionnelles en tant que marque identitaire: eh est souvent utilisé pour identifier les locuteurs de l’anglais canadien, et dans les textes écrits, pour évoquer la solidarité canadienne. Par contre, hein ne fonctionne pas comme marqueur identitaire. Nous proposons que le développement d’une fonction identitaire pour eh—et l’absence d’une telle fonction pour hein—reflète des différences dans la construction de l’identité linguistique au Canada anglais et français.

@article{westphal_eh_2024,
	title = {Eh {Across} {Englishes}: {A} {Corpus}-{Pragmatic} {Analysis} of the {Corpus} of {Global} {Web}-{Based} {English}},
	volume = {8},
	issn = {2509-9507, 2509-9515},
	shorttitle = {Eh {Across} {Englishes}},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41701-023-00159-6},
	doi = {10.1007/s41701-023-00159-6},
	abstract = {Abstract 
             
              This paper presents an analysis of the pragmatic marker 
              eh 
              , which is typical of spoken discourse, in written online discourse from nine varieties of English using the Corpus of Global Web-based English. The analysis focuses on sentence-final 
              eh 
              and considers variation in terms of variety, punctuation, text type, and function. This paper also includes a variationist analysis of 
              eh 
              in contrast to 
              huh 
              . Although there are cross-variety differences, 
              eh 
              is used across all nine varieties in similar ways. 
              Eh 
              is mostly combined with a question mark, it is more frequent in blogs than in general websites, and emphatic functions dominate over narrative and interrogative uses. A qualitative analysis of the indexicalities demonstrates that 
              eh 
              mainly signals orality and informality in online writing but also has specific local meanings. The variationist analysis shows that 
              eh 
              is preferred over 
              huh 
              in the Canadian and New Zealand components. This preference is even more pronounced for the British and Philippine components. In contrast, 
              huh 
              dominates in the US component. These results show that 
              eh 
              is well integrated into online writing and can be characterized as a translocal pragmatic marker as it is used globally but has developed local characteristics.},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2025-06-28},
	journal = {Corpus Pragmatics},
	author = {Westphal, Michael},
	month = mar,
	year = {2024},
	pages = {53--75},
}

Abstract This paper presents an analysis of the pragmatic marker eh , which is typical of spoken discourse, in written online discourse from nine varieties of English using the Corpus of Global Web-based English. The analysis focuses on sentence-final eh and considers variation in terms of variety, punctuation, text type, and function. This paper also includes a variationist analysis of eh in contrast to huh . Although there are cross-variety differences, eh is used across all nine varieties in similar ways. Eh is mostly combined with a question mark, it is more frequent in blogs than in general websites, and emphatic functions dominate over narrative and interrogative uses. A qualitative analysis of the indexicalities demonstrates that eh mainly signals orality and informality in online writing but also has specific local meanings. The variationist analysis shows that eh is preferred over huh in the Canadian and New Zealand components. This preference is even more pronounced for the British and Philippine components. In contrast, huh dominates in the US component. These results show that eh is well integrated into online writing and can be characterized as a translocal pragmatic marker as it is used globally but has developed local characteristics.

@book{wiltschko_grammar_2021,
	address = {Cambridge},
	edition = {1},
	title = {The {Grammar} of {Interactional} {Language}},
	copyright = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms},
	isbn = {9781108693707 9781108481823 9781108741446},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108693707/type/book},
	abstract = {Traditional grammar and current theoretical approaches towards modelling grammatical knowledge ignore language in interaction: that is, words such as huh, eh, yup or yessssss. This groundbreaking book addresses this gap by providing the first in-depth overview of approaches towards interactional language across different frameworks and linguistic sub-disciplines. Based on the insights that emerge, a formal framework is developed to discover and compare language in interaction across different languages: the interactional spine hypothesis. Two case-studies are presented: confirmationals (such as eh and huh) and response markers (such as yes and no), both of which show evidence for systematic grammatical knowledge. Assuming that language in interaction is regulated by grammatical knowledge sheds new light on old questions concerning the relation between language and thought and the relation between language and communication. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the relation between language, cognition and social interaction.},
	urldate = {2025-06-28},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Wiltschko, Martina},
	month = jun,
	year = {2021},
	doi = {10.1017/9781108693707},
}

Traditional grammar and current theoretical approaches towards modelling grammatical knowledge ignore language in interaction: that is, words such as huh, eh, yup or yessssss. This groundbreaking book addresses this gap by providing the first in-depth overview of approaches towards interactional language across different frameworks and linguistic sub-disciplines. Based on the insights that emerge, a formal framework is developed to discover and compare language in interaction across different languages: the interactional spine hypothesis. Two case-studies are presented: confirmationals (such as eh and huh) and response markers (such as yes and no), both of which show evidence for systematic grammatical knowledge. Assuming that language in interaction is regulated by grammatical knowledge sheds new light on old questions concerning the relation between language and thought and the relation between language and communication. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the relation between language, cognition and social interaction.

@article{heim_rethinking_2025,
	title = {Rethinking structural growth: {Insights} from the acquisition of interactional language},
	volume = {10},
	copyright = {https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0},
	issn = {2397-1835},
	shorttitle = {Rethinking structural growth},
	url = {https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/16396/},
	doi = {10.16995/glossa.16396},
	abstract = {In this paper, we introduce a novel proposal for the acquisition of syntactic structure. Most studies of syntactic first language acquisition focus on the increasingly complex expression of propositional thought. Layer by layer, from the bottom up, child language matures into adult-like representations. We challenge this account of an upward growing syntax based on evidence from early interactional language, which has largely been ignored in the study of syntactic acquisition. Given that interactional units of language are associated with the topmost layers of syntactic structure, and given that they are acquired early, it follows that syntactic acquisition cannot be characterized by upward growth. Rather, we propose that syntactic acquisition proceeds in an inward fashion. We present a case study of the early uses of utterance-final huh (an interactional unit of language) in North American child English that supports this hypothesis. We thus introduce the Inward Growing Spine Hypothesis as a research agenda.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2025-06-28},
	journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
	author = {Heim, Johannes and Wiltschko, Martina},
	month = may,
	year = {2025},
}

In this paper, we introduce a novel proposal for the acquisition of syntactic structure. Most studies of syntactic first language acquisition focus on the increasingly complex expression of propositional thought. Layer by layer, from the bottom up, child language matures into adult-like representations. We challenge this account of an upward growing syntax based on evidence from early interactional language, which has largely been ignored in the study of syntactic acquisition. Given that interactional units of language are associated with the topmost layers of syntactic structure, and given that they are acquired early, it follows that syntactic acquisition cannot be characterized by upward growth. Rather, we propose that syntactic acquisition proceeds in an inward fashion. We present a case study of the early uses of utterance-final huh (an interactional unit of language) in North American child English that supports this hypothesis. We thus introduce the Inward Growing Spine Hypothesis as a research agenda.

@article{wiltschko_language_2022,
	title = {Language is for thought and communication},
	volume = {7},
	copyright = {https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0},
	issn = {2397-1835},
	url = {https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5786/},
	doi = {10.16995/glossa.5786},
	abstract = {There is an ancient debate about whether language is an instrument for thought or for communication. I argue that the distinction is misleading, and that language is an integral part of both, human-specific thought, and communication. The argument is based on the growing consensus that grammatical knowledge – a hallmark of human language – encompasses not only the propositional content of an utterance but also its communicative content. If communicative content is regulated by grammatical knowledge, then it follows that communication is as much a function of language as thought is.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2025-06-28},
	journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
	author = {Wiltschko, Martina},
	month = jun,
	year = {2022},
}

There is an ancient debate about whether language is an instrument for thought or for communication. I argue that the distinction is misleading, and that language is an integral part of both, human-specific thought, and communication. The argument is based on the growing consensus that grammatical knowledge – a hallmark of human language – encompasses not only the propositional content of an utterance but also its communicative content. If communicative content is regulated by grammatical knowledge, then it follows that communication is as much a function of language as thought is.

@incollection{kentner_interaction_2020,
	title = {Interaction at the syntax–prosody interface},
	isbn = {9783110650532},
	url = {https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110650532-007/html},
	urldate = {2025-06-28},
	booktitle = {Prosody in {Syntactic} {Encoding}},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Heim, Johannes and Wiltschko, Martina},
	editor = {Kentner, Gerrit and Kremers, Joost},
	month = jul,
	year = {2020},
	doi = {10.1515/9783110650532-007},
	pages = {189--218},
}

@incollection{wiltschko_grounding_2020,
	address = {Newcastle upon Tyne},
	title = {Grounding beliefs: {Structured} variation in {Canadian} discourse particles},
	booktitle = {Exoticism in {English} {Tag} {Questions}: {Strengthening} {Arguments} and {Caressing} the {Social} {Wheel}},
	publisher = {Cambridge Scholars Publishing},
	author = {Wiltschko, Martina and Heim, Johannes},
	editor = {Achiri-Taboh, Blasius},
	year = {2020},
	pages = {37--81},
}

@incollection{wiltschko_syntax_2016,
	title = {The syntax of confirmationals},
	booktitle = {Outside the {Clause}: {Form} and function of extra-clausal constituents},
	author = {Wiltschko, Martin and Heim, Johannes},
	editor = {Kaltenbock, Gunther and Keizer, Evelien and Lohmann, Arne},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Canadian eh},
	pages = {305--340},
}