@article{bailey_patterns_1993,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@article{bailey_patterns_1993-1,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@article{berglund_semantic_2007,
	title = {The semantic properties of going to: {Distribution} patterns in four subcorpora of the {British} {National} {Corpus}},
	volume = {62},
	shorttitle = {The semantic properties of going to},
	abstract = {In this paper the authors analyse how the intentional and predictive uses of the going to construction can be seen to vary between different types of discourse, as found in BNC Baby, four one-million-word subcorpora from the British National Corpus. Selected collocational patterns of the construction are also examined.As expected, results show that the overall frequency of the construction varies considerably between the text categories examined (newspapers, fiction, academic discourse and spoken conversation). Further interesting findings are made when this difference is put in relation to the predictive vs. intentional uses and the outcome of the collocational analyses. It is shown how the choice of main verb used relates to the distribution of intentional vs. predictive uses. Person and number are also taken into consideration as factors influencing the predictive vs. intentional ratios. Differences in semantic distribution patterns are also observed when gonna is used with respect to going to.},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Language and Computers},
	author = {Berglund, Ylva and Williams, Christopher},
	month = apr,
	year = {2007},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {107--120},
}

In this paper the authors analyse how the intentional and predictive uses of the going to construction can be seen to vary between different types of discourse, as found in BNC Baby, four one-million-word subcorpora from the British National Corpus. Selected collocational patterns of the construction are also examined.As expected, results show that the overall frequency of the construction varies considerably between the text categories examined (newspapers, fiction, academic discourse and spoken conversation). Further interesting findings are made when this difference is put in relation to the predictive vs. intentional uses and the outcome of the collocational analyses. It is shown how the choice of main verb used relates to the distribution of intentional vs. predictive uses. Person and number are also taken into consideration as factors influencing the predictive vs. intentional ratios. Differences in semantic distribution patterns are also observed when gonna is used with respect to going to.

@incollection{bernstein_grammatical_2003,
	address = {Cambridge},
	series = {Studies in {English} {Language}},
	title = {Grammatical features of southern speech: {Yall}, might could, and fixin to},
	isbn = {978-0-521-82264-0},
	booktitle = {English in the southern {United} {States}},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Bernstein, Cynthia},
	editor = {Nagle, Stephen J. and Sanders, Sara L.},
	year = {2003},
	keywords = {African Americans, African languages, Americanisms, Black English, Dialects, English language, Fixing to, Foreign elements African, Influence on English, Languages, Multiple modals, Social aspects, Southern States, Variation},
	pages = {106--118},
}

@article{brisard_be_2001,
	title = {Be going to: {An} exercise in grounding},
	volume = {37},
	issn = {1469-7742},
	shorttitle = {Be going to},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0022226701008866},
	doi = {10.1017/S0022226701008866},
	abstract = {This paper investigates the semantics of be going to, starting from a schematic definition which interprets temporal meanings in terms of referential and epistemological attributes. The analysis is framed within the model of cognitive grammar, taking deictic syntactical constructions as instances of grounding predications and differences between them as triggered by aspects of construal and profiling. On the basis of corpus material from American and British English texts, it is concluded that be going to features a paradoxical but pragmatically plausible interpretation of the future as non-given yet present, with a pending event's being signaled or announced at the time of speaking.},
	number = {02},
	urldate = {2016-06-23},
	journal = {Journal of Linguistics},
	author = {Brisard, Frank},
	month = jul,
	year = {2001},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {251--285},
}

This paper investigates the semantics of be going to, starting from a schematic definition which interprets temporal meanings in terms of referential and epistemological attributes. The analysis is framed within the model of cognitive grammar, taking deictic syntactical constructions as instances of grounding predications and differences between them as triggered by aspects of construal and profiling. On the basis of corpus material from American and British English texts, it is concluded that be going to features a paradoxical but pragmatically plausible interpretation of the future as non-given yet present, with a pending event's being signaled or announced at the time of speaking.

@article{broadbent_-contract_2013,
	title = {To-contract or not to-contract? {That} is the question},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1469-4379},
	shorttitle = {To-contract or not to-contract?},
	doi = {10.1017/S1360674313000142},
	abstract = {The focus of this article is what Anderson (2005: 72) describes as ‘another chronic puzzle in English’, the case of to-contraction. We set out to show that the extent and nature of to-contraction has not been captured by the literature to date, because researchers have been concerned with two forms which are no longer synchronic to-contractions: wanna and gonna, and have taken a syntactic or morphological approach. On the basis of new phonological data from British English varieties we argue that the reduction of /t/ in to should be taken as evidence of to-contraction. We claim that to is a phonological clitic and to-contraction is simply the incorporation of the clitic to into the preceding prosodic word.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-07-08},
	journal = {English Language and Linguistics},
	author = {Broadbent, Judith M. and Sifaki, Evi},
	month = nov,
	year = {2013},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {513--535},
}

The focus of this article is what Anderson (2005: 72) describes as ‘another chronic puzzle in English’, the case of to-contraction. We set out to show that the extent and nature of to-contraction has not been captured by the literature to date, because researchers have been concerned with two forms which are no longer synchronic to-contractions: wanna and gonna, and have taken a syntactic or morphological approach. On the basis of new phonological data from British English varieties we argue that the reduction of /t/ in to should be taken as evidence of to-contraction. We claim that to is a phonological clitic and to-contraction is simply the incorporation of the clitic to into the preceding prosodic word.

@incollection{bybee_evolution_1987,
	address = {Amsterdam},
	series = {Amsterdam {Studies} in the {Theory} and {History} of {Linguistic} {Science}},
	title = {The evolution of future meaning},
	isbn = {978-90-272-3542-8},
	number = {48},
	booktitle = {Papers from the 7th {International} {Conference} on {Historical} {Linguistics} ({ICHL})},
	publisher = {John Benjamins},
	author = {Bybee, Joan L. and Pagliucca, William},
	editor = {Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Carruba, Onofrio and Bernini, Giuliano},
	year = {1987},
	keywords = {Fixing to, Historical linguistics},
	pages = {109--122},
}

@article{ching_how_1987,
	title = {How fixed is fixin' to?},
	volume = {62},
	issn = {00031283},
	url = {http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9652784&site=ehost-live&scope=site},
	abstract = {Discusses the use of the infinitive phrase fixin to in English grammatical construction.  Nature of the phrase; Complexity in the application of the phrase; Central core to the meaning of fixin to.},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Ching, Marvin K. L.},
	year = {1987},
	keywords = {ENGLISH grammar, Fixing to, INFINITIVE (Grammar), TERMS \& phrases},
	pages = {332},
}

Discusses the use of the infinitive phrase fixin to in English grammatical construction. Nature of the phrase; Complexity in the application of the phrase; Central core to the meaning of fixin to.

@article{coates_modal_1990,
	title = {Modal meaning: {The} semantic–pragmatic interface},
	volume = {7},
	issn = {0167-5133, 1477-4593},
	shorttitle = {Modal {Meaning}},
	url = {http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/53},
	doi = {10.1093/jos/7.1.53},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	journal = {Journal of Semantics},
	author = {Coates, Jennifer},
	month = jan,
	year = {1990},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {53--63},
}

@book{collins_modals_2009,
	address = {Amsterdam},
	series = {Language and {Computers}},
	title = {Modals and quasi-modals in {English}},
	isbn = {978-90-420-2532-5},
	number = {67},
	publisher = {Rodopi},
	author = {Collins, Peter},
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Corpora (Linguistics), English language, Fixing to, Grammar Study and teaching, Modality},
}

@incollection{debose_africanist_1993,
	address = {Athens, GA},
	title = {An {Africanist} approach to the linguistic study of {Black} {English}: {Getting} to the roots of the tense-aspect-modality and copula systems in {Afro}-{American}},
	isbn = {978-0-8203-1465-5},
	booktitle = {Africanisms in {Afro}-{American} language varieties},
	publisher = {University of Georgia Press},
	author = {DeBose, Charles and Faraclas, Nicholas},
	editor = {Mufwene, Salikoko S. and Condon, Nancy},
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {African Americans, African languages, Americanisms, Black English, English language, Fixing to, Foreign elements African, Influence on English, Language, United States, Variation},
	pages = {364--387},
}

@incollection{debose_africanist_1993,
	address = {Athens, GA},
	title = {An {Africanist} approach to the linguistic study of {Black} {English}: {Getting} to the roots of the tense-aspect-modality and copula systems in {Afro}-{American}},
	isbn = {978-0-8203-1465-5},
	booktitle = {Africanisms in {Afro}-{American} language varieties},
	publisher = {University of Georgia Press},
	author = {DeBose, Charles and Faraclas, Nicholas},
	editor = {Mufwene, Salikoko S. and Condon, Nancy},
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {African Americans, African languages, Americanisms, Black English, English language, Fixing to, Foreign elements African, Influence on English, Language, United States, Variation},
	pages = {364--387},
}

@incollection{goodall_contraction_2006,
	address = {Malden, MA},
	series = {Blackwell {Handbooks} in {Linguistics}},
	title = {Contraction},
	volume = {1},
	isbn = {978-0-470-99659-1 978-1-4051-1485-1},
	number = {19},
	booktitle = {The {Blackwell} companion to syntax},
	publisher = {Blackwell},
	author = {Goodall, Grant},
	editor = {Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk},
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {688--703},
}

@book{green_african_2002,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {African {American} {English}: {A} linguistic introduction},
	isbn = {978-0-521-81449-2 978-0-521-89138-7},
	shorttitle = {African {American} {English}},
	abstract = {"This authoritative introduction to African American English (AAE) is the first textbook to look at the grammar as a whole. Clearly organized, it describes patterns in the sentence structure, sound system, word formation and word use in AAE. The book uses linguistic description and data from conversation to explain that AAE is not a compilation of random deviations from mainstream English but that it is a rule-governed system. The textbook examines topics such as education, speech events in the secular and religious world, and the use of language in literature and the media to create black images. This much-needed book includes exercises to accompany each chapter and will be essential reading for students in linguistics, education, anthropology, African American studies and literature."--BOOK JACKET},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Green, Lisa J.},
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {African Americans, Bare got, Black English, Dialects, English language, Finna, Languages, Negative concord, Negative inversion, Split subjects, Stressed BIN, United States, Variation},
}

"This authoritative introduction to African American English (AAE) is the first textbook to look at the grammar as a whole. Clearly organized, it describes patterns in the sentence structure, sound system, word formation and word use in AAE. The book uses linguistic description and data from conversation to explain that AAE is not a compilation of random deviations from mainstream English but that it is a rule-governed system. The textbook examines topics such as education, speech events in the secular and religious world, and the use of language in literature and the media to create black images. This much-needed book includes exercises to accompany each chapter and will be essential reading for students in linguistics, education, anthropology, African American studies and literature."–BOOK JACKET

@incollection{thomas_finna_2014,
	address = {Amherst, MA},
	series = {University of {Massachusetts} {Occasional} {Papers} in {Linguistics}},
	title = {Finna as a socially meaningful quasi-modal and performative in {African} {American} {English}},
	isbn = {978-1-4975-1063-0},
	language = {English},
	number = {43},
	booktitle = {{SULA} 7: {Proceedings} of the seventh meeting on the {Semantics} of {Under}-represented {Languages} in the {Americas}},
	publisher = {GLSA},
	author = {Thomas, Julia and Grinsell, Timothy},
	editor = {Greene, Hannah},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Finna, Fixing to},
	pages = {171--188},
}

@article{haegeman_be_1989,
	title = {Be going to and will: {A} pragmatic account},
	volume = {25},
	issn = {1469-7742},
	shorttitle = {Be going to and will},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0022226700014110},
	doi = {10.1017/S0022226700014110},
	abstract = {In the literature on English tense usage, expressions of futurity such as(1) (a) I will/shall leave next week.(b) I'm going to leave next week.have already received a lot of attention, especially so in the pedagogical descriptive tradition of English linguistics (cf. Close, 1977; Haegeman, 1981, 1983; Leech, 1971; Quirk et al., 1985; Palmer, 1974, 1979; Wekker, 1976, etc.). Although these accounts are attractive, they raise further questions because most of them do not propose to deal with the problem against a formal theoretical background. As a consequence, the rules formulated to describe the use of shall/will or be going to in (1) tend to be intuitive and often do not really allow any decisive choice to be made in many instances of usage. On the other hand, Reichenbach type analyses of tense interpretation are usually mainly concerned with the general problem of tense representation and treat both examples in (1) as illustrations of future tense without detailed discussion of the contrasts between them.},
	number = {02},
	urldate = {2016-06-23},
	journal = {Journal of Linguistics},
	author = {Haegeman, Liliane},
	month = sep,
	year = {1989},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {291--317},
}

In the literature on English tense usage, expressions of futurity such as(1) (a) I will/shall leave next week.(b) I'm going to leave next week.have already received a lot of attention, especially so in the pedagogical descriptive tradition of English linguistics (cf. Close, 1977; Haegeman, 1981, 1983; Leech, 1971; Quirk et al., 1985; Palmer, 1974, 1979; Wekker, 1976, etc.). Although these accounts are attractive, they raise further questions because most of them do not propose to deal with the problem against a formal theoretical background. As a consequence, the rules formulated to describe the use of shall/will or be going to in (1) tend to be intuitive and often do not really allow any decisive choice to be made in many instances of usage. On the other hand, Reichenbach type analyses of tense interpretation are usually mainly concerned with the general problem of tense representation and treat both examples in (1) as illustrations of future tense without detailed discussion of the contrasts between them.

@incollection{palmer_inflectional_2002,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {Inflectional morphology and related matters},
	isbn = {978-0-521-43146-0},
	abstract = {Publisher description: This book presents a new and comprehensive descriptive grammar of English, written by the principal authors in collaboration with an international research team of a dozen linguists in five countries. It represents a major advance over previous grammars by virtue of drawing systematically on the linguistic research carried out on English during the last forty years. It incorporates insights from the theoretical literature but presents them in a way that is accessible to readers without formal training in linguistics. It is based on a sounder and more consistent descriptive framework than previous large-scale grammars, and includes much more explanation of grammatical terms and concepts, together with justification for the ways in which the analysis differs from traditional grammar. The book contains twenty chapters and a guide to further reading. Its usefulness is enhanced by diagrams of sentence structure, cross-references between sections, a comprehensive index, and user-friendly design and typography throughout},
	booktitle = {The {Cambridge} grammar of the {English} language},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Palmer, Frank and Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	editor = {Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {Anglais (Langue), Engels, English language, Estudio y enseñanza, Fixing to, Grammaire, Grammar, Gramática, Inglés},
	pages = {1565--1619},
}

Publisher description: This book presents a new and comprehensive descriptive grammar of English, written by the principal authors in collaboration with an international research team of a dozen linguists in five countries. It represents a major advance over previous grammars by virtue of drawing systematically on the linguistic research carried out on English during the last forty years. It incorporates insights from the theoretical literature but presents them in a way that is accessible to readers without formal training in linguistics. It is based on a sounder and more consistent descriptive framework than previous large-scale grammars, and includes much more explanation of grammatical terms and concepts, together with justification for the ways in which the analysis differs from traditional grammar. The book contains twenty chapters and a guide to further reading. Its usefulness is enhanced by diagrams of sentence structure, cross-references between sections, a comprehensive index, and user-friendly design and typography throughout

@phdthesis{johnson_restructuring_2014,
	address = {East Lansing, MI},
	type = {{PhD} dissertation},
	title = {Restructuring and infinitives: {The} view from {Appalachia}},
	school = {Michigan State University},
	author = {Johnson, Greg},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Fixing to, Liketa},
}

@unpublished{johnson_what_2014,
	address = {East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University},
	type = {Unpublished manuscript},
	title = {What we liketa missed about restructuring and auxiliaries: {Evidence} from {Appalachian} {English}},
	author = {Johnson, Greg},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Fixing to, Liketa},
}

@article{jones_toward_2015,
	title = {Toward a {Description} of {African} {American} {Vernacular} {English} {Dialect} {Regions} {Using} “{Black} {Twitter}”},
	volume = {90},
	issn = {0003-1283},
	url = {https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article/90/4/403/5470/Toward-a-Description-of-African-American},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-3442117},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2019-10-19},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Jones, Taylor},
	month = nov,
	year = {2015},
	pages = {403--440},
}

@book{mccawley_syntactic_1988,
	address = {Chicago},
	title = {The syntactic phenomena of {English}},
	isbn = {978-0-226-55623-9 978-0-226-55625-3 978-0-226-55624-6 978-0-226-55626-0},
	publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
	author = {McCawley, James D.},
	year = {1988},
	keywords = {Bare got, English language, Grammar, Generative, Syntax},
}

@article{myers_fixin_2014,
	title = {Fixin' to: {The} emergence of an {American} quasi-modal},
	volume = {89},
	issn = {00031283},
	shorttitle = {Fixin' to},
	url = {http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=96548766&site=ehost-live&scope=site},
	doi = {10.1215/00031283-2726395},
	abstract = {The Southern American English expression fixin' to has its roots in the lexical verb to fix. The expression has developed in English for over six centuries, from a concrete transitive verb of Latin origin, through intransitive phases that included complements of either for + gerund or nonfinite verb phrases, and eventually to a quasi-modal with both deontic and epistemic senses of assessment, acknowledgement, and response to compelling or obligating circumstances. Syntactic and semantic tests are offered to argue that fixin' to clearly belongs in the family of American English quasi-modals, which also includes be bound to, be going to, and be supposed to is hypothesized that the expression bears a special semantic value implying that the speaker (1) is aware of and has evaluated a situation; (2) acknowledges a resulting pressing obligation or compulsion--typically, but not always, in the first person--to act/to happen; and (3) is preparing to address the situation forthwith. Finally, it is claimed that this special semantic value of fixin' to is why the expression has withstood the pressures of stigmatization and remains in the everyday lexicon of Southern American English speakers.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	journal = {American Speech},
	author = {Myers, Jay L.},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Black English, English language, Etymology, Fixing to, LANGUAGE \& languages, Modality, SOUTHERN States -- Social life \& customs, Semantics, United States, VERBS (Grammar)},
	pages = {42--73},
}

The Southern American English expression fixin' to has its roots in the lexical verb to fix. The expression has developed in English for over six centuries, from a concrete transitive verb of Latin origin, through intransitive phases that included complements of either for + gerund or nonfinite verb phrases, and eventually to a quasi-modal with both deontic and epistemic senses of assessment, acknowledgement, and response to compelling or obligating circumstances. Syntactic and semantic tests are offered to argue that fixin' to clearly belongs in the family of American English quasi-modals, which also includes be bound to, be going to, and be supposed to is hypothesized that the expression bears a special semantic value implying that the speaker (1) is aware of and has evaluated a situation; (2) acknowledges a resulting pressing obligation or compulsion–typically, but not always, in the first person–to act/to happen; and (3) is preparing to address the situation forthwith. Finally, it is claimed that this special semantic value of fixin' to is why the expression has withstood the pressures of stigmatization and remains in the everyday lexicon of Southern American English speakers.

@incollection{bybee_evolution_1987,
	address = {Amsterdam},
	series = {Amsterdam {Studies} in the {Theory} and {History} of {Linguistic} {Science}},
	title = {The evolution of future meaning},
	isbn = {978-90-272-3542-8},
	number = {48},
	booktitle = {Papers from the 7th {International} {Conference} on {Historical} {Linguistics} ({ICHL})},
	publisher = {John Benjamins},
	author = {Bybee, Joan L. and Pagliucca, William},
	editor = {Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Carruba, Onofrio and Bernini, Giuliano},
	year = {1987},
	keywords = {Fixing to, Historical linguistics},
	pages = {109--122},
}

@incollection{palmer_inflectional_2002,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {Inflectional morphology and related matters},
	isbn = {978-0-521-43146-0},
	abstract = {Publisher description: This book presents a new and comprehensive descriptive grammar of English, written by the principal authors in collaboration with an international research team of a dozen linguists in five countries. It represents a major advance over previous grammars by virtue of drawing systematically on the linguistic research carried out on English during the last forty years. It incorporates insights from the theoretical literature but presents them in a way that is accessible to readers without formal training in linguistics. It is based on a sounder and more consistent descriptive framework than previous large-scale grammars, and includes much more explanation of grammatical terms and concepts, together with justification for the ways in which the analysis differs from traditional grammar. The book contains twenty chapters and a guide to further reading. Its usefulness is enhanced by diagrams of sentence structure, cross-references between sections, a comprehensive index, and user-friendly design and typography throughout},
	booktitle = {The {Cambridge} grammar of the {English} language},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Palmer, Frank and Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	editor = {Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {Anglais (Langue), Engels, English language, Estudio y enseñanza, Fixing to, Grammaire, Grammar, Gramática, Inglés},
	pages = {1565--1619},
}

Publisher description: This book presents a new and comprehensive descriptive grammar of English, written by the principal authors in collaboration with an international research team of a dozen linguists in five countries. It represents a major advance over previous grammars by virtue of drawing systematically on the linguistic research carried out on English during the last forty years. It incorporates insights from the theoretical literature but presents them in a way that is accessible to readers without formal training in linguistics. It is based on a sounder and more consistent descriptive framework than previous large-scale grammars, and includes much more explanation of grammatical terms and concepts, together with justification for the ways in which the analysis differs from traditional grammar. The book contains twenty chapters and a guide to further reading. Its usefulness is enhanced by diagrams of sentence structure, cross-references between sections, a comprehensive index, and user-friendly design and typography throughout

@incollection{palmer_inflectional_2002,
	address = {Cambridge},
	title = {Inflectional morphology and related matters},
	isbn = {978-0-521-43146-0},
	abstract = {Publisher description: This book presents a new and comprehensive descriptive grammar of English, written by the principal authors in collaboration with an international research team of a dozen linguists in five countries. It represents a major advance over previous grammars by virtue of drawing systematically on the linguistic research carried out on English during the last forty years. It incorporates insights from the theoretical literature but presents them in a way that is accessible to readers without formal training in linguistics. It is based on a sounder and more consistent descriptive framework than previous large-scale grammars, and includes much more explanation of grammatical terms and concepts, together with justification for the ways in which the analysis differs from traditional grammar. The book contains twenty chapters and a guide to further reading. Its usefulness is enhanced by diagrams of sentence structure, cross-references between sections, a comprehensive index, and user-friendly design and typography throughout},
	booktitle = {The {Cambridge} grammar of the {English} language},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Palmer, Frank and Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	editor = {Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {Anglais (Langue), Engels, English language, Estudio y enseñanza, Fixing to, Grammaire, Grammar, Gramática, Inglés},
	pages = {1565--1619},
}

Publisher description: This book presents a new and comprehensive descriptive grammar of English, written by the principal authors in collaboration with an international research team of a dozen linguists in five countries. It represents a major advance over previous grammars by virtue of drawing systematically on the linguistic research carried out on English during the last forty years. It incorporates insights from the theoretical literature but presents them in a way that is accessible to readers without formal training in linguistics. It is based on a sounder and more consistent descriptive framework than previous large-scale grammars, and includes much more explanation of grammatical terms and concepts, together with justification for the ways in which the analysis differs from traditional grammar. The book contains twenty chapters and a guide to further reading. Its usefulness is enhanced by diagrams of sentence structure, cross-references between sections, a comprehensive index, and user-friendly design and typography throughout

@article{pullum_morpholexical_1997,
	title = {The morpholexical nature of {English} to-contraction},
	volume = {73},
	issn = {0097-8507},
	url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/416594},
	doi = {10.2307/416594},
	abstract = {The forms represented orthographically as {\textless}wanna{\textgreater}, {\textless}hafta{\textgreater}, {\textless}gonna{\textgreater}, {\textless}gotta{\textgreater}, {\textless}oughta{\textgreater}, {\textless}usta{\textgreater}, and {\textless}sposta{\textgreater} have standardly been analyzed as involving a syntactic rule or cliticization operation called to-contraction. Occasionally it has been suggested that the forms in question have been 'lexicalized', i.e., WANNA and HAFTA are synchronically distinct lexemes from WANT and HAVE. I argue here that neither approach is correct. The syntactic accounts are wrong to assume that the relation between wanna and want to must be syntactic, and the lexicalization accounts are wrong to assume that there is no synchronic relation: the link is one of derivational morphology. A morpholexical rule suffixes /tu/ ∼ /tǝ/ to the base lexemes to form derived lexemes such as WANNA. These to-derivatives are headed morphological structures, as described by Stump 1994. They inflect on their heads, not their edges; they are synonymous with their bases but have different subcategorization and more colloquial style associations. Various morphological and phonological idiosyncrasies indicate that the derived lexemes are morphologically compound, but their sharing of the lexical idiosyncrasies of the base lexemes show that they contain those bases as heads. All the syntactic phenomena that have been claimed to be relevant to the debate over to-contraction fall into place under the assumptions advocated here, and some new insights emerge, particularly with regard to the 'liberal dialects' where the pronunciation written {\textless}wanna{\textgreater} has a wider distribution than in most American dialects.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2016-07-08},
	journal = {Language},
	author = {Pullum, Geoffrey K.},
	year = {1997},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {79--102},
}

The forms represented orthographically as \textlesswanna\textgreater, \textlesshafta\textgreater, \textlessgonna\textgreater, \textlessgotta\textgreater, \textlessoughta\textgreater, \textlessusta\textgreater, and \textlesssposta\textgreater have standardly been analyzed as involving a syntactic rule or cliticization operation called to-contraction. Occasionally it has been suggested that the forms in question have been 'lexicalized', i.e., WANNA and HAFTA are synchronically distinct lexemes from WANT and HAVE. I argue here that neither approach is correct. The syntactic accounts are wrong to assume that the relation between wanna and want to must be syntactic, and the lexicalization accounts are wrong to assume that there is no synchronic relation: the link is one of derivational morphology. A morpholexical rule suffixes /tu/ ∼ /tǝ/ to the base lexemes to form derived lexemes such as WANNA. These to-derivatives are headed morphological structures, as described by Stump 1994. They inflect on their heads, not their edges; they are synonymous with their bases but have different subcategorization and more colloquial style associations. Various morphological and phonological idiosyncrasies indicate that the derived lexemes are morphologically compound, but their sharing of the lexical idiosyncrasies of the base lexemes show that they contain those bases as heads. All the syntactic phenomena that have been claimed to be relevant to the debate over to-contraction fall into place under the assumptions advocated here, and some new insights emerge, particularly with regard to the 'liberal dialects' where the pronunciation written \textlesswanna\textgreater has a wider distribution than in most American dialects.

@article{bailey_patterns_1993,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@article{bailey_patterns_1993-1,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@book{wolfram_american_2016,
	address = {Chichester, UK},
	edition = {3},
	series = {Language in {Society}},
	title = {American {English}: {Dialects} and variation},
	isbn = {978-1-118-39022-1},
	shorttitle = {American {English}},
	abstract = {"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"--},
	number = {25},
	publisher = {Wiley Blackwell},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Schilling, Natalie},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Americanisms, Americanisms., Dialects, Double comparatives, Embedded inversion, English language, English language -- Dialects -- United States., English language -- Variation -- United States., Fixing to, Liketa, United States, Variation},
}

"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"–

@phdthesis{scott_tense_2015,
	title = {Tense \& {Aspect} {Markers} in {African} {American} {English}.},
	url = {https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/120851},
	urldate = {2020-05-26},
	school = {The University of Michigan},
	author = {Scott, Candice L.},
	year = {2015},
}

@article{broadbent_-contract_2013,
	title = {To-contract or not to-contract? {That} is the question},
	volume = {17},
	issn = {1469-4379},
	shorttitle = {To-contract or not to-contract?},
	doi = {10.1017/S1360674313000142},
	abstract = {The focus of this article is what Anderson (2005: 72) describes as ‘another chronic puzzle in English’, the case of to-contraction. We set out to show that the extent and nature of to-contraction has not been captured by the literature to date, because researchers have been concerned with two forms which are no longer synchronic to-contractions: wanna and gonna, and have taken a syntactic or morphological approach. On the basis of new phonological data from British English varieties we argue that the reduction of /t/ in to should be taken as evidence of to-contraction. We claim that to is a phonological clitic and to-contraction is simply the incorporation of the clitic to into the preceding prosodic word.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-07-08},
	journal = {English Language and Linguistics},
	author = {Broadbent, Judith M. and Sifaki, Evi},
	month = nov,
	year = {2013},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {513--535},
}

The focus of this article is what Anderson (2005: 72) describes as ‘another chronic puzzle in English’, the case of to-contraction. We set out to show that the extent and nature of to-contraction has not been captured by the literature to date, because researchers have been concerned with two forms which are no longer synchronic to-contractions: wanna and gonna, and have taken a syntactic or morphological approach. On the basis of new phonological data from British English varieties we argue that the reduction of /t/ in to should be taken as evidence of to-contraction. We claim that to is a phonological clitic and to-contraction is simply the incorporation of the clitic to into the preceding prosodic word.

@article{smith_history_2009,
	title = {The history of be fixing to: {Grammaticization}, sociolinguistic distribution and emerging literary spaces},
	volume = {25},
	issn = {1474-0567},
	shorttitle = {The history of be fixing to},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0266078409000030},
	doi = {10.1017/S0266078409000030},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTThe be fixing to structure not only has a long and fascinating history but also a highly contemporary presence in Internet communication. The rise of the futurate verbal periphrasis be fixing to + V shows an essentially textbook example of grammaticization, not so different in many ways from the development of be going to. However, there are some important differences too. While be going to has a wide distribution among speakers of Englishes in the world, having much to do with its sixteenth century development and subsequent global diffusion in the colonial period, be fixing to grammaticized in Southern US English in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a fact which resulted in a relatively small circumscribed geographical distribution in its earliest uses.},
	number = {01},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	journal = {English Today},
	author = {Smith, K. Aaron},
	month = mar,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Finna, Fixing to},
	pages = {12--18},
}

ABSTRACTThe be fixing to structure not only has a long and fascinating history but also a highly contemporary presence in Internet communication. The rise of the futurate verbal periphrasis be fixing to + V shows an essentially textbook example of grammaticization, not so different in many ways from the development of be going to. However, there are some important differences too. While be going to has a wide distribution among speakers of Englishes in the world, having much to do with its sixteenth century development and subsequent global diffusion in the colonial period, be fixing to grammaticized in Southern US English in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a fact which resulted in a relatively small circumscribed geographical distribution in its earliest uses.

@article{szmrecsanyi_be_2003,
	title = {{BE} {GOING} {TO} versus {WILL}/{SHALL}: {Does} syntax matter?},
	volume = {31},
	issn = {0075-4242, 1552-5457},
	url = {http://eng.sagepub.com/content/31/4/295},
	doi = {10.1177/0075424203257830},
	abstract = {This study offers a novel account for the variation between the two major syntactic options to express futurity in English, BE GOING TO and WILL/SHALL. The focus of attention, unlike in many previous studies, is chiefly the choice that speakers of American and British English make between future markers with reference to syntactic characteristics of the surrounding text. On the basis of an empirical analysis of spoken data, this study demonstrates that future marker distributions seem to be sensitive to four factors: (1) contexts of negation, (2) contexts of subordination, (3) IF-clause environments, and (4) sentence length. More specifically, there is a positive correlation between syntactic complexity and the likelihood of the occurrence ofBEGOINGTOinstead of WILL/SHALL. The analysis proposes that an issuewith economy and online-processing constraints might be responsible for the sensitivity of future marker distributions to syntactic context.},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2016-07-08},
	journal = {Journal of English Linguistics},
	author = {Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt},
	month = dec,
	year = {2003},
	keywords = {English future markers, Fixing to, Syntax, corpus linguistics},
	pages = {295--323},
}

This study offers a novel account for the variation between the two major syntactic options to express futurity in English, BE GOING TO and WILL/SHALL. The focus of attention, unlike in many previous studies, is chiefly the choice that speakers of American and British English make between future markers with reference to syntactic characteristics of the surrounding text. On the basis of an empirical analysis of spoken data, this study demonstrates that future marker distributions seem to be sensitive to four factors: (1) contexts of negation, (2) contexts of subordination, (3) IF-clause environments, and (4) sentence length. More specifically, there is a positive correlation between syntactic complexity and the likelihood of the occurrence ofBEGOINGTOinstead of WILL/SHALL. The analysis proposes that an issuewith economy and online-processing constraints might be responsible for the sensitivity of future marker distributions to syntactic context.

@incollection{thomas_finna_2014,
	address = {Amherst, MA},
	series = {University of {Massachusetts} {Occasional} {Papers} in {Linguistics}},
	title = {Finna as a socially meaningful quasi-modal and performative in {African} {American} {English}},
	isbn = {978-1-4975-1063-0},
	language = {English},
	number = {43},
	booktitle = {{SULA} 7: {Proceedings} of the seventh meeting on the {Semantics} of {Under}-represented {Languages} in the {Americas}},
	publisher = {GLSA},
	author = {Thomas, Julia and Grinsell, Timothy},
	editor = {Greene, Hannah},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Finna, Fixing to},
	pages = {171--188},
}

@unpublished{thomas_grammaticization_2013,
	address = {Chicago: University of Chicago},
	title = {Grammaticization driven by social meaning: {Considerations} involving finna},
	author = {Thomas, Julia},
	month = apr,
	year = {2013},
	note = {Paper presented at the Conference on Systematic Semantic Change, University of Texas Austin, April 6},
	keywords = {Finna, Fixing to},
}

@article{bailey_patterns_1993,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@article{bailey_patterns_1993-1,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@book{westney_modals_1995,
	address = {Tübingen},
	series = {Linguistische {Arbeiten}},
	title = {Modals and periphrastics in {English}: {An} investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain {English} modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents},
	isbn = {978-3-484-30339-3},
	shorttitle = {Modals and periphrastics in {English}},
	number = {339},
	publisher = {Max Niemeyer Verlag},
	author = {Westney, Paul},
	year = {1995},
	keywords = {English language, Fixing to, Modality, Verb},
}

@article{bailey_patterns_1993,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@article{bailey_patterns_1993-1,
	title = {Some patterns of linguistic diffusion},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1469-8021},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S095439450000154X},
	doi = {10.1017/S095439450000154X},
	abstract = {ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.},
	number = {03},
	urldate = {2016-06-09},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Bailey, Guy and Wikle, Tom and Tillery, Jan and Sand, Lori},
	month = oct,
	year = {1993},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {359--390},
}

ABSTRACTAlthough variationists have explored the diffusion of linguistic changes from one social group to another and from one linguistic environment to another in some detail, they have done much less work on the spatial diffusion of changes. In fact, Trudgill's (1974, 1975) use of Hagerstrand's gravity model to explain in hierarchical diffusion of innovations in East Anglia and Norway was the only systematic account of spatial diffusion in the literature. This article uses data from the random sample telephone survey portion of a Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) to explore the spatial diffusion of linguistic innovations in Oklahoma. It analyzes that data using a variety of techniques of computer cartography and the General Linear Models procedure in SAS. The data clearly show that, whereas some linguistic innovations diffuse hierarchically (as linguists have long contended), others diffuse contrahierarchically, while still others diffuse in complex patterns that show characteristics of both contagious and hierarchical diffusion. An analysis of the barriers to and amplifiers of diffusion suggests that these different types of diffusion are a consequence of the different social meanings that linguistic forms carry.

@article{berglund_semantic_2007,
	title = {The semantic properties of going to: {Distribution} patterns in four subcorpora of the {British} {National} {Corpus}},
	volume = {62},
	shorttitle = {The semantic properties of going to},
	abstract = {In this paper the authors analyse how the intentional and predictive uses of the going to construction can be seen to vary between different types of discourse, as found in BNC Baby, four one-million-word subcorpora from the British National Corpus. Selected collocational patterns of the construction are also examined.As expected, results show that the overall frequency of the construction varies considerably between the text categories examined (newspapers, fiction, academic discourse and spoken conversation). Further interesting findings are made when this difference is put in relation to the predictive vs. intentional uses and the outcome of the collocational analyses. It is shown how the choice of main verb used relates to the distribution of intentional vs. predictive uses. Person and number are also taken into consideration as factors influencing the predictive vs. intentional ratios. Differences in semantic distribution patterns are also observed when gonna is used with respect to going to.},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Language and Computers},
	author = {Berglund, Ylva and Williams, Christopher},
	month = apr,
	year = {2007},
	keywords = {Fixing to},
	pages = {107--120},
}

In this paper the authors analyse how the intentional and predictive uses of the going to construction can be seen to vary between different types of discourse, as found in BNC Baby, four one-million-word subcorpora from the British National Corpus. Selected collocational patterns of the construction are also examined.As expected, results show that the overall frequency of the construction varies considerably between the text categories examined (newspapers, fiction, academic discourse and spoken conversation). Further interesting findings are made when this difference is put in relation to the predictive vs. intentional uses and the outcome of the collocational analyses. It is shown how the choice of main verb used relates to the distribution of intentional vs. predictive uses. Person and number are also taken into consideration as factors influencing the predictive vs. intentional ratios. Differences in semantic distribution patterns are also observed when gonna is used with respect to going to.

@book{wolfram_american_2016,
	address = {Chichester, UK},
	edition = {3},
	series = {Language in {Society}},
	title = {American {English}: {Dialects} and variation},
	isbn = {978-1-118-39022-1},
	shorttitle = {American {English}},
	abstract = {"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"--},
	number = {25},
	publisher = {Wiley Blackwell},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Schilling, Natalie},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Americanisms, Americanisms., Dialects, Double comparatives, Embedded inversion, English language, English language -- Dialects -- United States., English language -- Variation -- United States., Fixing to, Liketa, United States, Variation},
}

"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"–

@article{zeigler_fixing_2002,
	title = {'{Fixin}(g) to': {A} grammaticalized form in {Southern} {American} {English}},
	volume = {26},
	issn = {0730-6245},
	shorttitle = {'{Fixin}(g) to'},
	abstract = {The grammaticality, normativity, auxiliary verb status, \& the lexical history of fixin(g) to are studied. Attestations in the Eastern US are quoted to contest the thesis that fixin(g) to is a Southern American English peculiarity. Following a survey of previous treatments \& lexical classifications of this verbal form, the study focuses on grammaticalization as a mechanism responsible for the development of fixin(g) to. Ingo Plag's (2002) definition of grammaticalization is quoted, \& fixin(g) to is tested for the properties attributed to grammaticalization processes (eg, semantic bleaching, unidirectionality, specialization, decategorization, or gradualness). It is noted that gradualness, as expressed by Frantisek Lichtenberk's (1991) principle of gradual change in function, is most evident in the development of fixin(g) to. The lexical history of the verb to fix \& its phrasal auxiliary form are traced. Paul Hopper \& Elizabeth Closs Traugott's (1993) grammaticalization model proposed for goin(g) to is applied to show the grammaticalization of fixin(g) to. 41 References. Z. Dubiel},
	language = {English},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Southern Journal of Linguistics},
	author = {Zeigler, Mary B.},
	month = apr,
	year = {2002},
	keywords = {American English, Etymology, Fixing to, Grammaticalization, Language History, Regional Dialects, article},
	pages = {28 -- 39},
}

The grammaticality, normativity, auxiliary verb status, & the lexical history of fixin(g) to are studied. Attestations in the Eastern US are quoted to contest the thesis that fixin(g) to is a Southern American English peculiarity. Following a survey of previous treatments & lexical classifications of this verbal form, the study focuses on grammaticalization as a mechanism responsible for the development of fixin(g) to. Ingo Plag's (2002) definition of grammaticalization is quoted, & fixin(g) to is tested for the properties attributed to grammaticalization processes (eg, semantic bleaching, unidirectionality, specialization, decategorization, or gradualness). It is noted that gradualness, as expressed by Frantisek Lichtenberk's (1991) principle of gradual change in function, is most evident in the development of fixin(g) to. The lexical history of the verb to fix & its phrasal auxiliary form are traced. Paul Hopper & Elizabeth Closs Traugott's (1993) grammaticalization model proposed for goin(g) to is applied to show the grammaticalization of fixin(g) to. 41 References. Z. Dubiel

@book{pederson_linguistic_1986,
	address = {Athens},
	title = {Linguistic atlas of the {Gulf} {States}},
	isbn = {978-0-8203-0715-2 978-0-8203-0972-9 978-0-8203-1182-1 978-0-8203-1231-6 978-0-8203-1276-7 978-0-8203-1345-0 978-0-8203-1447-1},
	publisher = {University of Georgia Press},
	editor = {Pederson, Lee and McDaniel, Susan Leas and Bailey, Guy and Bassett, Marvin},
	year = {1986},
	keywords = {English language, Fixing to, Gulf States, Multiple modals},
}