And:
>> Bingo - you've hit the nail on the head. So how do we gather data against
>> this kind of background? If we could present a really well-founded
>> data-set, then it would be a break-through to demonstrate that WG can
>> reflect all the details and subtleties.
>
>I've been thinking about how to get the data. For large numbers of
>informants, say 150, I'd have to ask mainly first year undergrads,
>but there's too great a risk that they'd be either too prescriptive
>or too permissive, depending on the sort of instructions they're
>given. Consequently it seems better to rely on a detailed study of
>the idiolects of a few individuals. What do you think?
## Why not both? Labov, who as far as I'm concerned is the world expert on
matters of data-collection methodology, recommends multiple methods as a
kind of 'triangulation'. One serious methodological problem is that the 2BE
pattern is primarily spoken, so it would be much better to present the
examples in speech - e.g. on a tape recording - even if you also provide a
transcription. I think my preferred method would be to distribute a
transcription of a tape recording, play the tape and ask the subjects
simply to mark anything in the transcription that they thought unusual. If
they miss 2BE and focus on other curiosities you have your answer. In a
one-to-one you might even be able to miss out the transcription, allowing
the subject to stop the tape at any point where something funny happened.
Richard (= Dick) Hudson
Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London,
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.
+44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108;
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm
|