Talk:Real-time sociolinguistics

Comments on initial version of page

This section is reserved for UC Berkeley Linguistics 150 comments. Drbazzi (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, this page is well-organized and easy to follow. I would just recommend a few small changes: (1) your hyperlinks are excellent, but don't link to the same page twice within the article. The first mention of a term is the only one that needs a hyperlink. (2) in the section on the return to the department store study, you say that Macy's replaced S. Klein, because Klein went out of business. Do you mean that the researchers studied only Saks' and Macy's, or did the researchers find another Macy's location comparable to Klein? (3) some sentences could be rewritten, especially in the advantages/disadvantages section, which was a bit difficult to follow. Perhaps bullet points would help? Kdinatale (talk)

Sorry, it should be "May's", not "Macy's"! Typo. Drbazzi (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• This page is generally clear and straightforward in explaining what Real-Time Sociolinguistics is. While the organization of the sections serves to illustrate the topic pretty well, the content could at times be too general and abstract. Also, suggesting that 'resurveys could solve the limitations' of using existent evidence seems a little subjective(biased against the method of using existent evidence). I agree with the previous comment that the Advantage-Disadvantage section could be rewritten to be more concise. Then, in the examples, I think there could more analytical comparisons between later studies and the earlier counterpart. Only stating that Blake and Josey found different pattern and that Jennifer Pope found the same pattern as that found by Labov is not very convincing. Maybe there could be some clarifications on the relationship between the examples and the significance of Real-Time Sociolinguistics. --Danleiseveny (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think you all did a really good job outlining this concept. I really liked the organization of the Approaches and Methodologies section and I think the Advantages and Disadvantages were well thought out. I also think that the studies you chose and the way that you explain them do a great job of illustrating the principle that you're trying to explain. However, I do think that the introduction section seems a bit disjointed. I think the issue comes from the second paragraph/sentence, which breaks up the flow. I also think the Advantages and Disadvantages sections could benefit from being a bit clearer. The main points in these sections get a bit lost in the writing. Frannieu12 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nice job, everyone! I really liked the categories you used to structure your page. I also enjoyed that first diagram; it helped me visualize how these methods compare :D In general, the diction and style for the writing seemed appropriate for a wikipedia page (concise, not overly academic), but in some of the latter sections, the prose felt a bit too casual (or speculative) to me. ("Dramatic change in the demographics of a community will likely have a big effect on linguistic patterns.") Some specific suggestions for you guys...
  • "A theoretical model of language change is then built based on the distribution of the linguistic variable across age groups in a speech community." -- Specifiy which of the two research methods this applies to, in order to not confuse the reader.
  • "Resurveys can solve the limitations that may arise from using existing evidence. The two primary types of resurveys are trend surveys and panel surveys." -- You might consider moving these sentences to the "Resurvey" sub-section.
  • "External factors (e.g. social, stylistic) could also motivate a linguistic change in a demographically unstable community instead of internal, linguistic factors." -- Please elaborate on this; the relevance or scope of what you included in the parentheses might not be immediately clear to readers.
  • "These studies are not affected by demographic change because they examine change in the speech of individuals, but they are affected by age-grading, and the individuals in the sample may move or die." -- Perhaps rephrase? This feels like a run-on sentence to me.
  • Perhaps hyper-link to the "Apparent Time Hypothesis"?
  • There were some repetitive sentences in the "Disadvantages" section.
  • Maybe explicitly categorize each example study based on the particular method used.

This article is off to a good start! Danielle.a.bells (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the page! I occasionally had trouble following a few sentences. Here are a few suggestions.

• • I. Overview:
    • “Real-time sociolinguistics (is in contrast) to apparent-time sociolinguistics, which surveys different generations of a population at one point in time.” (Perhaps an Alternative: “contrasts with”)
    • “A theoretical model of language change (is then built) based on the distribution of the linguistic variable across age groups in a speech community.” (Perhaps an Alternative: “Herein,...... is built.....”)
  • II. Approaches and Methodologies:
    • “ Resurveys can solve the limitations that may arise from using existing evidence. The two primary types of resurveys are trend surveys and panel surveys.” (Suggest perhaps this information be dispersed into the next two sections within this section.)
    • Diagram helpful.
    • “The methodology of using existing evidence involves the comparison of a new study to a previous one (or to some other form of evidence).” (ambiguous; perhaps more elaboration into what that can consist of?)
    • “ These studies are not affected by demographic change because they examine change in the speech of individuals, but they are affected by age-grading, and the individuals in the sample may (move or die).” (Perhaps an Alternative: “Although these studies..... they are affected by age-grading and the relocation or decease of individuals in the sample”)
    • Also, under panel studies, does the research you found mention the time range for panel studies thus far in the field of sociolinguistics?
  • III. Advantages and Disadvantages
    • “Linguistic differences between generations emerge as the result of aging rather than language change. (transition)Therefore, apparent time sociolinguistics studies do not definitively indicate that linguistic change is underway in a given speech community.” (The logical transition between these two sentences is not explicitly apparent. I was a little confused by them).
    • “In this case of rapid change, real-time study methods are more favorable over (apparent-time methods) because the change is more easily detected and is documented in smaller, discrete increments.” (Is it possible to very briefly mention what the “methods” of apparent-time hypothesis consist of to contrast them more clearly with real-time study methods, which you mention can also vary within real-time studies?)
    • “There is less motivation (because of “university practice of ) rewarding more quickly achieved publications rather than ‘research in progress”.” (the section in parenthesis sounds a bit awkward and prompts me to reread; suggest paraphrasing perhaps?)
    • “ A speech community may change over time (because of speakers dying or moving away), or social conditions may change.” (I also suggest reconsidering that in parentheses. 3rd paragraph under “Disadvantages”.) User: Cueva:anana

• I think overall this is a pretty clear page which lays out the concepts in a nice organized manner. It was very easy to understand the various types of studies and how they relate to each other, especially the advantages and disadvantages. Also, good job keeping that sounding objective/unbiased. One thing that I found awkward, however, was the introduction. It doesn't read smoothly and is rather choppy and disconnected. Thank you for a great page! - Sabrinadleong (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I really like your tone; it’s very simple and easy to understand and consistent with the Wikipedia style. Even though you hyperlinked to longitudinal studies at the beginning, I think you should make it clear that this involves tracking the same people. Also, I would recommend deleting the little introductory paragraph at the beginning of the “Approaches and methodologies” section. It seems self-explanatory. I loved the hyperlink to age-graded variation! :) AnnaCG93 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is a good page. I thought it was very easy to follow and understand. I liked the use of the chart in the "Approaches and methodologies" section because i think you elaborated and explained the chart well. I agree with the comment above about deleting the introductory paragraph at the beginning of the "Approaches and methodologies" section since it is self-explanatory and overkill, with both the graph and the explanations underneath.Sydneyelder (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great page! I thought the overall organization of the page was fantastic and it was super easy to follow! I would, however, restructure the introduction and state that that real-time sociolinguistics contrasts apparent-time sociolinguistics earlier on. The second paragraph in the introduction could potentially go at the end of the section. It would also be useful to have an image/graph of what this would look like at the top of the page. I liked how you guys bolded the terms trend survey and panel survey. The advantages/disadvantages section has a lot of words-- it might be worth bullet pointing them and then listing underneath a more detailed explanation. Also, great job hyperlinking! MildlyImpressed (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nice job! This is a really informative page. In the Approaches and Methodologies section, the first introductory statements are a bit unnecessary as you talk about them again in the two subsections. Under Uses of Existing Evidence you say, "...and the methods of the studies could have differences too." This sounds a little strange. Maybe elaborate on how the methods could differ or reword the sentence to make it sound more academic. I really like the Advantages and Disadvantages section and how clear it is. I also think you go into just the right amount of detail about the Example Studies. Good work, you guys! EmmaKylie (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well done. The page is very straightforward. Your explanation of the differences between "use of existing evidence" and resurveys is very clear. The examples are short, but sweet. Suggestions: remove some of the wording that is more appropriate for essays. For the disadvantages section, did anything come up about Labov's "Observer's Paradox?" It might be related to this topic, especially if populations under certain circumstances are being "reobserved". Jeffbutters (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• GvargasLing150 (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)I am impressed with the images. This page is easy to read, as others have said, because you present the information and don't add any fluff. The placement of the images only makes the page easier to read. I feel like I can understand this topic a bit more now.

• Great job, I loved the first picture, that showed the research options for studying language change! I thought overall, the structure was good, but the disadvantages/advantages section was a bit wordy, as other users have said. Also, putting an overview sentence on this section may help, to explain why you are going into detail on advantages/disadvantages (since this is not done in the age-graded variation page). And subheadings or bullet points within these sections would work well.Jenn.bi (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very clear intro; it's very concise and easy to understand. I like that the weaknesses of the methodologies are included. Overall, very clear descriptions, and easy to understand. Small nitpick: I think it would be better to rename your second section, "Advantages and Disadvantages" because your subsections are already titled that and it's redundant. — Preceding catclaw.nymf comment added by 2602:306:326F:A300:614F:E221:E8CB:DCCE (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent outline of the topic of real time sociolinguistics, guys! I agree that maybe the comparison with apparent time sociolinguistics should be more connected to the introductory paragraph. Very good job explaining the studies, though I am curious about more restudies that aren't based off labov studies. Sociolinguistics isn't necessarily ruled by him, you know. I appreciated the conciseness of the page, but noticed a lot of redundancy, and similarly written sentences in your secondary section. Also, I generally agree that each subsection should have a sentence or two explaining the main point of this section, because people don't always read wiki pages in detail. These are honestly pretty small issues though. Nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzajaka (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Great job! I like the structure and your writing especially in the explanation of the studies. I also agree with some people's comment on the redundancy in certain parts, and that maybe in the introduction paragraph you could immediately mention that real-time sociolinguistics is in contrast with apparent-time sociolinguistics. This is so that the second paragraph could be naturally introduced as a further explanation. Another option is to just cut out that one-line definition of apparent time approach, because a hyperlink would be sufficient in my opinion. I think the advantage/disadvantage part is a little long and as others have mentioned, I think it would be nice to rename this section as well. But overall this is a great page! Thanks :) --Crfrances (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• A very informative introduction to real-time methodologies in sociolinguistics. Both Danielle.a.bells and Cuevas:anana have some very good editing suggestions that I suggest you consider carefully, as do other commenters, in smaller quantities :).
  • I think it is important that you make clearer what motivates real-time studies, i.e. the fact that the apparent time hypothesis is not 100% reliable. This doesn't really come up until the 'Advantages' section, where real-time studies are framed as tests of the apparent time hypothesis (but this is not the only reason why people may be interested in carrying out real-time studies). This suggests that the 'Advantages' (and hence the 'Disadvantages') section should be move before the 'Approaches and Methodologies' section. This latter section is currently a bit of a non-sequitir, and may benefit from the contextualization that a change in order would confer.
  • The paragraph on apparent time studies before the ToC seems a bit too detailed for the intro.
  • I think you might want to consider introducing subsections into the Advantages and Disadvantages sections. At present, they are big blocks of prose, and apart from breaking the prose up, I think introducing explicit section breaks would lead you to think a bit more about the topical/conceptual organization of these sections, which would probably be helpful.
  • One thing that real time studies, especially panel studies, have helped demonstrate is linguistic change throughout the lifespan, a result with quite significant theoretical consequences. It would be good to make this clearer, perhaps by reference to Sankoff&Blondeau's work on Montreal French.
• A very good start.Ldmanthroling (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Great page. I was just wondering about the sentence "One such study was a Renée Blake and Meredith Josey’s 2003 study, in which they performed a more “detailed instrumental acoustic analysis” of the variable (ay)." What exactly is meant by "more detailed instrumental acoustic analysis", what did they do differently than Labov and Pope? Sahara2005 (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

great page, very informative and well-cited. easy to follow and understand. Some restructuring of sections may be useful, as discussion above details. good job! M.karie (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I realize my comment from last night never submitted. There is a focus on resurveys on your page and I'm wondering whether you could include more information on other types of real time studies. I do not know that there is more information out there, but if there is, it would be helpful to include it. Efgoodrich (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent job on creating this well-cited and well-organized page! I could imagine that some subsections of the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections would be useful to some, but the information is presented so clearly otherwise. Well done! Warrenmcbieber (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)