Although dialectology was among the first disciplines to use the survey as a research tool, dialectologists, unlike researchers in other social sciences, have done little work in assessing the effects of their survey methods on their results. This paper attempts to begin a dialog on the effects of methods on results in dialectology by comparing results from five surveys which overlap both in their geographic coverage and in some of the linguistic information they elicit. The surveys differ in their methods of administration (face-to-face interviews vs. telephone interviews), sample construction (purposive vs. random), and the kinds of data they elicit (observations of behavior vs. self-reports). Our comparison of the different surveys shows that while different modes of administration have little effect on results, even slight differences in survey populations affect results significantly, as does the kind of data elicited. Surprisingly, self-reports seem to reflect the linguistic behavior of a population for some features better than observations of behavior do. The effects of the type of sample used are not clear from this study, although random samples have the advantage of explicitly accounting for sampling error and allow for a wide range of inferential statistics that cannot be used with purposive samples. Finally, the comparison suggests that there is no single 'best' type of survey. Different research problems require different kinds of surveys. What is important is that samples not be constructed in haphazard ways and that we explicitly take into account the effects of our methods on our results.
2004. Real and Apparent Time. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ► pp. 312 ff.
Bailey, Guy
2017. Field Interviews in Dialectology. In The Handbook of Dialectology, ► pp. 284 ff.
BAILEY, GUY, JAN TILLERY & CLAIRE ANDRES
2005. SOME EFFECTS OF TRANSCRIBERS ON DATA IN DIALECTOLOGY. American Speech 80:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
Benson, Erica J.
2009. Everyone Wants In. Journal of English Linguistics 37:1 ► pp. 28 ff.
Benson, Erica J.
2012. Need + Prepositional Adverb in the Midland. Journal of English Linguistics 40:3 ► pp. 224 ff.
Buchstaller, Isabelle
2006. Diagnostics of age‐graded linguistic behaviour: The case of the quotative system1. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
Buchstaller, Isabelle
2016. Investigating the Effect of Socio-Cognitive Salience and Speaker-Based Factors in Morpho-Syntactic Life-Span Change. Journal of English Linguistics 44:3 ► pp. 199 ff.
BUCHSTALLER, ISABELLE, KAREN P. CORRIGAN, ANDERS HOLMBERG, PATRICK HONEYBONE & WARREN MAGUIRE
2013. T-to-R and the Northern Subject Rule: questionnaire-based spatial, social and structural linguistics. English Language and Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 85 ff.
Clarke, Sandra
2006. Noozornyooz?: The Complex Construction of Canadian Identity. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 51:2-3 ► pp. 225 ff.
Cukor‐Avila, Patricia & Guy Bailey
2013. Real Time and Apparent Time. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ► pp. 237 ff.
Dollinger, Stefan
2012. The Written Questionnaire as a Sociolinguistic Data Gathering Tool. Journal of English Linguistics 40:1 ► pp. 74 ff.
2012. The Application of the Quantitative Paradigm to Historical Sociolinguistics: Problems with the Generalizability Principle. In The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, ► pp. 61 ff.
Jr., William A. Kretzschmar
2004. Vingt années de l’American Linguistic Atlas Project. La Bretagne linguistique :13 ► pp. 383 ff.
Kirey-Sitnikova, Yana
2021. Prospects and challenges of gender neutralization in Russian. Russian Linguistics 45:2 ► pp. 143 ff.
KRETZSCHMAR, WILLIAM A.
2003. LINGUISTIC ATLASES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. The Publication of the American Dialect Society 88:1 ► pp. 25 ff.
MURRAY, THOMAS E. & BETH LEE SIMON
2002. AT THE INTERSECTION OF REGIONAL AND SOCIAL DIALECTS: THE CASE OFLIKE+ PAST PARTICIPLE IN AMERICAN ENGLISH. American Speech 77:1 ► pp. 32 ff.
Saddhono, Kundharu & Wido Hartanto
2021. A dialect geography in Yogyakarta-Surakarta isolect in Wedi District: An examination of permutation and phonological dialectometry as an endeavor to preserve Javanese language in Indonesia. Heliyon 7:7 ► pp. e07660 ff.
Strelluf, Christopher
2020. needs+PAST PARTICIPLE in regional Englishes on Twitter. World Englishes 39:1 ► pp. 119 ff.
Takano, Shoji
2021. Lifespan “Changes from Above” in the Standardization of Japanese Regional Dialects: Levels of Grammar, Lexical Properties and Community Characteristics. Language Variation and Change 33:3 ► pp. 297 ff.
Tillery, Jan & Guy Bailey
2003. Approaches to Real Time in Dialectology and Sociolinguistics. World Englishes 22:4 ► pp. 351 ff.
TILLERY, JAN, GUY BAILEY & TOM WIKLE
2004. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND AMERICAN DIALECTOLOGY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. American Speech 79:3 ► pp. 227 ff.
Tillery, Jan, Tom Wikle & Guy Bailey
2000. The Nationalization of a Southernism. Journal of English Linguistics 28:3 ► pp. 280 ff.
VON SCHNEIDEMESSER, LUANNE
2000. LEXICAL CHANGE, LANGUAGE CHANGE. American Speech 75:4 ► pp. 420 ff.
[no author supplied]
2003. References. In Sociolinguistics, ► pp. 231 ff.
[no author supplied]
2013. Designing the study. In Sociolinguistic Fieldwork, ► pp. 17 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.