Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Improving public understanding of language variation and applying research for social benefit are foundational principles of variationist sociolinguistics. Demystifying language variation is critical to challenging dominant language ideologies that prize standardized language varieties and language forms, and perpetuate social inequalities and exclusion. Here, I introduce a new public engagement strategy for promoting sociolinguistic equality, which I define broadly as: the respectful and inclusive treatment of all language users, irrespective of their dialect choices. The new strategy uses research-based drama, specifically verbatim theatre (recorded delivery), to support informal learning about—and foster positive attitudes toward—spoken language variation.

Keywords

verbatim theatre (recorded delivery)sociolinguistic engagement sociolinguistic equality public sociolinguistic education sociolinguistic activism

1. Research-Based Drama and Verbatim Theatre (Recorded Delivery)

Research-based drama is the methodology that dramatizes research data, such as journal entries, ethnographic fieldnotes, or field interviews, in order to entertain, engage, and move audiences (Beck, Belliveau, Lea & Wager 2011). Verbatim theatre is a specific style of research-based theatre-making. Verbatim theatre-makers typically record and transcribe interviews with marginalized or silenced groups on specific issues or events, and use the actual words spoken as their exclusive or primary materials for creating performance pieces aimed at empowering these groups and addressing social injustices; on stage, actors repeat the exact words of the interviewees they play (Paget 1987; Hammond & Steward 2008).

‘Recorded delivery’ is an auditory, paperless mode of verbatim theatre-making. Practitioners select diverse voices and experiences from recorded research materials, and arrange them into dramatic audio-scripts that invite new audience understandings of the political issues explored and/or the social groups portrayed on stage (Anderson & Wilkinson 2007; Garson 2014). The actual language of the source materials is not changed. On stage, actors listen to audio-scripts through headphones. They repeat the audio “like a musician following a score” (Oades 2010:84), replicating—as closely as possible—the real individuals’ exact words as well as the accent, dialect, paralinguistic, prosodic, and disfluency characteristics of their speech (Taylor 2013; Wake 2013; Garson 2014). Actors do not memorize audio-scripts or speak with the recorded individuals. Instead, they ‘trail’ the audio-feed, that is, they repeat it a few beats after hearing it. This technique mitigates the risk of parody or impersonation, and of actors imposing their own speech patterns on the audio-feed (see Oades 2010). No attempt is made to hide the technology that enables recorded delivery; visible headphones are essential elements of the dramaturgy, reminding audiences that the voice materials performed on stage originate in real life.

2. Development of From You to Me

Its commitment to truthfulness, attention to the details of spoken language use, and concern for social justice make verbatim theatre (recorded delivery) an attractive vehicle for promoting sociolinguistic equality. From You to Me is a verbatim production co-developed to explore this opportunity with my ongoing research into the nature and conditioning of language variation among adults aged 70+ in Tyneside, north-east England. On top of age prejudice, participants in this research may experience prejudice because of their vernacular language use. From You to Me sets out to reduce the linguistic and, to an extent, social prejudice. Readers can access a video of the production, supplementary materials, and description of the underpinning research via this link: http://bit.ly/LiLLT.

2.1. Collaboration

Developing research into effective socio-political theatre requires creating an “aesthetically sound, intellectually rich and emotionally evocative” audience experience (Saldaña 2003:220). I partnered with documentary theatre- and verbatim theatre-maker Steve Gilroy, who had the requisite playwriting skills as well as industry knowledge and networks (see Saldaña 2003:229).

2.2. Data Selection

After establishing the suitability of my research for a verbatim production and agreeing its purpose, Gilroy and I developed a vision for the play that would affect audiences’ language attitudes as well as potentially underlying social attitudes. To implement this vision, we had to select materials from some fifty hours of interview recordings—in ways that were sensitive to our respective concerns as researcher and theatre-maker.

The research underpinning From You to Me reveals that Tyneside adults aged 70+ are linguistically diverse, and that this diversity interacts in complex ways with dimensions of social diversity. I therefore pre-selected for inclusion in the play participants who were diverse along relevant social predictors. To guard against portraying only speakers with the most non-standardized or traditional accents and dialects, I also intentionally pre-selected speakers of different degrees of vernacularity. These pre-selections helped ensure sociolinguistic representativeness; they avoided creating caricatures that reinforce linguistic or social stereotypes of older adults and/or invite simplistic links between later-life linguistic and social variation (see Wolfram, Reaser & Vaughn 2008:1111-1112).

Gilroy analyzed the pre-selected data for dominant themes that would advance the aims of the production and resonate with audiences. Mindful of balancing the demands of the research with those of the theatre and audience, he made further selections based on: my academic selection principles; his aesthetic and theatrical criteria for producing impactful socio-political theatre; and our joint commitment to providing an entertaining, informative, and affective audience experience. Final selections were guided by ethical principles: to include only non-identifying materials from consenting research participants.

2.3. Playwriting

Gilroy used interview extracts from thirteen research participants for audio-scripting the verbatim storytelling scenes in From You to Me. He kept the language exactly as recorded. But he recontextualized selected data to construct an audio-script that foregrounds the diversity of research participants’ language use and lived experiences, and invites new understandings of language variation and adults aged 70+. Gilroy also included moments that draw attention to the play’s origins in sociolinguistic interviews, for example, when one character introduces herself as project interviewer and shares how she collected the spoken research data performed on stage. Making audiences believe in the reality of the data is critical to engaging them intellectually and emotionally (Blythe, cited in Hammond & Steward 2008:89; Leavy 2020:287).¹

I used project findings to write text that centers the linguistic research in audience-directed interludes between scenes of verbatim storytelling and in the theatre program. The text validates and explains the use of stigmatized language forms that—as illustrated in the recorded-delivery storytelling—exhibit high frequency and complex social conditioning among the older adult project participants: alveolar (ing)-realizations; discourse marker you know; unsplit foot-strut; and selected localized pronunciations and lexical items.² I tried to make validations intriguing and memorable, for example, by invoking a recent twitterstorm about (ing)-variation, and by likening older adults’ use of you know to adolescents’ widely lamented use of discourse like. As suggested by Wolfram (2013:759), I took care to frame explanations positively and to avoid inadvertently perpetuating linguistic myths (e.g., about ‘letter dropping’), negative stereotypes (e.g., about vernacular language use reflecting poor education), or erroneous impressions (e.g., about dialect death).

2.4. Casting, Rehearsing, and Staging

We cast four actors who were local to Tyneside and possessed good aural acuity and vocal dexterity. This helped anchor performances in the researched community, and stage believable replications of research participants’ accent and dialect characteristics. The four actors played thirteen research participants, necessitating ‘multi-roling’ whereby each actor plays multiple characters (Taylor 2013:372-373). In close accordance with audio-feeds of individual characters’ voice recordings, actors varied their way of speaking across the several characters they each played. Their cross-character linguistic adjustments illustrate language variations observable in the research data. Together with actors’ visible listening to audio-feeds, they also clarify that distinctive language use patterns portrayed on stage are not the actors’ own. I gave the actors detailed guidance for performing the linguistic features they contrast and validate in interludes. Rehearsal time for honing actors’ replication of their characters’ sociolinguistic variations in storytelling scenes was limited due to budget constraints. Actors still demonstrated good levels of replication accuracy.³

A sound technician operated the playback equipment, feeding the audio-script to actors’ earphones via receiver packs on their waistbands. The dependence on technical equipment and multi-roling, and commitment to foregrounding the verbatim research materials governed the simplicity of costume and stage design.

2.5. Marketing

Because of the public nature of the initiative, we issued a press release promoting From You to Me. The resultant local media coverage increased the visibility of the underpinning research, Gilroy and I, and our respective institutions. Our marketing of the play emphasized its local connection and oral history dimension, aiming to attract audiences who may not otherwise have decided to watch a performance focused on language variation.

3. Description of From You to Me

Readers can access a video of From You to Me (see the link in Section 2) alongside my description of how the production exploits theatrical possibilities to pursue the following aims—collectively geared at promoting positive language attitudes.

3.1. Illustrating Language Variation

Careful character selection and arrangement, with skilled recorded delivery, afford audiences a representative illustration of dialect variation among the older adult research participants. In scene 1, for example, all four characters use vernacular or localized language forms. But their choice and relative frequency of forms varies. All characters use open lett er vowels, [ɐ]; but only Ken does so categorically.⁴ All characters use monophthongal face vowels, [eː], typical of northern England; but Richard also regularly uses centering diphthongs, [ɪə], associated with traditional Tyneside English. Only Elizabeth uses clause-final like and the exclamation marker ee. And only Ken—who, with James (scene 3), is situated furthest along the standard-vernacular continuum—also sometimes uses recessive pronunciations, viz nurse-north mergers and [aː] in thought-words; and only he uses localized morpho-syntactic and lexical items such as cannit, nae, dee, gan, knaa (for can’t, no, do, go, know). Inter-character variations are foregrounded by actors’ multi-roling across scenes; Table 1 gives examples of how one actor adjusts her linguistic choices to the audio-feeds of different research participants, including the local and older adult project interviewee-come-interviewer, Brenda. Actors’ recorded-delivery illustrations of later-life dialect variation in Tyneside provide an accessible frame of reference for validating individuals’ variable use of vernacular or stigmatized language forms.

Table 1.

Examples of Actor Jackie Lye’s Audio-Based Cross-Character Linguistic Adjustments.

Variable	Elizabeth (scene 1)	Rosemary (scene 2)	Brenda (scenes 3-4)
lett er	[ɐ], [ə]	[ɐ], [ə]	[ə]
face	[e:]	[e:]	[eɪ]
(ing)	[n]	[ŋ], [n]	[ŋ]
possessives	[mi]	[ma], [maɪ], [mi]	[maɪ]
exclamation ee	√	√	X
clause-final like	√	X	X

The juxtaposition of characters within and across scenes also illustrates the complexities of language variation in this age group (and beyond). Richard (scene 1) and Denis (scene 3) reveal that they both attended selective state-funded secondary schools. They are similar in their non-use of localized lexical and discourse-pragmatic items. But they differ, for example, in their use of (ing): while Denis’s (ing)-realizations are quite variable, Richard uses near-exclusively non-standardized (alveolar) nasals. Brenda and Donald (scene 4) grew up in the same underprivileged Tyneside neighborhood. Donald uses relatively high rates of [ʊ] in strut words, a mix of standardized and localized face and goat vowels, [eɪ] or [e:] and [oʊ] or [o:], and some instances of localized lexical items such as nowt (for not); Brenda, by contrast, uses mostly [ʌ] in strut words, only standardized face and goat vowels, and no localized lexical items. These inter-speaker linguistic differences caution attentive audience members against making rash connections between characters’ social backgrounds (e.g., schooling, upbringing) and their language choices; they invite audiences to consider how different social identities may intersect to impact patterns of social dialect variation.

3.2. Validating Language Variation

In the interludes, the actors first seize audiences’ curiosity about later-life language variation by playfully contrasting competing variants. One actor then addresses the audience with a validation of their use. The actor Jackie Lye, for example, discusses unsplit (and stigmatized) foot-strut. Lye highlights that some characters—like Terry (scene 2)—tend to say ‘custard’ with a foot vowel and others—like her character Brenda (scenes 3 and 4)—with a strut vowel. Crucially, she legitimizes unsplit foot-strut and gives linguistic confidence to its users: “One way of saying [custard] is no better than the other. At the end of the day, it’s all the same pudding.” This is at odds with mainstream language ideologies perpetuated by characters’ schoolteachers, as recalled by Richard in scene 1 (“You boy! [. . .] Get rid of that now! [. . .] That accent. It’ll get you nowhere with a Geordie accent.”) and Christine in scene 3 (“And if you spoke with a Tyneside accent! Well, they soon knocked that out of you.”). By rejecting the idea that non-standardized pronunciations are linguistically inferior, deficient, or inadequate, Lye transcends her role as an actor: she becomes an advocate for sociolinguistic equality and respect in Tyneside.

The temporary distancing from the verbatim storytelling of the play encourages audiences to interrogate their own, possibly unconscious, language biases. The choice to have validations delivered by local actors, between storytelling scenes, and with reference to onstage characters was intentional. First, it ensures linguistic information is presented by community insiders and in the community variety, mitigating potential tensions between my specialist and the community’s ideological perspectives on language (see also Wolfram 2013:759); it also avoids vernacular language use being celebrated in standardized English. Second, anchoring linguistic information with reference to characters heightens its relevance and, potentially, emotive impact. Third, because information is presented as accessible commentary relevant to the drama, it is more likely to be understood, remembered, and impacting audiences’ attitudes.

3.3. Explaining Language Variation

The information in the theatre program reinforces actors’ positive messaging about language variation in interludes. It explains the diachronic development of (ing)-variation and the interactional value of you know, and problematizes the policing and stigmatization of vernacular or localized language forms such as unsplit foot-strut. It makes information relevant to the local community, for example by noting that stigmatization of [ɪn] for <ing> disproportionately affects individuals in Tyneside where this variant is particularly frequent. My motivation to share the additional information in the theatre program was to preclude the performance from becoming overly didactic, and to promote language variation beyond the theatre.

3.4. Redressing Social Attitudes

Language attitudes cannot be improved without also redressing social attitudes (see Rickford 1999:272; Bucholtz 2018:351). The affective storytelling in From You to Me provides snapshots of characters’ lived experiences, opening audiences to new ways of seeing and thinking about older adults. Ken’s wife (scene 1), Elizabeth (scene 1), and Rosemary (scene 2), for example, differ in health, independence, connectedness, and lifestyle (see Table 2). Their lived realities illustrate older adults’ functional and social diversity; they disrupt dominant stereotypes of later-life uniformity (see Palmore 2001), and raise social consciousness. Despite being of similar age and socio-economic background, Denis and James (scene 3) had very different career trajectories and educational opportunities: engineer with a Master’s degree (Denis); laborer with no qualifications (James). They are also located toward opposite ends of the standard-vernacular continuum. Their juxtaposition illustrates and raises empathetic awareness of the—potentially language-related—inequalities experienced by research participants. The play’s potential to address linguistic and social attitudes bolsters its capacity for advancing its socio-political agenda.

Table 2.

Onstage Illustration of Later-Life Functional and Social Diversity.

Diversity dimensions	Ken’s wife (scene 1)	Elizabeth (scene 1)	Rosemary (scene 2)
health	has dementia	n/a	n/a
independence	is cared for by her husband	lives independently	n/a
connectedness	n/a	feels lonely & isolated	is member of a knitting group & book club
lifestyle	can no longer travel	n/a	does yoga, pilates & abseiling

4. Potential of From You to Me

Verbatim productions created with autobiographical speech recordings can combine different voices and experiences into a representative linguistic and social collage aesthetic (see Anderson & Wilkinson 2007). In From You to Me, the recorded delivery method and careful character selection offer auditory impressions of later-life dialect diversity and social portrayals of Tyneside adults aged 70+ that—while necessarily selective—may be more realistic than those accessible to audience members in their own—possibly limited—everyday interactions with (other) older adults. Because the collage composition showcases a spectrum of characters with no leading roles, no voices or experiences are foregrounded over others; all language choices—standardized and vernacular—and all lived realities—individual and shared—are given equal status and legitimacy. This helps foster linguistic equality and social respect for all older adults in Tyneside. Importantly, recorded delivery illustrations of linguistic variation are anchored in the social and emotional worlds of characters’ narratives. According to verbatim practitioner Robin Soans (cited in Hammond & Steward 2008:21-25), characters’ personal narratives confer on audiences a responsibility of care. This responsibility may make audiences more receptive to the normalization of language variation advanced in From You to Me, and more inclined to reassess their own internalized language—and social—prejudices.

By transmitting auditory and affective dimensions of sociolinguistic research data, the recorded delivery practice enables audiences to experience speech variations and be moved by characters’ storytelling (see also Blackledge & Creese 2022). In From You to Me, actors’ use of recorded delivery illustrates dimensions of language use that are difficult to represent in writing to non-linguists (e.g., split versus unsplit foot-strut), or whose utility cannot be easily conveyed on paper (e.g., high-frequency use of you know for common ground management). Recorded delivery helps elucidate usage patterns that sociolinguists seek to validate and explain, likely enhancing the effectiveness of public sociolinguistic education which is contingent for its success on audiences’ clarity over the nature of such usage patterns. The transmission in the play of suprasegmental features provides insight into characters’ emotional states (Cosmides 1983); it helps engage audiences emotionally and encourages their empathetic understanding toward adults aged 70+ (see Ray 2007; Leavy 2020). By affecting how audiences think and feel about older adults, the play fosters social attitude change toward them; it delivers the co-requisite for changing language attitudes.

Central to recorded delivery performances is listening: actors rely on listening to replicate audio-scripts and to enable audiences to listen too (see Wake 2013:331-332). In From You to Me, listening gains prominence in scenes 3 and 4 where one actor plays the project interviewer, Brenda. Brenda’s interviewer role entailed demonstrating—through minimal responses and follow-up questions—active listening. When she re-enacts this role, the actor listens to the audio-script in order to perform Brenda’s attentive and empathetic listening as well as to model the act of listening for audiences. Verbatim theatre-maker Roslyn Oades (cited in Wake 2013:332) argues that watching actors’ active listening on stage brings audiences into a “heightened state of listening.” Their heightened listening may augment audiences’ aural sensitivities to onstage illustrations of accent and dialect variations, and pique their curiosity for—and, potentially, receptiveness to—my professional validations and explanations for these variations. And it may enrich sociolinguistic activism in other ways too. In From You to Me, listening to experiences of adults aged 70+ through the mouths of younger actors (aged 48-65) may disrupt how individuals normally listen to older adults; the cross-casting may challenge linguistic and social stereotypes and preconceptions (see Blythe, cited in Hammond & Steward 2008:98) in pursuit of sociolinguistic equality.⁵

Crucially for the visibility and vitality of the discipline, From You to Me promotes variationist sociolinguistics by improving audiences’ understanding of its methods, aims, and applications. The onstage project interviewer illustrates how naturalistic speech data are collected through informal interviewing and attentive listening. The recorded delivery technique establishes listening as a scientific method of data analysis. The playful illustration of competing variants at the start of interludes and the juxtaposition in storytelling scenes of linguistically and socially diverse characters demonstrate the key steps and aims of data analysis: isolating variable language features; identifying their co-variants; establishing their social conditioning. The validations and explanations for (later-life) language variation in the interludes and theatre program show the critical need for variationist research: to address language-related inequalities. Through their immersive and attentive listening, audience members themselves become interviewers and data analysts. And if convinced by the play’s arguments, they may themselves become outspoken advocates for dialect variation and dialect variation research.

5. Audience Evaluations of From You to Me

Between autumns 2021 and 2022, From You to Me was performed eight times across five Tyneside venues and to over 400 people. 158 written audience evaluations from early work-in-progress performances provide initial endorsement for verbatim theatre’s potential to affect language and social attitudes and to interest public audiences in sociolinguistic research.

Audiences (strongly) agreed that From You to Me has the capacity to improve understanding of dialect variation (88 percent) and to change attitudes to language variation (63 percent) and adults aged 70+ (86 percent). The strongest theme to emerge from open comments was how the collage effect provided a compelling, fascinating, and eye-opening illustration of the extent of accent and dialect diversity in Tyneside. The linguistic interludes were flagged by many respondents as the highlight—praised for their informative, value-neutral, and fun explanations for dialect variations illustrated on stage, and deemed by some to promote sociolinguistic equality. Several audience members also conceded that the empathy they developed for characters challenged their language prejudices. Most comments also conveyed a sense of enjoyment and curiosity.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, not all feedback was positive. One audience comment that non-standard language use “will certainly not instil respect” is evidence of deep-seated bias against vernacular language users. It should not distract from the potential of From You to Me but remind us of the importance of sociolinguistic engagement.⁶

6. Concluding Practical Tips

Sociolinguistic engagement for promoting language awareness and challenging language prejudice has taken many forms, including (among others): trade books, comics, exhibitions, documentaries, and podcasts. Verbatim theatre is a new addition to this toolkit. Its potential to address both linguistic and social attitudes will appeal to sociolinguists who research linguistically and socially stigmatized and/or marginalized groups. To facilitate uptake, I conclude with tips for future initiatives. While framed in the context of verbatim theatre, my points about fair pay, free access, and responsible conduct apply more widely.

• Immersion in the verbatim literature is beneficial for generating ideas for a production, including for centering the linguistic research.

• Industry standards for rates of pay must be strictly followed; in the UK, the Independent Theatre Council publishes relevant guidance.

• Budgeting should include dedicated rehearsal days for coaching actors’ accurate replication of sociolinguistic variations.

• Free entry to performances affirms the discipline’s commitment to equity, and will increase audience numbers and reach.

• Even with consent in place, giving research participants the opportunity to approve their onstage portrayals before productions premiere to the public is advisable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the editors, David Bowie and Claudia Claridge, the anonymous reviewers, Andrew Gordon, and Emma Whipday for constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. Thank you to Steve Gilroy for writing and directing From You to Me, to Alphabetti Theatre for producing it, and to the rest of the creative team for making it all happen. A big shout-out to my theatre and performance colleagues at Newcastle who offered advice and insight at various stages of the project: Kate Chaddock, Zoe Cooper, Helen Freshwater, James Harriman-Smith, Jo Robinson, Emma Whipday. And an enormous thank you to the older Tyneside adults interviewed for my research and portrayed in the play.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by Newcastle University (UK), Northumbria University (UK), the AHRC Being Human Festival, and the ESRC Festival of Social Science.

ORCID iD

Heike Pichler

Notes

Author Biography

Heike Pichler is a Reader in Sociolinguistics at Newcastle University, UK. She has published widely on discourse-pragmatic variation and change, and currently leads the “Language in Later Life on Tyneside” project, which explores the social conditioning of language variation and change in later life.

References

Anderson

Michael

Wilkinson

Linden

. 2007. A resurgence of verbatim theatre: Authenticity, empathy and transformation. Australasian Drama Studies 50. 153-169.

Beck

Jamie L.

Belliveau

Georgie

Lea

Graham W.

Wager

Amanda

. 2011. Delineating a spectrum of research-based theatre. Qualitative Inquiry 17(8). 687-700. doi:10.1177/1077800411415498.

Blackledge

Adrian

Creese

Angela

. 2022. The potential of ethnographic drama in the representation, interpretation, and democratization of sociolinguistic research. Journal of Sociolinguistics 26(5). 586-603. doi:10.1111/josl.12546.

Bucholtz

Mary

. 2018. White affects and sociolinguistic activism. Language in Society 47(3). 350-354. doi:10.1017/S0047404518000271.

Cosmides

Leda

. 1983. Invariances in the acoustic expression of emotion during speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology 9(6). 864-881. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.9.6.864.

Garson

Cyrielle

. 2014. Remixing politics: The case of headphone-verbatim theatre in Britain. Journal of Contemporary Drama in English 2(1). 50-62. doi:10.1515/jcde-2014-0005.

Hammond

Will

Steward

Dan

. 2008. verbatim verbatim: Contemporary documentary theatre. London: Oberon Books.

Leavy

Patricia

. 2020. Methods meets arts: Arts-based research practice. 3rd edn. London: Guilford Press.

Oades

Roslyn

. 2010. Headphone verbatim and audio scripting. In Brown

Paul

(ed.), Verbatim: Staging memory and community, 84-87. Sydney: Currency Press.

10.

Paget

Derek

. 1987. ‘Verbatim theatre’: Oral history and documentary. New Theatre Quarterly 3(12). 317-336. doi:10.1017/S0266464X00002463.

11.

Palmore

Erdman

. 2001. The ageism survey: First findings. The Gerontologist 41(5). 572-575.

12.

Ray

Ruth E.

2007. Narratives as agents of social change: A new direction for narrative gerontologists. In Bernard

Miriam

Scharf

Thomas

(eds.), Critical perspectives on ageing societies, 59-72. London: Policy Press. doi:10.51952/9781847422392.ch005.

13.

Rickford

John R.

1999. The Ebonics controversy in my backyard: A sociolinguist’s experiences and reflections. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(2). 267-266. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00076.

14.

Saldaña

Johnny

. 2003. Dramatizing data: A primer. Qualitative Inquiry 9(2). 218-236. doi:10.1177/1077800402250932.

15.

Taylor

Lib

. 2013. Voice, body and the transmission of the real in documentary theatre. Contemporary Theatre Review 23(3). 368-379. doi:10.1080/10486801.2013.806318.

16.

Wake

Caroline

. 2013. Headphone verbatim theatre: Methods, histories, genres, theories. New Theatre Quarterly 29(4). 321-335. doi:10.1017/S0266464X13000651.

17.

Wolfram

Walt

. 2013. Language awareness in community perspective: Obligation and opportunity. In Bayley

Robert

Cameron

Richard

Lucas

Ceil

(eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 754-772. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28007/chapter/211783935.

18.