Applying an approach termed “citizen sociolinguistics” offers a unique opportunity to capture a large corpus of naturally occurring language data, especially fleeting interactions. Drawing on citizen science innovations in the natural sciences, citizen sociolinguistics recruits and trains scientists to complete data-related tasks such as data collection. Additional benefits of the approach include inclusivity of diverse speakers and capacity to scale projects. Tested procedures for implementing citizen sociolinguistics are described, ethical challenges are considered, and other potential benefits and limitations to engaging the lay public in scientific research around language use are addressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeebeL.CummingsM.. 2009. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language, eds. GassS.NauJ., 65–86. Berlin: de Gruyter.
2.
BernardH. R.KillworthP.KronenfeldD.SailerL.. 1984. The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology13:495–517.
3.
BonneyR.BallardH.JordanR.McCallieE.PhillipsT.ShirkJ.WildermanC.. 2009. Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. CAISE Public Participation in Scientific Research Inquiry Group. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519688.pdf(accessed December 18, 2018).
4.
BoxerD.1993a. Complaining and commiserating: Exploring gender issues. Text13:371–95.
5.
BoxerD.1993b. Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics19:103–25.
6.
CameronD.FrazerE.HarveyP.RamptonM. B. H.RichardsonK.. 1992. Researching language: Issues of power and method. Routledge library edition: Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge.
7.
CouplandJ., ed. 2000. Small talk. London: Routledge.
GoffmanE.1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
10.
GuerriniC.MajunderM.LewellynM.McGuireA.. 2018. Citizen science, public policy: New research models may benefit from policy modifications. Science361:134–36.
11.
GumperzJ.1967. The relation of linguistic to social categories. In Field manual for the cross-cultural study of the acquisition of communicative competence, ed. SlobinD., 65–81. Berkeley: Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California.
12.
HeissR.MatthesJ.. 2017. Citizen science in the social sciences: A call for more evidence. GAIA—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society26:22–26.
13.
HolmesJ.1986. Compliments and compliments responses in New Zealand. Anthropological Linguistics28:485–508.
14.
HymesD.2004 [1971]. Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking. In Social anthropology and language, ed. ArdenerE., 47–94. London: Routledge.
15.
JanssensA. C. J. W.KraftP.. 2012. Research conducted using data obtained through online communities: Ethical implications of methodological limitations. PLOS Medicine9: e1001328.
16.
JeffersonG.1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems35:418–41.
17.
KieslingS.2014. Dude. American Speech79:281–305.
18.
KosmalaM.WigginsA.SwansonA.SimmonsB.. 2016. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment14:551–60.
19.
LabovW.1972a. Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
20.
LabovW.1972b. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
21.
LabovW.2006 [1966]. The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22.
MeyerhoffM.2016. Methods, innovations and extensions: Reflections on half a century of methodology in social dialectology. Journal of Sociolinguistic20:431–52.
NegrónR.2012. Audio recording everyday talk. Field Methods24:292–309.
25.
PomerantzA.1978. Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, ed. SchenkeinJ., 79–112. New York: Academic Press.
26.
PomerantzA.1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action, eds. AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ., 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
RaymondG.2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68:939–67.
28.
RymesB.AnejaG.Leone-PizzighellaA.LewisM.MooreR.. 2017. Citizen sociolinguistics: A new media methodology for understanding language and social life. In Diversity and super-diversity: Sociocultural linguistics perspectives, eds. De FinaA.IkizogluD.WegnerJ., 151–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29.
SacksH.SchegloffE.JeffersonG.. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50:696–735.
SilvertownJ.2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution24:467–71.
32.
SturtzSreetharanC.AgostiniG.BrewisA. A.WutichA.. 2019. Fat talk: A citizen sociolinguistic approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics23:263–83.
33.
SvendsenB.2018. The dynamics of citizen sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics22:137–60.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
