The Manchester Voices Accent Van: taking sociolinguistic data collection on the road

Rob Drummond; Holly Dann; Sarah Tasker; Sadie Durkacz Ryan

doi:10.1515/lingvan-2022-0050

Artikel

The Manchester Voices Accent Van: taking sociolinguistic data collection on the road

Rob Drummond , Holly Dann , Sarah Tasker und Sadie Durkacz Ryan

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 14. November 2022

Veröffentlicht von

Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Manuskript einreichen Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet

Aus der Zeitschrift Linguistics Vanguard Band 8 Heft 1

Abstract

This article details the methodology behind the Manchester Voices Accent Van, and the accompanying online Virtual Van. In 2021, the project travelled around Greater Manchester in a van converted into a mobile recording booth, asking people to climb aboard and take part in an unsupervised interview about language and identity in the region. Participants could also take part from their own home through a bespoke website, called the Virtual Van, which asked the same interview questions as the physical Van and recorded speakers through their computer/phone microphone. With a view to informing others who might want to use similar methods in the future, we present a detailed description of the methodology here, as well as an overview and sample of the data collected. We conclude with a reflection on the elements of the data collection that went well, and a discussion of improvements and considerations for future research using this methodology.

Keywords: community; data collection; language variation; remote data collection; sociolinguistics

Corresponding author: Rob Drummond, Manchester Metropolitan University, Grosvenor East 5.21, M15 6BH, Manchester, England, E-mail: R.Drummond@mmu.ac.uk

Article Note: Due to the nature of data processing, the data will be made openly available in a timely manner following publication. Details of the data availability are available from Manchester Metropolitan University’s research repository at https://doi.org/10.23634/MMU.00630878

Funding source: Arts and Humanities Research Council

Award Identifier / Grant number: AH/S006125/1

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Erin Carrie for her work on the Manchester Voices project in the early stages. We are also extremely grateful for the supportive and constructive comments made by two anonymous reviewers, whose suggestions have made this a far stronger article. Finally, we would like to thank all the people of Greater Manchester who took the time to share their voices, opinions and stories in The Accent Van or the Virtual Van in 2021 and 2022. Without them, the project wouldn’t exist.

Research funding: This research is part of the Manchester Voices project, which was generously funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Project Grant: AH/S006125/1.

Appendix

The interview consisted of 14 questions and an optional structured elicitation task. First, there were two introductory questions. The second of these was important, as while this strand of the project was open to anybody who lives in Greater Manchester, it was useful to know if somebody had lived in the same location for most of their lives.

Tell me something about yourself. For example, what’s your name and how old are you?
Tell me a bit about where you grew up, and where you live now.

Question 3 explored people’s attitudes towards the concept of “Greater Manchester”, to determine whether people from different demographics tended to identify more with the historic county that their borough would have been part of prior to 1974.

How do you feel about the name ‘Greater Manchester’? Do you use it? Or do you prefer another name for your part of the country?

Questions 4, 5 and 6 asked for people’s thoughts on their local area, the people in it, and how it compared to other areas of Greater Manchester.

How do you feel about your local area within Greater Manchester? Is it a good place to live? Is there anything unique about it?
How would you describe the people that live in your community?
What do you think of other parts of Greater Manchester? Which areas and people are similar to yours, and which are different?

Questions 7, 8 and 9 explicitly asked about participants’ own speech and how it relates to both the region, and to other people. Question 9 attempted to gather linguistic examples.

How would you describe the way you speak – your accent and dialect?
Is your accent typical of where you are from? How does it compare to the accent of your family and friends?
Do you think people can tell where you are from in Greater Manchester by the way you speak? For example, are there any pronunciations, words or grammar you use that are typical of where you live?

Questions 10, 11, 12 and 13 tried to explore the relationship between accent and identity beyond that of region. Question 11 asked participants to consider situations in which they might style-shift, and question 12 invited examples of prejudice.

Do you think they can tell anything else about you by the way you speak?
Do you think you speak differently in different situations and with different people? If so, in what ways?
Do you think the way you speak has ever caused you any problems? Or perhaps it has worked in your favour?
Do you think the way you speak is linked to who you are? If so, in what ways?

The final question simply asked how people feel about the way they speak.

Do you like the way you speak? Would you ever want to change it?

Adult participants were given all 14 questions in the same order, and they could see how far along they were by looking at the progress bar at the bottom of the screen (Figure 4). For participants under the age of 16, question 3 was removed, as it was felt that children might not be aware of the concept of Greater Manchester. Questions 4 and 9 were also adjusted to remove the term “Greater Manchester”, and Question 6 was removed on the basis that children were less likely to know a lot about the different areas.

References

Anderson, Anne H., Miles Bader, Ellen Gurman Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, Simon Garrod, Stephen Isard, Jacqueline Kowtko, Jan McAllister & Jim Miller. 1991. The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech 34(4). 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099103400404.Suche in Google Scholar

Boyd, Zac, Zuzana Elliott, Josef Fruehwald, Lauren Hall-Lew & Daniel Lawrence. 2015. An evaluation of sociolinguistic elicitation methods. In Proceedings of ICPHS 2015. Glasgow.Suche in Google Scholar

Cardoso, Amanda Beth. 2015. Dialectology, phonology, diachrony: Liverpool English realisations of PRICE and MOUTH. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD Thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, Lynn, Helen MacGougan, Jen Hay & Liam Walsh. 2016. “Kia ora. This is my earthquake story”. Multiple applications of a sociolinguistic corpus. Ampersand 3. 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2016.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Dann, Holly. 2019. Productions and perceptions of BATH and TRAP vowels in Cornish English. Sheffield: University of Sheffield PhD Thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Fromont, Robert & Jennifer Hay. 2012. LaBB-CAT: An annotation store. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop, 113–117. University of Otago.Suche in Google Scholar

Hall-Lew, Lauren, Claire Cowie, Catherine Lai, Nina Markl, Stephen Joseph McNulty, Shan-Jan Sarah Liu, Clare Llewellyn, Beatrice Alex, Zuzana Elliott & Anita Klingler. 2022. The Lothian diary project: Sociolinguistic methods during the COVID-19 lockdown. Linguistics Vanguard 8(s3). 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0053.Suche in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006576.Suche in Google Scholar

Leemann, Adrian. 2021. Apps for capturing language variation and change in German-speaking Europe: Opportunities, challenges, findings, and future directions. Linguistics Vanguard 7(s1). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0022.Suche in Google Scholar

Leemann, Adrian, Péter Jeszenszky, Carina Steiner, Melanie Studerus & Jan Messerli. 2020. Linguistic fieldwork in a pandemic: Supervised data collection combining smartphone recordings and videoconferencing. Linguistics Vanguard 6(s3). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0061.Suche in Google Scholar

Niedzielski, Nancy A. & Dennis R. Preston. 2003. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Ryan, Sadie Durkacz, Holly Dann & Rob Drummond. 2022. “Really this girl ought to be going to something better”: Rhoticity and social meaning in oral history data. Language in Society. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404522000215.Suche in Google Scholar

Rymes, Betsy & Andrea R. Leone. 2014. Citizen sociolinguistics: A new media methodology for understanding language and social life. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 29(2). 25–43.Suche in Google Scholar

Sneller, Betsy, Suzanne Evans Wagner & Yongqing Ye. 2022. MI Diaries: Ethical and practical challenges. Linguistics Vanguard 8(s3). 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0051.Suche in Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 1990. The dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Walsh, Liam, Jen Hay, Derek Bent, Jeanette King, Paul Millar, Viktoria Papp & Kevin Watson. 2013. The UC QuakeBox Project: Creation of a community-focused research archive. New Zealand English Journal 27. 20–32.Suche in Google Scholar

Zellou, Georgia, Michelle Cohn & Bruno Ferenc Segedin. 2021. Age- and gender-related differences in speech alignment toward humans and voice-AI. Frontiers in Communication 5. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.600361.Suche in Google Scholar