This is just an update following the meeting I had with Alison on Wednesday. Don't worry if you couldn't make it, I took notes and have all the info!
Basically, there are a few key points that we have to focus on to make the investigation better:
1. Alison mentioned that all kinds of social factors (apart from gender) have an effect on hedging, and she thinks it's going to be very difficult for us to focus completely on hedging... For instance, if the data comes up with no differences between sexes, it's interesting, because it shows that Lakoff was perhaps wrong, BUT it does'nt give us much to report back on...
INSTEAD, Alsion suggested that maybe we should do the studies, transcribe them, and THEN look for differences. So basically, let the differences come to us instead of searching for them. I think this is a good idea, and although we have done work on hedging, etc. I think it would still work, and we can mention the problems and changes in the methodology.
2. Another thing Alison mentioned, was the fact that we really need to think about the relationship we have with the informer and how this is affecting the language.. I don't think it's a big issue, but we should talk about it next time we meet.
Apart from these two points (which look quite massive, but aren't really that bad!) she said that it's going well and we should just carry on the good work!
Thanks for this ZOsia! Searching for what's there *after* we've transcribed is a good idea (this sounds like Conversational Analysis that Livi and I are doing in Talk and Text (I think), where you focus on what's actually present without any preconceptions) and then am I right that after we've done *our* observations of the differences we'd still compare them to Lakoff?
ReplyDeleteDid Alison have any comments on which was preferable re. the relationships: whether a stronger one was preferable or not? Or yeah, we can just mull it over between us and decide on what we think is most preferable. (Think we decided on a 'friendship' level of knowing the participants when we revised the GLA but that can change.)
Sounds like pretty good feedback and that we're nearly all ready to get collecting our data. Zosia are you away for all of reading week? What about everyone else? I'm here so might be good to meet up if anyone else is and then we can report back to everyone else?
Glad you're continuing to make progress. Just to clarify a couple of things:
ReplyDeleteYes, there are some similarities with CA - well spotted! - but you don't necessarily have to use a 'strong' CA approach. I'm just suggesting that your question is less 'Do the females who've given us data use more hedges than the males?' and more' Are there patterned differences in the data given to us by males and by females, and if so, what are they?' A subsidiary question could then be: 'If there are clearly patterned differences, how far do they correspond with the features identified by previous researchers (including Lakoff)?'
On the point about relationships, I just want you to recognise that because people don't simply produce monologues, all interactions, including research interviews, involve the 'interpersonal' dimension (see pp 63-4 of the textbook), so that it's very likely that your informants will behave at least slightly differently when they interact with different interlocutors. So while it's very sensible to try to keep the level of relationship the same across all the data collected, in reality there are many different ways in which even people in the category of 'friends' interact. This kind of issue is always a challenge in collecting authentic spoken data, and you don't need to abandon your plans, but you do need to be aware of what the issue is, to avoid drawing unwarranted conclusions - that's all!
Hope this helps!