Talk:Apparent-time sociolinguistics

Good job on this page! It is definitely much more informative than the current Apparent-time hypothesis page. On that note, I think you should combine the two pages into one. Other than that, perhaps you should move the last sentence of the introduction into the Methodology section so that the introduction is more succinct. That sentence may also help explain why apparent-time studies are cross sectional studies in the methodology section. Under the Validity section, what do you mean to point out with the Comparison to real-time subsection? I'm not sure what you're trying to say in regards to the validity of apparent time studies. Some other things I noticed: I hope these comments are helpful to you! Jtnh (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Compare with real-time studies, which are examples of longitudinal studies." I think this is strange to say on a Wikipedia page, and it also cuts off the flow of the methodology section.
 * At the end of the methodology section, you have a citation for Chambers that you might have missed. The source is also not listed in the References. (There is another one in the Merits section.)
 * Sentences/phrases that need revision:
 * "The results showed reveals that..." (Montreal French section)
 * "Canadian linguist J.K. Chambers, writing in 2002, has cited an example of the application of the apparent-time hypothesis." (Canadian [wh] study section <-- shouldn't these brackets be parentheses?)
 * "Point of interest in the Martha's Vineyard study, conducted by William Labov in 1961, were the linguistic variables (ay) and (aw) in the speech of the islanders." (Martha's Vineyard Study section)

Good job, much better than the current one, as said above! I think that overall, the Validity section needs the most work in order to clarify some of the points made. Good luck! Artichoke666 (talk)
 * One issue is the citations: you use parentheses at the end of paragraph where wiki pages usually use ref tags.
 * "linguistic variants" in the methodology section doesn't link to anything.
 * "Validity" is an odd section name, in my opinion. The subsections are somewhat unclear to me, especially the merits one because I am not sure what you are referring to when you compare it to real-time. Also in the criticisms sections, the sentence about the "lack of indicators" and language change is hard to understand.
 * Might be helpful to have a graph in the Canada study as it's a lot of info.
 * Sentences that need revision:
 * "gathering data at one point in time or analyze data from historical linguistics": should be "or analyzing data" (merits section)
 * "The results showed reveals that": should be "show" or "reveal" or "displayed reveal" (montreal english section)

As pointed out in the above comments, there are some little copy errors. Your intro is also a little choppy. I want to note that you say "individual" and then "one's." You want to change this so that your antecedent agrees. Also, you say that there are "several" reasons and then only list two. The page could benefit from a little more copy editing, but overall good job! Efgoodrich (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Something that jumped out at me about this page is that you seem to use Apparent-Time Sociolinguistics (should that be in all caps?) and Apparent-Time Hypothesis interchangeably. It seems to me that the former refers to any aspect of sociolinguistics that uses an apparent-time assumption as a basis while the latter refers to a specific theory. I also was a bit confused by some of your examples and case studies. I feel the Montreal English example in the "Comparison with real-time sociolinguistics" didn't completely explain the comparison between the two methodologies besides the fact that both were used. A clarifying sentence or two would be helpful. I also was not totally sure how the Maison study and Martha's Vineyard study fit into things. They're interesting examples, but it wasn't totally clear whether they were there to offer more information about the apparent-time hypothesis, make the theory clearer, or suggest some sort of complicating factor. I think all you really need though is a couple sentences tying it all together to make a great page. Frannieu12 (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment that this page seems to use apparent-time sociolinguistics and apparent-time hypothesis interchangeably. You should clarify the difference, as well as hyperlinking the apparent-time hypothesis page in the Introduction. I think it may be helpful to readers not familiar with sociolinguistic study methods to bring up the concept of apparent time studies being cross-sectional studies in the introduction, rather than immediately delving into the assumptions behind the hypothesis. I would fix this sentence “The results reveal that, while some age-correlated lexical variables show stability over speakers' lifetimes, suggesting ongoing change, others show a change in progress over speakers' lifetimes" under Montreal English because it sounds choppy and a bit unclear. By making it clear, you would solidify the importance of the study and its implications because right now, the example seems a bit disconnected from your page. Solid start! Yaylinguistics (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well done overall- the structure and content are very clear, and the concepts are accessible even for someone with no background in sociolinguistics. There are quite a few pieces of awkward prose, which I think could easily be remedied by re-reading and editing again. A few things that struck me: in the first section, you may want to say that apparent time hypotheses is "contrasted with" real-time studies, instead of compared with. Also, in the Canadian wh-study section, there is one sentence referring to the "deltas" between the oldest and youngest age groups that was somewhat unclear. This seems like just a matter of editing though, as the content itself is well explained and understandable Tinydancer.egreen (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this page is supposed to be a redone version of the Apparent-Time Hypothesis page or not, as to me, it seems as though the two pages and subjects are pretty similar. If they are supposed to be different, perhaps make it more clear exactly how that is. If they are the same, perhaps you should merge the two pages and/or delete the first one. One thing that struck me as somewhat unclear was the last little paragraph under Methodologies where you say, "Data gathered from real-time sociolinguistics studies can also be used for..." etc. Maybe you should explain how apparent-time data is used as a surrogate for real-time data and why, as well as what you mean by diachronic linguistic developments. Good work! EmmaKylie (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I liked this page a lot! One comment I have is that in the "Canadian Study" section, you talk about an s-shaped curve. Maybe you want to include a picture of what the curve looks like because it is so important in the field of linguistics. Also, you switch back and forth between "apparent-time sociolinguistics" and "apparent-time hypothesis" which is a little confusing. I would recommend using one or the other especially in the "validity" section where the sub-sections use different terms. Other than that I felt as though the page was easy to follow and organized well. As stated above, there were some minor copy errors but those are easily fixable. Sydneyelder (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with what was said above about the need to clarify the difference between apparent-time sociolinguistics and apparent-time studies.
 * “Apparent-time sociolinguistics” is meant to be capitalized in the middle of a sentence.
 * In your first sentence, the word “sociolinguistic” seems redundant. The blurb at the beginning could benefit from some refining.
 * I would recommend reading through your prose and checking for things like extraneous commas, inconsistencies, and other small grammatical errors. For example, sometimes you say “data is” and other times “data are.”
 * There is no need to hyperlink to a page more than once.
 * Age-graded variation is mentioned earlier on in the page, but it is only explained when it is mentioned again at the very end.
 * Overall, wonderful and informative page! I thought it was organized very well. AnnaCG93 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope the group that created this page would not be offended by my following comments.
 * First, as pointed out by several other people, the wording of the page is a little redundant. For example, "In the case of apparent-time studies, surveys are conducted in a population across a broad age range, in order to investigate the linguistic variants across a broad age spectrum." There's no need to repeat the 'broad age spectrum/range' within one sentence. Additionally, the second sentence in the introduction took me a while to understand. I would suggest that the group rephrase "a reflection of speech patterns acquired during language learning as a child." Also in the intro paragraph, the content after "therefore" is then said to be the "assumption" of Apparent-time sociolinguistics might be a little counterintuitive.
 * In addition to the grammatical problems mentioned above, this page could also improve on the content. I feel that, as a Wikipedia page on Apparent-time sociolinguistics, it should include more merits of such a research method. In my opinion, the downsides of Real-time sociolinguistics should not appear in the 'Merits' section.
 * The group might also consider adding more references to the page.
 * One last comment, as I saw someone pointed out that there's already an 'Apparent-time hypothesis' page, I went to check out that page out of curiosity. However, I found out that one of the three body paragraphs is exactly the same as the "Canadian 'wh' Study" section. I'm wondering whether the group could explain why this might be the case. Danleiseveny (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

GvargasLing150 (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Excellent page! The content is informative, the examples clear, the layout aesthetically pleasing, and subject matter useful. There are a few hiccups (easily corrected). I also have a question about the sentence "Canadian linguist J.K. Chambers, has cited an example of the application of the apparent-time hypothesis." Do you mean that Chambers uses the apparent-time hypothesis or that Chambers refers to a study in the apparent-time hypothesis is used?

Thank you for the page! Thank you, again. I hope my comments are useful. (Cueva:anana (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Methodology: Awesome I think. Straightforward. Concise.
 * Validity: Well-Organized. In “Criticisms”, were there any scholars who explained in detail why the data was insufficient to make claims of actual language change in progress? In “Comparison to Real-Time”, the following sentence was a little confusing: “The results reveal that, while some age-correlated lexical variables show stability over speakers' lifetimes, suggesting ongoing change, others show a change in progress over speakers' lifetimes”. I think the confusing part is that the difference between “ongoing change” and “change in progress” is not as clear as it could be. The following sentence, also, I would suggest a very minor change: “However, the nature of individual change is generally found to be not the rejection....”. Instead of “to be not”, I think “to not be” might be a construction that gives more fluidity to the sentence. In this ‘Comparison to RT’ section, I am still wondering if a Wikipedia user will be able to take the results and understand how they are significant with relation to ‘real-time studies’. Maybe an additional sentence to make that clear might help.
 * Case Studies: I really enjoyed reading about the Maison study.
 * Also, I, too, am wondering why there are two separate pages for what can be called “Apparent-time Hypothesis”.

Hope my suggestions don't seem too nitpicky! Drbazzi (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Having this article and the Apparent-time hypothesis page is redundant; they should be merged.
 * In Wikipedia, the section header/subheader names should be uncapitalized (except for the first word).
 * "Merits of Apparent-Time Sociolinguistics" and "Criticisms of the Apparent-Time Hypothesis" could be shortened to "Merits" and "Criticisms", respectively.
 * I don't think "Apparent-Time Sociolinguistics" (or "Apparent-Time Hypothesis") should be capitalized.
 * In the first sentence of the intro, change "his" in "throughout his lifetime" to "one's"/"his or her"/"their".
 * I find it strange that the "Comparison to Real-Time Sociolinguistics" section only contains an example study? You could do one of the following: (a) flesh out the section by providing a more general explanation before discussing Montreal French, (b) move the Montreal French study to the "Case studies" section, or (c) discuss the Montreal French study in the other sections as an argument of the apparent-time hypothesis's merits/weaknesses.
 * I think an image of an example study done in apparent time would also help illustrate the concept.
 * I think you did a good job with the example studies.

Nice page. A few things: Good job overall. Elizalinguistics (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Methodology: In the first paragraph, I think "at one point in time" instead of "at a certain point in time" would be better here. It emphasizes the difference between apparent-time studies and real-time studies. For the second paragraph, you mention surveys and interviews, but then only talk about surveys.  Is there supposed to be a difference between the two?
 * Validity: In the first subsection, real-time studies do not have to involve the very same participants. Sociolinguists could just be resurveying the same population or speech community from the first study. For the second subsection, I think you should give a short explanation of age-graded variation for clarification.
 * I agree with the above comment that the bit on ongoing change and change in progress was a little confusing.
 * Interesting case studies.

Great page! I like how it clearly distinguishes apparent-time and real-time approaches. The introduction paragraph is very "clean" and informative at the same time. I also like the case studies a lot. Some minor suggestions: I agree that it would be helpful to include a graph showing the "age-stratified variation" in the beginning, probably at the methodology section. Also, in the methodology paragraph, it says, "age-stratified variation is assumed to reflect the ages at which members of the population learned language", (maybe "the language"?) I think it would be nice to specify the "age" --presumably adolescence--as when the language is solidified or become stable, instead of the point of "learning". Hope that's helpful! And again, well done! Crfrances (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright! I'm once again late to the party everyone! I think the others have made grammatical suggestions, and I'd just reccommend checking your citations, and using hyperlinks, particularly when merging the pages. You all should also try to explain a little more about the circumstances of the studies, though ya'll have done a good job on them as a whole. Is there anyway you could add more about the Chambers study? You all did great on this page though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzajaka (talk • contribs) 08:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good job on your page! You did an especially nice job with making this page wikipedia-friendly: lots of hyperlinks and short, easy-to-read sections. However, your major page divisions seem a bit unbalanced. Methodology and Validity are both a bit short in comparison to the other sections. In addition, these two sections seem to address similar ideas. Combining them into one section would prevent needless repetition and allow you to present the pros and cons of the approach up front. Also, can you be a little clearer about the exact methodology of apparent-time work? That section seems a bit vague. Perhaps a sentence or two of examples would help. Really great work! Kdinatale (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)