Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Apparent-Time Analysis× | Matched-Guise Technique× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Językoznawstwo | Językoznawstwo |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 1963 | 1960 |
| Twórca≠ | William Labov | Wallace Lambert and colleagues |
| Typ≠ | Inferential design for detecting language change in progress | Indirect experimental measure of language attitudes |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19(3), 273–309. DOI ↗ | Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51. DOI ↗ |
| Inne nazwy | Apparent-Time Construct, Apparent-Time Hypothesis, Age-Stratified Change Analysis | Matched Guise Test, Matched-Guise Experiment, Language Attitude Matched Guise |
| Pokrewne≠ | 4 | 2 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | Apparent-time analysis is the foundational variationist method for detecting language change in progress without waiting for time to pass. Introduced by William Labov in his 1963 study of Martha's Vineyard, it compares the speech of speakers of different ages sampled at a single moment and treats the age dimension as a proxy for historical time: if younger speakers use a variant more than older speakers, that age gradient is read as evidence of change unfolding across generations. The inference rests on the apparent-time hypothesis — that an individual's vernacular is largely fixed in adolescence and remains stable through adult life — so that the speech of today's seventy-year-olds reflects the community norms of roughly fifty years ago. | The matched-guise technique is an indirect experimental method for measuring attitudes toward languages, dialects, and accents. Developed by Wallace Lambert and colleagues in 1960, it has the same bilingual or bidialectal speaker record the same passage in two or more language varieties ('guises'); listeners, believing they are hearing different speakers, rate each recording on personality and status traits. Because the voice, content, and delivery are held constant, any differences in the ratings can be attributed to listeners' attitudes toward the variety itself. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|