The ‘Observer’s Paradox’

1. The ‘Observer’s Paradox’ Labov (1972:209) ‘the aim of linguistic research in the community must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain these data by systematic observation.’

2. Solution 1 ‘Various devices which divert attention away from speech’ ‘This can be done in various intervals and breaks which are so defined that the subject unconsciously assumes that he is not at the moment being interviewed’ (Labov 1972: 92)

3. Informed consent • Research should not involve deceiving the participants • The University Ethics Policy states that, although in some cases it might be argued that fully informing the participants might affect results, and that, e.g. some psychological experiments require the true purpose to be kept from participants, such research should be avoided

4. Solution 2 • The ‘danger of death’ question: ‘Have you ever been in a situation in which you were in serious danger of being killed?’ • ‘Often he becomes involved in the narration to the extent that…signs of emotional tension appear’ (1972: 92)

5. Researchers should minimise the harm and inconvenience caused to participants

6. Ethical solutions • No longer engaged in a quest for the ‘true’ vernacular • Methodologies developed which avoid deception and give control back to participants • Greater emphasis on ethnographic methods (in sociolinguistics)

7. References • BBC Voices http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/ • Labov, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns Oxford: Blackwell • Llamas, C. (2007) A new methodology: data elicitation for regional and social language variation studies. York Papers in Linguistics: 138-163