Hi Lou,
1. I was addressing Jean's specific question:
>do we want to record people without their knowing (even on trivial matters) ?
I am of course aware that many other factors
affect what one says and how one says it. But
surely each variable needs to be isolated so that
we can try to assess its specific contribution?
2. re your point:
>The BNC spoken part is full of evidence to
>refute the implied concern that such knowledge
>makes the recordings thereby inauthentic or
>linguistically uninteresting.
I didn't say either 'inauthentic' or
'linguistically uninteresting'. I merely asked
whether knowing about recording beforehand might
alter the discourse content or style.
The data might be very relevant - and totally
authentic - for someone researching the effect of
nervousness or audience-awareness on speech
patterns.
How can we do research on this if we don't have
examples of both 'knew beforehand' and 'didn't
know beforehand' recordings?
3. also re the same point:
>The BNC spoken part is full of evidence to refute the implied concern
Can you please give me some references? I am
genuinely interested in this area, but wasn't
aware of any recent publications. Thanks.
Best
Ramesh
At 10:55 am +0100 12/5/05, Lou Burnard wrote:
>There's no doubt that knowing one is being
>recorded affects what one says -- but so do many
>many other factors, such as the person one is
>talking to, the time of day, what one had for
>breakfast and so on. The BNC spoken part is full
>of evidence to refute the implied concern that
>such knowledge makes the recordings thereby
>inauthentic or linguistically uninteresting.
>
>However, this point seems somewhat removed from
>the ethical and legal issues which are being
>discussed in this thread. For those with access
>to the French language, I warmly recommend
>reading the draft "Guide to Good Practice"
>announced here a couple of days ago:
>http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/Guide_Corpus_Oraux_2005.pdf
>
>Lou
>
>Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
>>Hi Jean
>>
>>>Beyond legal aspects, there are also ethics
>>>issues. Even if some countries allow this
>>>(which I am not sure), do we want to record
>>>people without their knowing (even on trivial
>>>matters) ?
>>
>>But if people know beforehand that they are
>>going to be recorded, might this not alter
>>what they say and their way of saying it?
>>
>>Surely asking their permission afterwards -
>>after they have listened to the recording, if
>>they
>>are worried - should not be rejected as a possible ethically-sound policy?
>>
>>After all, CCTV operates in many public spaces
>>without asking anyone's permission
>>beforehand....
>>
>>Best
>>Ramesh
>>
>>At 8:45 am +0200 12/5/05, Jean Veronis wrote:
>>
>>>Cameron Smart a écrit :
>>>
>>>>participants aren't necessarily aware of the
>>>>recording taking place. Several
>>>>people struck a very cautionary note, one even saying that, in the UK at
>>>>least, these types of corpora might be a
>>>>thing of the past unless I went and
>>>>got explicit permission not only from the volunteer but every other person
>>>>who was recorded as well.
>>>>
>>>The law may be different in different
>>>countries. In France the situation is clear,
>>>you cannot record, and worse yet re-distribute
>>>anybody's voice and/or transcribed speech
>>>without explicit authorisation, even if
>>>anonymity is guaranteed.
>>>
>>>Beyond legal aspects, there are also ethics
>>>issues. Even if some countries allow this
>>>(which I am not sure), do we want to record
>>>people without their knowing (even on trivial
>>>matters) ?
>>>
>>>--jv
>>> http://aixtal.blogspot.com
-- Ramesh Krishnamurthy Lecturer in English Studies School of Languages and Social Sciences Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK Tel: +44 (0)121-204-3812 Fax: +44 (0)121-204-3766 http://www.aston.ac.uk/lss/english/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 12 2005 - 13:06:45 MET DST