Talk:Curvilinear principle

[Untitled]

This is a good start. Two suggestions off the top off my head: 1) De-orphanize the page; and 2) Include some variable vs. class plots so that readers can better appreciate the 'curvilinear' aspect of the patter. Ldmanthroling (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw, did you also create the 'change from below' page and link to it? If so, nice move. Ldmanthroling (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is well done and mostly written clearly. The Results section seems to me the only one you would that could use some re-phrasing: "The new and vigorous changes--the focal point of the study--displayed the strongest curvilinearity and most clearly encompassed the linguistically innovative nature of the inner classes." The end is just a little too flowery -- probably because it's hard to say the same thing a bunch of times. Also, I tend to think that graphs are a necessity for this page, since the name of the principle has to do with graphs. Good work though, very accessible. Efgoodrich (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Very nice page! I like how simply everything is laid out. Can you give more detail about how the curvilinear principle is an answer to the embedding problem? I think I understand the connection you're making, but it isn't immediately clear. Also, a graph showing the curvilinear pattern for each of the studies you cite would be nice. Kdinatale (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Great page! I agree with the previous posts about inserting graphs to help visualize the data. A vowel plot in the Methods section showing the vowels that are being discussed might be helpful too. Also, is "Results" in the second paragraph of the Results section supposed to be capitalized? Otherwise, I thought the writing was clear and I liked that you included the Philadelphia Telephone Study in conjunction with the main study. Elizalinguistics (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Very solid page, Curvillinear principle people. Inserting graphs is important, but also be sure to explain those graphs. I think you could add in a little more about how the curvillinear principle is a solution to the embedding problem. The page makes a great deal of sense, but it needs a little more relationship building between the principles and the studies themselves. graphs are one way to address that problem. Also possible is a brief preface to the studies section explaining why they were constructed in such a way.Hamzajaka (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Hamza

Great job on this page! It's really informative and easy to read understand! One thing that seems odd is that there is no graph representing this principle. I would suggest adding a simple graph and then give a short explanation of why it represents the curvilinear principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarisaRussell (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well-written and very easy to follow. I appreciated the organization of the article, and felt as though it followed a natural progression through the Philadelphia study to the telephone study, which helped illustrate your points nicely. I do think that there could be an added section about the curvilinear principle as it relates to the embedding problem, since this seems to be one of the main explanatory benefits of Labov's findings. Tinydancer.egreen (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Very organized and well-written page. My one comment about content would to maybe go more in depth about the embedding problem that was mentioned in the introduction of the page. You guys briefly mentioned it in a one sentence explanation, but it could probably use to have it's own section before going into detail about the studies. Also, a graph that actually shows the curvilinear principle would be helpful, with a short explanation of the graph to go along with it. Other than that I thought the flow of the page was very natural and easy to follow.Sydneyelder (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was a really well done page. I like how you organized the content. My only recommendation for organization would be to put the curvilinear graph closer to the top of the page. Since the concept gets its name from the visual representation of the graph, I think the graph should be included in the pre-Contents section of the page. One other thing that confused me a bit was your "Other Factors" section. The sentence on adolescents' use of innovative forms seemed out of place. Either that, or it lacks an explanation of why this would be considered an error if Labov was considering age as a possible influencing factor of language change.Frannieu12 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is easy to follow because of how it is organized and how it is written. I definitely agree with everyone else that all the information you present on the studies would tie in with the topic of the page if you included class plots. Use the graphs to explain the studies and vice versa. Besides that though, everything seems great! Jtnh (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the page is clear and easy to follow. I notice that others are suggesting an expansion on how the Curvilinear Principle (CP) can be seen as a response to the embedding problem. I cannot find a page for the framework for investigating linguistic change that was proposed in Weinreich et al. (1968). However, much like your group created a page for change from below(/above too?), I think creating (and linking) a page/stub discussing that framework will be valuable to Wikipedia Users. I imagine this [framework] page can be linked to a section where you discuss implications of the CP (e.g. the embedding problem and perhaps the social network theory— a section I imagine can later be linked to Week 9 group’s Soc. Net. & Lg. Ch. page). Also, I recall that Professor Michael mentions that the CP results are “robust”. I was wondering if your group found any other studies pertaining to the CP that did not discuss the linguistic variation within an English-speaking community, but rather a community of speakers of another language. I think that would also help convey the magnitude of sociolinguistic studies resulting in curvilinear graphs. Other than that, because it is customary to do so, I would recommend that your group continue to read and refine the writing of your page until your group is content with its clarity, coherence, and comprehensiveness. And thank you for creating the page! [Cueva:anana] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cueva:anana (talk • contribs) 05:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this page is effective in terms of its thoroughness and its accessibility to readers who may not have a background in sociolinguistics. Here are my specific thoughts/suggestions...

• I appreciate the depth of discussion of the structure, methodology (good to include the Observer's Paradox), and results of the Philadelphia study, but I think (as another classmate mentioned) that the section on other factors/error (and, correspondingly, their relation to the Philadelphia Telephone Study) could benefit from further explanation.
• In terms of formatting, I wonder if there might be a way to rename the last two sub-sections of the Philadelphia Study section? "Other factors" seems a bit awkward given that this sub-section involves information that could be included in the previous sub-sections. (I think there is an extra space before this sub-section.) Similarly, it might be effective to rename the final sub-section "Experimental Error" (or something along those lines) because, at first, I found myself wondering why this study wouldn't get its own header if it was a separate study. Perhaps this is just a matter of smoothening the transition from the Philadelphia Study to the Philadelphia Telephone Study?
• The use of "inner classes" struck me as a little awkward (although it was clarified in the last two sentences of the results section): consistency in diction might be helpful. ("Intermediate" was used in the introduction.)
• I really like the idea that was mentioned of including research on other language communities (if available), and if it is the case that you add more studies, perhaps you can say in the introduction that a host of sociolinguistic research substantiates the curvilinear principle (just so readers know what the bulk of your wiki page consists of).
• Given our discussion in lecture today, perhaps link to a wiki page on socioeconomic class?
• I might make two small changes in the following sentence: "That is, the field workers attempted to create an environment *in which* the speaker would speak informally (*naturally*?)."

Thank you for creating the page :) Looking good! -- Danielle.a.bells (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I like how the introduction is laid out. I like the way you address the principle's relationship to sociolinguistic questions. However, the style reminds me of an essay, and not so much like a wiki article. There's a lot of "Labov V-ed", but that's already implied because it's his study and it's sourced anyway. Also, as a few people have already mentioned, more graphs to accompany the studies would definitely be better, just overall. I also agree with previous comments on restructuring "Other Factors" and "Philadelphia Telephone Study". Overall, I think that changing the wording and adding more detail would definitely tighten up the readability of the page. Catclawnym (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice page! In the intro paragraph sentence "The principle indicates who drives language change rather than the causes behind it," you may want to change "indicates" to another verb because the sentence is a bit awkward and not quite clear. Organizationally, you may want to make the intro a bit more brief and general, then add another section after the contents box that goes into more detail about what the curvilinear principle actually is. That way you can also address in more detail how the curvilinear principle answers the embedding problem. It was a little jarring that the first section on the page was The Philadelphia Study, which is a specific example. It may be beneficial to include a section that talks about the principle itself. That being said, the sections on the examples, especially the Philadelphia study, are nicely written. They are thorough, clear and well-organized. Maybe make the graph a little bigger so people can read the axes, to better illustrate what you have written. Yaylinguistics (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent page! The introduction is clear and concise and the information is, by and large, clearly presented. I do have one question. In the introduction, does Labov conclude that change "originate from the central classes" or "originate from the most central classes"? It might seem like a moot point, but I'm curious. I'd like to echo others' comments by saying I would prefer the graph representing the Curvilinear Principle be towards the beginning. I clicked on the Curvilinear link and did not see the graph I expected to see, but rather a graph more commonly seen in Statistics. I'd also suggest that the title of the page include (Sociolinguistics) for the sake of clarity. Again, excellent page. You've done your homework! GvargasLing150 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Great page! I thought the style of writing was very clear and concise, and the page was easy to understand. Good job on your organization too! I agree with what was stated above: it would be beneficial to have more graphics to explain this principle. There is a graph for a specific study, but not for the general principal. AnnaCG93 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a really well constructed page that provides a clear and extensive explanation of the Curvilinear Principle. The structure of the page facilitates easy understanding by feeding progressively more detailed information, such as the formation of the studies, development of the theory, and extra examples. The prose of the page is also outstanding, concise and well to-the-point. I find it particularly interesting and surprising that the middle class drives linguistic changes also because of their central geographical location within communities.

The group is very thorough in explaining how Labov eventually created the principle after several well-rounded studies, which allowed him to eliminate potential bias and errors that might distort the results. Yet, I am not sure why the adolescents in the initial survey might bias the result. Are they overly represented in the subject group? Another question is about the last study presented. The change in pronunciation of the mid-back vowel (oh) is said to be led by the middle group, who use a higher vowel than the exterior groups. Isn't the traditional(non-variant) pronunciation of the vowel in 'caught' middle? I thought the later variant would be a lower position of the back-rounded vowel, which is found as in 'hot'. In general, I really enjoyed reading the page and learned a lot! --Danleiseveny (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a very nice and clean page! It is very well-cited (and linked), and the overall format makes it easy to follow. I agree with some other comments on how it would be helpful to explain why Curvilinear Principle is considered a response to the embedding problem. This might be a little picky, but I think the vowel æ could be in IPA instead of ae. Also I feel like the description of the height of the vowel variants could be specified as the actual realizations. Such as [uᵊ] instead of [o]? I'm not sure if that's too much to say, but one might get confused imagining what kind of lowering or raising is going on. I also vote for including some graphic examples from Labov's experiments (especially the very popularly quoted one with the crossing between lower middle class and upper class). Another very minor thing: the "Other Factors" section where you mentioned age, are they "Confounding Factors"? I just thought it might be a good way to name that part :) It's just an idea. Anyway, great job on this page! Crfrances (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, great page—definitely supplemented the in-class discussion and the reading. I think the discussion on the embedding problem is was too short in the introduction. I do think it’s a good point to make, but I think it might be worthwhile to elaborate on how it is a response to the embedding problem. Also, I think it might be worth putting an image of what the “curvilinear” correlation looks like at the top of the page near the introduction and a comparison correlation so people can distinguish the difference. Other thoughts:

• The Philadelphia Study section is very thorough and well done.
• I am a little uncertain why the Philadelphia Telephone Study is hyperlinked because it is explain right below that section.
• I would consider changing the section title from “Other Studies” to “Other Studies Demonstrating the Curvilinear Principle”.

Again, great page! MildlyImpressed (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Great description of Labov's hypothesis and of the resultant curvilinear principle. However, I suggest that you should expanded on Labov's "socioeconomic status index" -- what were his exact principles in ranking "education and occupation" of participants on a scale [0,6]? Could this indexical information be presented in a table? I think that with the addition of such a discrete classifier, the discussion of "central class" driving change with its "linguistically innovative nature" would be more clear to the reader. Without it, "central class" being defined as mid-educated and mid-employed seems too vague, to me. It would also allow you to incorporate the [0,6] system into any further graphs you may add to supplement Labov's observations with visual curvilinear correlation between observed linguistic variables and discrete social classes within Philly. Warrenmcbieber (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Really good page! I especially like the first section where you very clearly describe and define what the curvilinear principle is. The mention of the embedding problem does seem a bit out of place here, or at least it is in need of more elaboration. Also, I think you should include a larger picture of the curvilinear graph in the first section, as most people clicking on this page will probably first and foremost want to know what the curvilinear principle looks like. In the Philadelphia Study Results section you say that the middle class's central location in a community (socially and literally) drives them to spur linguistic change. Perhaps you could elaborate here, or at least explain how exactly the middle class is literally, geographically central in a speech community. The wording in the Philadelphia Telephone Study section is a little off, and I found this section to be the hardest to follow. I also wonder if it's actually a necessary topic to include in this page. Other than that, great work! - EmmaKylie (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty impressed with this page! I think this really clarifies and simplifies what could seem like a daunting, complicated concept. The page is organized clearly, and obviously the graph is a helpful complement. However, perhaps a bit more visual data would aid the general comprehension of the principle even more. Good job! - Sabrinadleong (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of good material on this page, but my major comment is that: 1) some of this material may actually not belong on a page on the Curvilinear Principle (CP); 2) there is relatively little focused discussion on the Curvilinear principle itself. I have a number of suggestions regarding how you could improve the page:

• The discussion of the Philadelphia studies really gets into the methodological weeds. Someone just wanting to know what the CP is and what its significance is probably won't be interested in this level of detail, and may in fact be confused by them. I suggest that you spin of the Philadelphia Study into its own (suitably titled) page and then change your prose on this page so that you can link to it appropriately. Then, on this page, focus on the results, which is what is really relevant to a page on the CP.
• More focused discussion on the CP itself would be helpful. I suggest a single intro sentence, followed by the ToC, followed by a section dedicated to explaining the CP that explains that it, among other things, represents an answer to the question 'who are the leaders of change', and in fact constitutes a counter-intuitive set of results. You say both of these things in the first paragraph, but that paragraph, as currently written, reads like a set of relatively unconnected comments, rather than a discussion of the CP. And if you want to raise the Embedding Problem, it would be good to go into a little more detail, as some other folks have suggested. Finally, you briefly allude to the issue of incipient changes and new and vigorous changes in the context of the Philadelphia Study. I think its fine to keep that mention there if you'd like, but it think it would be good to make that part of your discussion of the CP.
• Some minor editing points: a) remove the empty section; b) reduce the references to Labov

Ldmanthroling (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Great post! The introductory paragraph was very strong and clear, and I like how you evenly distributed text in each section. The small and concise paragraphs made it easy to follow. The one thing I would change is make it clear why you go into depth with the Philadelphia study, as opposed to the other studies summarized at the bottom. Jenn.bi (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Jenn.Bi

Just going to add a late comment here. Regarding the opening section, is "Curvilinear principle" suppposed to be capitalized? Also, it would be helpful to get more information/explanation on the "nineteenth century notions that language change originates in the highest or lowest classes of society", possibly through a reference or in a new section if you are able to get more historical info. Good job explaining the case studies! Drbazzi (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

[Late comment] Just wanted to say great page! Also, I have an idea about explaining the graph's acronym's - perhaps you could explain them in a subsection of the Philadelphia Study section? Maybe in the "results" subsection, or even creating a new subsection titled "Graph Explanation," or something. Again, these are just ideas! Hope you are able to figure out a good solution! Best of luck finalizing the page. Jacksoncato (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)