Age: Methods and Metadata

Abstract

Age has proven to be an extremely useful variable in many social science fields, and linguistics is no exception: it is widely used in applied linguistics, psycholinguistics, and (especially) sociolinguistics. This makes sense – given that even casual observation tells us that humans behave differently at different points in the life cycle, it is quite reasonable to take age into account when investigating human behavior. In turn, the use of age as a variable has led to a wide range of methods and analytical tools that rely on the use of age (e.g., the apparent time construct in sociolinguistics). However, it turns out that even though age is often treated in a rather simple way, it is actually a complicated concept that can be difficult to pin down precisely and that the usual linguistic view of age as a simple reflection of the linear passage of time is lacking. That fact has repercussions for how linguists should deal with age, including not just issues like how to record metadata relating to it, but even methodological concerns such as how to do the initial elicitation in the first place.

Old‐age language variation and change: Confronting variationist ageism

“…Such information may elucidate the heterogeneity of old‐age (and other) speaker samples and uncover new sociolinguistically meaningful differentiators. (See also Bowie [:521] for a similar point about understanding individuals' subjective age.) Alternatively, as we noted in Section 3.1, variationists could undertake more ethnographic studies of older (and younger) adults, using participant observation as a means to identify relevant social determinants of their linguistic variation and participation in language change.…”

“…Rubin and Rubin () propose a measure of life‐position that incorporates six inter‐related dimensions: physical health, interpersonal interaction, mobility, life satisfaction, social activity and economic security . The sociolinguistic literature acknowledges the complexity of age and ageing as well as the intrinsic value of these broader perspectives on age and ageing (e.g., Bowie, :47, :519–521; Cameron, :208; Cheshire, :1552; Coupland, :34; Coupland & Coupland, :469; Eckert, :154–158; Hamilton, :6–7). Yet, with the exception of Rose (), which we describe in Sections 3.1 and 4, they have not actually gained wide application in the field.…”

“…As acknowledged inter alia by Bowie (), Cameron (), Coupland et al () and Eckert (), narrow conceptions of age and ageing are problematic for variationist investigations of language use. They ignore the individualized, multi‐faceted and cumulative nature of the ageing process noted above.…”