Abstract Sociolinguistic data collection traditionally includes interviews, reading passages, and word lists (Labov 1972). Researchers have increasingly sought out elicitation tasks that have the benefits of tasks based on reading aloud (e.g., studying infrequently occurring variables; controlling for linguistic factors; eliciting the same lexical items across participants) while also eliciting styles more comparable to interview speech (see Drager 2018). Examples include the Map Task (Brown et al. 1984) and the Diapix task (Baker and Hazan 2011). Other researchers have turned instead to elicitation tasks that maximize ecological validity, taking themselves out of the recording context and training participants to collect field recordings (e.g., Podesva 2007; Sharma 2011). But how comparable is the speech elicited from each of these tasks? Building on results from previous research (Boyd et al. 2015; Hall-Lew and Boyd 2017) we consider three US English speakers’ vowel productions from interviews, reading passages, ‘Lab Tasks’, and self-recordings. We suggest that both Lab Tasks and self-recordings have the potential to increase descriptive accuracy and indexical analysis in sociophonetic research.

中文翻译：

---

语音研究中关于风格多样性的社会语音观点

摘要传统的社会语言数据收集包括访谈，阅读文章和单词表（Labov 1972）。研究人员越来越多地寻找启发任务，这些任务具有基于大声朗读的任务的好处（例如，研究不经常出现的变量；控制语言因素；在参与者之间引出相同的词汇项），同时还引出了与访谈语音类似的风格（请参阅Drager） 2018）。示例包括地图任务（Brown等人，1984年）和Diapix任务（Baker和Hazan，2011年）。相反，其他研究人员转向了最大限度地提高生态有效性的启发任务，使自己脱离了录音环境，并培训参与者收集野外录音（例如Podesva 2007； Sharma 2011）。但是从这些任务中引出的讲话有多可比？基于先前研究的结果（Boyd等人，2015； Hall-Lew和Boyd，2017），我们从访谈，阅读文章，“实验室任务”和自我录音中考虑了三位美国英语讲者的元音作品。我们建议实验室任务和自我记录都有可能提高社会语音研究中的描述准确性和索引分析。