In the documentation of Romeyka a combination of different ways for data collection is used:
a. elicitation techniques, involving:
i. contextualizing, especially for grammatical phenomena which are interface phenomena such as modality, null objects, and information structure
ii. translation equivalents, especially for identifying contact-induced change
iii. grammaticality judgements
iv. orally administered questionnaires
b. staged communication (quasi-naturalistic data)
c. detailed analysis of data from participant observations (naturalistic data), including video and audio recordings of selected social networks. The social network approach (see, for example, Milroy 1987) is necessary not only because of the richness of the data it yields, but also because, in our case, it allows for the comparison of participants from different age groups and from both genders (Chambers 2002, Sankoff 2006).
d. careful monitoring of extra-linguistic variables (social profiles of participants’ age, sex, education, context and its significance for the choice of register etc.).
e. as far as possible, with the use of Romeyka as a medium for the fieldwork. If data collection had been carried out through the medium of Standard Modern Greek, it would have been necessary to rely on a (male) translator, with all the concomitant complications for accessing female speakers. Use of Turkish, on the other hand, would probably have induced ad hoc calquing. The use of Pontic Greek would inevitably have led to accommodation and, possibly, to the avoidance of local Romeyka features hence our choice for monolingual data collection. Hence our choice for monolingual (Romeyka) data collection.