Frozen speech: The rhetoric of transcription.

Abstract

Interest in the study of natural spoken discourse, within linguistics and other fields, has led to a need for research into the methodological issues involved. One key issue is transcription, or the translation of recorded speech into writing for the purpose of study. Most research in this area has been limited to discussions of the merits and problems of particular transcription systems, and is very field-specific, making it difficult for researchers from different areas to understand each other's concerns. This dissertation provides a broader viewpoint from which to consider the problematics of transcription in discourse research. Data for the study includes the existing literature on transcription, a survey of journal editors on the use of transcription in publications, and a series of extended interviews conducted with 13 transcribers, ranging from sociolinguists to discourse analysts to conversation analysts. Issues explored in the dissertation include choice of transcription symbols and layout; identity of the transcriber and methods of achieving accuracy; use of transcription as a rhetorical device in publications; nature and causes of cross- and intra-disciplinary debates about transcription; and social constructional effects of putting speech into writing. Results indicate that transcription is more an art than a science. Decisions about transcription may be based on any of several factors, including (1) respect for informants; (2) nature of the data; (3) background and training of the transcriber; (4) goals and requirements of the specific study; and (5) needs and expectations of the eventual audience for the work. While previous researchers have recognized the effect of a study's requirements on transcription, they have not acknowledged the important effect of disciplinary differences. Researchers' beliefs about the nature of spoken discourse are likely to affect their representation of it in writing, and their training will predispose them to use certain systems and practices. In addition, while researchers often borrow from each other's systems, the strong association of some transcription conventions with particular discourse subfields may lead researchers to use their own subfield's conventions in order to be recognized as part of the in-group, while non-members do the reverse.