Language and Linguistics Compass 7/4 (2013): 251–261, 10.1002/lnc3.12023
Working with Transcripts: An Abridged Review of Issues inTranscription
Christopher Joseph Jenks*City University of Hong Kong, Department of English, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
AbstractThis paper provides an abbreviated review of the theories and practices that are related to transcribingspoken discourse. The review identifies four keys areas of transcription, discusses why they areimportant to all investigations of spoken discourse analysis, and considers the practical implicationsof carrying out transcript-based research. The four areas of transcription discussed in this review areorganized into the following sections: theoretical issues, representation, transcription software, andtranscription ethics. The aim in providing this review is to argue that while there is no monolithicway of transcribing spoken discourse, the theories and practices that underpin and shape transcriptionwork are highly complex, inherently problematic, and therefore should not be taken for granted.
1. Introduction
Interest in methodologies that examine what can broadly be defined as spoken discourse hasincreased in recent years along with a number of areas of study that are concerned with it.1
For instance, innumerable journal articles and books have been, and continue to be,published on approaches and topics related to spoken discourse analysis (e.g. Wetherell,Taylor and Yates 2001; Cameron 2001; Wooffitt 2005). Indeed hundreds of manuscriptshave been published on said approaches and topics, and many journals and conferences arededicated to the development of spoken discourse analysis. Tremendous growth in computercorpora has also meant that transcripts have become central to the research conducted in anumber of different disciplines.Yet despite increase awareness of, and growth in, the study of spoken discourse, compara-
tively few journal articles and books have been published on transcription theories and practices(see, however, Jenks 2011). This should come as a surprise, as transcripts are integral to thepresentation, dissemination, and publication of analytic work on spoken discourse.2 Further-more, transcripts are often meant to be read alongside data recordings, yet many publishersand computer corpora only provide written versions of what were originally audio/video data.While some approaches to spoken discourse analysis have a tradition of problematizing the roletranscripts play in conducting research (cf. Sidnell 2009), for too long now issues concerningtranscription theories and practices have been seen as a responsibility for research assistants,detached from the task of producing analytic observations, or worse, dismissed as a necessary,but troublesome task that does not warrant great effort and time.The aim of this review is to rectify some of these misconceptions. This will be done by
arguing that transcripts should not be taken for granted and demonstrating that transcribingspoken discourse is a highly complex task that requires making a number of differentrepresentational decisions that are inextricably tied to disciplinary and methodological issues.Further, this review will show that the process of transforming spoken words and utterances
into printed form – an act that represents a form of entextualization (see Bucholtz 2007) – isinherently problematic.Four key areas of transcription are discussed in this review. While these four areas do not
cover all theories and practices related to transcription, they represent some of the moresalient issues that are involved with transcribing spoken discourse. In no particular order, theseareas are theoretical issues, representation, transcription software, and transcription ethics.
2. Theoretical Issues
Transcribing spoken discourse is often seen as an atheoretical act, something that researcherssimply do in response to collecting data. This belief is most evident in the space that is devotedto the discussion of transcription theories and practices. For instance, transcribing is rarelymentioned in books on spoken discourse analysis, and most journals have little, if anything,to say about transcription conventions and guidelines. While the space that is needed to discusstranscription issues is open to debate, there is general agreement that disciplines must do more inthe way of topicalizing and problematizing topics pertaining to, and research practices that areassociated with, transcribing spoken discourse (Ochs 1979; Duranti 2006).A discussion of transcription theory must begin with the somewhat obvious declaration
that transcripts are research constructs. That is, transcripts are inextricably connected todisciplinary beliefs and traditions. Decisions made while transcribing spoken discourse – fromselecting a font type to determining which prosodic features to transcribe – are based on anumber of different methodological issues (e.g. data methodology, research deadlines,financial constraints, ethical guidelines). Transcripts are thus exceptionally theoretical andsubjective, never free of methodological bias nor unaffected by research tradition.The notion that transcripts are research constructs sheds light on other theoretical matters,
including the issue of transcription variation. Because transcripts are inherently theoretical andsubjective, always bound to methodological principles, transcription variation across disciplineswill always happen and should not be seen as problematic (cf. Kerswill and Wright 1990;O’Connell and Kowal 1999). Transcription variation is a reflection of the diversity that existsin approaches to spoken discourse analysis. Therefore, discussions promoting universal tran-scription rules or practices should be read with caution. Indeed, attempts to create standardizedtranscription practices across disciplines would hinder development in, and diversity within, thehumanities and social sciences. Furthermore, transcription variation within disciplines can beproductive and developmental as long as researchers provide theoretical (and practical) justifica-tions for deviating from methodological norms (Mondada 2007), though some researchtraditions are more sensitive to variation than others (e.g. sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics).Transcription variation is an important issue (Bucholtz 2007) and one that will be open to
debate for many years to come. Nevertheless, what is central to this discussion is not whethertranscription variation should be avoided – after all, variation will always exist to some extentbecause transcripts are never free of predisposition – but rather the issue of variation highlightsthe need to understand and discuss with greater detail in publications, the theoretical justifica-tions for producing transcripts in a particular way.One way of addressing this need is to characterize transcripts as open or closed. The utility
of incorporating these two terms in a more explicit discussion of transcription practices lies inthe fact that what ultimately appears on a transcript is a reflection of what research questionsare asked, as well as when in the transcription process these questions are generated. An opentranscript is produced when data recordings (and transcripts) are used to develop researchquestions, whereas a closed transcript is a product of transcribing spoken discourse accordingto predefined research questions. Open and closed transcripts are not binary, but rather
belong to a continuum where each side is associated with a different set of theoretical andmethodological issues, as Figure 1 illustrates (see Jenks 2011: 12).An open transcript entails abandoning a priori assumptions pertaining to what aspects of
spoken discourse are relevant to conducting research and transcribing ‘every’ feature of talkand interaction that is recorded. Features that may be included in an open transcript include,but are not limited to, audible breathing, timed pauses, the onset of overlapping talk, andturn-ending intonation. The following extract provides an example of an open transcript.
Although it is impossible to transcribe every minute detail of spoken discourse (Cook 1990),the purpose of using an open transcript is to begin the analytic process with the data andtranscripts. Research questions are formulated inductively, as a result of closely examining whatis interactionally relevant for the participants under investigation. Because open transcriptspossess high levels of detail, they are suited for microanalytic approaches to spoken discourse(e.g. conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, and discursive psychology).On the other end of the continuum is a closed transcript. Research questions are used to
decide what aspects of spoken discourse will be transcribed. A closed transcript is produceddeductively and according to what is relevant for the researcher’s investigatory agenda. Becauseclosed transcripts require being selective, they are less detailed than open transcripts. A closedtranscript may include untimed pauses, but paralinguistic features after often never (orsuperficially) transcribed.
Closed transcripts are associated with approaches that isolate aspects of spoken discourse for thepurpose of measuring (or treating) them as dependent variables (e.g. variationist sociolinguisticsand psycholinguistics).While this continuum is helpful in seeing transcripts as research constructs, dependent of
disciplinary procedures and traditions, the issue of whether a transcript is open or closed repre-sents one of many theoretical issues that are critical to how transcripts are produced andpresented. Of equal importance to the discussion of transcription theory is the idea thattranscripts are inextricably tied to personal interests, abilities, emotions, and experiences. Inother words, a transcript is a reflection of the researcher who created it, as well as the contextin which it was created. ‘Transcripts are born, get longer and fatter, and change in character,sometimes through our revisions, other times by simply sitting in a drawer for a few years’(Duranti 2006: 307). Put differently, as researchers change over time, so too do their transcripts.
Transcription practices are thus ‘reflexively tied to the context of their production and tothe practical purposes of their accomplishment’ (Mondada 2007: 810). It is easy to forget thisfact, as the actual task of transcribing spoken discourse is slow and laborious. Researchersspend many weeks, if not months and years, converting data recordings into transcripts.Because of pressures to publish, far too often researchers do not reflect on the fact thattranscription work is a situated activity.Greater recognition of the relationship between researcher and transcript is not only an
essential part of being a reflective transcriber but it also highlights the political issues thatare involved in transcribing spoken discourse. Transcripts carry a great deal of social andlinguistic information, and for this reason, researchers have an enormous amount of powerat their disposal; they have the ability to, for example, ‘correct’ ungrammatical constructions,foreground or mask unique accents, and omit interactionally relevant pauses. In other words,researchers can, among other things (cf. Bucholtz 2000), change the way people areportrayed in transcripts. Transcribing spoken discourse is thus a form of representation(Roberts 1997). Every decision made during the transcription process is potentially politicaland shaped by the lived experiences of the researcher (and his or her research community).The next section discusses this issue in greater detail by identifying the different types ofrepresentational decisions that are made while transcribing.This section has argued that transcripts are inherently theoretical; they are not only shaped
by research traditions but also personal biases and proclivities. The fact that transcripts arenever neutral and entirely objective makes them exceptionally political and bound torelations of power. The many theoretical facets involved in transcribing spoken discoursemeans that more publication space must be devoted to the identification and explicationof transcription issues. This includes making methodological justifications for approaching thetranscription task in a particular way, as well as reflecting more deeply about the relationshipbetween researcher and transcript.
3. Representation
Transcribing spoken discourse requires making a number of different representational decisions.A researcher must select an organizational format (e.g. margin sizes and font type), determinelevels of prosodic and vocal detail (e.g. inhalations and laugh particles), and decide where toplace interactional pauses (e.g. intra-turn and inter-turn pauses), to name a few. Though varied,these decisions all address the following conundrum. Data recordings contain a seeminglyinfinite array of detail. Communication involves spoken words and utterances, and often, asis the case with face-to-face encounters, embodied actions and aspects of interaction. How isit then possible, and what conventions are used, to transcribe spoken discourse?Transcription work entails establishing and carrying out a plan to select and transcribe mainly
those aspects of spoken discourse that address the theoretical requirements of the researcher,while adhering to the physical confines of the transcript. This statement reveals perhaps themostsignificant problem with using transcripts for research purposes. Transcripts are reductionisttools in that they are based solely on data recordings that represent the perspective of the cameraoperator, and only capable of depicting spoken discourse as a series of static lines of utterancesand/or snapshot pictures of movements and positions.3 Transcripts are also created outside ofthe immediate context in which spoken discourse occurs. Because spoken discourse is captured,then transferred to computer and later interpreted and represented by a researcher, the text thatis generated as a result of transcribing takes on new meaning and life (Silverstein and Urban1996). For this reason, transcripts can also be thought of as expansionist tools. Because transcriptstake on new meaning and life; they are often best read alongside data recordings. If this is not
possible and/or needed, then researchers must be aware that their published transcripts will beread as primary sources of data.4
Because transcripts can never fully depict spoken discourse, and are rarely publishedalongside data recordings, researchers must make representational decisions on the basis ofthe fact that their intended audience will not have access to the actual communicative event.In practical terms, this means taking into consideration, and balancing, four overlappingtranscription issues: readability, granularity, accuracy, and research agenda.The challenge in transcribing spoken discourse is that these four issues counteract with
each other. For example, readability and granularity work against each other. The formerissue is related to the comprehension of the intended audience, which often entails usingstandard writing conventions to enhance clarity. In the latter issue, the focus is on beingfaithful to the highly detailed and complex nature of spoken discourse, which often entailsusing non-standard writing conventions (i.e. transcription systems) to accurately depict thecommunicative event. Accuracy and research agenda counteract each other in that the latterissue often requires researchers to sacrifice accuracy for the purpose of investigating aparticular phenomenon. For instance, a study of linguistic fluency may lead to increasedtranscription detail for some aspects of spoken discourse (e.g. intra-turn pauses), while sacrificingthe accurate representation of others (e.g. turn-ending intonation). Table 1 summarizes the fourtranscription issues and their representational implications.As discussed in the previous section on theoretical issues, representational decisions are also
inherently political. Take, for example, the representation of speech styles and dialectalvarieties. This transcription task, which is bound to issues of granularity and accuracy, but alsoreadability and research agenda, has implications for how interactants are portrayed. In theliterature on spoken discourse, two approaches to the representation of speech styles anddialectal varieties exist: standardization and vernacularization. Both approaches form twosides of a continuum, as illustrated in Figure 2 (see Jenks 2011: 19).Standardization entails transcribing spoken discourse according to standard writing conven-
tions, whereas vernacularization involves representing talk as it is being spoken (e.g. ‘wanna’as opposed to ‘want to’).The decision to adopt an approach that is located on the vernacularization side of the
continuum is guided by the need to provide written representations of what Jefferson(1983) calls pronunciational particulars. For example, a researcher may wish to capture theunique ways in which Hong Kong English is spoken, but because the pronunciational
Table 1. Transcription issues that shape representational decisions.
Issue Representational implication
readability Transcripts are text-based documents. Accordingly, transcripts must to someextent adhere to standard writing conventions.
granularity Spoken discourse is highly detailed and complex. Researchers must decidehow much of this detail and complexity will be transcribed.
accuracy Because spoken discourse is highly detailed and complex, researchers must,to some extent, be faithful to how spoken words and utterances, as well asembodied actions and aspects of interaction, are transcribed.
research agenda Transcripts are research constructs, inextricably connected to disciplinary biasand tradition. What ultimately appears on a transcript must, to some extent,reflect the researcher’s investigatory agenda.
particulars of this type of English deviates from standard spelling, special transcriptionconventions must be used. A researcher could, for instance, use non-standard spelling,otherwise known as eye dialect or orthographic metonymy (cf. Bucholtz 2000), to representthe unique ways in which people speak (e.g. ‘wha’cha doin’). While this approach‘accurately’ represents pronunciational particulars, non-standard spelling, when used totranscribe certain speech communities (e.g. language learners or socioeconomically challengedcommunities), may be read as defective speech (this is also true of transcripts that use theInternational Phonetic Alphabet). The political implication is that eye dialect or orthographicmetonymy may promote stereotypical beliefs (Jaffe and Walton 2000). Furthermore, searchingthrough computer corpora is potentially more challenging when non-standard spelling is used.For example, a search for ‘what are you doing’would not produce any results if ‘wha’cha doin’was transcribed (for insightful points, see Tagliamonte 2006).On the other hand, standardization uses standard written orthography (e.g. ‘What are you
doing?’). While this approach does not lead to so-called cartoon representations of speechstyles and dialectal varieties, it too has political consequences. Specifically, standardizationremoves idiosyncrasies of speech, thereby artificially homogenizing intercommunity andintra-community (as well as intra-speaker) variability. The result is a transcript that possesseslittle social and linguistic information, which of course limits researchers in what they caninvestigate. From a representational point of view, standardization also results in less accuratetranscripts. Perhaps the most problematic and political implication is that this approachreduces people to ‘generic social beings’ (Jenks 2011: 20). However, standardized spellingprovides more consistent search results in computer corpora, and so representing social realityand affirming particular sociopolitical positions may sometimes have to take a back seat tosheer practicality.While the discussion thus far has painted transcription work as inherently theoretical and
problematic, transcripts are perhaps the most objective analytic tools used in the study ofnaturally occurring spoken discourse (cf. checklists of linguistic observations, questionnaires).Transcripts are comparatively objective because transcription conventions are commonlyused to represent spoken discourse. These conventions enhance the objectivity of transcriptsin that they offer a reasonably systematic way of transforming what is heard and seen in a datarecording into a portable, text-based document. Transcription conventions are often associ-ated with a specific approach to spoken discourse analysis (e.g. conversation analysis), and assuch, form different systems (for a comparison of three widely-used transcription systems, seeJenks 2011: 115). Much of the actual representational work that takes place is in factunderpinned by a transcription system or a combination of systems.A transcription system possesses a somewhat extensive collection of conventions, ranging
from the micro (e.g. laughter within an utterance and audible inhalations) to the multimodal(e.g. gaze) and multilingual (e.g. code-switching). While transcription systems offer a programfor transcribing spoken discourse, transcripts are no more objective than observational tools ifrepresentational decisions are not based on an understanding of how to apply conventions whenplaying back data recordings. This understanding requires a reasonably high level of linguisticproficiency in the language that is being transcribed, thorough knowledge of the social andlinguistic phenomena under investigation, and awareness of why the transcript is beingproduced in the first place. In other words, sound representational decisions are not only about
selecting transcription conventions while conforming to the electronic dimensions of a tran-script but are additionally based on a multidimensional understanding of the people, language,and setting, under investigation.
4. Transcription Software
Transcription work cannot be done without some form of technology. For most researchers,the main technology used for transcription is the personal computer.5 The personal computerhas automated many basic transcription tasks, from adding line numbers to merging transcriptstogether, and although all transcription practices are mediated by a computing device, technol-ogy has not advanced to a stage where the task of transcribing naturally occurring spokendiscourse can be done completely and automatically by a computer.While technologies will sometime in the future offer the ability to completely automate
transcription work – and when this happens, automation will become a much discussedmethodological issue – the aim of this section is to explore the merits of using current softwaretechnologies for transcription purposes. Specifically, this section compares two different soft-ware approaches to transcription and discusses what researchers can expect when using them.The two approaches discussed below are referred to as transcription specific and task specific.The former approach entails using one transcription specific software program to manage
all tasks related to transcribing spoken discourse (e.g. CLAN; see MacWhinney 2010). Forexample, most transcription software plays back raw data, provides an area within the userinterface where the researcher can transcribe, allows the transcriber to assign keywords todata extracts, and creates collections of different interactional phenomena, to name a few.In recent years, the popularity of this approach has increased, mainly as a result of theperceived benefits of using transcription-specific programs, but also partly because moreand more researchers are embracing technology in their professional practices.The task specific approach involves using different software programs to manage different
transcription tasks. Most researchers adopting this approach use two software programs: a wordprocessing program for transcribing and a media player for playing back data recordings. Despiteadvances in software technology, this approach is perhaps the most commonway of transcribingspoken discourse. This is partly due to the fact that many researchers already possess substantialexperience using word processors and media players.In the table that follows, transcription and task specific approaches are presented in relation to
a number of different transcription issues, including the four identified in Table 1 (i.e. readabil-ity, granularity, accuracy, and research agenda). While it is somewhat problematic to generalizethe merits of each approach, the main point in producing this table is to promote morereflection and discussion regarding the use of software in transcription.Table 2 shows that although the transcription-specific approach offers more efficiency and
research specific tools,6 transcripts are less portable and neophytes must commit themselves toan initial period of learning. On the other hand, the task specific method does not require aninitial period of learning and transcripts are more portable, though transcribing is somewhatless efficient and word processors and media players do not offer research specific tools. Manytranscription programs allow users to temporally align their transcripts with data recordings,while this task must be done manually with the task specific approach. In terms of the fourissues related to transcription representation (readability, granularity, accuracy, and researchagenda), there are no significant benefits of using one approach over the other.This section has demonstrated that software plays an indispensable role in transcription.
Again, transcribing spoken discourse is a situated activity; as such, planning and managingthe task of transcription requires taking into consideration software issues. The importance
Table 2. Comparison software approaches to transcription.
Issue Transcription specific Task specific
learning curve initially horizontal; programs have uniqueways of handling transcripts
minimal learning is necessary; basic wordprocessing tools are used to transcribe
portability less portable in that original documentformats are not highly compatible
highly portable in that documents are inindustry standard formats
efficiency more efficient; one user interfacemanages several transcription tasks
comparatively less efficient; must togglebetween different software programs
temporal alignment temporal alignment is automated time stamps must be entered manuallyreadability programs offer less options for transcript
organizationword processors offer more options fortranscript organization
granularity third party software is needed to achievehigh levels of granularity (e.g. Praat)
third party software is needed to achievehigh levels of granularity (e.g. Praat).
accuracy few programs have specific tools forenhancing accuracy
third party media players can enhanceaccuracy (e.g. Audacity)
research agenda some programs are designed to assist inparticular types of spoken discourseanalysis (e.g. CLAN)
no program specific tools have beendesigned for spoken discourse analyticpurposes
258 Christopher Joseph Jenks
of software to transcription will likely continue, as speech recognition technology is advancingand becoming more popular. As a result, ‘complete automation’ – that is, the automation of alltranscription tasks – is in the foreseeable future. Until this happens, however, it should not beforgotten that good transcription work is fundamentally about the researcher understandinghow to apply conventions when playing back data recordings, which not only requires areasonably high level of communicative proficiency in the language that is being transcribed,but also extensive knowledge of the phenomena under investigation. In a similar vein, whencomplete automation becomes available, researchers must remember that manually playingback and transcribing data recordings bring researchers closer to their data –which in turn resultsin better analyses (Jenks 2011).
5. Transcription Ethics
Research on spoken discourse is, in one way or the other, shaped by ethics. For manyresearchers, investigations of human subjects and real life communicative encounters requireconforming to ethical guidelines, if not before conducting research and collecting data, thenmost certainly during the publication stage. These guidelines are determined by universitycommittees overseeing research ethics; in some cases professional bodies establish rules andprocedures that are adopted by institutions, or publishers create their own set of principlesthat must be followed by prospective authors. A common perception is that ethicalguidelines slow down research development, and in some cases, stop it from happening atall. Although this may be the case for some types of investigation, ethical guidelines protectresearch participants, act as a filter for quality control, and ensure only authorized people gainaccess to data recordings, to name a few benefits.Despite the importance of conforming to established ethical guidelines when conducting
transcript-based research, a scan of several guidelines established at universities and professionalorganizations reveals that transcription ethics are rarely discussed in any detail, if mentioned atall. It is possible that this omission is due to the fact that the ethics of transcribing spokendiscourse are closely related to data collection procedures; the latter of which is included inmost
ethical guidelines. Whether or not this omission is due to overlap, these similarities need to bemade more explicit. To begin, the word transcription must be included in a discourse ofresearch ethics.Minimally, ethical guidelines for transcription should cover principles and procedures for
safeguarding confidentiality. It should be clear what representational options are availablewhen masking places and people identified in transcripts (for practical suggestions, see Jenks2011). Suggestions are needed regarding whether sensitive information should be edited outof transcripts or simply modified. Guidelines must include whether data recordings can beplayed with transcripts, and if so, how this can be carried out while providing anonymityin both formats. Unfortunately, these ethical issues represent a small portion of what mustbe considered when transcribing spoken discourse; a great deal of work is needed inorder to first develop, and then disseminate and publish, guidelines that cover most of whatresearchers are likely to face when planning and conducting transcript-based research.
6. Conclusion
Four transcription issues have been discussed in this paper: theoretical issues, representation,transcription software, and transcription ethics. The aim in presenting these issues was todispel the widespread assumption that transcription plays an ancillary role in research onspoken discourse, and that it is a completely mechanical task that is detached from theoryand method. In presenting these distinctive, yet interdependent, issues, the paper showedthat transcription is a highly complex task that should not be taken for granted. Not onlyis transcription a meticulous and onerous task, the decisions that are made while transcribingspoken discourse are inherently political.The paper also argued that transcripts are never completely objective nor are they entirely
accurate representations of spoken discourse. Transcripts are never completely objectivebecause they are research constructs. Researchers create them because of a need to carryout research. As such, transcripts are representations of disciplinary and methodologicalinterests just as much as they are representations of spoken discourse. For this reason,transcription should always be discussed in relation to what empirical purpose it serves. Forexample, this issue of granularity is not only about what, and how much, is transcribed butalso to what extent this issue helps fulfill an empirical objective.Because of the reflexive relationship between transcription and research, transcripts are
never full representations of spoken discourse. This is especially true for transcripts that arecreated from a relatively narrow set of empirical objectives and/or based on a restrictedunderstanding of spoken discourse. Approaches that code and quantify aspects of spokendiscourse are classic examples of this, though even analytic methods that purport to examinemicro details are inherently selective in what ends up in a transcript (e.g. conversationanalysis). In a similar vein, transcripts are never entirely accurate. Although advances insoftware technology have improved transcription efficiency, transcripts will always be inaccu-rate in that data recordings possess an almost infinite number of nuances and layers of socialinteraction while transcripts have finite space. Furthermore, transcripts are based on recordingsof spoken discourse that have been created with devices placed in locations that primarily rep-resent the interests of the researcher; these data recordings are also limited in view and scope.Despite these limitations, transcript-based research continues to grow and an increasing
number of researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds are using spoken discourseanalysis. Indeed, growth in transcript-based research should be celebrated, because it hasgreatly increased our understanding of language and communication. However, a great dealof discussion is still needed with regard to what role transcripts play in conducting research.
So little time and publication space is committed to discussing transcription. In order fortranscript-based research to mature into an area of study that knows its theoretical andmethodological boundaries, as well as the different aspects of carrying out work on spokendiscourse, transcription must play a more central role in discussions pertaining to researchtheory and practice. This review represents one of several recent attempts to participate inthis much needed dialog.
Short Biography
Christopher Jenks works at the Department of English, City University of Hong Kong. Hismain research approach is microanalysis (e.g. conversation analysis and interactionalsociolinguistics). Christopher’s research deals primarily with computer-mediated communica-tion, intercultural communication, English as a lingua franca, and second language acquisition.Other research expertise includes epistemological and methodological issues in appliedlinguistics research. He reviews for a number of top international journals, including AppliedLinguistics, and is an editorial board member for Classroom Discourse. His 2010 co-editedbook, Conceptualising Learning in Applied Linguistics, was runner-up for the BAAL 2011Book Prize.
Notes
* Correspondence to: Christopher Joseph Jenks, City University of Hong Kong, Department of English, Kowloon Tong,Hong Kong. E-mail: [email protected]
1 Spoken discourse is defined here as any oral dialog between two or more interactants.2 Although transcripts are central to conducting research, it should not be forgotten that analytic observations must bebased primarily on data recordings.3 While transcription software allows researchers to present transcripts alongside data recordings, nearly all publishedtranscripts are presented as static documents.4 In addition to the logistical challenges of publishing transcripts alongside recordings of spoken discourse, ethicalguidelines often restrict the dissemination of data recordings.5 Technologies that capture, store, manage, and play back data recordings also play an important role in transcription.These technologies warrant reflection and discussion, though space does not allow it here.6 Efficiency in transcription is also related to the degree to which software programs are reliable and whether technicalassistance is available if programs crash and/or have bugs. For these efficiency issues, the traditional method is stable andoffers better software support.
Works Cited
Bucholtz, Mary. 2000. The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 1439–1465.——. 2007. Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies 9. 784–808.Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage.Cook, Guy. 1990. Transcribing infinity: problems of context presentation. Journal of Pragmatics 14. 1–24.Duranti, Alessandro. 2006. Transcripts, like shadows on a wall. Mind, Culture, and Activity 13. 301–310.Jaffe, Alexandra and Shana Walton. 2000. The voices people read: orthography and the representation of non-standardspeech. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4. 561–587.
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. Issues in the transcription of naturally-occurring talk: caricature vs. Capturing pronunciationalparticulars. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 34. 1–12.
Jenks, Christopher J. 2011. Transcribing talk and interaction: Issues in the representation of communication data.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kerswill, Paul and Susan Wright. 1990. The validity of phonetic transcription: limitations of a sociolinguistic researchtool. Language Variation and Change 2. 255–275.
MacWhinney, Brain. 2010. The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk – Electronic edition. Part 2: The CLANprograms. Last accessed on 25 June 2012 at: http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/manuals/clan.pdf
Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. Commentary: transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. DiscourseStudies 9. 809–821.
Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Transcription as theory. In: Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. B. (ed.): Developmental pragmatics, 43–72.New York: Academic Press.
O’Connell, Daniel C. and Sabine Kowal. 1999. Transcription and the issue of standardization. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch 28. 103–120.
Roberts, Celia. 1997. The politics of transcription. Transcribing talk: Issues of representation. TESOL Quarterly 31. 167–172.Sidnell, Jack. 2009. Conversation analysis: comparative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Silverstein, Michael and Greg Urban. 1996. Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wetherell, Margaret, Stephanie Taylor and Simon J. Yates. 2001. Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. London: Sage.Wooffitt, Robin. 2005. Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: a comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.
