User:Pittf/sandbox

Criticisms In the field of discourse studies, and particularly where researchers have been working with materials such as interviews and focus groups, there has been disagreement about whether Jeffersonian transcription is needed and, indeed, whether it impedes analytic clarity and the analyst in unnecessary work (see e.g. the debate between Hollway, 2005; Mischler, 2005; Potter & Hepburn, 2005a,b; Smith, 2005 and the second debate between Griffin, Potter & Hepburn, and Henwood as cited in ) It is virtually impossible to produce a perfect transcription. Analysts almost always find minor errors in original transcription The Jeffersonian system has become increasingly standard in the research literature but it does not encode the sort of features of speech delivery that a full phonetic transcription does, so would not be suitable for studies of speech therapy or the sorts of classic sociolinguistic research on accent variation. Because it is impossible to record all features of talk and interaction from recordings, all transcripts are selective in one way or another. Selectivity needs to be acknowledged and explained in relation to the goals of a study rather than taken to be unremarkable. . Different transcripts of the same text result in different analyses to suit the research purpose of each analysis. Nonvocal and nonverbal phenomena which accompany spoken discourse, e.g., table pounding, gaze, applause, gesture. .... the Jeffersonian tradition emphasizes gaze and applause, but notgesture. Standardization of transcription systems involves at least two features: (a) the categories of verbal interaction to be analyzed and therefore to be included in the transcript, and (b)notation codes for these categories. With respect to the notation codes, substantial differences exist between the Jeffersonian system,Du Bois's Discourse Transcription, and Gumperz's Transcript Notation in the encoding of temporal aspects, including turn-taking, pause duration, syllabic prolongation, and speech and articulation rates Many of the special notations are simply redundant in the sense that they are not applied to any meangingful scientific analysis of the data thus notated. There is no escaping the conclusion that these features are transcribed only as a form of pseudoscientific show-and-tell. For example, Jefferson (1984) provided the following transcript for an utterance of a speaker: "eh Not the floo:r one ehh:: h euh he h-heh-he h" (p. 349). It constitutes a very nuanced notation of laughter. But nowhere is the notation explained and nowhere is there any effort to explain or comment on the laughter itself.

Use of conventional typography. Graphemes, punctuation marks, and other conventional typographical symbols (e.g., @, #, and &)have already been spoken for. Their adoption for other purposes within a notation system can only contribute to confusion (e.g., Jefferson's [1984] Use of "he" for laughter rather than for the thirdpersonal pronoun he [p.349].

Williamson, Graham (2009). Transcribing Conversation. March 2009 16:18

O'Connell,Daniel C., and Kowal, Sabine.(1999) Transcription  and the Issue of Standardization. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, vol 28, No. 2

Transcription www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjap/transcription/transcription.htm

Davidson, Christina.(2009) Transcription: Imperatives for Qualitative Research. CQ University Rockhampton, Australia.

________________________

DT (Discourse Transcription) A system described in (DuBois et al. 1992), used for transcription of the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBCSAE), later developed further into DT2 GAT (Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem – Conversation Analytic transcription system) A system described in (Selting et al. 1998), later developed further into GAT2 (Selting et al. 2009), widely used in German speaking countries for prosodically oriented conversation analysis and interactional linguistics HIAT (Halbinterpretative Arbeitstranskriptionen – Semiinterpretative Working Transcriptions) A system originally described in (Ehlich and Rehbein 1976) – see (Ehlich 1992) for an English reference - adapted for the use in computer readable corpora as (Rehbein et al. 2004), and widely used in functional pragmatics.

Pittf (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)pittfPittf (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)