TRANSCRIPTION
The
principal system of transcription used by conversation analysis and discursive
psychology was developed by Gail Jefferson.
It evolved side by side with, and informed by the results of,
interaction analysis. It highlights
features of the delivery of talk (overlap, delay, emphasis, volume and so on)
that have been found to be live in interaction.
That is, they are features of talk treated as relevant in one way or
another by the parties to the interaction.
This is not
the only system of transcription available.
Another well known system used in some discourse analytic and
ethnographic work was developed by John
Du Bois. However, the
Jeffersonian system has become
increasingly standard in the research literature (it is a requirement, for
instance, in articles published in Research in Language and Social Interaction). Note that it is not ideal for all kinds of
analytic task. For example, 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.
In the broad
field of discourse studies, and particularly were researchers have been working
with got up 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). Reasons
for using the Jefferson system include:
(a) it attempts to capture the talk as it is
heard to participants;
(b) it is necessary for performing an adequate
interactional analysis;
(c) even if the analysis is concerned with
features of lexical content (itself a potentially problematic notion in the
abstract) the full transcript would most fully allow claims to be checked by
other researchers.
Although
Jefferson transcription can initially appear complex and hard to read, the
system is intended to build intuitively on familiar ideas (underlining for
emphasis, etc.). The apparent increase
in complexity may well reflect the fact that there just are many more things going on than are registered in orthographic
or play-script transcript. Also, if
transcript is hard to read it may well be poorly transcribed (with missing
words, wrongly placed overlaps and so on).
Crucially,
advocates of a straightforward orthographic or ‘play-script’ version of
transcript, or even Jefferson Lite (e.g. Parker,
2005), often fail to appreciate that they are not a more neutral or simple
record. Rather they are highly
consequential transformations. For
example, orthographic transcript imposes the conventions of written language
which are designed to be broadly independent of specific readers. Such a transformation systematically wipes
out evidence of intricate coordination and recipient design. It encourages the analyst to interpret talk
by reference to an individual speaker or focus on abstract relations between
word and world. Put another way, if talk
were a relatively transparent medium for the communication of one person’s mind
to another then more orthographic forms of representation would make sense;
however, if talk is seen to be a medium for action, then forms of
representation that try to capture elements of action rather than ‘just the
words’ are what is needed.
Sadly
Gail Jefferson died early in 2008. For a
website with links to her work and appreciations go to:
Gail Jefferson - Born to Transcribe
Watergate - Home Page
The
most authoritative summary of the Jefferson system is now (available from Gene
Lerner’s website):
For
arguments cautious about transcription, particularly in research interviews,
see:
Parker, I. (2005). Qualitative
psychology: Introducing radical research.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Poland, B.D. (2001). Transcription quality. In Gubrium, J.F.
& Holstein, J.A. (Eds). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. London: Sage.
For
a debate in which Potter and Hepburn encourage interview researchers to use
more rigorous forms of transcription see:
Smith, J. (2005).
Advocating pluralism, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 309-11.
Hollway, W.
(2005). Commentary on ‘Qualitative
interviews in psychology’, Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 2, 312-314.
Mischler, E.
(2005). Commentary on ‘Qualitative
interviews in psychology’, Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 2, 315-318.
Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2005). Action, interaction and interviews – Some
responses to Hollway, Mischler
and Smith, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 2, 319-325.
For
another debate where the issue of transcription and representation is key
(partly as a response to Potter & Hepburn) see:
Other
relevant writing on transcription included:
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The
politics of transcription, Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1439-1465.
Hepburn, A. (2004). Crying: Notes on description, transcription and
interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 251-290.
This can be downloaded for personal use >>download PDF<<
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998).
Conversation Analysis: Principles, practices and applications. London: Sage.
Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the
transcription and analysis of laughter.
In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of
Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3. London:
Academic Press.
Nikander, P. (2008). Working with transcripts and translated data,
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5, 225-231.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Peräkylä, A.
(1997). Reliability and validity in
research based on transcripts. In D.
Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research:
Theory, method and practice. London:
Sage.
Psathas, G. & Anderson, T. (1990). The
‘practices’ of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78, 75-99.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing
conversation analysis. London; Sage.
West, C. (1996).
Ethnography and orthography: A (modest) methodological proposal, Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 25, 327-352.
Web resources
It
is hard to learn to use the system without comparing the symbols to actual
speech. Increasingly there are good
resources for this.
Emanuel
Schegloff has a wonderful transcription tutorial on his web site. It is probably the first place to start:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/TranscriptionProject/index.html
The
Loughborough DARG web site has some papers where the sound files are available
along side of the transcript. If you go to audio and video materials you will
find sound, video and transcript as well as the finished article.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/centres/darg/audio_video_materials.htm
If
you want to transcribe from a digitised file, and if you want to digitise your
recordings the ideal software for PC users is Adobe Audition (available from
the Adobe website). However, there is an
excellent and easy to use free piece of freeware called Audacity. It is available at:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/about.php
You
can use this to digitise sound using your PC soundcard, and for transcription
it allows you to scroll through the file, cut and paste extracts, zoom in and
out, time pauses, and save as MP3 to make the file compact for transporting
between computers.
The Jefferson Transcription System
The
transcription system uses standard punctuation marks (comma, stop, question
mark); however, in the system they mark intonation rather than syntax. Arrows are used for more extreme intonational contours and should be used sparingly. The system marks noticeable emphasis, volume
shifts, and so on. A generally loud
speaker should not be rendered in capitals throughout.
[ ] Square
brackets mark the start and end of overlapping speech. They are aligned to mark the precise position
of overlap as in the example below.
¯ Vertical
arrows precede marked pitch movement, over and above normal rhythms of
speech. They are used for notable
changes in pitch beyond those represented by stops, commas and question marks.
® Side arrows
are used to draw attention to features of talk that are relevant to the current
analysis.
Underlining indicates emphasis; the
extent of underlining within individual words locates emphasis and also
indicates how heavy it is.
CAPITALS mark speech that is
hearably louder than surrounding speech. This is beyond the increase in volume that
comes as a by product of emphasis.
°I know it,° ‘degree’ signs enclose hearably quieter speech.
that’s r*ight. Asterisks
precede a ‘squeaky’ vocal delivery.
(0.4) Numbers
in round brackets measure pauses in seconds (in this case, 4 tenths of a
second). If they are not part of a
particular speaker’s talk they should be on a new line. If in doubt use a new line.
(.) A micropause, hearable but too
short to measure.
((stoccato)) Additional
comments from the transcriber, e.g. about features of
context or delivery.
she wa::nted Colons show degrees of elongation of the prior
sound; the more colons, the more elongation.
hhh Aspiration
(out-breaths); proportionally as for colons.
.hhh Inspiration
(in-breaths); proportionally as for colons.
Yeh, ‘Continuation’
marker, speaker has not finished; marked by fall-rise or weak rising
intonation, as when delivering a list.
y’know? Question marks
signal stronger, ‘questioning’ intonation, irrespective of grammar.
Yeh. Full
stops mark falling, stopping intonation (‘final contour’), irrespective of
grammar, and not necessarily followed by a pause.
bu-u- hyphens
mark a cut-off of the preceding sound.
>he said< ‘greater than’ and
‘lesser than’ signs enclose speeded-up talk. Occasionally they are used the
other way round for slower talk.
solid.= =We had ‘Equals’ signs mark the immediate
‘latching’ of successive talk, whether of one or more speakers, with no
interval.
heh heh Voiced
laughter. Can have other symbols added,
such as underlinings, pitch movement, extra
aspiration, etc.
sto(h)p i(h)t Laughter
within speech is signalled by h’s in round brackets.
For more detail on this scheme see Jefferson (2004).
Additional notation for crying and similar ‘emotional
expression’ (from Hepburn, 2004)
°°help°° Whispering –
enclosed by double degree signs.
.shih Wet
sniff.
.skuh Snorty sniff.
~grandson~ Wobbly voice – enclosed
by tildes.
Sorry Very high pitch –
represented by one or more upward arrows.
k(hh)ay Aspiration
in speech – an ‘h’ represents aspiration: in parenthesis indicates a
sharper more plosive sound
hhhelp outside
parenthesis indicates a softer more breathy sound
Huhh .hhih Sobbing –
combinations of ‘hhs’, some with full stops before
them to indicate inhaled rather than exhaled,
many
have voiced vowels,
Hhuyuhh some also have
voiced consonants.
>hhuh< If
sharply inhaled or exhaled enclosed in
the ‘greater than/less than’ symbols (> <).
Mm:. hh (3.5) Silence
– numbers in parentheses represent silence in tenths of a second.
Transcription layout
The
readability and usefulness of transcript is affected by a number of things,
including layout, white space, font, and line numbers.
1.
Layout
A good simple convention is to use 1 inch all
round as the margin. Extracts should
always be given an extract number (for ease of reference). You might also find it useful to have a
memorably heading of some kind that will remind you of the source. Sometime you will want other kinds of
specification here (tape or minidisk number, date of collection, or whatever).
2.
White space
Single spacing is OK, but leave plenty of white
space to the right of the transcript (for ease of reading and to write comments
on). You might find it works best to do
your own line breaks rather than to allow the word processor to do it for you.
3.
Font
Courier new 10pt is just about ideal. The value of a non-proportional font is that
it makes it much easier to mark overlaps (really tricky in a proportional font
like Times New Roman). You will find
readability improved if you have a clear tab between the participant name and
the transcript. It will also help if you
put the participants’ names in bold.
4.
Line numbers
Line numbers can be put in manually or using the
features of Microsoft Word. Analysts
seem to be slit on which they prefer.
Letting the wordprocessor do it can be very
quick for long transcripts, but can
generate occasionally generate problems that take a little fixing. The simple way to do this in Word is:
1.
Put
a continuous section break before and after your extract (use the
Insert>Break menu).
2.
Click
inside the extract.
3.
Go
onto line numbers on Page Setup. That
is: File> PageSetup>
4.
Layout>
Line numbers. Tick the Add Line
Numbering box, and then select ‘Restart Each Section’.
If you are familiar with Word you will find thing
speeded up by making your own transcription button bar. This can have common symbols (all the arrows,
the degree symbol), insert section break, and then a button that runs a macro
that inserts the line numbers.
Example: AD Grandson Black Eye
1. CPO: Is that o[ka:y.]
2. Caller: [ Fine.] =yes.
3. [°that’s
fine.°]
4. CPO: [¯Brilliant ] okay,
5. Caller: °.Hh° (0.2) u:m (0.1) >I’m sorry
6. I’m a little bit< emo:~tional
7. tod[ay~ .hih]
8. CPO: [Tch Oh::]
go:sh I’m so:rry,
9. Caller: ~I’ve got a little four
year old grandson,~
10. [huh]
11. CPO: [Yea]h:,
12. (0.3)
13. Caller: ~My son w(h)as s(h)ixtee:n~
(0.5) er fif¯teen when
14. he was bor:n.
15. (0.3)
16. Caller: .Hhh [And um (.)] he
and his er (0.2)
17. CPO: [ °Mm::.°
]
18. Caller: girlfriend split up.
19. (0.9)
20. Caller: ((swallows)) ~and since then um:~ (0.2)
21. she’s had (0.4)
several boyfriends, (0.6) .hh but since
22. the baby was bor:n
23. I’ve had him
(0.3) every week
24. (0.5)
25. CPO: [°Ri:ght°
]
26. Caller: [I have him] from em (0.4) ((swallows))
27. Thursday
through to Sundays.
28. (0.4)
29. CPO: Ri:ght.
30. Caller: Erm
(0.1) she doesn’t come from a very
31. good family,
32. CPO: [ M m : . ]
33. Caller: [((sniffs))] Her (0.4)
step-dad (0.2)
34. abused
her (0.4) sister.
35. (0.8)
36. CPO: Ri:ght=
37. Caller: =And er (0.6) I just don’t feel my grandson’s
38. being looked after properly
39. CPO: Tch
°oh: [ g o : : s h°]
40. Caller: [An he’s had a] black eye:
41. la:st weekh,
42. CPO: Did he:?
43. Caller: An a cigarette bur:n .hh hh
44. CPO: Oh my g[ o : : s h :
: ]
45. Caller: [She’s now got a n-] a new
boyfriend
46. ((sniffs))
(1.1) and er hh .hh they live in Sawley
47. CPO: Yea:=
48. Caller: =which is like (0.3)
three quarters of a
49. mi-e-three
quarters of an hou:r away from
50. where we live
51. CPO: Oh [I s e e: ]
Alexa Hepburn
Jonathan Potter
August 2009