Abstract
A 21-syllable question posed by Bernard Shaw in a CNN television interview with Margaret Thatcher was presented to 90 participants, either as an audio recording or as a typed transcript or as both. Participants were asked to speak it, as closely as possible, as Shaw had (or, in conditions without the audio recording, as he might have). The typed version was either an ordinary transcript or a transcript in one of three transcription systems used currently in research on spoken discourse, all of which incorporate notations for prosody. Hence, there were nine conditions in all, with five women and five men in each. Contrary to the experimental hypothesis, approximations to Shaw's original temporal measures of performance were not degraded but were instead improved significantly by the addition of a prosodically notated transcript to the audio recording and significantly more in the absence of the audio recording. Presentation of the ordinary transcript alone produced the worst approximation to Shaw's temporal measures. The usefulness, accuracy, and readability of transcripts prepared according to detailed notation systems are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deese, J. (1984). Thought into language: The psychology of a language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ehlich, K. (1993). HIAT: A transcription system for discourse data. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (123–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferber, R. (1991). Slip of the tongue or slip of the ear? On the perception and transcription of naturalistic slips of the tongue. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 105–122.
Fine, E. C. (1984). The folklore text: From performance to print. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gumperz, J. J., & Berenz, N. (1993). Transcribing conversational exchange. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (91–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gutfleisch-Rieck, J., Klein, W., Speck, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (1989). Transkriptionsvereinbarungen für den Sonderforschungsbereich 245 “Sprechen und Sprachverstehen im sozialen Kontext.” Heidelberg, Germany: Universitäten Heidelberg/Mannheim.
Heinze, H. (1979). Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Deutsch: Vergleichende Untersuchungen von Bundestagsreden und deren schriftlich aufgezeichneter Version. Düsseldorf, Germany: Schwann.
Lindsay, J., & O'Connell, D. C. (1995). How do transcribers deal with audio recordings of spoken discourse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 101–115.
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (43–72). New York: Academic Press.
O'Connell, D. C. (1991). The spoken flies away; the written stays put. Georgetown Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 2, 274–283.
O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1990a). A note on time, timing, and transcriptions thereof. Georgetown Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 1, 203–208.
O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1990b). Some sources of error in the transcription of real time in spoken discourse. Georgetown Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 1, 453–466.
O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1994a). Some current transcription systems for spoken discourse: A critical analysis. Pragmatics, 4, 81–107.
O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1994b). The transcriber as language user. In G. Bartelt (Ed.), The dynamics of language processes: Essays in honor of Hans W. Dechert (119–142). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (1999). Transcription and the issue of standardization. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 103–120.
O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (2000). Are transcripts reproducible? Pragmatics, 10, 247–269.
O'Connell, D. C., Kowal, S., Bartels, U., Mundt, H., & Van De Water, D. (1989). Allocation of time in reading aloud: Being fluent is not the same as being rhetorical. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 223–226.
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barden, B., Bergmann, J., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Günthner, S., Meier, C., Quasthoff, U., Schlobinski, P., & Uhmann, S. (1998). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Linguistische Berichte, 173, 91–122.
Svartvik, J. (Ed.). (1990). The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R. (Eds.). (1980). A corpus of English conversation. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
Walker, A. G. (1986). The verbatim record: The myth and the reality. In S. Fisher & D. Todd (Eds.), Discourse and institutional authority: Medicine, education, and law (205–222). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Romero, C., O'Connell, D.C. & Kowal, S. Notation Systems for Transcription: An Empirical Investigation. J Psycholinguist Res 31, 619–631 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021217105211
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021217105211