We report a small empirical study on the way the transcription used to represent speech affects its meaning. We show that ‘disfluencies’ in speech indicate far more uncertainty in the speaker when transmitted in text than when transmitted in recorded sound. This has important implications for how transcribed interviews should be edited when they are being used to convey meaning rather than the organization of phonemes. We propose the implications of different ways of representing speech in text could be a new subject for investigation. Presented here is one possible empirical approach to such studies.
AtkinsonP (1999) Medical discourse, evidentiality and the construction of professional responsibility. In: SarangiSRobertsC (eds) Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Meditation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–107.
2.
AyaßR (2015) Doing data: the status of transcripts in conversation analysis. Discourse Studies17(5): 505–528.
3.
BezemerJ (2015) How to transcribe multimodal interaction? A case study. In: MaierDNorrisS (eds) Texts, Images and Interaction: A Reader in Multimodality. Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter, 155–159.
4.
BezemerJKressG (2008) Writing in multimodal texts: a social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication25(2): 165–195.
5.
BogenD (1992) The organization of talk. Qualitative Sociology15(3): 273–295.
6.
BortfeldHLeonSDBloomJESchoberMFBrennanSE (2001) Disfluency rates in spontaneous speech: effects of age, relationship, topic, role and gender. Language and Speech44(2): 123–147.
7.
BrennanSESchoberMF (2001) How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language44(2): 274–296.
8.
BrennanSEWilliamsM (1995) The feeling of another′s knowing: prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language34(3): 383–398.
9.
BucholtzM (2000) The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics32(10): 1439–1465.
10.
BucholtzM (2007) Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies9(6): 784–808.
11.
ClarkHHFox TreeJE (2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition84(1): 73–111.
12.
CoatesJThornborrowJ (1999) Myths, lies and audiotapes: some thoughts on data transcripts. Discourse and Society10(4): 594–597.
13.
CollinsH (2004) Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves. London: University of Chicago Press.
14.
CollinsH (2018) Artifictional Intelligence: Against Humanity’s Surrender to Computers. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
CollinsHEvansR (2014) Quantifying the tacit: the imitation game and social fluency. Sociology48(1): 3–19.
16.
CollinsHEvansR (2016) A thousand words is worth a picture. Social Studies of Science46(2): 312–324.
17.
CollinsHEvansR (2017) Probes, surveys, and the ontology of the social. Journal of Mixed Methods Research11(3): 328–341.
18.
CollinsHEvansRWeinelM, et al. (2017) The imitation game and the nature of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research11(4): 1–18.
19.
DeschambaultR (2011) From ‘analytic nuisance’ to interactional resource: re-viewing small stories within interviews in a mixed methods study. Journal of Pragmatics43(12): 4080–4090.
20.
DeschambaultR (2012) Thinking-aloud as talking-in-interaction: reinterpreting how L2 lexical inferencing gets done. Language Learning62(1): 266–301.
21.
DittmarN (2013) Transcription. In: ChapelleC (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. New York: Blackwell Publishing, 1–14.
22.
FlewittRHauckMHampelRLancasterL (2009) What are multimodal data and transcription? In: JewittC (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge, 40–54.
23.
Fox TreeJE (1995) The effects of false starts and repetitions on the processing of subsequent words in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language34(6): 709–738.
24.
GibsonJJ (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. London: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
GreenJFranquizMDixonC (1997) The myth of the objective transcript: transcribing as a situated act. TESOL Quarterly31(1): 172–176.
26.
HammersleyM (2010a) A selective and partially annotated bibliography on transcription in social research. Unpublished.
27.
HammersleyM (2010b) Reproducing or constructing? Some questions about transcription in social research. Qualitative Research10(5): 553–569.
28.
HepburnABoldenGB (2012) The conversation analytic approach to transcription. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. London: John Wiley & Sons, 57–76.
29.
HepburnABoldenGB (2017) Transcribing for Social Research. New York: SAGE.
30.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–31.
31.
JewittC (2009) An introduction to multimodality. In: JewittC (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge, 14–27.
32.
KaslSMahlG (1965) The relationship of disturbances and hesitations in spontaneous speech to anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1(5): 425–433.
33.
KressG (2009) What is mode? In: JewittC (Eed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge, 54–67.
34.
LeveltWJM (1983) Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition14(1): 41–104.
35.
LeveltWJM (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
36.
MishlerEG (1991a) Representing Discourse: The Rhetoric of Transcription. Journal of Narrative and Life History1(4): 255–280.
37.
MishlerEG (1991b) Research Interviewing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
38.
OchsE (1979) Transcription as theory. In: EochsESchieffelinBB (eds) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 43–72.
39.
PotterJHepburnA (2005) Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology2(4): 281–307.
40.
PotterJWetherellM (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.
41.
RapleyTJ (2001) The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research1(3): 303–323.
42.
RockFE (2012) ‘You say “I’m sure” but you’re not, are you?’ Trust and distrust in police interviews. In: CandlinCNCrichtonJe (eds) Discourses of Trust, Palgrave Studies in Professional and Organizational Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 203–219.
43.
SacksHSchegloffEAJeffersonG (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language50(4): 696–735.
44.
SandelowskiM (1994) Notes on transcription. Research in Nursing & Health17(4): 311–314.
45.
SealeC (2012) Validity, reliability and the quality of reserach. In: SealeC (ed.) Researching Society and Culture (third edition). London: SAGE, 528–543.
