Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


The research reported here is part of a larger psycholinguistic project on transcribing and the use of transcripts. It is hypothesized that reproducing transcripts originally prepared on the basis of current transcription systems overloads the capability of those who carry out transcript reproduction and therefore occasions an excessive error rate. Ten reproduced transcripts were taken from (a) three current textbooks (Duranti 1997; Garman 1990; Whitney 1998), and from (b) an earlier textbook (Levinson 1983); and (c) six versions were taken from a German transcript (Keppler 1987). Additions, deletions, substitutions, and relocations of notations were identified according to five categories: Verbal, prosodie, paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and format components. The hypothesis is supported: The overall rate of change is 6.6 syllables per change (2032/308) across all 41 comparisons. Factors underlying this excessive amount of change are discussed. The proposal is made that those notations be made which are to be used for analyses in keeping with the purposes of the research in question.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Altmann, G.T.M.
    (1997) The ascent of Babel: An exploration of language, mind, and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergmann, J.
    (1987) Klatsch: Zur Sozialform der diskreten Indiskretion. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110875195
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110875195 [Google Scholar]
  3. (1993) Discreet indiscretions: The social organ-zation of gossip. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Briggs, C.L.
    (1986) Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165990
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165990 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burman, E. , & I. Parker
    (1993) (eds.)Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, W.
    (1980) (ed.)The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, H.H.
    (1994) Discourse in production. In M.A. Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook ofpsycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp.985–1021.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crystal, D.
    (1987) The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Crystal, D. , & D. Davy
    (1975) Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Denes, P.B. , & E.N. Pinson
    (1963) The speech chain. Nutley, NJ: Bell Laboratories.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Duranti, A.
    (1997) Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  12. Edwards, D.
    (1996) Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fine, E.C.
    (1984) The folklore text: From performance to print. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Garman, M.
    (1990) Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165914
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165914 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, C.
    (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp.97–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1981) Conversational interaction: Interaction be-tween speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, C. & M.H. Goodwin
    (1992) Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity Press, pp.147–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Herrmann, T. , & J. Grabowski
    (1994) Sprechen: Psychologie der Sprachproduktion. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hirsch, E.D.
    (1976) The aims of interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, CE
    (2000) What you see is what you get: The importance of transcription for interpreting children’s morphosyntactic development. In L. Menn & N. B. Ratner (eds.), Methods for studying language production. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.181–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keppler, A.
    (1987) Der Verlauf von Klatschgesprächen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie16: 288–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kitzinger, C.
    (1998) Inaccuracies in quoting from data transcripts: Or inaccuracy in quotations from data transcripts. Discourse & Society9: 136–143. doi: 10.1177/0957926598009001025
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009001025 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kowal, S. , & D.C. O’Connell
    (in press a)Datenerhebung und Transkription. In T. Herrmann & J. Grabowski (eds.) Sprachproduktion. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kowal, S. , & D.C O’Connell
    (in press b)Psycholinguistische Aspekte der Transkription: Zur Notation von Pausen in Gesprächstranskripten. Linguistische Berichte.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kulick, D.
    (1992) Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in a Papua New Guinean village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Labov, W. & D. Fanshel
    (1977) Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinson, S.C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindsay, J. , & D.C. O’Connell
    (1995) How do transcribers deal with audio recordings of spoken discourse?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research24: 101–115. doi: 10.1007/BF02143958
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02143958 [Google Scholar]
  29. The New Encyclopedia Britannica
    (1985) International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 5: 353.
  30. O’Connell, D.C , & S. Kowal
    (1994) The transcriber as language user. In G. Bartelt (ed.), The dynamics of language processes: Essays in honor of Hans W. Dechert. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp.119–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. O’Connell, D. C , & S. Kowal
    (1999) Transcription and the issue of standardization. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research28: 103–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1023265024072
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023265024072 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pomerantz, A.
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.57–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Posner, R.
    (1986) Zur Systematik der Beschreibung verbaler und nonverbaler Kommunikation: Semiotik als Propädeutik der Medienanalyse. In H.-G. Bosshardt (ed.), Perspektiven auf Sprache. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zum Gedenken an Hans Hörmann. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.267–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Potter, R. , G. Koop , & H. Green
    (1947) Visible speech. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Preston, D.R.
    (1982) ‘Ritin’fowklower daun’rong: Folklorists’failures in phonology. Journal of American Folklore95: 304–326. doi: 10.2307/539912
    https://doi.org/10.2307/539912 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ramer, N.B. , & L. Menn
    (2000) In the beginning was the wug: Forty years of language-elicitation studies. In L. Menn & N.B. Ratner (eds.), Methods for studying language production. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sacks, H. , EA. Schegloff , & G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50: 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, H. , EA. Schegloff , & G Jefferson
    (1978) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp.7–57. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50008‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schegloff, EA
    (1976) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. Pragmatics Microfiche 2.2, D8-G1.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1979) Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp.23–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schegloff, E A.
    (1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.28–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schegloff, E.A. & H. Sacks
    (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica7: 289–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, E.A. , G. Jefferson , & H. Sacks
    (1977) The prefe-rence for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53: 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schenkein, J.
    (ed.) (1978) Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sherzer, J.
    (1983) Kuna ways of speaking: An ethnographic perspective. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Svartvik, J.
    (ed.) (1990) The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Svartvik, J. , & R. Quirk
    (eds.) (1980) A corpus of English conversation. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Urban, G.
    (1996) Entextualization, replication, and power. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (eds.), Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.21–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Whitney, P.
    (1998) The psychology of language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Notation systems; Research methodology; Spoken discourse; Transcripts
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error