Commentary: transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices

In this commentary, I consider variability as an ordinary and irremediable feature related to the indexicality not only of transcripts but first of all of transcribing. In this sense, it is not just a characteristic of transcripts as texts, which can be assessed in a kind of philological comparison comparing formal features of autonomous and fixed textual objects, but a characteristic of transcribing as a situated practice. Practices are irremediably indexical, reflexively tied to the context of their production and to the practical purposes of their accomplishment. Thus, a transcript is an evolving flexible object; it changes as the transcriber engages in listening and looking again at the tape, endlessly checking, revising, reformatting it. Transcribing relies in a fundamental way not only on the possibility of fixing the relevant details in a complex multilayered representation but also on the possibility of manipulating them, playing them again and again, at different paces, positions, fragments, while transcribing their finely tuned coordination, their synchronization, the fine articulation between different projections and sequential implicativenesses. These manipulations are one of the ways in which transcribing is accomplished as a situated practice.

[1]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[2]  Lorenza Mondada,et al.  Les effets théoriques des pratiques de transcription , 2000 .

[3]  B. Latour Visualization and cognition: thinking with eyes and hands , 1986 .

[4]  G. Jefferson Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction , 2004 .

[5]  G. Jefferson Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a 'standard maximum' silence of approximately one second in conversation. , 1989 .

[6]  Jörg R. Bergmann Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit: Aufzeichnungen als Daten der interpretativen Soziologie , 1985 .

[7]  Susan Wright,et al.  The validity of phonetic transcription: Limitations of a sociolinguistic research tool , 1990, Language Variation and Change.

[8]  Mary Elizabeth Lynch,et al.  The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences , 1988 .

[9]  Lorenza Mondada,et al.  Video Recording as the Reflexive Preservation and Configuration of Phenomenal Features for Analysis , 2006 .

[10]  William D. Raymond,et al.  The Buckeye corpus of conversational speech: labeling conventions and a test of transcriber reliability , 2005, Speech Commun..

[11]  B. Asher The Professional Vision , 1994 .

[12]  Dieter Hillert Language in Time , 1997 .

[13]  Harold Garfinkel,et al.  On Formal Structures of Practical Actions , 2005 .

[14]  Charles Goodwin,et al.  Time in Action , 2002, Current Anthropology.

[15]  Daniel C. O'Connell,et al.  Some Sources of Error in the Transcription of Real Time in Spoken Discourse. , 1990 .

[16]  Bernard J. Frieden,et al.  Notes on Methodology , 2020, Immigrant Incorporation in East Asian Democracies.

[17]  Helen Lomax,et al.  Recording Social Life: Reflexivity and Video Methodology , 1998 .

[18]  L. Mondada Ways of''Doing Being Plurilingual''in International Work Meetings , 2004 .

[19]  Darren J. Reed,et al.  Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis: The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript , 2000 .

[20]  Rodolfo Mondolfo The Greek Attitude to Manual Labour , 1954 .

[21]  Language & Time , 2003 .

[22]  M. Selting Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT): 2102 , 1998 .

[23]  G. Jefferson A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences , 1973 .