John W. Du Bois ... good transcription systems (see Edwards and l-ampert, forthcoming and the references therein). ..... S: [She wasJ radioactive. B: She was ...
Pragmatics l:L71,-106 InternationalPragmaticsAssociation
TRANSCRIPTION DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SPOKEN DISCOURSE RESEARCH John W. Du Bois
I Introduction Transcriptionis theory.l This inevitable conclusionhas been brought homeevermore forcefully in the years since Ochs' seminal article (7979),as our awareness of the tangible shapeof discoursehas sharpened,and as the push to languagein relation to use has whetted appetitesfor more and more comprehend newdiscourse materiaF-transcribedwith a penpicacity and insight that can nourishnew theorieswith the vital information they need to grow. How we doesn'tjust reflect our theoriesof language,it also shapesthem, transcribe drawingour eyesto some phenomenawhile leaving others in shadow. We know this,andyet surprisinglylittle has been written that might help discoursetheorists thinkabouthow to get a discoursetranscriptionto do what they want it to do (but seeOchs1979,Edwards 1989and forthcoming,Edwardsand l-ampert forthcoming).Partly this involvesunsessing what a discoursetranscriptionneeds to do,andpartly it involvesfiguring out how to frame a systemthat can do it. Theseare the problems I wish to addresshere. First, I will considerhow peopleusediscoursetranscriptions,in order to determinewhat featuresneed to bebuilt into them. Second,I will offer a framework for designingdiscourse transcription systemsto meet thesedemands,includingdemandsengenderedby modernresearchtools like the computer,and by the nature of their human users. Because transcriptionis shapedby theory, and discoursetheories ytr!, it is not possible to detail here every viable transcriptionalcategory. Rather, it is my purpose to presentgeneralprinciples for systemdesign. My remarks may be of interestto three kinds of users:those who wish to designa new transcription to meet their own unique researchneedsand theoretical orientation; those system whowishto adapt an existingsystemthat almost,but not quite, meets their needs; andthosewho would simply like to know more about the foundationsof
lohn W Du Bois
transcription systemdesign,in order to deepentheir understandingof the transcribingprocessand the data recordswhich result from it. Discourse transcriptionsare becomingthe key data for many researchers,not only in linguisticsbut in neighboringdisciplinesas well. Given the propulsion that new conceptionsof data can bring to ongoingtheoretical developments,a close examinationof discoursetranscriptionfrom the theoretical groundwork up has value for all participantsin the expandingspectrumof spokendiscoursestudies. Though the focus will remain on generalprinciples,these must be exemplified through specificillustrations,for which I will draw mainly on a transcription systemwhich I and my colleagueshave developed(Du Bois et al. forthcoming a, b). Many of the points could of coursebe made as well with other good transcription systems(see Edwards and l-ampert, forthcoming and the referencestherein). 2 What should a discoursetranscription be? The first thing to do in designinga discoursetranscriptionsystemis to assessone's goals and plans for using the transcriptions. What is discourse transcription? Who will use the transcription? What for? What featureswill best servethe users'goals? In this sectionI set out general assumptions,goals, and desideratafor discoursetranscription,in order to lay the groundwork for the more specificdesignprinciples treated in the following section. What is discoursetranscription? Discoursetranscriptioncan be defined as the processof creating a representationin writing of a speechevent so ztsto make it accessibleto discourseresearch(Du Bois et al. forthcoming a). What it means to make the event "accessibleto discourseresearch"will of coursedepend on what kinds of researchquestionsone seeksto answer. Although speechevents are alwaysviewed through the lens of some theory, one can try to ensurethat the theorl=the framework for explanationand understanding-doesjustice to the spokenreality, or rather, to selectedaspectsof it. The processof discourse transcription is never mechanical,but crucially relies on interpretation within a theoretical frame of referenceto arrive at functionally significantcategories, rather than raw acousticfacts (cf. Ochs 1979,I-adefoged1990,Du Bois et al. forthcoming a). The nature of discoursetranscriptionis necessarilyshapedby its end. Why transcribe? Transcription documentslanguageuse, but languageuse is attested equally in written discourse,which has the advantageof being easyto obtain without transcribing. What makesspeakingworth the extra effort? Spoken
Tianscription designprinciples
73
language differs in structurefrom written language,in ways that remain surprisingly little studied:many aspectsof spokengrarnmar,meaning,and even lexiconremainto be documented. Moreover, it is in spokendiscoursethat the process of the production of languageis most accessibleto the observer. Hesitations, pauses,glottal constrictions,false starts,and numerousother subtle evidences observablein speechbut not in writing provide clues to how participants mobilize resourcesto plan and produce their utterances,and to how theynegotiatewith each other the ongoingsocial interaction. Prosodicfeatures like accentand intonation contour provide important indicatorsof the flow of new andold informationthrough the discourse(Chafe t987, etc.). And the momentby-moment flux of speechdisplaysa rich index of the shifting social interactional meanings that participantsgenerateand attend to, as well as of the larger dimensions of culture embodiedin social interactions(Goodwin 1981,etc.). A transcription of spokendiscoursecan provide a broad array of information about theseand other aspectsof language,with powerful implicationsfor grammar, pragmatics,cognition,social interaction,culture, and other domains semantics, thatmeetat the crossroadsof discourse. But discoursetranscriptioncannot be equatedwith simply writing down speech, becausethere is not, nor ever can be, a single standardway of putting spokenword to paper. An oral historian,a phonetician,a journalist, and a dialectologist will all produce very different renderingsof the same recording,and researcher'stranscriptionwill differ yet from all of these. Indeed, a discourse because theseother methodologiesfor writing speechare available,the discourse transcriber can defer to them when necessary,relying on the relevant specialist, equippedwith the appropriate analyticalframework and notational conventions, to dealwith thosefeatureswhich are specificto his or her domain of inquiry. Thisis not to saythat the domain of discourgeis insulatedfrom, say,phonetics,2 sinceclearlya small detail of pronunciationcan ironically reversea conveyed meaning, or evensignal a speaker'salignmentwith one conversationalparticipant againsta third. But at least the predictableregularitiesof phonetics,phonology, grarnmarand lexicon can generallybe assumedto have been describedelsewhere (perhaps evenin a descriptivegrammar written by the same researcherwearing hat), another so that thesefacts need not be recapitulatedin the discourse transcription.The discoursetranscriptionis designedfor answeringsome but not all questionsabout speaking,and will necessarilycontain both more and less informationthan another discipline'srepresentationof the same event. Pursuingthe nature of discoursetranscriptionfurther leads to more specific questions:What kinds of eventswill be transcribed? Who will use the
74
John W Du Bois
transcriptions? How will they use them? What should go into a transcription? I take up each question in turn. What kinds of speecheventswill be transcribed? A conversation, classroomlecture, committee meeting,political speech,serviceencounter,or even just a few words exchangedhastily in the hallway might form the object of scrutiny. Each of these speechevent typespresentssomewhatdifferent demands but a good transcription systemshould be able to accommodate,with adaptation if need be, the full range of eventsthat are likely to be of interest. In many respectsthe most challengingcaseis the free-wheelingmulti-party conversation, and any systemthat can meet its vast demandswill have passedthe severesttest, and positioned itself well to handle other speecheventsthat may be encountered. Who will use the transcriptions? Discourseresearchers,of course,in all their variety. But these daystheir interest in discourseis sharedby an everwidening circle. Grammariansand general linguistsuse transcriptionsas sources of linguistic data on a range of topics, and to follow the action in theories grounded in discourse;computationallinguistsuse them to test speechrecognition protocols againstactual languageuse; languageteachersuse them to illustrate realistic usesof spokenlanguage;social scientistsuse them for understandingthe nature of social interaction; curious folks find it intriguing to look closelyat how people really talk; and the studentsof any of thesemay use transcriptionsto learn more about their field of study. And, as we shall see,one of the most important groups of usersis the transcribersthemselves.A good transcriptionsystemshould be flexible enough to accommodatethe needsof all of thesekinds of users. How will people use the transcriptions? The most fundamentalthing they do is to read them, perhapsbrowsingthrough a transcription(or a stack of them) to look for a particular phenomenonor pattern, or to formulate a hypothesis. This requires the transcriptionnot only to present the neededinformation but to present it in a way that is easily assimilated. Second,many userswill want to searchthe transcriptionusing a computer in conjunctionwith various kinds of data managementsoftware,which may include a word processor,a database manager,and a concordancemaker, among other things. For this, the transcription should make all the necessarydistinctionsin waysthat ensurethat searcheswill be exhaustiveand economical(see $3 below and Edwards 1989, forthcoming). It would be hard to overestimatethe impact of the microcomputer on discoursetranscription design;many of the possibilities,and many of the constraints,that are spoken about in this article would not exist if the computer had not in recent years made itself such an indispensabletool for many, though certainly not all, types of discourseresearch. This is not to say that the needsof
Tianscription designpinciples
75
researchershould be bent to the requirementsof the machine;as the discourse Edwardshaspersuasivelyargued (1989),and as I will reaffirm below, an aware andpurposefulpursuit of certain basic designprinciples can insure from the outsetthat it is the computer that adjuststo the needsof the researcher. Finally, onekey functionthat is often overlookedis embeddedin the transcribingprocess itself. Through the experienceof transcribing the transcriber is constantly learningabout discourse,not only gaining skill in discriminating the categories implicitin the transcription systembut also acquiring a vivid image of the reality that he or she is seekingto represent. To the extent that conversational thereis more going on than the transcriptionsystemcan capture,it is the immersedin the recorded speechevent and groundedin discourse transcriber, theory,who is in a position to rectify this, to advancethe potential of the transcription systemand its theoretical framework. Although transcribingis sometimes thoughtof as a kind of manual labor, merely a necessarymeansof producingcertainvaluable end products,in reality the processitself has potential for enlighteningits practitioners,and for generatingthe tremendous levelof keenperceptionand intimate knowledgethat can translateinto theoreticalinsightand new researchdirections. With this in mind, the transcription systemshould contribute to making the transcribingprocessa valuableexperiencein itself. The systemshould be convenientand comfortable to use,reasonablyeasyto learn, and through its implicit categoriesit should promoteinsightfulperception and classificationof discoursephenomena,which in the end may feed back into advancesin the systemitself. The fact that a transcriptionis likely to be exploited in severaldifferent waysusingdiversetools meansthat it must be transportable($:.2;, that is, it shouldbe straightforwardto move data from one context of use to another. As noted,the computationaltools of choice may include word processors, concordance-makers, databasemanagers,and other programs,used on systems rangingfrom IBM PC-compatiblesto Macintoshesto mainframes. And the outputfrom thesetooFsearch results,key-word-in-contextconcordances,the basictranscriptionsthemselves,and so orFneed to be presentedin formats as variedas computertext files, databasefiles, screendisplays,printouts, handwritten notes,blackboardinscriptions,and printed articles. These transcriptionsmay cometo be read by a wide range of people interestedin discourse,from linguists to studentsof foreign languages,in addition to the discourse to sociologists who may form their initial audience. What this all boils down to is that specialists data need to be representedin a form that is sufficientlyrobust to discourse maintaindata integrity acrosscontextsof use. Practicallyspeakingthis means usingthe most widely standardizedsymbolsavailable ($3.2,$3.1;.
76
Iohn W Du Bois
What should go into a transcription? Allowing for theoretical diversity,we can still observethat many transcriptionsystemstake pains to represent(or at least make notations availablefor) many or all of the following features:the words spoken,written so as to allow each lexical item to be recognized;an identification of the speakerof each turn; the temporal sequencingof utterances, whether these follow each other in successionor are simultaneous(as when speakersoverlap); basic units in which the utteranceswere articulated,such as turns and intonation units; intonation contour,whether functionally or phonetically classified;accent;fluctuationsin timing such as tempo, pauseand lengthening;nonverbal noisesmade by speechevent participants,such as laughter, throat-clearing,inhalation; specialqualities of voice that extend over a stretch of speech;non-utteranceeventsthat becomerelevant to the interaction, such as a participant's servingfood, or a suddenthunderclapin the background; metatranscriptionaland "evidential"commentson the transcriptionitself, indicating where the transcriberis uncertain of the words spoken,and so on; and other featuresas appropriate. (Depending on the language,these may include interlinear glossesand free translations,among other things.) Most of this information is locally sequenced-linkedto specificmomentsin the stream of speectr-but some of it pertains rather to the whole of the speechevent or transcription,and can be presentedseparatelyin a header of "global",nonsequencedinformation containing,for example,general contextualdata on the speechevent participants,the situation, the event'srecording,and its transcription (Du Bois forthcoming). It will be useful at this point to look at a brief exampleof a discourse transcriptionthat takes thesefactors into consideration. The following exampleis based on the systempresented in DiscourseTransciption (Du Bois et al. forthcoming &, referred to hereafter as DT). It should be borne in mind that DT is only one of many possiblesystemsthat could meet the kinds of needsdiscussed in this article. In the examplebelow,3speakeridentification is indicated by a colon following the name or label in capital letters; overlap between speakersis indicated by squarebrackets,with the left bracketsvertically aligned; two separate cuxesof overlap in close successionare distinguishedfrom each other by single versusdouble brackets;pausesof various lengthsare written as clustersof three dots, with the duration of longer pausesgiven in parentheses;truncation of words is shown by a hyphen at the end of the word; intonation units are marked by carriagereturn, that is, each line containsa single intonation unit; and intonation contours are broadly classifiedas to their "transitionalcontinuity" (Du Bois et al. forthcomin1 a, b) by the comma,period, or questionmark at the end of the line. A summaryof these and other symbolsused in the DT systemis given in
Tianscription designprinciples
77
Appendix 1. (For a full discussion of eachof thesetranscriptional categories, see DuBoiset al. forthcoming4 b.) (1)
((Cnnsarrs))
D: we have the used Dodge, but no new ones. G: ... No new ones? IHuh], D: [Dodge] is separate, from Chrysler Plymouth. G: .o. You're [kiddingl me]. D: [I mean] they're all affiliated, but th- th- [ [theyrre not] I on our lot. G: ttRightll. ...(.8) Theyrre not on your lot. [wow]. D: IYeah]. A "narrower"transcriptionwithin the samesystemwould add more detail, using additionalconventions.In the following illustration, a very short pause(less than 200milliseconds) is indicated by a cluster of two dots; primary and secondary accentare markedwith caret and grave accent,respectively;and laughter is writtenwith one @ symbol for each "syllable"of laughter. (2) L: R: M:
((LuNcH)) But rthey never rfigured ^out what he had? He had ^pneunonia. [The ^second rweek] he had rpneu€monia, [^Eventually].
Thesebrief illustrationsare enoughto provide some common ground for the discussion ahead;additional transcriptionconventionsand examplesfrom this will be introducedas needed. system 3 T[anscriptiondesignprinciples With the goalsof discoursetranscriptionin mind, we are now in a position to specifythe designprincipleswhich they motivate. While transcriptiondesign principles are commonlyleft implicit, it is to the benefit of all concernedwith the qualityof discoursedata and theory that they should be made explicit. We can group our transcriptiondesignprinciplesunder five broad maxims:
78
John W Du Bois
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Categorydefinition: Define good categories. Accessibility:Make the systemaccessible. Robustness: Make representationsrobust. Economy: Make representationseconomical. Adaptability: Make the systemadaptable.
I will now take up each of thesemaxims and the designprinciples they motivate. 3.1 Categorydefinition DenNIE GooD cATEGoRIES.The most basic issuein designinga discourse transcription systemis not choosingsymbols,but defining the analyticalcategories for which the symbolswill stand. 1. Define trarccriprtonal categoieswhich mal
