Introduction

In order to analyze conversation (or indeed any talk-in-interaction) the audio-recorded data is typically transcribed into a written form that is amenable to analysis. There are several methods of transcribing conversational interaction and which one is used will depend on the analyst’s purpose. If, for example, the investigator is concerned with the minutiae of conversation such as which particular words are stressed, which words or utterances are spoken with increased loudness, the points at which the turns at talk overlap, how particular words and sounds are articulated, and so on, then a so-called narrow transcription may be required. If such detail is less important – perhaps because the analyst is more concerned with the overall gross structure of the conversation or the relative distribution of turns at talk amongst the participants – then a broad transcription may be sufficient. The chief distinction between these two approaches, therefore, is the fineness of the detail that is transcribed.

We can understand this better by looking at a few examples. We will use an extract from a longer conversation between a mother (M) and her teenage daughter (K) to exemplify both a narrow and a broad transcription. This will, therefore, demonstrate one way in which the same audio-recorded data can be represented differently.

Narrow transcription

Transcription conventions

In the same way that the investigator’s purpose will influence the choice of whether or not a broad or narrow transcription is required, so different researchers will highlight different detailed features of talk as being important to their purpose. Consequently, there are also several published transcription conventions. Having said this, I have found the following conventions to be particularly useful. They can almost certainly be profitably used for a number of purposes. They are essentially those outlined by Levinson (1983:369-370), with some minor modifications (Williamson, 1995).

Example narrow transcription

The following example makes use of these conventions in setting out a narrow transcription.

01    M:    o:ka:y (..) what do you want to talk about

02    K:    I: don’t know

03    M:    .hh

04    K:    pick a conversation (..)

05    M:    .hh w:: (.) what do you fan::c:y doing on s:aturday

06    K:    Saturday (.) I (thought) we were going to get the

07          (.) the presents

08    M:    yea:h (…) well w- we (.) talked about Saturday or Sunday

09          (…) er:: (..) bu:t Bede an::d (..) Sinners are

10          playing on Sunday so: (…) .hh wouldn’t give us much

11          ti:me to get back for four o clock (.) especially if we

12          wanted to: (.) go to Browton

13    K:    m

14    M:    so (..) probably Saturday

15    K:    okay

16    M:    er:m (…) but we’ve got the: (…)

17    K:    ((sniff))

18    M:    er::m (…) Paul Norton (.) and his wife coming round on

19          the (.) evening time (…) for a meal

20    K:    oh (…) but (.) the only problem is I need to get (..)

21          dad’s present ((1 syllable))

22    M:    mhm mhm

23    K:    an:d we er:: (..) so: I can either do that on the Saturday

24          and Sunday but (…) I think (…) one of the shops might

25          not be open (…)

26    M:    on Sunday (…) you you’re home all we- all=

27    K:    =oh yeah

28    M:    from Monday

29    K:    oh will do yeah (…)

30    M:    have you go:t er:m: (..) any plans

31    K:    Friday (at home)

32    M:    m

33    K:    no: (…) I’ve got no idea what I’m doing (.) next week

34          (…)

35    M:    so: (.) presumably though you’ll be going shopping (..)

36    K:    OH YEAH (.) at some point (…)

37    M:    how many presents have you got to buy yet (..)

38    K:    I’ve just got to get (…) dad’s (…)

39    M:    yeah

40    K:    and I need to get (.) this thing for Emma (..) an:d (.)

41          see if I can see anything for Robert and (.) I’ll just

42          carry on with the present that I’ve got him (..) can you

Narrow transcriptions such as this are typically used by analysts using a technique known as conversation analysis (CA). Much of the work examining overlapping talk (interruptions) was done using this method.

Broad transcription

Notes

The narrow transcription above was used to generate the broad transcription presented below.

• Self-editing markers are glossed, e.g. “we-” (L26) is glossed as week.
• All non-linguistic phenomena, such as audible in-breaths, silences and laughter, have been removed, e.g. ((sniff)) in L17 has been omitted.
• All filled pauses have been removed, e.g. “have you go:t er:m: (..) any plans” (L30) is represented as have you got any plans.
• Successive repetitions have been removed, e.g. “w- we” (L08) is transcribed simply as we.

Example broad transcription

1     M:    okay what do you want to talk about

2     K:    I don’t know…pick a conversation

3     M:    what do you fancy doing on Saturday

4     K:    Saturday…I thought we were going to get the presents

5     M:    yeah well we talked about Saturday or Sunday but Bede and

6           Sinners are playing on Sunday so wouldn’t give us much time to

7           get back for four o clock especially if we wanted to go to

8           Browton

9     K:    m

10    M:    so probably Saturday

11    K     okay

12    M:    but we’ve got the…Paul Norton and his wife coming round on

13          the evening time for a meal

14    K:    oh but the only problem is I need to get dad’s present

15          ((1 syllable))

16    M:    mhm

17    K:    and we…so I can either do that on the Saturday and Sunday

18          but I think one of the shops might not be open

19    M:    on Sunday…you, you’re home all week…all…

20    K:    oh yeah

21    M:    from Monday

22    K:    oh, will do, yeah

23    M:    have you got any plans

25    K:    Friday, at home

26    M:    m

27    K:    no, I’ve got no idea what I’m doing next week

28    M:    so presumably though you’ll be going shopping

29    K:    oh yeah, at some point

30    M:    how many presents have you got to buy yet

31    K:    I’ve just got to get dad’s

32    M:    yeah

33    K:    and I need to get this thing for Emma and see if I can see

34          anything for Robert and I’ll just carry on with the present

35          that I’ve got him…can you think of anyone that I could get

36          him

It is evident that this broad transcription lacks the fineness of detail of the narrow transcription. However, it is still a useful representation of the talk between the two participants. For example, if we are mainly concerned with which particular word classes (verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, numerals, determiners, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions) each participant uses then the level of detail available in this broad transcription is sufficient for this purpose. It does not require an understanding of, for example, vowel length to determine word class and so the broad transcription adequately suits our research purpose.

Distribution of turns

The linear layout of both transcriptions shown above is a common arrangement. However, the distribution of turns at talk (i.e. the relative amount of speaker participation) is not immediately apparent in this format. The layout below highlights each participant’s contributions by citing them in a columnar format.

Example transcription showing turn distribution

Whilst we have used our broad transcription extract to exemplify this layout, this design is not restricted to presenting just broad transcriptions. Narrow transcriptions could be similarly set out. However, this is less common. The layout works well when there are only two people involved in the conversation (so-called dyadic conversation) and can perhaps be extended to conversations with at least three participants. Anymore than this and you will appreciate that it becomes difficult to fit sufficient columns (of transcribed talk) across a printed page. However, this format can be usefully exploited using a computer spreadsheet where the number of columns is virtually limitless.

References

Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, G. (1995) Instructor-trainee conversation in an Adult Training Centre for people with learning disabilities: an analysis of the function and distribution of back channel tokens and personal names Unpublished PhD thesis. Newcastle, UK: University of Newcastle.