Transcription as theory Transcription

54

2.3 Transcription

An analysis of multilingual categorial work in performative data requires one to become reflective of transcription. In this section, I discuss transcription in general to identify the difficulty of representing non-standard languages 2.3.1 and discuss the representation of Hawai‗i Creole in particular to acknowledge how previous scholars have attempted to represent Hawai‗i Creole in their transcripts 2.3.2. I also illustrate how I transcribe this language that is part of my multilingual data 2.3.3.

2.3.1 Transcription as theory

Transcription is a complex process through which transcribers ‗entextualize‘ Bauman Briggs, 1990 verbal and non-verbal information into written forms that obtain ―new textual forms as well as new contextual meanings‖ Bucholtz, 2007, p. 785. Transcribers select either what is salient to themselves as researchers or what is relevant to interactants as members. Ochs 1979 boils down transcription into three fundamental points: 1 transcripts are the researcher‘s data, 2 transcripts are the products of the transcription process that is selective and reflects theoretical assumptions, and 3 transcripts constrain the generalizations the researcher makes. I explore these points further with respect to selectivity, politics, and translation. Ochs 1979 does not discourage selectivity in the process. What should be discouraged, she argues, is selectivity that is based on inconsistent and implicit decision- making. In other words, selectivity is not an option Cook, 1990. Ochs encourages the use of a selective transcript as long as the transcriber is ―conscious of the filtering process‖ Ochs, 1979, p. 44. Although non-standard spellings tend to be inconsistent, 55 Bucholtz 2007 suspends judgment about whether representational differences are ‗errors‘ and considers them ‗variation‘ in orthography in order to examine the motivations and effects of such variation. She suggests th at ―increased attention to the relationship between phonology and interaction has the potential to enrich a number of fields‖ Bucholtz, 2007, p. 800. Selectivity leads to issues of power and ownership. I refer to Green, Franquiz, and Dixon 1997 because they pose a series of questions that are relevant to any discourse analytic research, and particularly to my multilingual performative data. Green, Franquiz, and Dixon 1997 claim that there is no objective transcript because transcribing is a political act; that is, what is represented an interpretive process and how it is represented a representational process are not completely separable. We must pose the following questions to become reflective of the transcription process Green, Franquiz, Dixon, 1997, p. 174:  Who will be involved in constructing the transcript?  How will talk be selected, in what ways, and for what purposes?  What level of contextual information will be provided, so that readers may hear or see the researcher‘s interpretive processes?  How will persons and their talk and related actions be represented in the transcript?  What is invisible within the transcript that needs to be articulated in the narrative? These questions become even more important in two cases: 1 when the transcriber belongs to a different language group from the speakers in the data or 2 when multiple languages are involved Green, Franquiz, Dixon, 1997; these cases are inseparable from another question p. 174 that is particularly relevant to discussion of stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized languages in multilingual data: 56  Whose language is being represented and whose language counts, when language counts? Researchers need to answer these questions because as stated above, there is no objective transcript and because transcription has political effects. Our goal is not to achieve neutrality but to assume responsibility Bucholtz, 2000. Similarly, Jaffe 2006 maintains that non-standard spellings in transcripts have communicative potential while they have inherent representational risks in the sense that they are indexically associated with sociolinguistic difference or stigma. 19 Jaffe 2006 implies that eye dialect e.g., ―wuz‖ for ―was‖ should not be used in transcripts unless used for subversive purposes as an act of self representation, because it has no information value, thereby simply perpetuating the stigma of the speakers whose variety is represented. On the other hand, she implies that respellings are acceptable for casual or informal speech su ch as ―kinda‖ for ―kind of‖ as well as those for phonological features of a variety such as ―dis‖ for ―this‖ because these respellings have corresponding varieties and, thus, have information value. Selectivity and power issues are intertwined in the transcription process; thus, being reflective of this process and making consistent practical decisions help us to deconstruct our ideologies about discourse. The last point I would like to address before dealing with Hawai‗i Creole is translation in the trans cription process. Bucholtz 2007 argues that ―the process of discourse transcription is also a process of social ascription‖ Bucholtz, 2007, p. 801; for instance, she re- examines Moerman‘s 1988 data on Thai interaction by focusing on his translation o f the word ―lăj,‖ claiming that Moerman has translated the lawyer‘s token 19 Celia Roberts 1997 and Deborah Cameron 2001 also note these inherent risks in respelling. 57 into formal speech i.e., ―many‖ and the witness‘s token into casual speech i.e., ―a lot of‖. 20 Bucholtz‘s analysis seems untenable, but her point is that transcription, like translation, is not a neutral act and is a political act. Interaction is loaded with social, cultural, and political meanings, and the process of transcription as recontextualization leads to an intertextual gap Bucholtz, 2007. This leads to a challenging task that I must deal with in transcribing, representing, and translating the multiple languages and varieties that Local comedians use on stage. My data contain not only the use of multiple varieties but the switching and mixing of these varieties. Most of these languages and varieties are not part of my linguistic heritage and repertoire; thus, I need to pay due attention to the transcription process that could influence and constrain what I find relevant in my data. I demonstrate the difficulty of this proc ess by drawing on previous scholars‘ attempts to represent Hawai‗i Creole in the next section, which leads to the rationale for representing Hawai‗i Creole in my data.

2.3.2 Hawai‘i Creole in transcripts