Conversation Analysis Conventions

Conversation analysis conventions | Mike McDonald | October 5th, 2003

Could someone familiar with CA conventions tell me how to transcribe an interaction in which an exterior sound (e.g., a bell ringing) continues through several turns? How does the bracketing work?

Thanks,

Mike McDonald

Re: Conversation analysis conventions | Colin | October 5th, 2003

Hi Mike

Could someone familiar with CA conventions tell me how to transcribe an interaction in which an exterior sound (e.g., a bell ringing) continues through several turns? How does the bracketing work?

I think you could make your own transcription convention, so long as it was clear that the bell ringing was external (you may not need to include it unless it had some kind of interesting effect on the interaction). I would adapt Jefferson and maybe do something like:

A: So as I said [ eh? yeah as I said that bell's annoying isn't it

[<<bell starts to ring>>

B: yeah

A: so anyway (1.0) where was I?

B: you were talking about the lack of interest in=

A: =oh yeah. They don't seem to have er any interest in ]

<<bell stops>> ]

A: thank God for that. any interest in doing ((continues))

Maybe Keith's got different ideas!!

Colin

Re: Conversation analysis conventions | Keith Richards | October 6th, 2003

First a public apology to Colin for calling him Graham in that last posting - realized as soon as I pressed the "send" button but by then it was too late.

This is also to back up his response to the CA transcript question. In a nutshell:

Single brackets are for uncertain transcription, e.g. "We (sizzled) in the heat", where "sizzled" is not certain.

Double brackets are for non-verbal aspects such as a phone ringing.

Colin's example is spot on.

All the best

Keith

Re: Conversation analysis conventions | Mike McDonald | October 6th, 2003

Thanks to Keith and Colin for their helpful responses. Now that I think about it, it seems obvious that the best way to indicate a sound that continues through several turns is just to note the beginning and ending points, using double brackets as they both mentioned. Incidentally, I noticed that Colin used both double arrowheads and double parentheses in his example, whereas Jefferson's list of symbols (on page vi of Hutchby and Wooffitt) includes only the latter. Is there any difference?

Cheers,

Mike McDonald

Re: Conversation analysis conventions | Keith Richards | October 6th, 2003

Mike asks:

Incidentally, I noticed that Colin used both double arrowheads and double parentheses in his example, whereas Jefferson's list of symbols (on page vi of Hutchby and Wooffitt) includes only the latter. Is there any difference?

Not that I know of. Ordinary double brackets, i.e. "((" and "))", are the norm, probably because "<" and ">" can relate to speed of delivery.

All the best

Keith

Re: Conversation analysis conventions | Colin | October 6th, 2003

Hi Mike

I used the double angles to show that the noise or event was not one created by the interactants in the talk, to distinguish it from((laughs)) or ((coughs)). That's why I suggested that I was modifying Jefferson. I doubled to avoid confusion with the speed marking, as Keith pointed out. However, as I was not publishing a paper or writing an IIC assignment at the time, I didn't include my full transcription conventions :-)

BTW Keith, I've been called worse things than 'Graham' !!

Colin

Re: Conversation analysis conventions | Raymond | October 7th, 2003

Hi Mike:

I found the appendix to Silverman 2001 'Interpreting Qualitative Data' useful: 'simplified transcription symbols' -- it had, on one page, just about all I needed for the purposes of the assignment. Chapter 6 in the book 'Naturally occurring talk' was useful too.

Raymond Sheehan
UAE

Conversation Analysis Conventions