Some remarks on transcript translation in discourse analysis

Yvonne Belczyk-Kohl

doi:10.1515/eujal-2015-0031

Article

Some remarks on transcript translation in discourse analysis

Yvonne Belczyk-Kohl

Published/Copyright: March 11, 2016

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal European Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 4 Issue 1

Abstract

Transcripts of second language interaction and within publications in languages differing from the data discussed often must be translated to make the results of discourse analysis accessible. Transcription follows strict rules to achieve a scientific standard recipients can rely upon. Its main task is to picture a piece of authentic interaction by means of writing as detailed as possible and necessary, to make readers able to follow an analysis and judge it by themselves.

But what is true for transcriptions does not hold for their translations. Surprisingly, reflection of transcript translation tends to be neglected in literature. This might be due to several reasons: the different language systems and cultural imaging habits make it difficult, if not impossible, to propose an all-fitting translation guideline for transcription. Further, discourse analysts usually are (experienced) non-professional translators and do not often have a theoretical translation background. It is an additional (practical) challenge to align the demands of transcript theory and readability with editorial requirements.

While translating transcripts analysts would have to reflect five different aspects: (1) the status of translation in transcription, (2) a (not yet established) standard for transcript translation, (3) the translation‘s readability (recipients should be able to follow it with only little effort), (4) the potentially extremely differing systems of source and target language (representation of syntax and semantics), and (5) translation problems (e.g. cultural aspects) with regard to the given language pair.

The article considers the status of translation in transcription. The few theoretical findings are analyzed and contrasted with examples from discourse analysis. The article is complemented with the results of a survey among analysts concerning their translation behavior. Finally, some proposals for solutions are outlined.

Keywords: transcription; discourse analysis; transcript translation

References

Apfelbaum, Birgit. 2010. The multilingual organization of remembrance in Nazi camp memorials. In Meyer, Bernd & Birgit Apfelbaum (eds.)., Multilingualism at work: From politics to practices in public, medical and business settings, 47–80. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.9.04apfSearch in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1992. Introduction: John Gumperzʼ approach to contextualization. In Auer, Peter & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 1–37. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.22.03aueSearch in Google Scholar

Brinker, Klaus & Sven F. Sager. 2010. Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse. Eine Einführung, 5., neu bearb. Aufl. Berlin: Schmidt.Search in Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 2000. The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1439–1465.Search in Google Scholar

Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.). 2005. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.). 2010. Metody badań jakościowych [Titel of the original: The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition], tom 2 [vol. 2]. Warszawa: PWN.Search in Google Scholar

Dausendschön-Gay, Ulrich & Ulrich Krafft. 1998. Kulturelle Differenz als account. In Apfelbaum, Birgit & Hermann Müller (eds.), Fremde im Gespräch: gesprächsanalytische Untersuchungen zu Dolmetschinteraktionen, interkultureller Kommunikation und institutionalisierten Interaktionsformen, 163–197. Frankfurt/M.: IKO – Verlag für interkulturelle Kommunikation.Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, Christina. 2009. Transcription: Imperatives for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Method 8(2), 35–52. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/viewFile/4205/5.401 (accessed 10 April 2015).10.1177/160940690900800206Search in Google Scholar

Deppermann, Arnulf. 2008. Gespräche analysieren. Eine Einführung, 4. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.10.1007/978-3-531-91973-7Search in Google Scholar

Dittmar, Norbert. 2009. Transkription. Ein Leitfaden mit Aufgaben für Studenten, Forscher und Laien, 3. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Search in Google Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511810190Search in Google Scholar

Ehlich, Konrad. 2007. HIAT und HIAT-DOS. http://www.ehlich-berlin.de/HIAT/ (accessed 10 April 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Ehlich, Konrad & Jochen Rehbein. 1976. Halbinterpretative Arbeitstranskription (HIAT). Linguistische Berichte 45, 21–41.Search in Google Scholar

Fine, Elizabeth. 1983. In defense of literary dialect. A response to Dennis R. Preston. Journal of American Folklore 96(381), 323–330.Search in Google Scholar

Have, Paul ten. 1999 [2007]. Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Henne, Helmut & Helmut Rehbock. 2001. Einführung in die Gesprächsanalyse, 4., durchges. und bibliograph. erg. Aufl. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110906189Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1), 15–38. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/heritage/Site/Publications_files/TERMS_OF_AGREEMENT.pdf (accessed 12 April 2015).10.1177/019027250506800103Search in Google Scholar

İçbay, Mehmet Ali & Ali Yıldırım. 2013. The construction of shared laughter in an institutional setting: Who laughs at what in the classroom? European Journal of Research on Educa-tion 1(1), 37–47. http://iassr.org/rs/010106.pdf (accessed 29 April 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Jenks, Christopher Joseph. 2011. Transcribing talk and interaction. Issues in the representation of communication data. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.165Search in Google Scholar

Kameyama, Shinichi. 2004. Verständnissicherndes Handeln. Zur reparativen Bearbeitung von Rezeptionsdefiziten in deutschen und japanischen Diskursen. Münster: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar

Koller, Werner. 2011. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, 8. Aufl. Tübingen: Francke.Search in Google Scholar

Lapadat, Judith C. 2000. Problematizing transcription: Purpose, paradigm and quality. Social Research Methodology 3(3), 203–219.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Pragmatik, 3. Aufl. Neu übersetzt von Martina Wiese. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2008. Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls. FQS – Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 9(3), Art. 39. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1161/2566 (accessed 10 April 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Niemants, Natacha. 2012. The transcription of interpreting data. Interpreting 14(2), 165–191.Search in Google Scholar

Nord, Christine. 2010. Fertigkeit Übersetzen. Ein Kurs zum Übersetzenlehren und -lernen, 2. Aufl. Berlin: BDÜ Service Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Nikander, Pirjo. 2008. Working with transcripts and translated data. Qualitative Research in Psychology 5, 225–231.Search in Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Transcription as theory. Ochs, Elinor & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), Developmental Pragmatics, 43–72. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Osvaldsson, Karin. 2004. On laughter and disagreement in multiparty assessment talk. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 24(4), 517–545.Search in Google Scholar

Peräkylä, Anssi. 2005. Analyzing talk and text. In Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn., 869–886. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/29488/analyzing.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed 15 May 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Peräkylä, Anssi. 2010. Analiza rozmów i tekstów [Title of the original: Analyzing talk and text]. Translated by Agnieszka Figiel. In Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.), Metody badań jakościowych [Titel of the original: The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition], tom 2 [vol. 2], 325–349. Warszawa: PWN.Search in Google Scholar

Rehbein, Jochen, Durlanık, Mehmet Latif, Kurultay, L. & S. Türker (1995/1997): Gesprochenes transkribiertes Türkisch. Von der morphologischen Transliteration zur äußerungsbezogenen Übersetzung. Ms., Universität Hamburg: Germanisches Seminar.Search in Google Scholar

Rehbein, Jochen & Jutta Fienemann. 2004. Introductions: Being polite in multilingual settings. In House, Juliane & Jochen Rehbein (eds.), Multilingual Communication, 223–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.3.14fieSearch in Google Scholar

Rehbein, Jochen, Schmidt, Thomas, Meyer, Bernd, Watzke, Franziska & Annette Herkenrath. 2004. Handbuch für das computergestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT. Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit 56 – Folge B.Search in Google Scholar

Schenkein, Jim. 1978. Sketch of an analytic mentality for the study of conversational interaction. In Schenkein, Jim (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 1–6. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50007-0Search in Google Scholar

Selting, Margret, Auer, Peter, Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Bergmann, Jörg, Bergmann, Pia, Birkner, Karin, Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, Deppermann, Arnulf, Gilles, Peter, Günthner, Susanne, Hartung, Martin, Kern, Friederike, Mertzlufft, Christine, Meyer, Christian, Morek, Miriam, Oberzaucher, Frank, Peters, Jörg, Quasthoff, Uta, Schütte, Wilfried, Stukenbrock, Anja & Susanne Uhmann. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10, 353–402. http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf (accessed 3 April 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2002. The particle no as go-ahead response in Finnish conversations. Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 165–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-3-11

Published in Print: 2016-3-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2015-0031

Keywords for this article

transcription; discourse analysis; transcript translation