Difference between revisions of "Bezemer-Mavers2011"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jeff Bezemer; Diane Mavers |Title=Multimodal transcription as academic practice: a social semiotic perspective |Tag(s)=EMCA; Keywords:...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=191–206 |
| + | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13645579.2011.563616 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/13645579.2011.563616 | |DOI=10.1080/13645579.2011.563616 | ||
| − | |Abstract=With the increasing use of video recording in social research methodological | + | |Abstract=With the increasing use of video recording in social research methodological questions about multimodal transcription are more timely than ever before. How do researchers transcribe gesture, for instance, or gaze, and how can they show to readers of their transcripts how such modes operate in social interaction alongside speech? Should researchers bother transcribing these modes of communication at all? How do they define a ‘good’ transcript? In this paper we begin to develop a social semiotic framework to account for transcripts as artefacts, treating them as empirical material through which transcription as a social, meaning making practice can be reconstructed. We look at some multimodal transcripts produced in conversation analysis, discourse analysis, social semiotics and micro‐ethnography, drawing attention to the meaning‐making principles applied by the transcribers. We argue that there are significant representational differences between multimodal transcripts, reflecting differences in the professional practices and the rhetorical and analytical purposes of their makers. |
| − | questions about multimodal transcription are more timely than ever before. How | ||
| − | do researchers transcribe gesture, for instance, or gaze, and how can they show to | ||
| − | readers of their transcripts how such modes operate in social interaction alongside | ||
| − | speech? Should researchers bother transcribing these modes of communication at | ||
| − | all? How do they define a ‘good’ transcript? In this paper we begin to develop a | ||
| − | social semiotic framework to account for transcripts as artefacts, treating them as | ||
| − | empirical material through which transcription as a social, meaning making | ||
| − | practice can be reconstructed. We look at some multimodal transcripts produced | ||
| − | in conversation analysis, discourse analysis, social semiotics and | ||
| − | |||
| − | transcribers. We argue that there are significant representational differences | ||
| − | between multimodal transcripts, reflecting differences in the professional practices | ||
| − | and the rhetorical and analytical purposes of their makers. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:38, 20 February 2016
| Bezemer-Mavers2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bezemer-Mavers2011 |
| Author(s) | Jeff Bezemer, Diane Mavers |
| Title | Multimodal transcription as academic practice: a social semiotic perspective |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Keywords: multimodal transcription, visual methods, video analysis, social semiotics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | International Journal of Social Research Methodology |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 191–206 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/13645579.2011.563616 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
With the increasing use of video recording in social research methodological questions about multimodal transcription are more timely than ever before. How do researchers transcribe gesture, for instance, or gaze, and how can they show to readers of their transcripts how such modes operate in social interaction alongside speech? Should researchers bother transcribing these modes of communication at all? How do they define a ‘good’ transcript? In this paper we begin to develop a social semiotic framework to account for transcripts as artefacts, treating them as empirical material through which transcription as a social, meaning making practice can be reconstructed. We look at some multimodal transcripts produced in conversation analysis, discourse analysis, social semiotics and micro‐ethnography, drawing attention to the meaning‐making principles applied by the transcribers. We argue that there are significant representational differences between multimodal transcripts, reflecting differences in the professional practices and the rhetorical and analytical purposes of their makers.
Notes
