E-mail List Archives
RE: Audio transcripts
From: Mary Martinson
Date: Aug 29, 2003 11:06AM
- Next message: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Audio transcripts"
- Previous message: Lisa Morgan: "Audio transcripts"
- Next message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Audio transcripts"
- Previous message in Thread: Lisa Morgan: "Audio transcripts"
- View all messages in this Thread
I was recently told by an interpreter for the deaf that interpreters do not
interpret word for word, because there is not a word-for-word correlation
between English and signing. That's why it's called "interpreting." Maybe
that's where some people get the idea that a transcript doesn't have to be
But a transcript implies word-for-word, because transcribing is copying from
one form (audio) to another (written). Besides, it would be less
labor-intensive for someone to transcribe word-for-word than for someone to
rewrite what was already written. In addition to the time it would take to
reword the document, someone would have to go through it and verify that the
the meaning had not been changed.
I'd vote for duplicating the audio clip exactly as it is spoken.
From: Lisa Morgan [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:18 AM
To: ' <EMAIL REMOVED> '
Subject: Audio transcripts
When creating a transcript of an audio clip, does every single word need
to appear in the transcript, exactly as it is spoken in the clip? We have a
situation at my company where some people think that's the standard, and