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 microethnography, 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. IntroductionTranscription is a common academic practice. In social research investigating language and communication, a 'transcript' usually refers to a distinctive genre associated with turning a strip of 'naturally' occurring talk -for example a job interview, a conversation at the dinner table -into writing. This genre has analytical as well as rhetorical purposes: to develop insights into the moment-by-moment and in situ construction of social reality and to provide evidence in developing an argument for an academic audience. 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 alongside speech? Should researchers bother to transcribing these modes of communication at all? What are the epistemological implications of choices of inclusion and exclusion? What does one gain from inclusion of modes other than speech if the aim of transcription is to focus on a selection of the vast amount of data collected? In this paper we investigate how some researchers, including ourselves, have dealt with these issues. We discuss the emergence of multi-

Children's resourcefulness can be seen in their ordinary, everyday `semiotic work' as they select resources from those ready to hand to create play environments and artefacts. Is this resourcefulness also evident as they make meaning in the highly conventionalized mode of writing? Conceptualizing writing as a process of design opens up the possibility for understanding meaning-making beyond the linguistic. In a spontaneously initiated email exchange with her uncle, a six-year-old child demonstrated semiotic resourcefulness as she made meaning in a variety of ways: by selecting and combining particular lexical and syntactic choices, but also in her deployment of other semiotic resources such as spacing, punctuation and spelling. The un-school-likeness of this young child's domestic literacy implies agency and initiative as she designed writing apt to the social context, and demonstrated her literate capacities in the here and now.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract