Transcribing improper grammar

[Kaleisha Straughter]

This is a tricky one to post, but here goes...
When you hear a witness say a word and you know he/she was meaning to say another, what do you do? Example: "ax" for ask, "messican" for mexican, "rockweiller" for rotweiller, "lawd" for lord, "no content" for no contest, etc., etc., and the list goes on and on... In instances like these, the reporter can be the one who looks incompetent if the transcript reads the way the wit says the word. But if we are truly supposed to be writing verbatim what we HEAR, sometimes I stop and think about writing and transcribing exactly what the wit says.
Any thoughts? I'd love to read some of your stories.
Thanks!

[Jennie Ann]

K.C., when you say you use that convention, do you mean that you are typing partial words or syllables? Is this a requirement that some of your reporters want in their transcripts?

[K.C. Corbin]

Kaleisha-

The guidelines I have read and been trained on state that you do not transcribe as wanna, coulda, doin’, ax, dis, dat, etc., even if that is what is heard. Washington does not have an “R” in it, although many folks pronounce it that way. It is tiring to the reader and really doesn’t add to the context and meaning. Some also interpret that as being demeaning to the witness.


This is what you hear:
When I seen dat man goin’ into the sto, I axed him.
This is what you write:
When I seen that man going into the store, I asked him.

Still poor grammar, but that we can not edit (unfortunately).

Jennie-

I do use that convention from time to time as well. I try not to do it too much in one transcript. Again, it gets tiring to the reader and does not really add anything to the meaning of the testimony. I go by the wishes/preferences of the reporter or contractor I am working with. Sometimes with video depos, they want an absolute verbatim transcript, other times they want things cleaned up a bit for readability, as long as the meaning is not altered.

[Jennie Ann]

I have been running into this a lot lately. I am glad you started this discussion. Let me add a few more words that give me pause.

The speaker responds and says "gotcha," meaning "got you." When I write "got you" in the transcript, it doesn't convey the same meaning. But "gotcha" is not a word, or is it?

I had to proof a slew of transcripts earlier this week that had "words" I never would use, such as "gonna," "woulda," and "cause" (meaning 'cause for because). I don't use slang words in my transcripts. I write it out. If the witness "axed a question," I do write "asked a question," though there have been times I have been tempted to write "axed."

One blunder, if I may call it that, in these transcripts I was proofing was the usage of syllables: Example: "The manu- -- manufacturer had good facil- -- facilities." Is anybody else doing this?

I cannot wait to read the responses from others. Thanks for bringing up this topic!