Check out Lubna’s Task 3 here!

Lubna chose to use two different speech-to-text tool; Speechmatics and Amberscripts as the first software cut her story off. I appreciated how she decided to include both scripts as it made for an interesting comparison as well. It seems as though her second story is more refined, more detailed, and laid out better than her first story. I think this short, first-practice run impacted her second script and she notes this as well when she says she was more structured in her delivery and remembered more detail. Speechmatics put multiple words together (ie. connectingflight) whereas Amberscripts did not, which Lubna also highlights. Amberscripts seems to be the superior tool.

I used Speechnotes for my speech-to-text tool. I noticed that both of her software choices included punctuation (and therefore capitalization on new sentences) whereas mine did not. We both experienced grammatical errors in our scripts and we both note the lack of intonation or emotional content; Lubna notes how writing or the transcript excludes tone, timbre, volume, pace and timing of (my) voice, which (I use to) convey(s) the emotional context of this anecdote. As well, natural speech does not integrate this ‘literacy’ unless deliberated and practiced. Contrasts are stark when we compare and dissect the two; written and spoken language.

I appreciated how she used a metaphor of murder to refer to writing and speech; writing seems akin to a premeditated, orchestrated murder as opposed to speech that is more of an accidental, brutal, raw, passioned act of violence. She ends by noting the similarities between this task and the What’s in your bag task, a nice way to close as I am left thinking about the portrayals of self and what this reveals.