https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/files\/2021\/09\/Word-Read-Aloud-of-Transcript.m4a<\/a><\/audio>\nTo preface, I wanted to know how Microsoft Word\u2019s Dictation tool would perform compared with Voice Typing in Google Docs, so I recorded my five minutes of talking onto a voice memo that I used to dictate into each. The results were similar, but with some notable differences. To begin with, there is no punctuation in the entire text, as the speaker is required to name the desired punctuation when it is needed to instruct the software to insert it. While it is possible to identify sentence and phrase structures in the writing, there are instances where it isn\u2019t clear where to punctuate. The verb tenses are not consistent. In one passage, the text reads: \u201cearly on when we moved there my parents wanted to get a boat so they can go fishing and we can go exploring\u201d. There were also many occasions when the verbs and nouns did not fit the context of the sentence: \u201cwe were trolling which means you’re going at a slow speed dragging lines behind you in hopes that official bite and then when one bites you put the boat in neutral and play the fish breed it\u201d. One might wonder what exactly was meant by \u201cplay the fish breed it\u201d. The idiom intended in this\u2014play the fish\u2014refers to reeling it in on a fishing rod. The erroneously transcribed \u201cbreed it\u201d leaves the reader mystified (among other things) as to what is going on. In another passage, the writing careens toward nonsense: \u201cand then you would get to the bow and then well get pee off about and in calm water was fine\u201d.<\/p>\n
Most remarkable is how much is omitted, altered, or replaced in the dictation. The most obvious elements to disappear are the cadence and expression of the oral recording. Gnanagesikan (2013) discusses the loss of \u201cintonation and emotional content\u201d in written language (p. 9). In this text, not only is it challenging to decipher the writer\u2019s tone, there are numerous phrases that only make sense as phonetic approximations of what was spoken. As an experiment, I played the text back using Microsoft\u2019s Read Aloud software. Only then did phrases resemble something that contextually made sense. The phrase, \u201cofficial bite\u201d sounds like \u201ca fish will bite\u201d phonetically, but makes little sense in the context of the larger phrase. These words, spoken in English are transliterated and transformed at once. A person would likely need to read the passage aloud to identify what was meant; unless it was clear that this was generated by a speech-to-text software, that would not be an obvious action to take.\u00a0 Given the differences between passages that were accurately transcribed and those that were not, this technology would influence me to change my enunciation, pace, and fluency of speech for the purpose of ensuring accuracy. The text I\u2019m creating with it would likely disrupt my accustomed way of speaking (Schmandt-Besserat, 2009).<\/p>\n
It is problematic using speech-to-text software to transcribe what is meant to be oral language. This is because it is not designed to capture a useful transcript of what is said; rather, it is a technology that needs to be instructed. Most fascinating was watching the writing process take place while I played my recording. The voice typing tool would write what had been spoken, only to replace it with a phrase that the software determined to be more \u2018correct\u2019\u2014especially when my pace and pronunciation were not ideal for it to transcribe. These approximations of meaning illustrate Haas\u2019 (2013) comments about how writing trades off by decontextualizing on the one hand, and allowing for increased precision and complexity of ideas on the other. My \u201cinstructions\u201d would be for a writing process, not an oral one. Stating the necessary punctuation marks, for instance, would alter how I sounded significantly. Had I scripted this story and read it, I would likely be focused primarily on the text being produced on the screen as immediate feedback on the quality of my dictation. Inflection, pace, and tone are irrelevant to the program. As useful as this tool is, it does not presently threaten to take over the practice of typing or even handwriting. Haas also notes (2013) that changes in technology don\u2019t always result in a corresponding change in people, and when it does, that change can sometimes be \u201cparadoxical\u201d (p. 18). When I offer speech-to-text software to students with learning disabilities, for instance, I need to be sure that they become practiced enough in its use if they are to successfully \u201cwrite\u201d with it.<\/p>\n
Oral storytelling is distinct from written because of its dependencies on human memory, skill in delivery, and a familiar audience. Ong et al (2002) observe that oration to the ancient Greeks is a \u201ccrafting\u201d or \u201cweaving\u201d of words in a way that will impress an audience that comes with a set of agreed upon expectations. Their idea that it is a form of \u201capprenticeship\u201d speaks to mastering memory, delivery, and ability to read an audience for feedback (8). Were I to write my narrative, I would draw from what I have studied in other texts to make decisions about the details, their arrangement, and the diction I would use to express each part. I would probably make partial reference to other written texts\u2014perhaps even without realizing it\u2014to make my narrative more engaging. The diction of my writing would transmit my education, cultural background, and my social class. Once written, the story exists as an entity separate from my memory of the events themselves. Conversely, it exists as an oral story only when I tell it. Another family member\u2019s version is not necessarily a reliable substitute or copy. A (crafted) written account would transform family members into characters, the ocean into a setting, and the events into a plot that relies on familiar structures. It may interfere with their memory of the event, or it may invite them to revisit it in a new way (Ong, 2002).<\/p>\n
References<\/strong><\/p>\nGnanadesikan, A. E. (2011). The First IT Revolution. In The Writing revolution: Cuneiform to the internet<\/em> (Vol. 25). (pp. 1-10) John Wiley & Sons.<\/p>\nHaas, C. (2013). The Technology Question. In Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy<\/em>. Routledge. (pp. 3-23).<\/p>\nOng, W., (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word.<\/em> New York; London: Routledge. https:\/\/www.taylorfrancis.com\/books\/mono\/10.4324\/9780203426258\/orality-literacy-walter-ong<\/p>\nSchmandt-Besserat, D. (2009). \u201cOrigins and Forms of Writing.\u201d In Bazerman, C. (Ed.). Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text.<\/em>\u00a0New York, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Week 3 Assignment Transcripts of 5-minute Narration Listen to an audio recording of the original oral narration: And, just for fun, listen to Microsoft’s Read Aloud version of the transcript: To preface, I wanted to know how Microsoft Word\u2019s Dictation tool would perform compared with Voice Typing in Google Docs, so I recorded my five minutes of talking onto a voice memo that I used to dictate into each. The results were similar, but with some notable differences. To begin with, there is no punctuation in the entire text, as…read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":85678,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tasks","et-no-image","et-bg-layout-dark","et-white-bg"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/85678"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":112,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110\/revisions\/112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/gbaerg540\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}