1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Anthropology
  4. Volume 47, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 47, 2018

Word for Word: Verbatim as Political Technologies

Abstract

Verbatim—word for word—is assumed to be a text that faithfully captures and represents a discursive event that took place in time and space, which would otherwise be ephemeral and unrepeatable. In modern societies, verbatim stands in for durable indexicality and materializes the social epistemology of evidence, accountability, and authenticity. Today's ubiquitous presence of recording technologies amplifies the conviction that the production of verbatim as in the conversion, for example, from speech to writing is unmediated and transparently mechanical. Far from being unremarkable, however, the seemingly unmotivated commensurability between original and copy is an ideological function of social reproduction and institutional power. Building on both classic and contemporary linguistic anthropological and sociolinguistic studies of verbatim texts, this review suggests how ethnographically situated studies of verbatim in its production and process open up cogent historical and political analysis of social institutions and relations and of subject formation through the labor of inscription.

Keyword(s): bureaucracy, indexical technologies, inscription, inscription labor, verbatim
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041654
2018-10-21
2024-06-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/47/1/annurev-anthro-102116-041654.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041654&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agamben G. 1999. Bartleby, or on contingency. Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy /transl. D Heller-Roazen 77–85 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Agha A. 2005. Introduction. Special Issue: Discourse across speech events: intertextuality and interdiscursivity in social life A Agha, S Wortham J. Linguist. Anthropol 15:11–5
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahearn LM. 2012. Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alarcón A, Heyman JM 2013. Bilingual call centers at the US-Mexico border: location and linguistic markers of exploitability. Lang. Soc. 42:1–21
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Aneesh A. 2015. Emerging scripts of global speech. Sociol. Theor. 33:3234–55
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bahr D. 1994. Native American dream songs, myth, memory, and improvisation. J. Soc. Am. 80:73–93
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bakhtin MM. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination M Holquist Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrera L. 2008. Files circulation and the forms of legal experts: agency and personhood in the Argentine Supreme Court. J. Leg. Anthropol. 1:13–24
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bate B. 2012. Swadeshi oratory and the development of Tamil shorthand. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 47:70–75
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bate B. 2013. “To persuade them into speech and action”: oratory and the Tamil political, Madras, 1905–1919. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 55:142–66
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bauman R, Briggs CL 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 19:59–88
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bauman R, Briggs CL 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Behar R, Gordon DA 1995. Women Writing Culture Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bellenoit HJ. 2017. The Formation of the Colonial State in India: Scribes, Paper and Taxes, 1760–1860 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowen JR. 1993. Muslims through Discourse Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Briggs CL, Bauman R 1992. Genre, intertextuality, and social power. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 2:131–72
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Brooks DA. 2005. Bodies that mattered: technology, embodiment, and secretarial mediation. See Price & Thurschwell 2005 129–50
  18. Bucholtz M. 2000. The politics of transcription. J. Pragmat. 32:1439–65
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Bucholtz M. 2009. Captured on tape: professional hearing and competing entextualizations in the criminal justice system. Text Talk 29:503–23
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Burns K. 2005. Notaries, truth, and consequences. Am. Hist. Rev. 110:2350–79
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cameron D. 2000. Styling the worker: gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy. J Sociolinguist 4:323–47
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Carruthers MJ. 1993. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Caton SC. 1993. “Peaks of Yemen I Summon”: Poetry as Cultural Practice in a North Yemeni Tribe Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Clanchy MT. 1979. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 London: E. Arnold
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Clifford J, Marcus GE 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cody F. 2011. Publics and politics. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40:37–52
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cole CM. 2010. Performing South Africa's Truth Commission: Stages of Transition Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Cook G. 1990. Transcribing infinity: problems of context presentation. J. Pragmat. 14:1–24
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Coulthard M. 1996. The official version: audience manipulation in police records of interviews with suspects. Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis CR Caldas-Coulthard, M Coulthard 166–78 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Davidson C. 2009. Transcription: imperatives for qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 8:35–52
     [Google Scholar]
  31. de Grazia M 1991. Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790s Apparatus Oxford, UK: Clarendon
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Deleuze G. 1998. Bartleby or the formula. Essays Critical and Clinical transl. DW Smith, MA Greco 68–90 London: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Derrida J. 1974. Of Grammatology Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Derrida J. 1998. Resistances of Psychoanalysis Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Dick HP. 2011. Imagined lives and modernist chronotopes in Mexican nonimmigrant discourses. Am. Ethnol. 37:2275–90
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Doty KL. 2007. Telling tales: the role of scribes in constructing the discourse of the Salem witchcraft trials. J. Hist. Pragmat. 8:25–41
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Downey GJ. 2008. Closed Captioning: Subtitling, Stenography, and the Digital Convergence of Text with Television Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Drew P. 2006. When documents ‘speak’: documents, language and interaction. Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods P Drew, G Raymond, D Weinberg 63–80 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Duranti A. 2003. Language as culture in U.S. anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 44:323–47
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Edwards JA, Lambert MD 1993. Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Eisenlohr P. 2009. Technologies of the spirit: devotional Islam, sound reproduction and the dialectics of mediation and immediacy in Mauritius. Anthropol. Theory. 9:3273–96
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Ellcessor E. 2015. Blurred lines: accessibility, disability, and definitional limitations. First Monday 20:9 https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i9.6169
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. Feldman I. 2008. Governing Gaza Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Fleissner JL. 2000. Dictation anxiety: the stenographer's stake in Dracula. Nineteenth-Century Contexts 22:3417–55
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Foucault M. 1991. What is an author. The Foucault Reader P Rainbow 101–20 New York: Penguin
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Gal S. 2015. Politics of translation. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44:225–40
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gardey D. 2001. Mechanizing writing and photographing the word: utopias, office work, and histories of gender and technology. Hist. Technol. 17:4319–52
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Gardey D. 2005. Turning public discourse into an authentic artefact: shorthand transcription in the French national assembly. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy B Latour, P Weibel 836–43 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Gardey D. 2015. Le Linge Du Palais-Bourbon: Corps, Matérialité et Genre Du Politique à L'Ère Démocratique Lormont, Fr.: Bord de l'eau
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Gershon I. 2010. Media ideologies: an introduction. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 20:283–93
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Gitelman L. 1999. Scripts, Grooves, and Writing Machines: Representing Technology in the Edison Era Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Golpelwar MK. 2016. Global Call Center Employees in India: Work and Life Between Globalization and Tradition Wiesbaden, Ger.: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Goodman JE, Tomlinson M, Richland JB 2014. Citational practices: knowledge, personhood, and subjectivity. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 43:449–63
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Goody J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gray NH. 2011. Recording the sounds of “words that burn”: reproductions of public discourse in abolitionist journalism. Rhetor. Soc. Q. 41:4363–86
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Haberland H, Mortensen J 2016. Transcription as second-order entextualization: the challenge of heteroglossia. Interdiscip. Stud. Pragmat. Cult. Soc. 4:581–600
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Handman C. 2010. Events of translation: intertextuality and Christian ethnotheologies of change among Guhu-Samane, Papua New Guinea. Am. Anthropol. 112:4576–88
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Hanks WF. 2000. Intertexts: Writings on Language, Utterance, and Context Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hardt M, Negri A 2000. Empire Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Harkness N. 2017. Transducing a sermon, inducing conversion: Billy Graham, Billy Kim, and the 1973 crusade in Seoul. Representations 137:1112–42
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Harmon A. 2008. The ethics of legal process outsourcing: Is the practice of law a ‘noble profession,’ or is it just another business. J. Technol. Law Policy 13:111–21
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Havelock EA. 1986. The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Haviland JB. 2003. Ideologies of language: some reflections on language and U.S. law. Am. Anthropol. 105:764–74
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Heller M. 2011. Paths to Post-Nationalism: A Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hirschkind C. 2006. The Ethical Soundscape: Cassette Sermons and Islamic Counterpublics New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Hull MS. 2012. Government of Paper: The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Hymes DH. 1981. “In Vain I Tried to Tell You”: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Inoue M. 2003. The listening subject of Japanese modernity and his auditory double: citing, sighting, and siting the modern Japanese woman. Cult. Anthropol. 18:2156–93
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Inoue M. 2011. Stenography and ventriloquism in late nineteenth century Japan. Lang. Comm. 31:181–90
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Irvine J, Gal S 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities P Kroskrity 35–84 Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Jacobowitz S. 2015. Writing Technology in Meiji Japan: A Media History of Modern Japanese Literature and Visual Culture Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Jacquemet M. 2009. Transcribing refugees: the entextualization of asylum seekers' hearings in a transidiomatic environment. Text Talk 29:525–46
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Jaffe A, Androutsopoulos J, Sebba M, Johnson S 2012. Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Jenks CJ. 2011. Transcribing Talk and Interaction: Issues in the Representation of Communication Data Amsterdam: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Joyce P. 2010. Filing the Raj: political technologies of the imperial British state. Material Powers: Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn T Bennett, P Joyce 102–23 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Kahlin L, Tykesson I 2016. Identity attribution and resistance among Swedish-speaking call centre workers in Moldova. Discourse Stud 18:87–105
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Keane W. 2013. On spirit writing: materialities of language and the religious work of transduction. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 19:11–17
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Keremidchieva Z. 2014. The U.S. congressional record as a technology of representation. J. Argum. Context 3:157–82
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Kittler FA. 1989. Dracula's legacy. Stanford Humanit. Rev. 1:143–73
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kittler FA. 1999. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Kockelman P. 2013. Information is the enclosure of meaning: cybernetics, semiotics, and alternative theories of information. Lang. Commun. 33:2115–27
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Kockelman P, Bernstein A 2012. Semiotic technologies, temporal reckoning, and the portability of meaning. Anthropol. Theory 12:3320–48
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Komter ML. 2006. From talk to text: the interactional construction of a police record. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 39:201–28
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kreilkamp I. 2005. Speech on paper: Charles Dickens, Victorian phonography, and the reform of writing. See Price & Thurschwell 2005 13–31
  85. Kryk-Kastovsky B. 2000. Representations of orality in early modern English trial records. J. Hist. Pragmat. 1:2201–30
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Latour B. 2010. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d'État Malden, MA: Polity
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Latour B. 2011. Drawing things together. The Map Reader: Theories of Mapping Practice and Cartographic Representation M Dodge, R Kitchin, C Perkins 65–72 New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Lemon A. 2009. Sympathy for the weary state? Cold War chronotypes and Moscow others. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 51:4832–64
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Lempert M. 2014. Imitation. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 43:379–95
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Lempert M, Perrino S 2007. Entextualization and the ends of temporality. Lang. Commun. 27:3205–11
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Lord AB. 1960. The Singer of Tales Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Lovell S. 2015. Stenography and the public sphere in modern Russia. Cahiers Monde Russe 56:2–3291–325
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Lucy J 1993. Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Manning P, Gershon I 2014. Language and media. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology NJ Enfield, P Kockelman, J Sidnell, 559–76 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Mason L. 2004. The “bosom of proof”: criminal justice and the renewal of oral culture during the French Revolution. J. Mod. Hist. 76:29–61
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Messick BM. 1993. The Calligraphic State: Textual Domination and History in a Muslim Society Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Miller JS. 1994. Japanese shorthand and sokkibon. Monum. Nipponica 49:4471–87
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Mirchandani K. 2012. Phone Clones: Authenticity Work in the Transnational Service Economy Ithaca, NY: ILR Press
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Mirchandani K, Poster W 2016. Borders in Service: Enactments of Nationhood in Transnational Call Centres Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Mishler EG. 1991. Representing discourse: the rhetoric of transcription. J. Narrat. Life Hist. 1:255–80
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Mollin S. 2007. The Hansard hazard: gauging the accuracy of British parliamentary transcripts. Corpora 2:2187–210
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Mondada L. 2007. Commentary: Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Stud 9:809–21
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Mondada L. 2012. Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: the case of architects at work. Qual. Res. 12:304–33
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Mukerji C. 2011. Jurisdiction, inscription, and state formation: administrative modernism and knowledge regimes. Theory Soc 40:223–45
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Mullaney TS. 2012. The moveable typewriter: how Chinese typists developed predictive text during the height of Maoism. Technol. Cult. 53:777–814
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Noronha E, D'Cruz P, Kuruvilla S 2016. Globalisation of commodification: legal process outsourcing and Indian lawyers. J. Contemp. Asia 46:614–40
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Nussdorfer L. 2009. Brokers of Public Trust: Notaries in Early Modern Rome Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Ochs E. 1979. Transcription as theory. Developmental Pragmatics E Ochs, B Schieffelin 43–72 New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Ogborn M. 2007. Indian Ink: Script and Print in the Making of the English East India Company Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Ong WJ. 1982. Orality and Literacy New York: Methuen
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Orr L. 1987. The blind spot of history: logography. Yale. Fr. Stud. 73:190–214
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Park JS-Y, Bucholtz M 2009. Introduction. Public transcripts: entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text Talk 29:485–502
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Parkes MB. 1991. Scribes, Scripts, and Readers: Studies in the Communication, Presentation, and Dissemination of Medieval Texts London: Hambledon
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Parry M. 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Prasad A, Prasad S 2012. Imaginative geography, neoliberal globalization, and colonial distinctions: docile and dangerous bodies in medical transcription “outsourcing.”. Cult. Geogr. 19:349–64
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Preston DR. 1985. The Li'l Abner syndrome: written representations of speech. Am. Speech 60:4328–36
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Price L. 2005. Stenographic masculinity. See Price & Thurschwell 2005 32–47
  119. Price L, Thurschwell P 2005. Literary Secretaries/Secretarial Culture Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Psathas G, Anderson T 1990. The ‘practices’ of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica 78:75–99
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Raman B. 2012. Document Raj: Writing and Scribes in Early Colonial South India Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Riles A. 2011. Collateral Knowledge: Legal Reasoning in the Global Financial Markets Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Roberts C. 1997. The politics of transcription. Transcribing talk: issues of representation. TESOL Q. 31:1167–71
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Rodkey E. 2016. Disposable labor, repurposed: outsourcing deportees in the call center industry. Anthropol. Work Rev. 37:34–43
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Ronell A. 2006. Dictations: On Haunted Writing Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Rosenthal A. 2009. Lost in transcription: the problematics of commensurability in academic representations of American Sign Language. Text Talk 29:595–614
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Scheffer T. 2004. Materialities of legal proceedings. Int. J. Semiotics Law 17:356–89
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Schieffelin BB, Doucet RC 1994. The “real” Haitian Creole: ideology, metalinguistics, and orthographic choice. Am. Ethnol. 21:1176–200
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Sherzer J. 1982. Poetic structuring of Kuna discourse: the line. Lang. Soc. 11:371–90
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Siegert B. 2015. Pasajeros a Indias: registers and biographical writing as cultural techniques of subject constitution (Spain, sixteenth century). Cultural Techniques: Grids, Filters, Doors, and Other Articulations of the Real82–96 New York: Fordham Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Silverstein M. 2003. Translation, transduction, transformation: skating ‘glossando’ on thin semiotic ice. Translating Cultures: Perspectives on Translation and Anthropology P Rubel, A Rosman 75–105 Oxford, UK: Berg
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Silverstein M. 2005. Axes of evals: token versus type interdiscursivity. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 15:16–22
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Silverstein M, Urban G 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Slembrouck S. 1992. The parliamentary Hansard ‘verbatim’ report: the written construction of spoken discourse. Lang. Lit. 1:2101–19
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Soll J. 2009. The Information Master: Jean-Baptiste Colbert's Secret State Intelligence System Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Spivak GC. 1993. Echo (nymphe). New Lit. Hist. 24:117–43
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Srole C. 2010. Transcribing Class and Gender: Masculinity and Femininity in Nineteenth-Century Courts and Offices Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Stiegler B. 1998. Technics and Time 1: transl. C Howells, G Moore Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Street BV. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Sussman M. 2015. Charles W. Chesnutt's stenographic realism. MELUS 40:48–68
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Tupas R, Salonga A 2016. Unequal Englishes in the Philippines. J. Sociol. 20:367–81
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Urban G. 1996. Entextualization, replication, and power. See Silverstein & Urban 1996 21–44
  143. Urciuoli B, LaDousa C 2013. Language management/labor. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 42:175–90
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Urry J. 2014. Offshoring New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  145. van Charldorp TC 2014. “What happened?”: from talk to text in police interrogations. Lang. Commun. 36:7–24
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Vigouroux CB. 2007. Trans-scription as a social activity: an ethnographic approach. Ethnography 8:61–97
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Vismann C. 2008. Files: Law and Media Technology transl. G Winthrop-Young Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Vološinov VN. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language transl. L Matejka, IR Titunik Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Walker AG. 1986. The verbatim record: the myth and the reality. Discourse and Institutional Authority: Medicine, Education, and Law S Fisher, A Todd 205–22 Norwood, NJ: Ablex
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Wicke J. 1992. Vampiric typewriting: Dracula and its media. ELH 59:2467–93
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Wójcik D. 2013. Where governance fails: advanced business services and the offshore world. Progr. Hum. Geogr. 37:330–47
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Woydack J, Rampton B 2016. Text trajectories in a multilingual call centre: the linguistic ethnography of a calling script. Lang. Soc. 45:709–32
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Žižek S. 2006. The Parallax View Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041654
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error