The transcript in the case

Text: an original contemporary archive-account-style practice extract.

The archive volunteer sent me a transcript of my interview about the flood. She had removed the repeated words and shortened the pauses. On the display copy, my mother and I had “opened the hall”; in the recording, I had said, “I think I opened it after the water came through the lane.” The edit fitted neatly on one panel. The sentence I remembered saying did not.

I asked why the words had changed. The volunteer showed me the old hall log: its entry placed the opening before the water reached the lane. She had checked the date with the caretaker, then changed my sentence so visitors would not leave with the wrong sequence. I could not remember the order clearly. In the recording, there was a pause before I said “I think”, long enough for the volunteer to have marked it with three dots in her notes.

I asked her to put the uncertainty back. She did, but kept “we opened the hall”. Elsewhere in the interview, I had said “we” about the same evening. The volunteer pointed to the hall’s volunteer rota, where my mother was listed as being on duty that evening. I approved the panel before leaving. Later, I wondered whether the shorter sentence made the account clearer, or simply made it sound as if I remembered more than I did.

In this extract, the writer tries to show that editing an account can make it clearer while also changing how certain or responsible the speaker appears.

Evaluate how successfully this is achieved. Support your views with detailed reference to the extract.