Stenographic court reporting has an often unsung, unused benefit, in that if the record is questioned you can call a live human being to testify “yes, I was there, and these are the verbatim or damn-close-to-verbatim notes I took down.”
Everybody’s workflow is a little different, but the basic process will be the same. A modern computerized stenotype will record the stenographic strokes and sometimes audio, which can then be fed into a computer program like CaseCAT, Eclipse, or ProCAT. Computer-assisted transcription is the name of the game, and these software programs have dictionaries that match the stenographic strokes with known English outlines and transcribe what we’ve stroked automatically, leaving us to clean up bad strokes or incorrect punctuation.
But what happens when you get a transcript that you highly suspect is missing something and you can’t get the stenographer to admit they might have missed something? What happens if there is no audio, or the stenographer won’t admit to there being audio?
Well, it’s rare, but that’s when a review of the stenographic notes might become necessary.
There are different stenographic “theories” as to how to use the stenotype to capture the spoken word, and each stenographer modifies their theory to get stuff down, so your mileage may vary if you are trying to read stenographic notes without the benefit of the stenographer that took it or one that writes (types?) the same theory, but in many cases; you will be able to make out generally what’s going on, especially if you narrow your scope to a single suspect section.
Pretty much all modern stenotypes create the string of letters “STKPWHRAO*EUFRPBLGTSDZ” when all the keys are pressed. The letters will always be in this order. There’s also a number bar at the top that can turn this into “12K3W4R50*EU6R7B8G9SDZ” This corresponds to the keys on the stenotype.
Now, some theories are very unique. Mark Kislingbury’s theory comes to mind, and I know nothing of that. But I do know a theory that the vast majority of New York City stenographers will recognize, so here goes.
The S is mostly self-explanatory. It’s an S sound, or the word “is.”
T and K are a T and K sound. TK together is a “D” sound. TK by itself is a brief for the word “did.” Briefs are strokes that correspond with English in our computerized dictionaries but are not always sounded out the way I’m describing herein. T by itself on the left side of the keyboard is the word “it.” K by itself is the word “can.”
P and W are a P and W sound. PW together is a “B” sound. PW by itself is the word “about.” The W by itself is the word “with.”
H and R are the H and R sounds. H by itself is “had.” R by itself on the left side of the keyboard is “are.” HR together are the word “will” or the “L” sound.
TP is used to create the “F” sound.
PH together create the “M” sound.
TPH together create the “N” sound
SR is often used to create the “V” sound.
TKPW is used to create the “G” sound.
SKWR is used to create the “J” sound.
KWR is used to create the “Y” sound.
KP can be used for a “com” prefix, like in compound, “KPOUPBD.”
S with the asterisk or the entire left bank of the keyboard, STKPWHR- can be used to make the “Z” sound.
KW is the “Q” sound. Think of queen, KWAOEPB.
KR can be used as a stand-in for the letter “C” when it is not a CR sound.
A is a light A sound, “ah.” O is a light O sound, like in lock. AO together is often a stand-in for the double O. For example, the word cook might look like KAOBG.
AEU is the long A sound, and stands for the word “a.”
The E by itself tends to represent the word “he.” OE together is the long O sound, as in “smoke.” AOE is the long e, sound, as in “week.” (WAOEBG). You may also sometimes see AE used to differentiate similar-sounding words. For example, WAEBG can be “weak.”
EU is a short I sound, as in “rimmed.” REUPLD. AOEU is the long I sound, as ice, AOEUS, and stands for the word “eye.”
U is the short “U” sound and stands for the word “you.” AOU is the long “U” sound, such as in group, TKPWRAOUP.
AU can produce an “aw” sound, OU can produce an “ow” sound.
The asterisk is often used to delete the preceding stroke like a backspace. It can also be used to modify or differentiate similar-sounding words.
On the right side of the keyboard, FR can be used for the word “ever.”
-FP can be a CH sound, such as touch, TUFP. FP itself can be used for the word “much.”
-RB can be used for the SH sound, such as shush, “SHURB.”
-PB can be used for an “N” sound, as in plan, PHRAPB.
-LG can be used for the word “willing.” You can also invert the letters in your mind to create things like “wiggle” or WEULG.
-BG is the “K” sound. Bleak, PWHRAOEBG. It can also be the word “being.”
-FRPBLG can be used for an “nch” ending, such as PWEFRPBLG. It can also be an “nk” ending, bank, PWAFRPBLG.
PBLG can used for a J-sounding ending, such as judge. SKWRUPBLG.
-G can be an ING ending. For example, blending, PWHREPBD -G. Inversion is fairly common, such as “writing.” WRAOEUGT.
-GS is the “shun” ending. Caption, KAPGS. It can also be the plural ing ending, ings, for example, if the first stroke is EPBD and the second stroke is -GS, it probably means “endings,” and not “endshun.” Context can be incredibly important in analyzing what a stenographic stroke most likely meant.
FPLT is typically a period. STPH is typically a question mark. RBGS is typically a comma.
Please note phrasing is allowed. For example, PWARD would phonetically be “bard.” The word bard tends to be functionally useless in legal transcripts, so many of us use this for “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Consulting with stenographer forums on Facebook or Reddit may find you free help if you’re struggling with a stenographic outline.
A lot of the other combinations of letters can be sounded out or understood by anyone with a proficiency in English, so I will not belabor the point by explaining every possible variation. Feel free to drop a comment if you encounter something uncovered by this guide.
What does all this mean?
In a normal proceeding, the strokes will mostly match up to the dictionary, allowing anyone with a copy of the stenographer’s dictionary and the desire to spend the time to transcribe the vast majority of what has been stroked. Due to advancements in open source stenographic software by Mirabai Knight and OpenSteno.org, this can now be simulated by anyone for free.
If you see a very confusing outline, such as “TKPHAEUS”, it probably means the strokes came fast and stacked on each other. In expensive stenography software, this can be analyzed by things like steno x-ray or true stroke technology, but often is discernible based on context. For anyone wondering, this outline would be “in this case” layered on top of each other. TPH (in) TH (this) KAEUS (case). In my experience, it is rare to see more than three strokes stack unless something has gone very wrong either with the equipment or operation of.
If you start seeing apparent drops and slop that doesn’t make any sense, it is in my opinion indicative of the proceeding getting away from the stenographer, and has the most potential for being filled in via audio, misinterpreted by the stenographer, or even left out.
Jurisdictions and practices vary quite a bit. It is important to note that even the most seasoned person can make mistakes. There was, with little doubt on my part, a strong cultural push to pretend we’re all always perfect all the time, and this had a profoundly negative impact on the public perception of stenographers in that presenting yourself as an unquestionable enigma means basically nobody in the country can conceptualize the value you bring because they don’t understand what you do differently juxtaposed against alternative methods. We also lost a lot of good people because they were made to feel inadequate when they easily could have found a niche, strengthened their weaknesses, and done good work.
Our systems usually have time stamps, even in locales where it is not common to include the time stamp information inside the transcript. Seeing one line out of a thirty-minute proceeding that looks a little funny is not usually indicative of a big deal™️. Obviously, every single proceeding or case call is different, and needs to be analyzed by those involved to the degree something is unclear or believed to be erroneous. The sooner problems are detected and addressed, the better.
The vast majority of records do not require deep analysis. Factually, in some systems, the vast majority of records are never transcribed, because the cost in terms of time, manpower, and money is simply not worthwhile to stakeholders (media, public, litigants, lawyers, judges, government, etc.) My more abstract thoughts about the system may be read elsewhere and need not clutter this guide.
Note: Though many of us train, practice, or study to exceed the minimum, the minimum competency is typically 225 words per minute (syllabic dictation) at 95% accuracy without the ability to stop and ask for repetition. Real-world practices with regard to room control mixed with this minimum standard produce acceptable results for most proceedings. Some jobs have historically hired at 180 words per minute, so in the context of a question about the record, this information may matter.
PRO SE PLAINTIFFS AND PR SE DEFENDANTS: We are very aware that some of the larger corporations are refusing to work with you. We are mostly powerless to stop this. I encourage supporting businesses that will at least try to find the right solution for you. And yes, I speak for all of us, singularly, through this page, to you.
Forgive my attempt at humor. Good luck.
Thanks for all you do.