Rationale for the study
Conversation is an interactive process defined by turn-taking, where speakers alternate roles as the conversation progresses This one-at-a-time rule ensures that one person speaks while the other listens, facilitating a smooth exchange of ideas (Tannen, 1995; Levinson, 1983) Adhering to this structure is essential for effective communication, as it prevents interruptions and allows for coherent dialogue (Sacks, 1995).
633) In other words, there should be no interruptions 1 in an ideal conversation, but in practice interrupting 2 still occurs
Interrupting is not a thing that people are supposed to do in conversation
But interrupting occurs in conversation
Interruptions in conversation can sometimes signify support and understanding from the interrupter, as noted by Sacks (1992) and Tannen (1984, 1986) However, interruptions are often associated with dominance and control, as highlighted by various researchers (Černý, 2010; Drass, 1986; James & Clarks, 1993; Octigan & Niederman, 1975; O’ Donnel, 1990; Pschaid, 1993; Tannen, 1991; Zimmerman & West, 1975) This dynamic positions the interrupter as a "malevolent aggressor" and the interruptee as an "innocent victim." In intimate relationships, the implications of interruption can be especially damaging, making accusations of such behavior particularly painful.
“interrupting carries a load of meta-messages that a partner does not care enough, does not listen, is not interested” (Tannen, 1991, p 94)
In presidential debates, politicians strive to advocate for their views, support their party, and enhance their personal image, while also attempting to undermine their opponents As a result, interruptions are a common occurrence during these discussions.
1 In this study, the word “interruptions” – the plural form – is used to refer to cases of interruption
2 The word “interrupting” and “interruption” are used interchangeably to refer to the act of interrupting as a concept, a linguistic phenomenon
3 as cited in O’Reilly (2006, p 550) frequently and ferociously than in daily conversation However, surprisingly studies on interruptions in political debates are still in short supply
This study examines how the 2008 U.S presidential candidates, Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama and Republican nominee Senator John McCain, use interruptions during debates to influence and engage American voters.
Aims and objectives of the study
This study conducts a conversation analysis of interruptions during the three rounds of the 2008 U.S presidential debates, aiming to explore the implications of such interruptions for theoretical understanding and pedagogical applications in debates and other competitive speech contexts The specific objectives include examining the nature and impact of interruptions in these debates to enhance comprehension of their role in challenging communication scenarios.
Firstly, exploring patterns of interruptions employed by each candidate in the three debates;
Secondly, analyzing how interruptions are utilized by the two nominees to achieve their goals in the debates.
Research questions
From the above-mentioned objectives, the present paper seeks answers to the following research questions:
1) What patterns of interruptions are employed by each candidate?
2) What are the effects of each candidate’s interruption pattern?
Scope of the study
This study focuses exclusively on the three rounds of presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain, omitting the vice-presidential debate featuring Joe Biden and Sarah Palin due to the constraints of preliminary research.
This study exclusively examines verbal interruptions during the three debates, deliberately excluding non-verbal interruptions The focus is on identifying the types of verbal interruptions used by each candidate and analyzing their effects within the context of the debates.
Methods of the study
This study utilizes a database comprising transcripts and videos of presidential debates, which are officially provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates The primary focus of the investigation is on vocalized interrupting tokens.
This paper employs both quantitative and qualitative methods, with a focus on quantitative analysis The writer manually identifies and calculates instances of interruptions in three debates.
Conversation Analysis transcription is utilized to identify non-fluencies in turn-taking during debates Simultaneously, content analysis is employed to explore the functions and meanings of interruptions Additionally, descriptive, analytic, and comparative methods are applied to analyze and compare data, revealing patterns of interruptions used by each candidate and their effects across the three debates.
Significance of the study
This study aims to enhance understanding of debating skills, specifically focusing on the often-overlooked role of interruption in political debates By highlighting the significance of this phenomenon, the research seeks to spark interest and demonstrate how, when used effectively, interruption can serve as a powerful tactic for achieving the interrupter's goals.
Design of the study
The study is organized into three main parts and subdivisions as follows: Part A (Introduction) deals with the rationale, objectives, research questions, scope, methodology, significance, and design of the study
Part B (Development) consists of three chapters:
Chapter 1 (Literature Review) provides a theoretical framework and a compendium of relevant existing studies on interruption in general and interruption in political settings and presidential debates in particular
Chapter 2 (Research Methodology) presents a detailed description of the study including restatement of research, appropriateness of research approach, context of the study, research instrument, data collection and analysis procedure
Chapter 3 (Data Analysis) supplies a description and analysis of classification and functions of interruptions
Part C (Conclusion) recapitulates the study, reveals several major findings, suggests several theoretical and pedagogical implications, points out the limitations, and proposes some suggestions for further studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conservation Analysis
Conservation analysis (CA) originated from the work of American scholars Goffman and Garfinkel and was further developed by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson It is recognized as a rigorous empirical approach that prioritizes observation over premature theory construction, making it a vital methodological framework for studying verbal interaction.
By far, CA has become “the dominant approach to the study of human social interaction across the disciplines of Sociology, Linguistics and Communication” (Stivers & Sidnell, 2013, p 1)
Conversation Analysis (CA) is fundamentally defined as a collection of methods used to examine audio and video recordings of conversations and social interactions These methods are predominantly inductive, relying on the analysis of primary data and transcripts to offer an in-depth understanding of the complexities inherent in everyday communication, with a focus on speech production and the organization of turn-taking.
The CA position is highly effective because its established procedures have consistently provided significant insights into the structure of conversation.
1.1.2 Turns, turn-constructional units, and turn-taking
Conversation is structured into turns, consisting of single words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, characterized by a shift in the speaking flow, distinguishing it from monologues A turn encompasses the temporal duration of an utterance and the allocated right and obligation to speak for a particular speaker When an interlocutor begins speaking, they take a turn, which ends upon completion of their speaking without interruption, passing the floor to another speaker or concluding the conversation.
A turn in conversation consists of at least one turn-constructional unit (TCU), defined as the smallest complete unit that can fully constitute a turn (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974) The fundamental structure of turn-taking in conversation can be understood through two key components.
(i) Turn-constructional component: various unit-types such as sentential, clausal, phrasal, and lexical constructions with which a speaker may set out to construct a turn
The turn-allocational component focuses on the regulation and negotiation of turn allocation at the conclusion of each Transition Construction Unit (TCU) This process determines how the next speaker is selected, either through the current speaker choosing a next speaker or by allowing the next speaker to self-select.
According to Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1978), Turn Constructional Units (TCUs) are defined based on two main criteria: syntactic structure and projectability Projectability refers to the potential of a unit to form a complete turn that concludes at a transition-relevance place (TRP), indicating a possible change of speaker.
A TCU is deemed complete only when all participants acknowledge its completion (Coulhard & Coulhard, 1985, p 62) If a TCU is finished while another has yet to begin, this creates a potential Transition Relevant Place (TRP) The current speaker can take advantage of this opportunity by selecting the next speaker, or the next speaker may choose to self-select The process of initiating and completing a TRP is crucial in conversational dynamics.
“syntactically, semantically and intonationally be projected and predicted” (K T T Huong, 2006, p 25)
In conversations, natural breaks occur when a speaker pauses to breathe, collect their thoughts, or signal the end of their contribution These moments create opportunities for a seamless transition of the right to speak to the next participant, facilitating effective communication.
However, the non-floor-holders in a conversational situation are not “mere silent bystanders” Their contribution to the conversation is an important part of the
“ traffic management ” – a metaphor used by Mey (1993, p 140) to describe techniques that help keep the flow of conversation going and avoid conversational
Accidents, often referred to as "traffic jams," occur when participants feel trapped in unproductive verbal exchanges Cultural and linguistic differences influence the use of "back-channel signals," which can range from brief affirmations like "I see" or "Yeah" to more direct conversational interventions An intervention is considered an "interruption" if it occurs while the current speaker is still talking and has not indicated they are finished, highlighting the nuances of conversational dynamics (Mey, 1993, p 218).
Yule (1997) posits that the predominant analytic framework for understanding conversation structure parallels a market economy, where the right to speak, referred to as the "floor," is a limited resource Control over this resource is termed a "turn," and the process of attempting to gain control is known as turn-taking This turn-taking operates within a "local management system," which comprises conventions understood by members of a social group for acquiring, maintaining, or relinquishing turns in conversation.
At the present time, there are two forms of CA being practiced (Heritage,
Basic Conversation Analysis (CA) examines conversation as an institution, primarily through the foundational work of scholars like Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson This approach emphasizes ordinary conversation, extending beyond specialized contexts or specific tasks It serves as a valuable tool for understanding the functions of various social institutions, including law enforcement, education, healthcare, and mass media.
Institutional Conversation Analysis (CA), which emerged in the late 1970s, marks a shift in perspective from basic CA by focusing on how social institutions operate through talk Unlike basic CA findings, which are more stable, institutional CA results are historically contingent and influenced by social changes driven by cultural, ideological, economic, and intellectual factors.
An institutional talk consists of three basic elements, as follows:
(i) Specific goals orientations tied to institution-relevant identities;
(ii) Special constraints on what is treated as allowable contribution to the business at hand;
(iii) Inferential frameworks and procedures which are particular to specific institutional contexts
According to Drew and Heritage (1992), as referenced by Heritage (1998), institutional talk is characterized by unique turn-taking procedures that are systematically distinct from those found in casual conversation These special turn-taking mechanisms can be categorized into three main groups, highlighting the structured nature of communication within institutional settings.
Turn-type pre-allocation is commonly seen in courtrooms and news interviews, where one party, typically not representing the institution, is restricted to answering questions This practice shapes the dynamics of interaction, emphasizing the control over who speaks and when, thereby influencing the flow of conversation.
Interruption
1.2.1.1 Definitions of interruption by lexicographers
According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, to interrupt means to momentarily halt someone’s speech through an action or statement The Longman Dictionary of American English similarly defines "interrupt" as the act of stopping someone from continuing their conversation or activity by suddenly interjecting Additionally, Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus describes interruption as the act of interjecting into a conversation.
“remarks or questions into another’s discourse” (Mifflin, 1995, p 548)
While these definitions may seem basic and broad, they closely align with linguists' interpretations and provide a foundational understanding of the technical linguistic concept of interruption.
1.2.1.2 Definitions of interruptions by linguists
The definition of interruption remains controversial, with researchers highlighting its inconsistent and "empirically tenuous" nature (Drummond, 1989) While some scholars equate interruption with simultaneous speech or overlap (Meltzer, Morris & Hayes, 1971; Uljin & Li, 1995), others argue that it stands in contrast to overlap (Zimmerman & West, 1975; Bennet, 1981) This lack of consensus has fueled ongoing academic interest in the topic over the past few decades.
This study aims to summarize widely accepted definitions of interruption in linguistics, categorizing them based on three criteria: the morphosyntactic criterion, the social-contextual criterion, and a combination of both.
(1) By morphosyntactic criterion, interruption is defined as “a violation of a current speaker’s right to a complete a turn” (Zimmerman & West, 1975, p
Interruption occurs when a speaker's turn is disrupted before reaching a potential terminal boundary, as defined by West and Zimmerman (1983) Unlike overlaps, which merely coincide with another speaker's turn, interruptions penetrate deeper into the structure of the speaker's utterance, often occurring more than two syllables away from the start or end of a unit This distinction highlights the invasive nature of interruptions in conversation dynamics.
An idealized schema for interruption as a sub-class of overlap is provided by Drummond (1989, p 150), as shown in Figure 1
Figure 1: Idealized schema for interruptions as a sub-class of overlap
As we can see from the model, speaker A is producing an utterance (time 1) when speaker B interrupts by overlapping with his/her own utterance (time
2) The floor is subsequently relinquished by speaker A to speaker B (time 3), who completes the turn alone (time 4)
According to Murray (1985), interruption is seen as a violation of the "completion right," which grants the current speaker the opportunity to finish their turn This right is influenced by the turn-taking system, social status, and contextual factors, including the duration of speech, frequency of contributions, the number of points made, and the special privileges some speakers have regarding certain topics Since these factors differ significantly across cultures, Murray's definition accommodates variations in interruptions related to both gender and cultural backgrounds.
Gibson (2005, p 317) defines interruption by combining two criteria: the theory of turn-taking in conversation by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, and the influence of social and contextual variations He posits that an interruption occurs when a speaker begins talking while the previous speaker is still engaged in a Transition Relevance Place (TRP) Crucially, Gibson adds that the prior speaker must be prevented from completing their turn for it to be considered an interruption A TRP is characterized by speech that does not imply a future continuation, meaning it should not leave listeners anticipating an unspoken portion This anticipation can arise not only from syntactically incomplete utterances but also from contextual or societal interpretations of incompleteness.
Gibson’s definition of interruption offers a robust structural framework while also incorporating contextual and social variations, making it more comprehensive and effective than the definitions provided by Murray and West & Zimmerman.
The classification of interruptions is a highly debated topic, leading to significant academic discourse (Bull & Mayer, 1988; Beattie, 1989a; Bull & Mayer, 1989; Beattie, 1989b), primarily due to the challenges in defining and categorizing interruptions (Beattie, 1989, p 234) This study focuses on the four most widely accepted classifications of interruptions.
Ferguson and Roger, along with Bull & Smith, categorize interruptions primarily as deviations from speaker-switching, while Goldberg and Kennedy & Camden emphasize the meanings and purposes behind interruptions.
Ferguson (1977) identifies four categories of interruption, contrasting them with the concept of a perfect speaker-switch, which occurs seamlessly when one person finishes speaking and another begins A perfect speaker-switch is characterized by a smooth transition between interlocutors, ensuring a fluid conversational flow.
(i) There is no simultaneous speech – the situations when two or more participants talk at once
(ii) The first speaker’s utterance appears to be complete in every way: semantically, syntactically, phonologically, both segmentally and supra- segmentally
The article provides examples of the four types of speaker-switch non-fluency in conversations, with "A" representing the main interlocutor and "B" as one of her partners Simultaneous speech is indicated in italics, highlighting the degree of overlap in each speaker's contributions Additionally, speech in parentheses is spoken by the participant not currently speaking, which may or may not occur simultaneously with the main dialogue.
(1) Simple interruptions: involve both simultaneous speech and a break in continuity in the first speaker’s utterance; the interrupter takes the floor
(A)…and this bit about him being bankrupt and having no money I just don’t see how it’s possible because–
(ibid., p 296) Ferguson’s simple interruptions appear to resemble Mishler & Waxler’s
Overlaps in speaker-switch non-fluency occur when simultaneous speech takes place, allowing the interrupter to take the floor without any noticeable break in the first speaker's utterance.
(A) …I expect you would like to go with him
(B) Well, I’d prefer it, yeah – but then he would want me to go to a Ranger’s football match…
In her study, Ferguson admits that Overlaps correspond to Mishler & Waxler
Butting-in interruptions refer to a type of non-fluency where one speaker's verbal flow is disrupted by another, resulting in simultaneous speech In this scenario, the interrupter does not fully articulate their statement but instead abruptly halts before finishing, rather than taking control of the conversation.
(A) I don’t know, I’ve got mixed feelings, I think it would be nice to have a baby…
(4) Silent interruptions: In this case, the first speaker’s utterance is incomplete (finishing, and, um…), but no simultaneous speech is present
(Yes) (A) It wasn’t in ours actually it was a bloke, and um…
(B) But anybody who’s a bit lazy I suppose, is it, that he used to picks on?
Short utterances such as "uhm," "yeah," "that's true," "exactly," and "goodness" are considered interjections rather than instances of speaker-switching These remarks serve the opposite function of facilitating a change in speaker, as they help the current speaker maintain their turn in the conversation.
Beattie (1982) follows Ferguson’s typology of interruption and figures it as follows:
Simulaneous speech present? Simultaneous speech present?
Figure 2: Classification of types of interruptions (Beattie, 1982, p 100)
Interruption and dominance and power
1.3.1 Concept of dominance and power
Dominance is a crucial aspect of social interactions, as highlighted by Wiggins (1979), leading psychologists to explore its definition and indicators over the years It can be understood as a personal trait, an individual's status within a group, or the influence they wield within that context (Mast, 2002, p 421).
In other words, dominance, power and status can be used interchangeably
Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) differentiate between power and dominance, defining power as the ability to influence others, while dominance involves observable behaviors that reflect control in interactions Dominance is characterized by context-dependent patterns where one person's assertion of control is met with acquiescence from another It is not merely a personality trait but a dynamic interplay of individual temperament and situational factors that foster dominant behavior Unlike domineeringness, which focuses on individual control attempts, dominance is defined by the reciprocal nature of interactions, illustrating a "one-up" and "one-down" sequence between parties Thus, dominance encompasses both behavioral and relational dimensions.
“a relational, behavioral, and interaction state that reflects the actual achievement of influence or control over another via communicative actions”
1.3.2 Interruption and dominance and power
Interruption has been viewed as an indicator of dominance and power by many researchers Kollock, Blumstein & Schwartz (1985, pp 40-41) assert that
Interruptions in conversation serve as indicators of dominance, reflecting attempts at controlling the dialogue They reveal the power dynamics at play, with the more powerful participant often assuming a dominant role Thus, successful interruptions can be viewed as a sensitive measure of actual conversational authority.
Likewise, Drass (1986, pp 297-298) considers overlaps and interruptions as
Interruptions in conversation are often perceived as a violation and a demonstration of dominance, as noted by Octigan and Niederman (1975) and supported by Karakowsky, McBey, and Miller (2004) These interruptions are viewed as a verbal mechanism of power, undermining the current speaker's right to communicate and control the topic at hand Consequently, interruptions serve as communicative acts that assert dominance in discussions.
(i) An interruption acts to reduce another’s role as communicator by reducing another speaker’s turn
(ii) Interruptions can also be used to control the topic of the conversation
Interruptions during conversations often signify a shift in topic, which can indicate a form of dominance over interaction partners Thus, interruptions serve as a key indicator of enacted dominance in social interactions.
Kennedy and Camden (1983) challenge the traditional view by suggesting that interruptions are not solely indicative of dominance behaviors, as they found that interruptions often serve as "healthy functional communicative acts" in nearly half of the cases studied Building on this perspective, James and Clarke (1993) explore the beneficial roles of interruptions in conversation, presenting evidence that most interruptions in casual dialogue are not related to dominance Similarly, Černý supports this notion, further emphasizing the constructive aspects of interruptions in communication.
(2010, p 3) asserts that interruptions are made with the intent of disrupting the topic, claiming the floor of the interaction or manifesting cooperation and support.
Debates and televised presidential debates
A debate, as defined by Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, is a formal discussion of an issue that takes place in a public setting or within a parliament During a debate, multiple speakers present opposing viewpoints, typically culminating in a vote on the matter at hand.
The International Debate Education Association defines a debate as a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or individuals, highlighting its role as a crucial tool for fostering and sustaining democracy and open societies.
1.4.2 Concept of televised presidential debates
The concept of live televised debates between major party presidential candidates is relatively new, dating back only fifty years to the inaugural debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 Critics argue that these debates seldom influence election outcomes or sway partisan voters, highlighting their limited impact on shifting political allegiances (Sides, 2012; Jamieson & Birdsell).
However, televised presidential debates in the U.S still rank among the
Debates are often the most watched and talked about events during a campaign, providing unique information that significantly influences voter decisions (Hellweg, Pfau & Brydon, 1992; Watts, 2002).
Debates reveal candidates' understanding of key issues more effectively than other campaign methods, such as stump speeches or advertisements, showcasing their knowledge and depth of insight.
(ii) Debates show the candidates’ capacity for quick thinking and their ability to handle pressure – important character traits in the eyes of many voters
4 http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/debate_1?qate Retrieved on July 1 st ,
5 http://idebate.org/about/debate/what
6 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2012/ten_miles_square/do_presidential_ debates_really039413.php?page=all
(iii) Debates reveal candidates’ characters, personalities and styles, traits rarely exposed in more controlled environment
(iv) Debates are also valued for their fairness, primarily because they give all candidates an equal chance to be heard
Related studies
1.5.1 Studies on interruption in political settings
Beattie (1982) analyzes interruptions in the political interviews of Margaret Thatcher and James Callaghan, aired on British television in April 1979, focusing on deviations from turn-taking rules Utilizing Ferguson’s typology of interruptions, the study compares and contrasts the interview styles of these two prominent British politicians.
A study by Bull & Mayer (1988) analyzed interruptions in political interviews by examining eight televised sessions featuring Prime Minister Thatcher and Opposition Leader Kinnock, conducted by four different interviewers Utilizing Roger, Bull & Smith’s Interruption Coding System, the findings of this research contrast with the expectations set by Beattie’s earlier work in 1982.
In his B.A thesis, Kien (2015) analyzes interruptions during the three rounds of the 2012 presidential debates between Obama and Romney The findings indicate that Obama demonstrates greater skill and adaptability in his use of interruptions, ultimately positioning him as the winner of all three debates.
1.5.2 Studies on the 2008 U.S presidential debates
In their 2013 study, Basta and Ewald analyze the rhetorical strategies utilized by candidates Obama and McCain during the third presidential debate of 2008 The research focuses on the candidates' use of acclaims, attacks, and defenses, as outlined by functional theory, providing insights into their debate tactics.
In a 2008 study, Krywinski conducted a lexical analysis of the U.S presidential and vice-presidential debates between Obama and McCain, as well as Biden and Palin This research focused on the speech structure by examining the use of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and noun phrases.
In her MA thesis, Han (2009) examines interactional dimensions of the 2008 U.S presidential debates on the basis of the conversation analytic concepts of sequence organization and turn management.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Restatement of research questions
With a view to making a conversation analysis of interruptions in the three rounds of the 2008 U.S presidential debates between Obama and McCain, the questions that the study investigates are as follow:
1) What patterns of interruptions are employed by each candidate?
2) What are the effects of each candidate’s interruption pattern?
Appropriateness of research approach
Conversation Analysis (CA) is a methodological framework that examines audio and video recordings of conversations and social interactions to analyze the complexities of everyday communication, particularly focusing on speech production and turn-taking Recognized as a leading approach in the study of human social interaction, CA has gained prominence across various disciplines, including Sociology, Linguistics, and Communication Consequently, employing a conversation analysis research design is well-suited for this study's objectives.
Context of the study
The first presidential debate, initially intended to address foreign policy and national security, shifted focus to economic issues due to the 2008 financial crisis During the 90-minute debate, candidates responded to questions in two-minute intervals, followed by five minutes of open discussion between the moderator and the nominees According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, this event attracted an audience of 52.4 million viewers.
7 data provided by Nielson Media Research, as cited at http://debates.org/index.php?page 08-debates
The second debate featured a range of questions sourced from uncommitted voters identified by the Gallup Organization, along with inquiries selected by the moderator from online submissions Candidates responded in turn, providing two-minute answers followed by a one-minute open discussion for each question This engaging 90-minute town hall debate attracted an impressive viewership of 63 million people.
The third debate, which attracted an audience of 56.5 million viewers, centered on domestic and economic policies Candidates engaged in a structured format, responding to questions for two minutes each, followed by five minutes of open discussion, all while seated at a table with the moderator.
In 2008 U.S presidential election, Obama was the presidential candidate representing the Democratic Party and his rival was the Republican presidential nominee senator McCain
Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and the U.S Senate in 2004 He announced his presidential candidacy in 2007 and was elected as the 44th President of the United States, becoming the first African-American to hold the office on November 4, 2008 After being re-elected in 2012, he is currently serving his second and final term, which will conclude in January 2017.
John McCain, a veteran with a distinguished 22-year military career in the Navy, transitioned to politics after leaving the service in 1981 He was elected to Congress in 1982 and became a U.S senator for Arizona in 1986 McCain sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 but lost to George W Bush Following Bush's reelection in 2004, McCain made another bid for the presidency in 2008.
8 data provided by Nielson Media Research, as cited at http://debates.org/index.php?page 08-debates
2.3.1.3 Effects of the three debates
Three online polls conducted by Knowledge Networks among uncommitted debate watchers revealed that Barack Obama outperformed John McCain in all three presidential debates Following the first debate, 39% of 483 uncommitted voters believed Obama was the winner, while only 24% favored McCain, and 37% viewed it as a tie Notably, 46% of respondents reported a more favorable impression of Obama post-debate, in contrast to 32% who felt McCain's image had improved.
Although the second debate was thought to favour McCain, only 26% of
In a recent debate analysis, 10% of uncommitted voters believed McCain emerged victorious, while 40% favored Obama, and 34% perceived the debate as a tie Despite McCain's performance, only 32% of these voters reported a more favorable view of him post-debate, compared to 42% who felt more positively about Obama.
The latest poll reveals Barack Obama's decisive win over John McCain in the final debate, with 53% of 638 undecided viewers declaring Obama the victor, compared to just 22% for McCain and 25% who viewed it as a tie Furthermore, Obama's approval rating improved significantly more than McCain's, with 46% of viewers reporting a positive change in their perception of Obama, versus only 30% for McCain.
The study focuses on vocalized interrupting tokens, revealing a total of 146 instances of verbal interruptions during the three debates between Obama and McCain, which occurred both between the candidates and directed at the moderators.
9 Data provided by Knowledge Networks, as cited at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf
10 Data provided by Knowledge Networks, as cited at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate2.pdf
11 Data provided by Knowledge Networks, as cited at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate3.pdf
Research instrument
The article identifies instances of speaker-switch non-fluency in three debates, transcribing them according to the conventions established by Zimmerman & West (1975) Detailed conventions can be found in Appendix 1, while the transcribing results of non-fluencies for each debate are presented in Appendices 2, 3, and 4.
Data collection and analysis procedure
The database utilized for this analysis is sourced from the official transcripts and videos of debates provided by the Commission on Presidential Debates Following this, Zimmerman & West's (1975) transcription conventions are applied to identify and transcribe instances of non-fluency during speaker switches These non-fluencies are then detected and categorized based on Ferguson's syntactic-driven typology, which includes four distinct types: (i) Simple interruptions, (ii) Overlaps, (iii) Butting-in interruptions, and (iv) Silent interruptions.
Besides, a content analysis of the non-fluencies is conducted by utilizing
Kennedy & Camden’s coding scheme , in which six categories of interruption are:
(i) Clarification, (ii) Agreement, (iii) Disagreement, (iv) Tangentialization, (v)
Subject changes and other interruptions, such as clarification and agreement, are viewed as "cooperative" interruptions These types of interruptions aim to assist the speaker by facilitating coordination on either the process or the content of the ongoing conversation.
Disagreement, tangentialization, and subject change are types of intrusive interruptions that threaten the speaker's territory by disrupting the flow and content of the ongoing conversation (Li, 2001, pp 269-270).
Finally, such methods like descriptive, analytic and comparative are also used to bring about the patterns of interruptions and their effects in the debates.
DATA ANALYSIS
Simple interruptions
Example 1: (Fragment 21, Appendix 2, first debate)
1 O: And Senator McCain, nobody's talking about defeat in Iraq, but, you
2 know, I have to say that we are having enormous problems in
3 Afghanistan because of that decision And it is not true that you have
4 consistently been concerned about what happened in Afghanistan I
5 mean, at (x) at one point, while you were focused on Iraq, you said,
6 well, we can muddle through Afghanistan You don't muddle through
7 the central front on terror And you don't muddle through going after
8 Bin Laden You don't muddle through stamping out the Taliban I
9 think that is something that we have to take seriously And when I'm
12 →1 MC: [You know] you might (x) you might think that with that kind of
13 concern, that Senator Obama would have gone to Afghanistan
14 particularly given his responsibilities as the subcommittee chairman
In this exchange, the non-fluency differs from an ideal speaker-switch due to the simultaneous speech between the moderator and McCain, marked by a break in the moderator's continuity This indicates that McCain, as the initiator of the simultaneous speech, effectively takes the floor, classifying this non-fluency as a simple interruption.
Overlaps
Example 2: (Fragment 14, Appendix 2, first debate)
1 MC: And if there's anybody here who thinks there aren't agencies of
2 government where spending can be cut and their budget slashes (,)
3 they have not spent // [a lot of time in Washington.]
4→1 O: [No, but (x) but] I just have to make this point Jim John,
5 it's been your president, who you said you agreed with 90 percent of
6 the time, who presided over this increase in spending, this orgy of
Example 3: (Fragment 23, Appendix 4, third debate)
1 M: Even someone who had a history of being abortion rights //
3→1 MC: [I would (x) I would] (x) I would consider anyone in their
4 qualifications I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v
5 Wade (#) that would be a part of those qualifications But I certainly
6 would not impose any litmus test
In certain instances, simultaneous speech occurs, indicated in square brackets, where the speakers initiating the overlap, such as Obama and McCain, effectively take control of the conversation Unlike a typical interruption, there is no noticeable disruption in the flow of the original speakers' statements, which remain fully articulated Consequently, these interactions are categorized as Overlaps.
Butting-in interruptions
Example 4: (Fragment 21, Appendix 4, third debate)
1 O: It is (x) it is not And (x) and I //[just described it] I (x) I //[just ( )]
2→1 MC: [No, you stated it]
4 O: I (x) I just described what my plan is And I’m happy to talk to you,
5 Joe, too, if you’re out there Here’s your fine: zero
6 You won’t pay// [a fine] because (x)
8 O: zero (x) because I (x) as I said in our last debate and I'll repeat, John
9 (#) I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large
10 businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees
11 but are not doing it
In this instance, simultaneous speech occurs, indicated by square brackets The first speaker, Obama, experiences a break in his continuity while McCain, the initiator of the simultaneous speech, attempts to take the floor twice but fails As a result, Obama continues his statement without a speaker switch, exemplifying a type of non-fluency known as "Butting-in" interruptions.
Silent interruptions
Example 5: (Fragment 3, Appendix 3, second debate)
1 M: Health policies, energy policies and entitlement reform What are
2 going to be your priorities, in what order? Which of those will be your
3 highest priority your first year in office, and which will follow, in
7 MC: The three priorities were health (#) //
8→2 M: The three, health (x) health care, energy, and entitlement reform,
9 Social Security and Medicare In what order will you put them in
During a brief silence in the conversation, McCain's statement remains unfinished, indicating a lapse in his recollection of the three priorities This pause occurs without overlapping dialogue, prompting the moderator to swiftly remind him of both the priorities and the question at hand.
Functions of interruption
Example 6: (Fragment 12, Appendix 2, first debate)
1 M: And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in
2 very (x) in small ways, but in major ways, and the approach you
3 would take as (#) to the presiden//[cy]
4→1 MC: [Well], how about a spending freeze on everything but Defense,
5 Veteran(s) Affairs and entitlement // [programs?]
7 MC: I think we ought to seriously consider, with the exceptions of caring
8 for our veterans, national defense and several other vital issues
In this excerpt, moderator Jim Lehrer interrupts John McCain as he proposes a spending freeze, excluding Defense, Veteran Affairs, and entitlement programs, as part of his presidential strategy Lehrer's interruption reflects surprise and a desire for clarification, seeking to gain a deeper understanding of McCain's stance on the spending freeze.
In the 2008 U.S presidential debates, interruptions of agreement were rare due to the polarized and conflicting nature of the speakers' opinions Nonetheless, a few instances of agreement interruptions occurred, primarily involving moderators addressing the candidates and vice versa.
Example 7: (Fragment 10, Appendix 4, third debate)
1 O: But when it comes to economic policies, essentially what you're
2 proposing is eight more years of the same thing And it hasn’t worked,
3 and I think the American people understand it hasn’t worked We need
4 to move in a new direction
6→1 MC: [Let] me (x) let me just say// [Bob Okay, But it’s] (x)
8 MC: it’s very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration I
9 have disagreed leaders of my own party I got the scars to prove it
The second interrupting speech can be categorized as an Agreement interruption, as it demonstrates the moderator's support for McCain's request for a brief clarification following accusations of his long-standing economic policy proposals.
Example 8: (Fragment 23, Appendix 2, first debate)
1 MC: Well, Senator Obama twice said in debates that he would sit down
2 with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition,
3 without precondition Now, here is (x) Ahmadinejad (#)
6 MC: who is now in New York talking about the extermination of the State
7 of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going to sit down
8 without precondition across the table to legitimize and give a
9 propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of
10 the State of Israel and therefore (#) then giving them more credence
11 in the world arena (,) and therefore saying they’ve probably been
12 doing the right thing because you will sit down across the table from
13 them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior
Obama’s interruption [arrow (1)] may seem ambiguous in terms of meaning
On the surface, his interruption appears to be an Agreement interruption When
McCain had a “great difficulty” pronouncing the name of Ahmadinejad, Obama seems to be “nice, considerate” when acknowledging “That’s tough” to “comfort his colleague in a stumble” 12
To accurately interpret Obama's speech, it is essential to consider the co-text and context of the interruption Following criticism for engaging with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Raul Castro without preconditions, Obama may aim to project a "tough" policy stance However, his remark could also be perceived as mocking McCain's mispronunciation of Ahmadinejad's name, which is well-known to the American public and U.S senators As the sixth President of Iran, Ahmadinejad oversees a nuclear program that raises concerns for the U.S and the European Union McCain's confusion over the name highlights a potential gap in his understanding of current foreign affairs, particularly for a seasoned senator and presidential candidate.
Example 9: (Fragment 30, Appendix 2, first debate)
1 MC: No one from Arizona ((chuckles)) is against solar And Senator
2 Obama says he's for nuclear, but he's against reprocessing and he's
12 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-reiser/obama-underwhelms-mccain_b_129818.html
3 against storing, so// (x) [so it's hard to get there from there]
4→1 O: [That's (x) that's just not true, John]
5 O: [John, I'm sorry that (x) that's not true]
6 MC: [And offshore drilling] is also something that is very important, and it
7 is a bridge And we know that if we drill offshore and exploit a lot of
8 these reserves, it will help, at least temporarily, relieve our energy
9 requirements, and it will have I think an important
10 // [on the price of a barrel of oil (.) So I want to say that]
11→2 O: [I (x) I just have to respond very quickly just to correct the (x) just to
13 MC: with the// [Nunn-Lugar] //[thing]
16 MC: I supported Nunn-Lugar back in the early 1990s when a lot of my
17 colleagues didn't That was the key legislation at the time, and put us
18 on the // road to eliminating this issue of nuclear waste and the (x) the
19 nuclear fuel that has to be taken care //[of]
21→6 O: [I (x) I] I just have to correct the record here I have never said that I
22 object to nuclear waste What I've said is that we have to store if safely
Obama's interruptions during the debate highlight his disagreement with McCain's statements, particularly regarding the reprocessing and storage of nuclear waste He corrects McCain three times, emphasizing that he has never opposed these measures and insists on the importance of safely storing nuclear waste to address U.S energy needs.
In the first debate, Obama consistently referred to McCain as "John," omitting formal titles This informal address was used three times in the excerpt and a total of 24 times throughout the debate, potentially giving Obama a more approachable and relatable demeanor.
According to Bennett (2013), Obama aimed for an open and conversational tone in his interactions with McCain However, he attempted to downplay McCain's extensive experience as a senator, hoping that others would not highlight the stark contrast with his own brief time in the Senate.
There are no cases of Tangentialization interruption available in the three
Example 10: (Fragment 16, Appendix 4, third debate)
1 O: And it means that we can have tough, vigorous debates around issues
2 What we can't do, I think, is try to characterize each other as bad
3 people, and that //[has] been
5 O: a culture in Washington that (x) that’s been taking place for too long
6 And // [I think that on (x) I think ( )]
7→2 MC: [Well, Bob, you asked me] a direct// [question] about//
10 MC: Yeah, real quick Mr Ayers, I don't care about an old, washed-up
11 terrorist But as Senator Clinton said in her debates with you, we need
12 to know the full extent of that relationship
In this excerpt, McCain interrupts Obama twice, focusing on Obama's ties to ACORN, which shows a lack of awareness of Obama's initial comments and fails to connect with the main theme These interruptions exemplify the category of subject change interruptions.
14 According to Shear (2012) at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/debate-challenge-what-to- call-your-opponent/?_r=0
This category contains all interruptions: (i) which are not appropriate to the above categories, or (ii) which are inaudible or too short to determine their content and function
Interruptions of this category are not represented on the statistics figures in the following section.
Results
3.3.1 The relative frequency of different categories of interruption in the three debates
In the three debates, Obama interrupted McCain and the moderators 80 times, while McCain interrupted them 66 times, resulting in a total of 146 interruptions This indicates that interruptions occur approximately every one minute and eighty-five seconds, highlighting their prevalence in political debates.
Chart 1: Relative frequency of different categories of interruption made by
Chart 1 illustrates the variation in interruption categories between Obama and McCain, revealing that butting-in interruptions are the most prevalent at 63.1%, while silent interruptions are the least common at just 4.8% Overlaps, recognized as a key indicator of dominance in political discourse, rank second with 31 occurrences, while simple interruptions follow closely in third place with 16 instances, representing 21.2% and 10.9% of all interruptions, respectively.
According to the chart, Barack Obama appears to be more aggressive in his interruptions, with a rate 1.2 times higher than John McCain's However, in terms of successful interruptions, McCain outperforms Obama, achieving 6 simple interruptions compared to Obama's 10 attempts.
Chart 2 clearly illustrates that Disagreement is the most prevalent form of interruption in political debates, comprising 45.2% of all interruptions across three debates This type of interruption reflects the inherent divergence of ideas and opinions in such discussions In the first debate, the candidates presented sharply contrasting views on economic management and foreign policy regarding Iraq By the third debate, the tension escalated, with an aggressive McCain challenging Obama’s campaign strategies and tax proposals, leading to further clashes over energy policy, taxes, and the economy.
Subject change interruptions, which account for 23.8% of all cases of interruption rank the second after Disagreement According to Mast (2002, p 420), the relationship between dominance and speaking time is “significant” This
15 Cooper & Bumiller (2008) at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/us/politics/27debatecnd.html?_r=0%20-
16 http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/10/16/58329.html
A strong relationship indicates that the amount of speaking time is crucial for demonstrating and interpreting dominance Furthermore, maintaining focus on the topic during political debates serves as a key indicator of power.
“tendency of candidates to shift topics changes” (Prabhakaran, Arora & Rambow,
Chart 2: Functions of interruptions made by Obama and McCain
Clarification interruptions rank third, with 16 instances representing 19.1% of total interruptions, while agreement interruptions account for 11.9% with 10 instances across three debates Most interruptions of this type occur between moderators and candidates, with few instances of candidates interrupting each other Although these interruptions may seem supportive, they often carry a defamatory undertone.
This chapter aims to encapsulate the study, suggest some implications evaluate the limitations of the paper and propose recommendations for further studies.
Recapitulations
This study aims to examine the patterns of interruptions used by Obama and McCain during their three debates, focusing on how these interruptions were strategically employed to fulfill their respective objectives.
146 cases of interruptions revealed the following results
This study utilizes Ferguson’s (1977) typology to analyze and categorize interruptions during the three presidential debates Ferguson identifies interruptions as deviations from seamless speaker transitions, classifying them into four distinct types: (i) Simple interruptions, (ii) Overlaps, and (iii) Butting-in interruptions.
In the three debates analyzed, butting-in interruptions emerged as the most prevalent type, constituting two-thirds of all interruptions identified Notably, 69% of interruptions made by Obama fell into this category, while McCain's percentage was 56% These butting-in interruptions typically represent repeated yet unsuccessful efforts to take control of the conversation.
Continuous interruptions in discussions often lead to a cycle of cross-talk, where participants refuse to yield the floor to one another This relentless competition for speaking time creates a tense atmosphere in debates, ultimately resulting in uncompromising interruptions that hinder effective communication.
The writer employs Ferguson’s classification to analyze interruptions as deviations from smooth speaker-switches while also utilizing Kennedy and Camden’s (1983) coding scheme for clarity This scheme categorizes interruptions into six distinct types, enhancing the understanding of their nature and impact in conversations.
Clarification, (ii) Agreement, (iii) Disagreement, (iv) Tangentialization, (v) Subject change and (vi) Other
Disagreement and subject change interruptions are the most prevalent forms of interruptions, making up 69 percent of all instances These interruptions often serve to undermine the point being made, particularly evident in political debates where politicians frequently engage in this behavior.
The candidates presented starkly contrasting strategies for managing the country and addressing foreign adversaries, fiercely advocating for their own views, parties, and personas Speaking time emerged as a crucial indicator of power, with both nominees striving to dominate the conversation and maintain control over topics, especially when time was limited Consequently, interruptions due to subject changes became common, reflecting a lack of awareness or disregard for the current speaker's points Throughout the three debates, McCain exhibited a higher frequency of subject change interruptions, with 12 instances compared to Obama's 8.
The frequency of Agreement and Clarification interruptions, which indicate support and concurrence, is minimal compared to other types of interruptions Notably, most of the Agreement interruptions by Obama and McCain are aimed at the moderators rather than each other, with Obama making 8 and McCain making 2 Interestingly, one of Obama's agreement interruptions appears to express sympathy for McCain's mispronunciation, but it subtly mocks McCain's lack of understanding of international issues, rendering it a defamatory remark.
The tangentialization category, which diminishes the first speaker's message, is often overlooked in debates This neglect may stem from the competitive nature of debates, where each participant aims to distinguish themselves from their political opponents and assert the superiority of their policies In this context, interrupting to show support or trivializing a rival's statement is generally avoided.
Data analysis reveals a significant trend in Obama's strategic use of interruptions, with a total of 80 interruptions out of 146 instances, constituting 54.8% While this frequent interruption may initially portray him as aggressive, his balanced approach—utilizing agreement interruptions to express concurrence and backchannels to show support—helps mitigate this perception Notably, Obama employs backchannels four times, while his opponent McCain does not use them at all This combination allows Obama to be a combative interlocutor when necessary, while simultaneously demonstrating effective listening skills.
Obama effectively utilizes agreement interruptions during the debates, demonstrating support and understanding towards McCain He makes eight such interruptions, four times more than McCain, but not all serve to show mere agreement For instance, when McCain mispronounces Ahmadinejad's name, Obama accomplishes three objectives: he portrays himself as considerate and supportive, subtly critiques McCain's policy stance, and highlights McCain's lack of knowledge in foreign affairs.
John McCain is often perceived as "angry and bad-tempered," struggling to maintain composure under pressure This behavior may stem from his tendency to shift topics, dismissing others' viewpoints or directly confronting their opinions Additionally, his lack of backchannel communication contributes to the image of a presidential candidate who is unresponsive and reluctant to collaborate.
This study analyzes interruptions during the three rounds of the 2008 U.S presidential debates, focusing on two key objectives First, it examines the linguistic patterns of interruptions used by each candidate Second, it assesses the impact of these interruption patterns on the overall debate dynamics These objectives serve as the framework for the entire research process.
This study provides a comprehensive overview of conversation analysis, focusing on key elements such as turns, turn-constructional units, turn-taking, and institutional talks It delves into the concept of interruption, exploring definitions by lexicographers and linguists, and categorizing interruptions based on frameworks by Ferguson and Kennedy and Camden for subsequent data analysis The research further examines the interplay between interruption, dominance, and power dynamics Additionally, it addresses the significance of debates, particularly presidential debates, and concludes with an examination of related studies on interruption in political contexts, including insights from the 2008 presidential debates.
The data analysis highlights two key issues: first, it examines the linguistic patterns of interruptions observed in the three debates; second, it explores the effects these interruption patterns have on the overall discourse.
Implications
This article presents theoretical and pedagogical implications aimed at transforming the perception of interruption from a negative phenomenon to a strategic tool By promoting the deliberate use of interruption, it offers valuable guidance for students to enhance their performance in debates and other competitive speaking situations.
Firstly, CA-centric approach and the more content-driven approach are key methodological approaches to provide an in-depth explanation of interruption as a means of communication in politics
This paper aims to challenge the common perception of interruption as a purely negative aspect of communication Instead, it argues that when used appropriately, interruption can serve as an effective strategy to fulfill communication goals.
The study offers valuable insights on the strategic use of interruptions, serving as an effective technique for students aiming to excel in debates and other competitive speaking scenarios.
This research offers valuable insights for trainers and educators on effective interrupting strategies, enabling them to enhance their teaching methods Additionally, it equips trainees and students with essential techniques to develop their skills as persuasive and successful speakers and orators.
Limitations and suggestions for further studies
Despite the writer's best efforts, certain limitations are inherent in the study It primarily concentrates on verbal interruptions, neglecting non-linguistic elements such as gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact These non-verbal cues are significant as they contribute to the perception of a composed, genuine, and trustworthy Obama.
Secondly, interruptions made by the moderators in the debates are also not investigated These interruptions may also be examined though the number might be insignificant
The study highlights that interruptions primarily occur among male speakers Future research could investigate interruptions during the three debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S presidential election to analyze gender differences in interruptive behavior.
Basta, J L., & Ewald, J D (2013) Rhetorical strategies of McCain and Obama in the third 2008 presidential debate: Functional theory from a linguistic perspective Issues in Applied Linguistics, 19, 63-84
Beattie, G W (1982) Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews: Margaret
Thatcher and Jim Callaghan compared and contrasted Semiotica, 39, 93-114 Beattie, G W (1989) Interruptions in political interviews: A reply to Bull and
Mayer Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8(5), 327-339
Beattie, G W (1989) Interruptions in political interviews: The debate ends?
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8(5), 345-348
Bennett, A J (1981) Interruptions and the interpretation of conversation
Bennett, A J (2013) 2008: “Change we can believe in” In The battle for the White
House from Bush to Obama: Nominations and elections in an era of partisanship,2, 93-131 New York, U.S: Palgrave Macmillan
Burgoon, J K., Johnson, M L., & Koch, P T (1998) The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance Communication Monographs, 65(4), 308-335 Bull, P., & Mayer, K (1988) Interruptions in political interviews: A study of
Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7(1), 35-45
Bull, P., & Mayer, K (1989) Interruptions in political interviews: A reply to
Beattie Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8(5), 341-344 Černý, M (2010) Interruptions and overlaps in doctor-patient communication revisited The Linguistica Online Journal: Miscellanea 3(12), 1-20
Coulhard, M., & Coulhard, M (1985) An introduction to discourse analysis (2nd ed.) New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
Drass, K A (1986) The effect of gender identity on conversation Social
Drummond, K (1989) A backward glance at interruptions Western Journal of
Dunbar, N E., & Burgoon, J K (2005) Perception of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships Journals of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 207-233
Ferguson, N (1977) Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16(4), 295-302
In the study of communication dynamics, Gibson (2005) explores how opportunistic interruptions create interactional vulnerabilities due to the linear nature of conversation Meanwhile, Goldberg (1990) analyzes interruptions through the lens of relationally neutral acts, emphasizing their role in power dynamics and rapport-building within discourse Together, these works highlight the complex interplay between interruptions, social relationships, and conversational flow.
Han, J W (2009) Designing the debate turns: Microanalysis of the 2008 U.S presidential debates University of Texas at Austin: Unpublished MA Thesis
Hellweg, S W., Pfau, M & Brydon, S (1992) Televised presidential debates:
Advocacy in contemporary America New York: Praeger
In "Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk," Heritage (1998) explores the unique turn-taking systems that characterize institutional dialogues This study, presented in the Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA, highlights the distinctive features of conversational structures within institutional contexts, emphasizing how these systems facilitate communication and understanding By analyzing the dynamics of turn-taking, Heritage provides valuable insights into the complexities of dialogue in formal settings, contributing significantly to the field of discourse analysis.
Heritage, J (2008) Conversation analysis as social theory In B.S Turner (Ed.),
The New Blackwell companion to social theory (pp 300-320) Oxford, UK:
Houghton Mifflin Company (1995) Roget's II: The new thesaurus (3rd ed.) New
Itakura, H (2001) Conversational dominance and gender: A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts In K Fischer (Ed.), Studies in
Language, 31(3) (pp 717-720) Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John
James, D., & Clarke, S (1993) Women, men, and interruption: A critical review In
D Tannen, Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp 231-279) Oxford,
Jamieson, K H., & Birdsell, D S (1988) Presidential debate: The challenge of creating an informed electorate New York: Oxford University Press
Karakowsky, L., McBey, K & Miller, D L (2004) Gender, perceived competence, and power display: Examining verbal interruptions in a group context Small
Kennedy, C., & Camden, C (1983) A new look at interruptions Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(1), 45-58
Kieu, T T H (2006) Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese: A pragmatics and conversation analysis Vietnam National University Hanoi: Unpublished
Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schartz, P (1985) Sex and power in interaction:
Conversational privileges and duties American Sociological Review, 50(1),
Krywinski, M (2008) Lexical analysis of 2008 US presidential and vice- presidential debates: Who’s the windbag? Retrieve March 24, 2016 from http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/debates/
Levinson, S C (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Li, H Z (2001) Cooperative and intrusive interruptions in inter- and intracultural dyadic discourse Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(3), 259-284
Li, Y (2010) A comparison between the verbal interruptions by speakers of
English as a lingua franca (ELF) and speakers of English as a native language (ENL) In Theses & Dissertations Hong Kong: Lingnan
Luginbühl, M (2007) Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and functions Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1371-1387
Martínez, E R (2000) Political interviews, talk show interviews, and debates on
British TV: A constrastive study of the interactional organization of three broadcast genres Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Santiago de
Mast, M S (2002) Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time: A meta-analysis Human Communication Research, 28(3), 420-450
Meltzer, L., Morris, W., & Hayes, D (1971) Interruption outcomes and vocal amplitude: Explorations in social psychophysics Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 392-402
Mey, J L (1993) Pragmatics: An introduction Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Mishler, E G., & Waxler, N E (1968) Interaction in families: An experimental study of family processes and schizophrenia New York, U.S.: John Wiley &
Murray, S O (1985) Toward a model of members' methods for recognizing
Octigan, M., & Niederman, S (1975) Male dominance in conversation Frontiers,
O'Reilly, M (2006) Should children be seen and not heard? An examination of how children's interruptions are treated in family therapy Discourse Studies,
Prabhakaran, V., Arora, A., & Rambow, O (2014) Staying on topic: An indicator of power in political debates In Association for Computational Linguistics,
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp.1481-1486)
Pschaid, P (1993) Language and power in the office Tübingen: Gunter Narr
Roger, D., Bull, P., & Smith, S (1988) The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7(1), 27-34
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E A., & Jefferson, G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation Language, 50(4), 696-735 Sacks, H (1992) Lectures on Conversations, 2 vols Oxford: Blackwell
Sacks, H (1995) Lectures on conversation (Vols I & II).Jefferson, G (Ed.)
Sacks, H., Schegloff, A E., & Jefferson, G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation Language, 50(4), 696-735
I don't know!
Sidnell, J (2010) Conversation analysis: An introduction Malden, Massachusetts:
Sidnell, T & Stivers, J (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis U.K.:
In their 1965 study, Stabenau et al conducted a comparative analysis of the families of schizophrenics, delinquents, and normal individuals, shedding light on familial influences in mental health Tannen's works in 1984 and 1986, "Saying what one means" and "Why can’t he hear what I’m saying? That’s not what I meant!" explore the complexities of communication, emphasizing the challenges individuals face in conveying their true intentions and the misunderstandings that often arise in interpersonal interactions.
How conversational style makes or breaks your relation with others U.S.: HapperCollins Publishers
Tannen, D (1991) You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation (1st ed.) New York, U.S.: Random House Publishing Group
Tannen, D (1995) The power of talk: Who get heard and why Harvard Business
Tran, T K (2015) Interruption phenomenon in the 2012 U.S presidential debates
Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam Hanoi: Unpublished BA Thesis
Watts, M (2002), Watching debates: A focus group analysis of voters Campaigns
& Elections, June 2002 Retrieved from http://www.abacusassoc.com/articles/
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J H., & Jackson, D D (1967) Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns,pathologies, and paradoxes New York, U.S.: W W Norton & Company, Inc
West, C.,& Zimmerman, D (1983) Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross- sex conversations between unacquainted persons In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C.&Henley, N (Eds.), Language, gender, and society Cambridge, UK:
Wiggins, J S (1979) A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
Wooffitt, R (2005) Conversational analysis & Discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction London: SAGE Publications Ltd
Yule, G (1997) Pragmatics Hong Kong: Oxford University Press
Zimmerman, D., & West, C (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation In Thorne, B., &Henley, N., Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp 105-129) Massachussets: Newbury
Zimmerman and West (1975) utilize the transcription techniques and symbols created by Gail Jefferson during her research with Harvey Sacks, making revisions and adjustments to enhance their effectiveness While these symbols and transcripts serve as valuable tools, they are not the sole means for conducting research; instead, they complement visual and audio recordings of discussions.
I’ve (x) I’ve met him once
Parentheses encasing an "x" indicate a hitch or stutter on the part of the speaker
Double obliques signify the moment when one speaker overlaps or interrupts another If there is no content to the right of this symbol, it indicates that the interruption occurs in the middle of the last syllable before the slashes.
Brackets around the first part of a speaker's utterance mean that the portion bracketed overlapped or interrupted a previous speaker's utterance
Colons indicate that the immediately prior syllable is prolonged
A: ’Swat I saidB: But you didn’t
An equal sign signifies that there is no time gap between the objects it connects, often serving as a transcription convenience It also indicates that a subsequent speaker begins immediately after the current speaker's statement concludes.
Underscoring is utilized to represent heavier emphasis (in speaker’s pitch) on words so marked (?), (!), (,), (.)
Punctuation marks are used for intonation, not grammar
Underscoring is utilized to represent heavier emphasis (in speaker’s pitch) on words so marked (word)
Single parentheses enclosing words suggest uncertainty about what was heard, indicating that the transcriber may not be fully confident in the accuracy of the transcript This notation serves as a cautionary note regarding the potential unreliability of the recorded content.
Single parentheses without words in them indicate that something was said but not caught by the transcriber
Double parentheses enclose “descriptions”, not transcribed utterances
Score sign indicates a pause of one second or less that wasn’t possible to discriminate
Numbers in parentheses represent the seconds and tenths of seconds that occur between speakers' turns, as well as the duration of pauses within a speaker's turn.
In addition, for the sake of convenience, the line numbering style used by Yemenici (2001) is adopted Each numbered line does not indicate a new utterance For example:
1 IR: Good evening do you know this Hỹseyin Baybaásin Abdỹlkadir Bey?
2 AA: Efendim first of all I’m from Diyarbak_r, I’m a Diyarbak_r deputy, and3→1 IR: [yes
4 AA: = Hỹseyin Baybaá sin is also from Diyarbak_r, from Lice The photograph5→2 IR: [yes Do you know him?
6 AA: =that shows this uhm is a photo taken at a Diyarbak_r night …
IN THE FIRST 2008 U.S PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
In a recent discussion, Lehrer prompted participants to share their perspectives on the recovery plan, encouraging open dialogue among them He emphasized the importance of reaching a consensus within the five-minute timeframe, asking if Senator Obama and others were in favor of the proposed plan.
Senator McCain, are you in favor of this plan? Obama responds that the language of the plan has not yet been reviewed, but acknowledges that constructive work is being done.
LEHRER: Are you going to vote for the plan, Se//[nator McCain?]
MCCAIN: [I (x) I (x) I] hope so, and I //[believe so]
LEHRER: [As a Uni]ted States senator (,) // you will vote (x) you are going to vote for the plan (?)
MCCAIN: I want to emphasize that I previously cautioned about the risks posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the detrimental effects of corporate greed, excessive CEO compensation, and related issues.
Former President Obama emphasized the necessity of addressing both immediate economic challenges and the underlying issues affecting ordinary Americans, such as declining wages and incomes He pointed out the need for reform in the broken healthcare system and ineffective energy policies Additionally, he referenced a recent statement from John, asserting that the fundamentals of the economy are sound, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive approach to economic recovery.
LEHRER: [Say (x)] say //[it directly to him]
OBAMA: [I do not think that they are]
LEHRER: Say it directly to him
OBAMA: Well, the (x) John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound And ::://
MCCAIN: Are you afraid I couldn’t hear him? ((Laughter))
LEHRER: I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other I'm going to try (Laughs)