A study of interruptions in 2008 US presidential debates

presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain to explore patterns of interruptions employed by each candidate, and the ways the two nominees utilize interruptions to achieve

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

MA MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Hanoi – 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

MA MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Kiều Thị Thu Hương

Hanoi – 2016

My sincere thanks go to all lecturers at the Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies ULIS – VNU for their profound knowledge and outstanding teaching during my study here My heartfelt gratitude is also to Dr Huynh Anh Tuan, the Head of the Faculty and all the staff members who have been of great help to me and all other graduate students

Last but not least, I would like to give my deepest gratitude to my parents,

my husband, my daughter, and my colleagues for their moral support and encouragement throughout my training course

DECLARATION

I certify that this thesis is the result of my own research and has not been submitted to any institution or university for assessment purposes before In addition, I acknowledge that all sources used and cited in the study are in the reference section

Hanoi, November 2016

Signature

Pham Thi Hien

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates interruptions in the three rounds of the 2008 U.S presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain to explore patterns of interruptions employed by each candidate, and the ways the two nominees utilize interruptions to achieve their goals in the debates By employing a syntactic-driven typology and a content analysis, the study provides an in-depth look at the phenomenon of interruption, which is often seen to be negative and should be avoided in debates as well as in social interactions It is observed that interruption plays a significant role in the success or failure of each candidate Of the two candidates, Obama proves himself the more flexible and smarter user of interruption

to defeat his political enemy, Mc Cain

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ii

ABSTRACT iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS vii

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale for the study 1

2 Aims and objectives of the study 2

3 Research questions 2

4 Scope of the study 2

5 Methods of the study 3

6 Significance of the study 3

7 Design of the study 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

1.1 Conservation Analysis 5

1.1.1 Background 5

1.1.2 Turns, turn-constructional units, and turn-taking 5

1.1.3 Institutional talks 7

1.2 Interruption 9

1.2.1 Definitions of interruption 9

1.2.1.1 Definitions of interruption by lexicographers 9

1.2.1.2 Definitions of interruptions by linguists 9

1.2.2 Classifications of interruption 11

1.2.2.1 Ferguson’s classification 12

1.2.2.2 Roger, Bull & Smith’s categorization 14

1.2.2.3 Goldberg’s classification 16

1.2.2.4 Kennedy & Camden’s classification 17

1.3 Interruption and dominance and power 19

1.3.1 Concept of dominance and power 19

1.3.2 Interruption and dominance and power 19

1.4 Debates and televised presidential debates 21

1.4.1 Concept of debates 21

1.4.2 Concept of televised presidential debates 21

1.5 Related studies 22

1.5.1 Studies on interruption in political settings 22

1.5.2 Studies on the 2008 U.S presidential debates 22

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 24

2.1 Restatement of research questions 24

2.2 Appropriateness of research approach 24

2.3 Context of the study 24

2.3.1 Setting of the study 24

2.3.1.1 The 2008 U.S presidential debates 24

2.3.1.2 The presidential candidates 25

2.3.1.3 Effects of the three debates 26

2.3.2 Participants 26

2.4 Research instrument 27

2.5 Data collection and analysis procedure 27

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS 28

3 1 Classification of interruptions 28

3.1.1 Simple interruptions 28

3.1.2 Overlaps 28

3.1.3 Butting-in interruptions 29

3.1.4 Silent interruptions 30

3.2 Functions of interruption 30

3.2.1 Clarification interruption 30

3.2.2 Agreement interruption 31

3.2.3 Disagreement interruption 32

3.2.4 Tangentialization interruption 34

3.2.5 Subject change interruption 34

3.2.6 Other 35

3.3 Results 35

3.3.1 The relative frequency of different categories of interruption in the three debates 35

3.3.2 The functions of interruptions 36

PART C: CONCLUSION 38

1 Recapitulations 38

1.1 Interruption patterns 38

1.2 Effects of interruption patterns 40

2 Implications 41

3 Limitations and suggestions for further studies 42

REFERENCES 43 APPENDIX 1 I APPENDIX 2 III APPENDIX 3 XXII APPENDIX 4 XXVIII

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

C-SPAN Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network

ICS Interruption Coding System

TCU Turn-constructional unit

TRP Transition-relevance place

U.S The United States of America

LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS

FIGURES

Figure 1: Idealized schema for interruptions……… ……… 10 Figure 2: Ferguson’s classification of interruptions……….…14 Figure 3: Roger, Bull & Smith’s Interruption Coding System……….15

CHARTS

Chart 1: Relative frequency of different categories of interruption made by Obama and McCain ……… 35 Chart 2: Functions of interruptions made by Obama and McCain………… …36

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale for the study

Conversation is an “enterprise” which is characterized by turn-taking – the rule of the speaker and the listener’s changes Turn-taking means that “one person speaks, then the other responds” (Tannen, 1995, p 139) and it is a repetitive process (Levinson, 1983, p 296) in order for the conversation to run smoothly During the

turn-taking process, participants are supposed to obey the one-at-a-time rule, i.e.,

one person should not talk while another person is already talking (Sacks, 1995, p 633) In other words, there should be no interruptions1 in an ideal conversation, but

in practice interrupting2 still occurs

Interrupting is not a thing that people are supposed to do in conversation

But interrupting occurs in conversation

Sacks (1992, p 24)3

Sometimes interrupting is proved to be able to function as manifestation of the interrupter’s support, cooperation and understanding in the conversation (Tannen, 1984, 1986; Goldberg, 1990) However, it is normally claimed to have association with dominance, power and control (Černý, 2010; Drass, 1986; James & Clarks, 1993; Octigan & Niederman, 1975; O’ Donnel, 1990; Pschaid, 1993; Tannen, 1991; Zimmerman & West, 1975) The interrupter and the interruptee are seen as “a malevolent aggressor” and “an innocent victim” respectively In intimate relationships, the accusation of interruption is particularly hurtful because

“interrupting carries a load of meta-messages that a partner does not care enough, does not listen, is not interested” (Tannen, 1991, p 94)

Consequently, in presidential debates where politicians aim to promote “their own opinions, their party and their personas – and also to defame the political enemy” (Luginbühl, 2007, p 1376), interruptions are expected to occur more

frequently and ferociously than in daily conversation However, surprisingly studies

on interruptions in political debates are still in short supply

This paper is, therefore, conducted to investigate the way two presidential nominees – the Democratic Party nominee Senator Barack Obama and the Republican nominee Senator John McCain − employ interruptions in the 2008 U.S presidential debates to win the hearts and minds of American voters

2 Aims and objectives of the study

The study aims at making a conversation analysis of interruptions in the three rounds of the 2008 U.S presidential debates, and then giving some theoretical and pedagogical implications for utilizing interruptions in debates as well as other challenging and competitive speech exchanges To be more specific, to achieve these aims, the specific objectives of the study are:

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

3 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?

4 Scope of the study

Due to the size and limitation of a preliminary research, the present paper only takes into consideration the three rounds of the presidential debates between Obama and McCain The vice-presidential debate between Vice-President Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin is not selected

Furthermore, non-verbal interruptions in the three debates are also excluded from the study Only verbal instances of interruptions are focused on so as to identify types of interruptions employed by each candidate and the effects of these interruptions in the debates

5 Methods of the study

The database of this study is drawn from transcripts and videos of the debates, both are officially available from the Commission on Presidential Debates – the organizer of the presidential debates However, the investigation is mainly done on the basis of vocalized interrupting tokens

Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used in this paper with

priorities given to the quantitative Specifically, instances of interruptions in the three debates are identified and calculated manually by the writer Also, a

Conversation Analysis transcription is conducted to detect non-fluencies in

turn-taking Meanwhile, the functions and meanings of those interruptions are examined

by a content analysis In addition, such methods as descriptive, analytic and

comparative are also utilized to describe, analyze and compare the data in order to

bring about the patterns of interruptions used by each candidate and their effects in the three debates

6 Significance of the study

This study is expected to contribute humbly to the knowledge of those who want to improve their debating skills Hopefully, the information provided in this study will shed some light into and raise interest in the phenomenon of interruption

in political debates which is usually underappreciated When employed appropriately, interruption can be an effective tactic to achieve the interrupter’s objectives

7 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

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Conservation Analysis

1.1.1 Background

Conservation analysis (henceforth, CA) is originally to be found on the work

of two American originators: Goffman and Garfinkel (Schegloff, 2003a, as cited in Heritage, 1998, p 103), and then developed by Sacks in association with Schegloff and Jefferson (Heritage, 2008, p 301) It is “a rigorously empirical approach which avoids premature theory construction” (Levinson, 1983, p 286) and “one of the key methodological approaches” to the study of verbal interaction (Wooffitt, 2005, p 1)

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)

At its core, CA is “a set of methods for working with audio and video recordings of talk and social interactions” (Sidnell, 2010, p 20) The methods are essentially inductive The primary data for research are analyzed with assistance of transcripts to provide a detailed characterization of “messiness” of everyday interaction, concentrating on speech production and turn-taking organization

…the strength of the CA position is that the procedures employed have

already proved themselves capable of yielding by far the most substantial

insights that have yet been gained into the organization of conversation

Levinson (1983, p 287)

1.1.2 Turns, turn-constructional units, and turn-taking

Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) assert that all conversation is organized into turns A turn can consist of single words, phrases, clauses or sentences and can be defined as “a shift in the direction of the speaking “flow” which is characteristic of normal conversation (in opposition to, e.g., the conversational monologue)” (Mey, 1993, p 139) It includes “the temporal duration” of both an utterance and the right (and obligation) to speak allocated to a

particular speaker (Zimmerman & West, 1975, p 107) In other words, whenever an interlocutor begins to speak, he/she takes a turn – if his/her speaking is able to be finished without being interrupted, the turn ends and either the floor – the right to speak – is passed to another interlocutor, or the conservation finishes

A turn itself is comprised of at least one turn-constructional unit (hereafter

abbreviated to TCU) which is described as the smallest complete unit that could fully constitute a turn (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974, p 720) Also, “A simplest systematics for the turn-taking organization of conversation” can be described in terms of two components, as follows:

(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

(ii) Turn-allocational component which deals with the regulation and

negotiation of turn allocation, at the end of each TCU, for the next

such unit Next turn is allocated either by current speaker selecting a

next speaker or the next speaker self-selecting

Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1978, p 7)

This definition of TCUs relies largely on two kinds of criteria: syntactic structure, and projectability which is the capability of the respective unit to constitute a possible complete turn, ending in a transition-relevance place, or TRP –

a possible change-of-turn point

A TCU can only be considered as complete when all participants recognize it

as so (Coulhard & Coulhard, 1985, p 62) When a TCU is complete but another is not yet initiated, there is a potential TRP, which can be exploited by “current speaker” – the speaker holding the floor – selecting a next speaker, or by the next speaker self-selecting The initiation and the completion of a TRP can

“syntactically, semantically and intonationally be projected and predicted” (K T T Huong, 2006, p 25)

As to TRPs, there are “natural breaks” occurring in every conversation: a

speaker pauses to take a breath and/or organize his/her thoughts, or declares his/her

contribution to be finished All the points in the conversation are places where a relay of the right to speak to the next speaker – a natural “transition” – may occur

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” or conversational “traffic jams”, the situations in which the participants

feel themselves “gridlocked in sterile verbal exercise” Depending on cultures and language practices, “back-channel signals” or simply “backchannels” may differ and vary – from short utterances (“I see”, “Right”, “Yeah”, and so on) that show the other interlocutor’s support, to direct intervention in the conversation as taking the floor If the intervention happens at a point that is not TRP (i.e., when the current interlocutor is in the middle of his/her talk and there is no signal of completion), then it is called “interruption” (Mey, 1993, p 218)

Yule (1997), however, argues that the most widely used analytic approach to

conversation structure is based on an analogy with the workings of a market

economy In this market, the right to speak or the floor is a “scare commodity”, and

having control of this commodity at any time is called a turn In addition, attempt to

get control is called turn-taking, which operates in accordance with “a local

management system”, a set of conventions which are known by members of a social

group for getting turns, keeping them, or giving away

1.1.3 Institutional talks

At the present time, there are two forms of CA being practiced (Heritage,

1998, p 104) The first one is basic CA, which studies conversation as an

institution Anchored and epitomized by the entire research output of Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson, and others, basic CA focuses on ordinary conversation which

is not confined to specialized settings or to the execution of particular tasks; and is used as a resource to understand the work of social institutions, such as the police, law, education, medicine, and mass media

The second form of CA is institutional CA which emerged in the late 1970s

Institutional CA involves a shift of perspective, and is erected on the findings of basic CA to investigate the operation of social institutions in talk The findings of this form tend to be less permanent than those of basic CA They are “historically contingent” and “subject” to processes of social change due to factors impacting change in society, such as culture, social ideology, power, economic forces, intellectual innovations

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

(Drew & Heritage, 1992; as cited in Heritage, 1998, p 106) Unlike basic CA, special turn-taking procedures, being “systematically different” from conversation, are involved in the organization of institutional talk Special turn-taking procedures fall into three broad groups:

(i) Turn-type pre-allocation which is characteristic of courtrooms and news interviews The most pervasive form of turn-type pre-allocation involves the restriction of one party (normally not the representative of the institution) to answering questions

(ii) Mediated turn allocation procedures characteristic of business and other forms of chaired meetings In these systems, fewer restrictions on the content and type of contributions can be made, but at the end of each contribution the mediator of the proceedings allocates the next turn

(iii) Systems that involve combination of both processes common in mediation and some forms of counselling

(Heritage, 1998, pp 115-117)

1.2 Interruption

1.2.1 Definitions of interruption

1.2.1.1 Definitions of interruption by lexicographers

According to Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 3rd edition

software, to interrupt is “to stop a person from speaking for a short period by

something you say or do” Likewise, in Longman Dictionary of American English,

the verb “interrupt” is defined as to “stop someone from continuing what they are saying or doing by suddenly saying or doing something” (2011, p 542) Similarly,

in Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, interruption is described as the interjection of

“remarks or questions into another’s discourse” (Mifflin, 1995, p 548)

Although these definitions may be regarded as generic and simplistic, they are still not far from linguists’ definitions and serve as a basis for understanding the technical linguistic definitions of interruption

1.2.1.2 Definitions of interruptions by linguists

There is not a consensus about the definition of interruption, though interruption has drawn researchers’ attention for the past few decades Still many definitions of interruptions are being seen as inconsistent and “empirically tenuous” (Drummond, 1989, p 150); or used in a “unanimous way” (Martínez, 2000, p 108)

Some researchers use interruption as a synonym of simultaneous speech, or overlap

(Meltzer, Morris & Hayes, 1971, Uljin & Li, 1995); others see it as opposed to overlap (Zimmerman & West, 1975; Bennet, 1981)

This study, therefore, attempts to present a summary of definitions of interruption which is critically accepted and widely applied by linguists Linguistic

definitions of interruption can be categorized according to three criteria: the

morphosyntactic criterion, the social-contextual criterion, and the combination of two criteria

(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 123) Specifically, an interruption “penetrates the boundaries of a unit-type

prior to the last lexical constituent that could define a possible terminal boundary of a unit type” (West & Zimmerman, 1983, p 104) In other words, interruption is regarded as a type of turn transition which took place before a TRP An interruption, therefore, is to be distinguished from an overlap as it intrudes more deeply into the internal structure of a speaker’s utterance than

an overlap, i.e., “candid interruptions are incursions initiated more than two syllables away from the initial or terminal boundary of a unit-type” (ibid.)

An idealized schema for interruption as a sub-class of overlap is provided by Drummond (1989, p 150), as shown in Figure 1

Speaker A: - - Speaker B: - Time: 1 2 3 4

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)

(2) By social-contextual criteria, Murray (1985, p 31) asserts that interruption is

a violation of the “completion right”, the right for the current speaker to complete his/her turn This right is based not only on the turn-taking system but also on social status and context It is related to factors such as the length

of a speaker’s speaking, the frequency of his talk, the numbers of “points” made in a speaking turn, and the special rights of some speakers to speak about some topics As these factors vary greatly from culture to culture, Murray’s definition allows gender and cultural variation in the way interruptions are made

(3) By the two criteria combined, Gibson (2005, p 317) defines interruption on

the basis of Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson’s theory of turn-taking organizations in conversation; and social and contextual variations He admits that someone is considered to be interrupting when he/she begins speaking while the prior interlocutor is still in the midst of a TCU However,

he adopts this definition with the additional requirement that the initial (prior) speaker is actually prevented from completing that TCU TCU is interpreted

as speech that did not “project itself into the future”, in other words, a TCU should not make people anticipate a “yet-unspoken portion” (ibid.) Anticipation would arise not only because an utterance was syntactically incomplete but because it was regarded as incomplete in certain contexts or

in certain societies

In summary, Gibson’s definition not only provides a structural basis for defining interruption but also introduces contextual and social variations into the definition, which makes it superior to either Murray’s definition or West & Zimmerman’s one

1.2.2 Classifications of interruption

The classification of interruption is an issue of much controversy and once caused academic cut-and-thrust (see Bull & Mayer, 1988; Beattie, 1989a; Bull & Mayer, 1989; Beattie, 1989b) because interruption is “extremely difficult to define let alone classify” (Beattie, 1989, p 234) Opinions also differ as regards the categorization of interruption This study deals with four classifications of interruption which are most widely accepted

The first two categorization schemes, respectively devised by Ferguson and

Roger, Bull & Smith, classify interruption as deviations from speaker-switch The

last two items, formulated by Goldberg and Kennedy & Camden, respectively,

focus on the meanings and purposes of interruption

1.2.2.1 Ferguson’s classification

In her study, Ferguson (1977, p 296) uses four categories of interruption, each of which may be contrasted with what she calls a perfect speaker-switch A speaker-switch occurs when one interlocutor in a conversation finishes speaking and another begins A speaker-switch is perfect when a change in speaker is effected in such a way that:

(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

An example of each of the four types of speaker-switch non-fluency is given below In all examples, “A” refers to the main interlocutor in every conversation, and “B” refers to one of her partners All simultaneous speech is italicized, and the italicization of simultaneous speech designates the extent of simultaneous speech in each speaker’s utterance or interjection Speech enclosed in parentheses is produced

by the person who is not currently holding the floor; and may or may not involve simultaneous speech

(1) Simple interruptions: involve both simultaneous speech and a break in

continuity in the first speaker’s utterance; the interrupter takes the floor

Example 1:

(A)…and this bit about him being bankrupt and having no money I just don’t see

how it’s possible because–

(B) I haven’t heard that

(ibid., p 296)

Ferguson’s simple interruptions appear to resemble Mishler & Waxler’s (1968) “successful interruptions” (ibid., p 296)

(2) Overlaps: In this type of speaker-switch non-fluency, simultaneous speech is

present and the interrupter takes the floor However, there is no apparent break in continuity in the first speaker’s utterance

(3) Butting-in interruptions: This non-fluency type involves an interruption or

break in verbal continuity in one speaker’s output In this case, simultaneous speech

is present, but the interrupter just breaks off before completing her utterance instead

of taking the floor

(B) But anybody who’s a bit lazy I suppose, is it, that he used to picks on?

(ibid., p 297)

Also, such short utterances like uhm, yeah, that’s true, exactly, goodness, etc

are interjectory remarks, and are not treated as instances of speaker-switching,

either perfect or non-fluent because their function seems to be “very opposite of effecting a change in speaker, since they appear to ensure that the speaker who is holding the floor continues to do so” (ibid., p 296)

Beattie (1982) follows Ferguson’s typology of interruption and figures it as follows:

Attempt speaker switch Successful?

Yes No Yes No

Overlap Simple

interruption

Smooth speaker-switch

Silent interruption

Butting-in Interruption

0

Figure 2: Classification of types of interruptions (Beattie, 1982, p 100)

1.2.2.2 Roger, Bull & Smith’s categorization

Roger, Bull & Smith (1988) devise a new system for classifying interruptions

and simultaneous speech called the Interruption Coding System (ICS) Organized

in the form of a binary flow-chart terminating in a total of 17 empirically discriminable events, the system draws a clear distinction between interruptive and non-interruptive speech (Roger, Bull & Smith, 1988, p 27)

One event is categorized as interruption if the observer considers that the second speaker actually disrupts the first speaker’s utterance Interruptions are further subdivided into single interruption and complex interruption, depending on the number of interruption attempts According to Roger, Bull & Smith (1988, p

33), the fine-grained classification provided by the system permits the researcher to investigate the relative effectiveness of a number of different types of interruptive strategy, and hence to acquire a greater understanding of their role in conversation Roger, Bull & Smith’s categorization is claimed to be “more detailed” than Ferguson’s classification (Itakura, 2001, p 62), but it is still criticized for overlooking “the criterion of simultaneous speech” (Li, 2010, p 10)

Figure 3: Interruption Coding System (Roger, Bull & Smith, 1988, p 34)

1.2.2.3 Goldberg’s classification

Assessing the “meaning” of each interruption as a display of relational power

or rapport, or as a non-relational display of “neutrality", Goldberg (1990) divides interruption into three groups

(1) Relationally neutral interruptions: are those which address the immediate

needs of the communicative situation These interruptions may elicit a repair, repeat, or clarification of the interrupted utterance or they may address an externally impinging event/issue which requires immediate attention before the continuation of the conversation

Example 5:

P: Okay, the doctor wz uh, doctor Eddington

He’s the first o ne that told-

P: Eddington He works out’ve …

(Goldberg, 1990, p 888) (2) Power type interruptions: are those designed to wrest the discourse from the

interlocutor by gaining control of the conversational process and/or content Power type interruptions typically involve topic change attempts achieved by questions and requests (process control strategies) or by assertions or statements (content control strategies) whose proposition content is unrelated

to the specific topic at hand

Example 6:

B is describing the differences between U.S and U.K university education

B: Yes, yeah, the difference for us is that our- our

doing my doctorate in France I pay fifteen pounds a year, that’s it

(ibid., pp 891-892)

(3) Rapport interruptions: are those designed to encourage and contribute to the

development of the (speaker’s) talk by inserting (short) informative or

evaluative comments or by requesting the speaker to supply evaluative or informative remarks (Goldberg, 1990, p 894) Together the interrupter and the interruptee develop a common topic, displaying as they do so their joint enthusiasm for, involvement with, or understanding of the other and the issues or goals at hand

Example 7:

G: [story]

P: Did that just happen?

G: It happened in December I was ju:::st hysterical He =

P: = You’re kidding! You mean after you go to

sc hool?

S: Where wa::s he a professor?

G: Oxford An’ he was parTICularly attracted to young women ((laughs) And

he had this…

(ibid., p 894)

1.2.2.4 Kennedy & Camden’s classification

The following categories are used by Kennedy & Camden (1983, p 51) to code the interruption speech

(1) Clarification: a speech in which the interrupter endeavors to understand the

interrupted person’s message Clarification interruption does not substantively add to the original speaker’s message, e.g., “What do you mean?”

(2) Agreement: a speech that manifests agreement, support, concurrence,

compliance, or understanding, and can be demonstrated though further development or elaboration of the first speaker’s idea, e.g., “You’re right, our meetings are very business-like,” in response to “Our meetings are two formal.”

(3) Disagreement: a speech that indicates rejection, disagreement, challenge or

contradiction of the first speaker’s communication, e.g., “I don’t like that idea,” or “Yes, but that’s not all there is to the problem.”

(4) Tangentialization: a speech which reflects awareness of the first speaker’s

statement, and in some way minimizes or makes lights of the first speaker’s

message, e.g., “Fine, except the typing is terrible,” in response to “What do you think of the rough draft I presented to the committee?”

(5) Subject change: a speech which demonstrates no awareness of the first

speaker’s statement, and has no theme in common with the first message, and/or is a substantial change of topic, e.g., “Where are the reports to be filled?’ in response to “Someone forgot the start the coffee.”

(6) Other: any speech which is not suitable for the above categories

Kennedy and Camden (1983, p 48) assert that their interruption speech categories reflect Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson’s theoretical constructs of

confirmation, rejection, and disconfirmation Types of confirmation responses are

represented by the categories of Clarification and Agreement, which show the first

speaker’s approval, understanding or acceptance A rejection response is

represented by Disagreement category Types of disconfirmations are represented

by the categories of Tangentialization and Subject Change

In addition, interruption categories are also introduced to code the interruption speeches:

post-(1) Continues: The interruptee keeps talking while being interrupted and

maintain initial idea or theme of interrupted speech

(2) Reintroduces: The interruptee pauses, allowing for the interruption, then

continues with prior idea or theme of interrupted speech

(3) Re-interrupts: The interruptee interrupts the interrupter’s speech to regain

his/her turn

(4) Cooperates: The interruptee further develops, acknowledges, agrees with, or

responds to the interrupter’s idea The interruptee may pause to permit the interruption or may continue talking simultaneously, but the theme is changed after interruption

(5) Loses Turn: A third speaker speaks after the interrupter’s turn and may gain

the turn from the interrupter through post-interruption processes 2, 3, or 4 above

(6) Other: Any post-interruption speech that is not appropriate to the above

categories

Kennedy & Camden (1983, p 52)

1.3 Interruption and dominance and power

1.3.1 Concept of dominance and power

As dominance is one of the most important dimensions in social interactions

(Wiggins, 1979), psychologists have studied for decades to define dominance and find indications of it Dominance can be viewed as a personal characteristic, a person’s status within a group or the power they have within it (Mast, 2002, p 421)

In other words, dominance, power and status can be used interchangeably

However, Dunbar & Burgoon (2005, p 208) suggest that power and

dominance are not the same Power is the “capacity to produce intended effects, and

in particular, the ability to influence the behavior of another person” (ibid.) In contrast to power, which may be latent, the term “dominance” is used to refer to behaviors that are necessarily manifest It refers to “context-and relationship-dependent interaction patterns in which one actor’s assertion of control is met by acquiescence from another” (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005, p 208) Although dominance may be viewed as a personality feature, in the context of communication, it is a dynamic state that reflects a combination of individual temperament and situational traits that demand, release, or encourage dominant behavior Unlike domineeringness, which refers to individual attempts to control the interaction, dominance refers to the acceptance of the control attempts by the interactional partner – that is, it is defined by the sequence of “one-up” and “one-down” acts between two parties Dominance is thus both behavioral and relational Burgoon, Johnson & Koch (1998, p 315) further define interpersonal dominance as

“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 are clearly a sign of conservational dominance … interruptions as

attempts at conversational control Successful interruptions, then, become a more

sensitive measure of actual dominance” Therefore, interruptions are also a function

of power position The more powerful partner tends to play a more dominant role within conversation

Likewise, Drass (1986, pp 297-298) considers overlaps and interruptions as

“attempts” or “strategies to exercise dominance and control” in conversation Octigan and Niederman (1975, p 52) also observe that interruption is taken as a violation and a sign of conversational dominance Share the same view, Karakowsky, McBey & Miller (2004, p 431) view interruptions as “one verbal mechanism of power and dominance” because they “constitute a violation of the current speaker’s right to speak and control the subject of conversation” Also, interruptions can be seen as communicative acts that enact dominance for two reasons:

(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

When the interrupter enacts a topic change this also signals an additional

type of dominance over interaction partners In this sense, interruptions

can be viewed as one important indicator of enacted dominance

Karakowsky, McBey & Miller (2004, p 411)

In contrast with the previous view, Kennedy and Camden (1983, p 55) argue that interruptions does not always function as dominance behaviors In their study, interruptions appear to function as “healthy functional communicative acts” almost half of the time Following Kennedy and Camden, James and Clarke (1993, p 236) surveys the ways in which “interruptions” can and do perform useful, healthy functions in conversation; and surveys evidence suggesting that the majority of interruptions in casual conversation may not be dominant-related Likewise, Černý (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

1.4 Debates and televised presidential debates

1.4.1 Concept of debates

According to Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 4 a debate is “a formal

discussion of an issue at a public meeting or in a parliament” In a debate, two or more speakers express opposing views and then there is often a vote on the issue

Similarly, in the website of the International Debate Education Association5,

a debate is defined as “a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or individuals” and can work as “an essential tool for developing and maintaining democracy and open societies”

1.4.2 Concept of televised presidential debates

The idea of two-major party presidential candidates meeting face-to-face on live television is only about fifty years old Kennedy and Nixon were the first to formally debate for a national audience in 1960 Presidential debates are sometimes criticized to have rarely, if ever, mattered the outcome of the election (Sides, 2012)6;

or “don’t very often convert partisans on one side to another” (Jamieson & Birdsell,

1988, p 161)

However, televised presidential debates in the U.S still rank among the

“most watched” and “most talked about” event of a campaign (Hellweg, Pfau &

Brydon, 1992, p 101) According to Watts (2002, p 27), debates offer

cannot-find-anywhere-else information which plays “a major role” in voters’ decisions

Specifically, he lists some reasons to this consideration, as follows:

(i) Debates show more of the candidates’ knowledge of the issues than do other campaign elements, provide a better sense of how well the candidates understand the issues than do stump speeches or campaign ads

(ii) Debates show the candidates’ capacity for quick thinking and their ability to handle pressure – important character traits in the eyes of many voters

(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

Watts (2002, pp 27-30)

1.5 Related studies

1.5.1 Studies on interruption in political settings

Beattie (1982) concentrates on deviations from the turn-taking rules – the interruptions – in Thatcher’s and Callaghan’s political interviews, shown on British television in April 1979; and employs Ferguson’s typology of interruptions to compare and contrast the interview style of two Britain’s leading politicians

Another study on interruptions in political interviews is conducted by Bull & Mayer (1988) Eight televised interviews are selected from four interviewers who each interview Thatcher (the Prime Minister) and Kinnock (the Leader of the Opposition) The study uses Roger, Bull & Smith’s Interruption Coding System and gives contrary results to what might have been expected from the work of Beattie (1982)

In his B.A thesis, Kien (2015) also investigates interruptions in three rounds

of the 2012 presidential debates between Obama and Romney The study reveals that Obama is the more adroit and flexible user of interruption, thus comes out as the winner of the three debates

1.5.2 Studies on the 2008 U.S presidential debates

Basta and Ewald (2013) conduct a study which analyzes the rhetorical strategies employed by candidate Obama and McCain in the third presidential debate of 2008 The study pays attention to candidates’ use of acclaims, attacks and defenses, as defined by functional theory

Another research is a lexical analysis of 2008 U.S presidential and presidential debates (with the subjects being Obama vs McCain and Biden vs Palin) conducted by Krywinski in 2008 The analysis explores the structure of

vice-speech, as characterized by the use of nouns, verbs, adjectives and 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

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1 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?

2.2 Appropriateness of research approach

CA is a set of methods which work with audio and video recording of talk and social interactions (Sidnell, 2010, p 20) in order to provide a detailed characterization of “messiness” of everyday interaction, focusing on speech production and turn-taking organization So far, CA has become “one of the key methodological approaches” (Wooffitt, 2005, p 1) or “the dominant approach to the study of human social interaction across the disciplines of Sociology, Linguistics and Communication” (Stivers & Sidnell, 2013, p 1) For these reasons, a conversation analysis research design fits the purpose of the study

2.3 Context of the study

2.3.1 Setting of the study

2.3.1.1 The 2008 U.S presidential debates

The first presidential debate was originally planned to focus on foreign policy and national security Due to the 2008 financial crisis, a portion of the debate concentrated on economic issues In the debate, the two nominees were questioned

in turn with two-minute responses, followed by five minutes of open discussion for each question between the moderator and the two candidates According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, the 90-minute debate between the candidates standing at podiums was followed by 52.4 million viewers7

7

data provided by Nielson Media Research, as cited at http://debates.org/index.php?page=2008-debates

The second debate contained questions of all topics raised from uncommitted voters who were identified by the Gallup Organization and the moderator’s discretion to include questions submitted online The candidates were questioned in turn with two-minute responses, followed by one-minute open discussion for each question The 90-minute town hall meeting debate was viewed by 63 million people8

The third debate focused on domestic and economic policies while the candidates were seated at table with the moderator, and it was viewed by 56.5 million people (ibid.) The candidates were questioned in turn with two-minute responses followed by five minutes of open discussion for each question

2.3.1.2 The presidential candidates

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

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and to the U.S Senate

in 2004 In 2007, he announced his candidacy for President of the U.S., and then was elected the 44th President, and also the first African-American President of the United States on November 4, 2008 After being re-elected in 2012, President Obama is currently serving his second and final term, which will end in January 2017

Obama’s opponent, McCain has a 22-year military career as a pilot and officer in the Navy After leaving the Navy in 1981, he was elected to the Congress

in 1982 and then was elected as U.S senator from Arizona in 1986 In 2000, he ran for the Republican presidential nomination, but was defeated by George W Bush After Bush was reelected in 2004, McCain ran again for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008

8

data provided by Nielson Media Research, as cited at http://debates.org/index.php?page=2008-debates

2.3.1.3 Effects of the three debates

According to three polls conducted online after each debate by Knowledge Networks among three national random samples of “uncommitted debate watchers” – either undecided about who to vote for or who could still change their mind, Obama defeated McCain in the first two presidential debates and was also the winner of the third After the first debate, it appears that Obama benefited the most Among a random sample of 4839 uncommitted voters watching the first debate, 39% said Obama won the debate, 24% said McCain won, 37% said thought it was a tie In addition, 46% said that their image of Obama changed for the better as a result of the debate Meanwhile, McCain saw less improvement in his image (32% thought that they have improved their image of McCain as a result of the debate)

Although the second debate was thought to favour McCain, only 26% of

51610 uncommitted voters said McCain won, 40% said Obama was the winner of the debate, and another 34% thought it was a tie Also, McCain’s image had not changed much for the better Only 32% of the uncommitted voters said that their image of McCain changed for the better as a result of the debate Meanwhile, the percentage of Obama was still higher, at 42%

The last poll11 really showed Obama’s triumphant victory over McCain 53%

of 638 uncommitted debate watchers named Obama the winner of the third and last debate as well, and by an even wider margin Whereas only 22% said McCain won, and another 25% thought it was a tie Additionally, Obama saw much more improvement in his image than that of McCain (46% in comparison with 30%)

2.4 Research instrument

Instances of speaker-switch non-fluency in the three debates are identified, and transcribed according to transcribing conventions described by Zimmerman & West (1975) The conventions are presented in Appendix 1 and transcribing results

of non-fluencies in three debates are provided in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 respectively

2.5 Data collection and analysis procedure

The database is drawn from transcripts and videos of the debates, both are officially available from the Commission on Presidential Debates Later, Zimmerman & West (1975)’s transcribing conventions are employed to identify and transcribe all instances of speaker-switch non-fluency Next, these non-fluencies in

speaker switches are detected and classified according to Ferguson’s

abovementioned syntactic-driven typology The non-fluencies can be of four

categories: (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 change, and (vi) Other Among them, Clarification and Agreement are

considered “cooperative” interruptions which intend to “help the speaker by

coordinating on the process and/or content of the ongoing conversation”

Disagreement, Tangentialization and Subject change are also called “intrusive”

interruptions because they “pose threats to the current speaker’s territory by disrupting the process and/or 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

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS

3 1 Classification of interruptions

3.1.1 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

11 M: Late // [news]

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 [arrow (1)] is different from ideal switch because it involves both simultaneous speech made by the moderator and McCain (the part of the utterance contained in square brackets), and a break in continuity in the first speaker’s (the moderator’s) utterance; the initiator of the simultaneous speech (McCain) takes the floor Therefore, this non-fluency belongs

speaker-to Simple interruptions category

3.1.2 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

In these cases, simultaneous speech is present (in square brackets) and the initiators of simultaneous speech (Obama in example 2 and McCain in example 3) gain the floor However, in contrast to the simple interruption, there is no apparent break in continuity in the first speakers’ (McCain’s in example 2 and moderator’s in example 3) utterances and their utterances appear to be completed in every way As

a result, these excerpts can be classified as Overlaps

3.1.3 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]

3→2 MC: [Excuse me]

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)

7→3 MC: [Zero (?)]

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

In this case, simultaneous speech is present (shown in square brackets) In addition, there is break in the first speaker’s (Obama’s) continuity The initiator of simultaneous speech (McCain) attempts to seize the floor twice but he does not

succeed; hence, there is no speaker-switch and the first speaker (Obama) continues

with his utterance As a consequence, this non-fluency is one example of Butting-in

interruptions

3.1.4 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

6→1 M: [Senator] McCain

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

In this silent interruption [arrow (2)], the first speaker’s (McCain’s) utterance

is incomplete, but there is no simultaneous speech It could be inferred from the content that McCain forgets the three priorities, which results in a short pause in his utterance The moderator quickly reminds McCain of the priorities and then the question

3.2 Functions of interruption

3.2.1 Clarification 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?]

6→2 M: [Spending freeze?]

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, the moderator (Lehrer) interrupts [arrow (2)] McCain while

he is making a suggestion of a spending freeze on everything but Defense, Veteran Affairs and entitlement programs as his approach taken to the presidency The moderator seems to get surprised and expects to get McCain’s idea Lehrer’s

interruption, in this instance, is purely intended for Clarification purpose He simply

wants to know some information on McCain’s spending freeze

3.2.2 Agreement interruption

It is natural for interruptions of agreement to be seldom in debates in which speakers’ opinions are usually polarized and conflictive However, there are still a small number of agreement interruptions in the 2008 U.S presidential debates, most

of which are made by the moderators towards the candidates and vice versa, as follows:

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

5 M: All// [right]

6→1 MC: [Let] me (x) let me just say// [Bob Okay, But it’s] (x)

7→2 M: [Okay About 30 seconds]

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 [arrow (2)] can be classified as an Agreement

interruption because it manifests the moderator’s agreement on McCain’s request for giving a quick explanation after being accused of proposing the same thing in economic policies for many years

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 (#)