A study of interruptions in 2008 US Presidential debates.pdf

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHẠM THỊ HIỂN
A STUDY OF INTERRUPTIONS IN
2008 US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ NGẮT LỜI
TRONG CÁC CUỘC TRANH LUẬN TỔNG THỐNG MỸ NĂM 2008)
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

PHẠM THỊ HIỂN
A STUDY OF INTERRUPTIONS IN
2008 US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ NGẮT LỜI
TRONG CÁC CUỘC TRANH LUẬN TỔNG THỐNG MỸ NĂM 2008)
MA MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kiều Thị Thu Hương
Hanoi – 2016

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this study would not have been possible without the
assistance of special and wonderful people.
First of all, I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness and gratitude to
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kieu Thi Thu Huong, for her unfailing encouragement, constant
support and supervision during all stages of the study. Her enthusiastic assistance,
guidance, support, and wisdom greatly contributed to the fulfillment of my thesis. I
would also like to thank my supervisor for her patience in reading and editing my
drafts. It must have been an unenjoyable experience.
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.

ii
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

iii
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.

iv
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

v
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

vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
BA Bachelor of Arts
CA Conversation Analysis
C-SPAN Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network
MA Master of Arts
ICS Interruption Coding System
TCU Turn-constructional unit
TRP Transition-relevance place
U.S. The United States of America
& and
vs. versus

vii
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

1
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
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)

2
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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
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

6
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

7
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.

8
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)

9
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

10
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.

11
(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.

12
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.

13
Example 2:
(A) …I expect you would like to go with him.
(Yes) (Yes)
(B) Well, I’d prefer it, yeah – but then he would want me to go to a Ranger’s
football match…
(Ferguson, 1977, p. 296)
In her study, Ferguson admits that Overlaps correspond to Mishler & Waxler
(1968) “unsuccessful interruptions”.
(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.
Example 3:
(I think I –)
(A) I don’t know, I’ve got mixed feelings, I think it would be nice to have a baby…
(ibid., p. 297)
(4) Silent interruptions: In this case, the first speaker’s utterance is incomplete
(finishing, and, um…), but no simultaneous speech is present.
Example 4:
(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?
(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:

14
Attempt speaker switch
Successful?
Yes No
Simulaneous speech present? Simultaneous speech present?
Yes No Yes No
First speaker’s
utterance
complete?
First speaker’s
utterance
complete?
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.

15
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)

16
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-
D: Ehrinton?
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
A: I’m
doing my doctorate in France. I pay fifteen pounds a year, that’s it.
B: Wow.
(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

17
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

18
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, post-interruption categories are also introduced to code the post-
interruption speeches:
(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)

19
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

20
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.

21
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.
4
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/debate_1?q=debate. Retrieved on July 1st
,
2016
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

22
(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 vice-
presidential debates (with the subjects being Obama vs. McCain and Biden vs.
Palin) conducted by Krywinski in 2008. The analysis explores the structure of

23
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.

24
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

25
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

26
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%).
2.3.2. Participants
The investigation is mainly done on the basis of vocalized interrupting
tokens. In total, there are 146 cases of verbal interruptions in the three debates made
by Obama and McCain, either towards each other or towards the moderators.
9
Data provided by Knowledge Networks, as cited at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008Debate1.pdf
10
11

27
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.

28
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
10 president, I will.
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 speaker-
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
to Simple interruptions category.
3.1.2. Overlaps
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

29
6 the time, who presided over this increase in spending, this orgy of
7 spending, and enormous deficits.
Example 3: (Fragment 23, Appendix 4, third debate)
1 M: Even someone who had a history of being abortion rights //
2 [you would consider them.]
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 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
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
11 but are not doing it.
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

30
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
4 sequence?//
5 MC: [That was]
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
10 terms of priorities?
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
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.

31
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:
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.
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.
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 (#)

32
4 Ahmadinejad// [who is] Ahmadinejad (x)
5→1 O: [That’s tough]
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
However, in order to understand his speech correctly, the co-text and context
of the interruption should be taken into account. After being criticized for sitting
down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition, Obama
may try to convey that it is a “tough” policy. However, the utterance can also be
seen as a mockery of McCain’s mispronunciation because Ahmadinejad is not an
unfamiliar name to American people, not to mention U.S. senators. Ahmadinejad –
the sixth Iranian President – is in charge of the Iranian nuclear program, which
worried the U.S. and the European Union. Nevertheless, McCain – a 26-year U.S.
senator, the candidate for the U.S. presidency – confuses the name. To some extent,
McCain’s stumble shows his deficient knowledge of current foreign affairs.
3.2.3. Disagreement interruption
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

33
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
12 correct the record]
13 MC: with the// [Nunn-Lugar] //[thing]
14→3 M: [Excuse me, sir]
15→4 O: [John (?)]
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]
20→5 O: [( )]
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 [arrows (1), (2), (5) and (6)] shows disagreement,
rejection to the first speaker’s (McCain’s) communication; and hence, are classified
as Disagreement. Being criticized for objecting to reprocessing and storing nuclear
waste which will help relieve the U.S. energy requirements, Obama interrupts
McCain three times just to correct the record that he has never said like that, and to
claim that nuclear waste has to be stored safely.
The thing that should be noticed is the way Obama addresses McCain in this
excerpt. Whenever referring to McCain in the first debate, Obama dropped the
formal title and called his rival simply “John”. This informal form is used 3 times in
the excerpt and 24 times during the debate13
and may make Obama “look the more
13
According to Bennett (2013) at
http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=_AVHBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT144&dq=Obama+calls+McCain+by+his+

34
open and conversational” (Bennet, 2013). However, what Obama tried to do is to
ignore McCain’s decades as a senator, and hope other people “not to draw too much
of a contrast to his own short tenure in the chamber”14
.
3.2.4. Tangentialization interruption
There are no cases of Tangentialization interruption available in the three
2008 U.S. presidential debates.
3.2.5. Subject change interruption
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
4→1 MC: [Well] ((softly))
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//
8→3 M: [Short question]
9 O: [( )]
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 [arrow (1) and (2)] with a
speech about Obama’s relationship with ACORN, which demonstrates no awareness
of the first speaker’s (Obama’s) statement, and has no theme in common with the
first message. These interruptions belong to the category of Subject change
interruption.
name&hl=vi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiClun-
vtHMAhUDFZQKHR0wBzkQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q&f=false
14
According to Shear (2012) at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/debate-challenge-what-to-
call-your-opponent/?_r=0

35
3.2.6. Other
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.
3.3. Results
3.3.1. The relative frequency of different categories of interruption in the three
debates
In the three debates, Obama interrupts McCain and the moderators 80 times,
and McCain interrupts Obama and the moderators 66 times. There were thus 146
cases of interruptions. This means that the average time for one interruption is about
one minute and eighty-five seconds. Clearly, interruptions are very common in
political debates.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Simple
interruption
Overlap Butting-in
interruption
Silent
interruption
Obama McCain
Chart 1: Relative frequency of different categories of interruption made by
Obama and McCain

36
Chart 1shows how the different categories of interruption vary across Obama
and McCain. It can easily be seen that butting-in interruptions are the most frequent
form of interruption and silent interruptions the least frequent (the percentage being
63.1% and 4.8%, respectively). Interestingly, overlaps – the most common form of
interruptions in political interviews (Beattie, 1981a, 1982) and the most reliable
index of dominance (Ferguson, 1977) – is a distant second with a total of 31 cases
and simple interruption type closes in third with 16 cases (accounting for 21.2% and
10.9% of all interruptions, respectively).
It could be inferred from the chart that Obama is more aggressive than
McCain (Obama interrupts 1.2 times as much as McCain does). However, McCain
makes more successful interruptions (simple interruptions) than Obama does (6
times and 10 times, respectively).
3.3.2. The functions of interruptions
It can be easily seen from Chart 2 that Disagreement is the dominant
category of interruption. Throughout the three debates, interruption of this type
accounts for 45.2% of all instances of interruption. Obviously, Disagreement
interruptions are the most common in political debates where ideas and opinions are
bound to diverge and clash. In the first debate, the two candidates clash on economy
and Iraq. They “set out sharply different views of how they would manage the
country and confront America’s adversaries abroad”15
. In the third debate, the two
men battle “fiercely in their contentious debate”16
, with an aggressive McCain
attacking Obama’s campaign tactics and tax plans. The two White House hopefuls
clash on 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-
%20whats-next
16
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/10/16/58329.html

37
“strong” relationship “seems to suggest that speaking time may be the most
important factor in expressing and inferring dominance” (ibid., p. 446). In addition,
staying on topic in political debates is an “indicator of power”, hence, there is a
“tendency of candidates to shift topics changes” (Prabhakaran, Arora & Rambow,
2014, p. 1481).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Obama McCain
Clarification
Agreement
Disageement
Tangentialization
Subject change
Chart 2: Functions of interruptions made by Obama and McCain
Clarification interruptions rank the third with a total of 16 cases, accounting
for 19.1%. Agreement interruptions make a modest appearance, totaling 10
instances in 3 debates, accounting for 11.9%. Although almost every interruptions
of this type are made by the moderators towards the candidates and vice versa, there
are few agreement interruptions made by candidates to each other. These
interruptions appear to be supportive, but they are in fact defamatory.

38
PART C: CONCLUSION
This chapter aims to encapsulate the study, suggest some implications
evaluate the limitations of the paper and propose recommendations for further
studies.
1. Recapitulations
The purposes of this study are to investigate patterns of interruptions
employed by Obama and McCain in the three debates and analyze interruptions
utilized by the two nominees to achieve their goals in the debates. The analysis of
146 cases of interruptions revealed the following results.
1.1. Interruption patterns
The paper has employed Ferguson’s (1977) typology to identify and classify
interruptions in the three presidential debates. Viewing interruptions as deviations
from smooth speaker-switches, Ferguson (1977) divides interruptions into four
categories: (i) Simple interruptions, (ii) Overlaps, (iii) Butting-in interruptions and
(iv) Silent interruptions.
In the three debates, Butting-in interruptions are the dominant category
which accounts for two third of all identified interruptions. 69% of all interruptions
made by Obama belong to this category, McCain’s number stands at 56%. Butting-
in interruptions are normally successive but unsuccessful attempts to seize the floor.
In other words, the act of continuous interrupting usually meets with being
interrupted; hence, there is a tendency of cross talks where no parties relinquish the
floor for an extended period of time. The unrelenting endeavor to take the floor
makes the debates stuffier. As a result, the aforementioned figure suggests that
interruptions are generally uncompromising in the debates.
In addition to employing Ferguson’s classification which views interruptions
as deviations from smooth speaker-switches, the writer has also utilized Kennedy
and Camden’s (1983) coding scheme to make the contents of these interruptions
clearer. Kennedy and Camden classify interruptions into six categories: (i)
Clarification, (ii) Agreement, (iii) Disagreement, (iv) Tangentialization, (v) Subject
change and (vi) Other.

39
Predictably, Disagreement and Subject change interruptions, which serve to
negate the interrupted, are the most common ones (accounting for 69 percent of all
cases). Obviously, Disagreement is numerous in political debates where politicians
“set out sharply different views of how they would manage the country and confront
adversaries abroad” and battle fiercely to promote “their own opinions, their party
and their personas”. Likewise, as speaking time is an indicator of power and
dominance, the two nominees utilize every chance to gain and/or prolong control of
the floor, or to maintain topics in case of limited time. Therefore, subject change
interruptions are also inevitable. However, this category can be seen as not
preferable in conversations as it shows no awareness or even complete disregard for
the speaker’s statement. During the three debates, McCain makes more subject
change interruptions than Obama (12 instances in comparison with 8 cases made by
Obama).
On the contrary, the number of Agreement and Clarification interruptions –
showing support and concurrence – are inconsiderable compared with the two
aforementioned categories. It is observed that most of Agreement interruptions
made by Obama and McCain are not directed towards each other, but the
moderators. Obama and McCain make 8 and 2 agreement interruptions,
respectively. Interestingly, an agreement interruption made by Obama only shows
sympathy for McCain’s mispronunciation on the surface, but in fact he is sneering
at McCain’s poor understanding of international issues. As a result, his agreement
interruption turns out to be a defamatory one.
Tangentialization category, which makes light of the first speaker’s message,
is absolutely ignored in the debates. The reason might be that in such context where
each opponent wants to differentiate himself from his “political enemy” and
attempts to show that his policies are superior to those of his rival, showing support
via interruptions would not be preferable, let alone making light of his contender’s
statement.

40
1.2. Effects of interruption patterns
From the data analysis results, one noteworthy trend is Obama’s flexible use
of interruptions. In total, he makes 80 interruptions out of 146 cases (accounting for
54.8%). Originally, his frequent use of interruptions can create an impression of an
Obama who is aggressive and bad-tempered. However, his alternate use of
agreement interruptions – manifesting concurrence and compliance – and
backchannels (4 times compared with none by McCain) – short utterances showing
the second interlocutor’s support to the first speaker’s message without the intention
of taking the floor – can partly offset the negative image he has shown. The
utilization of interruptions makes him a combative interlocutor when necessary,
whereas agreement interruptions and backchannels make him a good listener.
Another trend is Obama’s wise use of agreement interruptions which
manifest support, concurrence, compliance, or understanding of the first speaker’s.
Throughout the three debates, Obama makes 8 agreement interruptions, 4 times as
much as McCain does. Nonetheless, not all of his agreement interruptions merely
imply concurrence. By employing an agreement interruption when McCain
mispronounces the name of Ahmadinejad, Obama obtains three things: Firstly, he
appears to be nice, considerate when trying to comfort his colleague in a stumble.
Secondly, he claims that the speaker’s policy is tough at the same time. Finally, he
makes a mockery of McCain’s deficient knowledge of current foreign affairs.
McCain, whereas, is thought to be “angry and bad-tempered” and unable to “control
himself well under pressure”. The possible reason is that McCain prefers subject
change category which discounts the other’s messages or directly challenge the
other’s opinions. Moreover, his omission of backchannels also creates a presidential
candidate unwilling to listen and unwilling to cooperate.
Being carried out with a view to make a conversation analysis of
interruptions in the three rounds of the 2008 U.S. presidential debates, the paper has
concentrated on two main objectives. The first objective involves the detailed
linguistic realizations of patterns of interruptions employed by each candidate in the

41
debates. The second one is to take into consideration the effects of each candidate’s
interruption pattern. These two objectives are the guidelines for all the process of
implementing the study.
The study starts with an overview of conversation analysis, in particular
turns, turn-constructional units, turn-taking and institutional talks. Afterwards,
much effort has been put into the concepts of interruption: (i) definitions of
interruption by lexicographers and linguists, (ii) classifications of interruption in
which Ferguson’s and Kennedy and Camden’s serve as the basis for data analysis
in the succeeding part. Next, the relationship among interruption and dominance,
domineering and power are investigated. In addition, the concepts of debates and
presidential debates are also mentioned. Finally, the paper provides with related
studies on interruption in political settings, and studies on the 2008 presidential
debates.
The data analysis has been carried out with an emphasis on the two issues.
The first one is on the linguistic realizations patterns of interruptions in the three
debates. The second one focuses on the effects of these interruption patterns.
Based on the analysis of the data, some conclusions have been drawn.
Firstly, interruptions are generally uncompromising in the debates. This is because
butting-in interruptions are the dominant category, accounting for two third of all
identified interruptions. In the debates, the act of continuous interrupting usually
meets with being unrelenting interrupted, hence there is a tendency of cross talks
where no parties relinquish the floor for an extended period of time. In addition, the
paper also reveals Obama’s wise utilization of agreement interruptions to defame
his political enemy. On the surface, Obama’s interruption shows sympathy for the
opponent, but in fact he implies his opponent’s poor understanding.
2. Implications
Based on the conclusion drawn, some theoretical and pedagogical
implications have been put forward in the hope of removing the one-sided view of

42
interruption as a negative phenomenon and providing useful guidance on deliberate
utilization of interruption as an effective strategy for students to win in debates as
well as other challenging and competitive speech exchanges.
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.
Secondly, this paper is hoped to remove the one-sided view of interruption as
a negative phenomenon which should be avoided in communication. On the
contrary, interruption can be an effective tactic to achieve intentions when being
employed appropriately.
Thirdly, the study may provide useful guidance on deliberate utilization of
interruption as an effective strategy for students who want to win in debates as well
as other challenging and competitive speech exchanges.
Finally, the research might provide trainers and teachers with helpful
information in teaching interrupting strategies. Also, trainees and students can learn
useful strategies to become persuasive and successful speakers and orators.
3. Limitations and suggestions for further studies
However hard the writer might have tried, shortcomings are unavoidable.
Firstly, only verbal interruptions are focused in the study, non-linguistic devices are
excluded. Such non-linguistic devices like gestures, facial expressions, eye contact,
etc. can also be inquired because they are said to have made a poised, sincere and
credible 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.
Lastly, interruptions in the study are among male interlocutors. The next
study might focus on interruptions in three debates between Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential debates to explore gender differences
in interrupting.

43
REFERENCES
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.
Discourse Processes, 4(2), 171-188.
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
Psychology Quarterly,49(4), 294-301.

44
Drummond, K. (1989). A backward glance at interruptions. Western Journal of
Communication, 53(2), 150-166.
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.
Gibson, D. R. (2005). Opportunistic interruptions: Interactional vulnerabilities
deriving from linearization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(4), 316-337.
Goldberg, J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruption: An analysis in
terms of relationally neutral, power- and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of
Pragmatics, 14(6), 883-903.
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.
Heritage, J. (1998). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing
distinctive turn-taking systems. In S. Cmejrková, J. Hoffmannová, O.
Müllerová, &J. Svetlá. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international congress
of IADA (International Association for Dialogue Analysis) (pp. 3-17).
Germany: Niemeyer Tübingen.
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:
Blackwell Publishing Company.
Houghton Mifflin Company. (1995). Roget's II: The new thesaurus (3rd ed.). New
York, U.S.: Author.
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
Benjamins Publishing Company.

45
James, D., & Clarke, S. (1993). Women, men, and interruption: A critical review. In
D. Tannen, Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp. 231-279). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
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
Group Research, 35(4), 407-439.
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
MA Thesis.
Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schartz, P. (1985). Sex and power in interaction:
Conversational privileges and duties. American Sociological Review, 50(1),
34-46.
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
University.
Luginbühl, M. (2007). Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and
functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1371-1387.

46
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
Compostela: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
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 &
Sons, Inc.
Murray, S. O. (1985). Toward a model of members' methods for recognizing
Interruptions. Language in Society, 14(1), 31-40.
Octigan, M., & Niederman, S. (1975). Male dominance in conversation. Frontiers,
4, 50-54.
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,
8(4), 549-566.
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
Verlag
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.

47
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.)
Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, A. E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Sides, J. (2012). Do presidential debates really matter? Washington Monthly: Ten
miles square, September/ October 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2012/ten_
miles_square/do_presidential_debates_really039413.php?page=all
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Malden, Massachusetts:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Sidnell, T. & Stivers, J. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. U.K.:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Stabenau, J. R., Tupin, J., Werner, M., & Pollin, W. (1965). A comparative study of
the families of schizophrenics, delinquents, and normals. Psychiatry, 28, 45-59.
Tannen, D. (1984). Saying what one means. The New York Times Magazine, 6-9
Tannen, D. (1986). Why can’t he hear what I’m saying? That’s not what I meant!
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
Review, 138-149.
Tran, T. K. (2015). Interruption phenomenon in the 2012 U.S. presidential debates.
Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. Hanoi: Unpublished BA Thesis.
Tải bản FULL (99 trang): https://bit.ly/3EfV97U
Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net

48
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:
Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The
interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
395-412.
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.
Tải bản FULL (99 trang): https://bit.ly/3EfV97U
Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net

I
APPENDIX 1
TRANSCRIBING CONVENTIONS
Zimmerman & West (1975) adopt the transcript techniques and symbols
devised by Gail Jefferson in the course of research undertaken with Harvey Sacks.
They revise techniques, add or drop symbols as they seem useful to the work. There
is no guarantee or suggestion that only symbols and transcripts would allow one to
do any unspecific research tasks; they are properly used as an adjunct to visual-
audio recordings of the debates.
(x)
I’ve (x) I’ve met him once
Parentheses encasing an "x" indicate a hitch or
stutter on the part of the speaker.
//
J : Well really//I
C: I don't care
Double obliques indicate the point at which one
speaker is overlapped or interrupted by another.
When nothing appears to the right of this symbol,
the speaker has been overlapped in the middle of the
last syllable preceding the slashes.
[ ]
J: If I//could
D: [But] you can’t
Brackets around the first part of a speaker's utterance
mean that the portion bracketed overlapped or
interrupted a previous speaker's utterance.
:::
A: Well::: now
Colons indicate that the immediately prior syllable is
prolonged.
=
A: ’Swat I said=
B: But you didn’t
An equal sign is used to indicate that no time elapses
between the objects “latched” by the marks. Often
used as a transcribing convenience, it can also mean
that a next speaker starts at precisely the end of a
current speaker’s utterance.
______________________ Underscoring is utilized to represent heavier
emphasis (in speaker’s pitch) on words so marked.
(?), (!), (,), (.)
Are you sure (?)
Punctuation marks are used for intonation, not
grammar.
6815361

A study of interruptions in 2008 US Presidential debates.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A study of interruptions in 2008 US Presidential debates.pdf

Similar to A study of interruptions in 2008 US Presidential debates.pdf (20)

More from HanaTiti

More from HanaTiti (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A study of interruptions in 2008 US Presidential debates.pdf