The document summarizes a study on interruptions in a mixed-gender Indonesian talk show conversation. The study analyzed 15 interruptions over 14 minutes of the talk show to determine: 1) types of interruptions based on Ferguson (1977), 2) functions of interruptions based on French & Local (1983), 3) politeness strategies used during interruptions based on Brown & Levinson (1987), and 4) factors affecting interruptions based on Wardhaugh (1985). Most interruptions were initiated by female speakers and were competitive in function. Positive politeness strategies like seeking agreement were most common. Interruptions seemed mostly aimed at breaking up the conversation.

1. The Study of Interruption in a Mixed-gender Talk Show Conversation
Ririn Rubiyanti*
(Email: ririnrubiyantii@gmail.com / Mobile: 081394426655)
*Ririn graduated in October 2016 from Linguistics Major at English Language and Literature
Study Program, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung
ABSTRACT
The phenomenon of interruption in a speech event has attracted the attention of many
researchers. This study investigates the phenomenon in the context of a talk show in an
Indonesian TV show. It is an attempt to answer: 1) the types of interruption occur in the talk
show; 2) the functions of interruption; 3) politeness strategies that are used by the speakers when
interrupting; and 4) the possible factors that affect speakers to interrupt. The data were taken
from an Indonesian talk show entitled “Ini Talk Show”. The duration of the talk show is 14
minutes. This research mainly uses qualitative method in collecting and analyzing the data.
However, a simple quantitative measure in the form of categorical measurement is also used to
count the frequency of occurrence of particular data. The types and functions of interruption
were analyzed using Ferguson (1977) theory and French & Local (1983) theory. Moreover,
politeness strategies that are used by the speakers were analyzed using Brown & Levinson
(1987) theory. Lastly, the possible factors that affect speakers to interrupt were analyzed
following Wardhaugh (1985). The study found that most of the interruptions are initiated by
female speakers. In mitigating to avoid the hearer’s face, the interrupters mostly use positive
politeness strategies. Lastly, the interrupters interrupt because of many factors; mostly the
interrupters interrupting to break up the conversation.
Keywords: Interruption, politeness, and gender.

2. INTRODUCTION
When involved in a conversation, linguistically, male and female seem to be different. It
is because of the differences in behavior that affect their use of language in a conversation.
Female speakers are considered to be more polite speakers (Holmes, 1995) and cooperative
speakers according to Coates (as cited in Hannah & Murachver, 1999) than male speakers. The
argument is in line with Fishman (as cited in Hannah & Murachver, 1999) who finds that men
are less cooperative in conversation than female speakers. Moreover, men are eager to control
the conversation by holding the floor and control the topic. It makes male speakers dominate the
conversation (Rosenblum, as cited in James and Clarke 1993; Zimmerman & West, 1975; and
Smith-Lovin & Brody, 1989). As a result, male speakers are considered to be more powerful
than female speakers, and it leads them to interrupt more than female speakers in mixed-gender
conversation. According to some researcher like Rosenblum (as cited in James and Clarke,
1993), Smith-Lovin & Brody (1989) and West & Zimmerman (1975), men tend to interrupt
women more than the reverse.
Interruption is considered impolite because it shows disrespect to others. According to
Fei (2010, p. 12) interruption occurs when “Another speaker cuts off the current speaker’s
utterances”. Interruption is seen as an intentional action that has a negative connotation.
Interruption, not only works as a means to take turns, it also has the function to show that the
speaker is highly involved in the conversation. Interruption can be analyzed by using
Conversational Analysis (CA). Conversation analysis is first developed by Harvey Sacks,
Emmanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson in 1978. Conversation analysis aims to understand how
people manage their interaction and how they develop their social relation (Paltridge, 2006).
Interruption can be categorized into types and functions: based on the functions of
interruption following French & Local (1983) and based on the types of interruption following
Ferguson (1977). The functions of interruption are divided into two: cooperative and
competitive, while types of interruption are divided into four: simple interruption, silent
interruption, butting-in interruption, and overlap.
Speakers sometimes violate turn taking by interrupting the current speaker. The
phenomenon of interruption has attracted many scholars; one of them is West & Zimmerman

3. (1975). West & Zimmerman (1975) analyzed interruption, overlap, and silence in a same-gender
and a mixed-gender conversation. The study analyzed two-party interactions in coffee shop, drug
stores, and other public places in a university community. The data of the conversations are
equaled among sex-paired: male-male, female-female, and male-female. The study found that
male speakers interrupt and overlap more than female speakers. Moreover, female speakers show
silence more than male speakers. However, in contrast to West and Zimmerman (1975), Faizah
(2015) found that female speakers used interruption more than male speakers. Her study
analyzed two features of turn taking: overlap and interruption in a mixed-gender conversation in
the talk show Mata Najwa. The result showed that female speakers interrupt more than male
speakers and competitive interruption is the interruption frequently used by the speakers.
Furthermore, turn-noncompetitive overlaps are dominant in the conversation. The different
results may have emerged because the contexts are different. The study from West and
Zimmerman (1975) analyzed conversation in public places while the research from Faizah
(2015) analyzed a conversation in the talk show.
Unlike the previous studies, this research does not only try to reveal interruption in a mixed-
gender conversation but also to see the politeness strategies that are used by the speakers to avoid
face-threatening act. Moreover, this research also examines the possible factors that affect the
speakers to interrupt. It is interesting to analyze politeness strategies because interruption is an
act that potentially threatens the speaker’s face. It is because interruption mostly is an act to take
the floor or change the topic, thus it sometimes contradicts with what the speaker’s want. For
instance, when the current speaker was speaking and the second speaker interrupted by
complaining, it makes the current speaker’s want to be appreciated by the hearer is violated.
In order to analyze the interruption, this research uses conversation analysis proposed by
Sacks et al (1974). The theory that is used to analyze types of interruption were analyzed by
using Ferguson (1977) theory while the functions of interruption were analyzed by using French
& Local (1983) theory. Moreover, the politeness strategies were analyzed by using Brown &
Levinson (1987) politeness theory.
METHODOLOGY

4. This research mainly uses qualitative method in collecting and analyzing the data.
According to Creswell (2012) qualitative method aims to explore problems to obtain a deep
understanding of a phenomenon. A qualitative method does not use statistic to analyze the data,
instead use words or photos. Furthermore, according to Creswell (2012, p. 19) “Qualitative
research analyzed the words to group them into larger meanings of understanding, such as codes,
categories, or theme.” This research uses a qualitative method because this research analyzes
words and categorizes them in order to answer the research questions. However, a simple
quantitative measure in the form of categorical measurement is also used to count the frequency
of occurrence of particular data.
Subjects: The data of this paper were the transcription of the conversations in Ini Talk Show,
aired on NET TV on the 3rd of June 2015. The length of the video is 90 minutes and is divided
into six parts. However, this research only analyzed the third part that contains 14 minutes
because of several reasons. First, in analyzing how the speakers interrupt in a mixed-gender
conversation, it requires male and female speakers in equal numbers. In the particular part
analyzed, there are four guests: Maia, Monita, Ricky, and Virzha. Second, since the analysis
requires a natural conversation, the host and co-hosts were excluded in the analysis. It is because
basically, the host has the right to control the conversation, and thus it will make the host
dominates the conversation. Besides, the distractions from co-host are not natural since they are
controlled by the script. Moreover, the distractions from co-hosts are not as many as in other
parts. In this part, unlike in other parts the co-host do not dominate the conversation, hence the
third part is the most appropriate one to be used for analysis.
Procedure: There were several steps taken in the data analysis. Firstly, to answer the first and
second research questions, the types and functions of interruptions occurring in the data were
examined. The types of interruption were analyzed following Ferguson’s theory (1977).
Meanwhile, the functions of interruption were analyzed following French and Local (1983). The
types and functions of interruption were based on gender perspective. When female was
interrupted by male, it was represented by F-M. Meanwhile, when male was interrupted by
female, it was represented by M-F. Moreover, when male was interrupted by male, it was
represented by M-M. Finally, when female was interrupted by female, it was represented by F-F.
The types of interruptions that occurred in the data are presented in the table below.

5. Table 3.1 The Occurrences of Types of Interruption in the Conversation
Types of
Interruptions
Cases
Frequency PercentageF Interrupter M Interrupter
F-F M-F F-M M-M
Simple
Interruption
Butting-in
Interruption
Silent Interruption
Overlap
Total
Interruption
After the frequency of the interruption types was counted, the result can be concluded
and the implication can be made.
Besides the types, the functions of interruption were also examined following French and
Local (1983). The functions of interruption were divided into two: competitive and cooperative.
The data was in the form of the table that showed the frequency of competitive and cooperative
interruptions that were used by the male and female speakers. The functions of interruption that
occurred in the data are presented in the table below.
Table 3.2 The Occurrences of Functions of Interruption in the Conversation
Cases
Competitive
Interruption
Cooperative
Interruption
Total
Female
Interrupter
F-F
M-F
Male
Interrupter
F-M
M-M
Total
After the frequency of the interruption types was counted, the result can be concluded
and the implication can be made. Next, to answer the third research question, politeness

6. strategies were analyzed. Politeness strategies that were used in this research was the theory from
Brown and Levinson (1987). Politeness strategies were analyzed in order to know how the male
and female speakers avoid threatening the current speaker’s face. The politeness strategies that
occurred in the data are presented in the table below.
Table 3.3 The Occurrences of Politeness Strategies in the Mixed-gender Conversation
No. Positive Politeness Strategies Male Female Total Percentage
Seek agreement
Use in-group identity marker
Notice, attend to hearer
Joke
Presuppose/raise/assert
common ground
Exaggerate
Avoid disagreement
Total
Table 3.4 The Occurrences of Negative Politeness Strategy in the Mixed-gender
Conversation
No. Negative Politeness Strategy Male Female Total Percentage
Don’t presume/assume
Total
After the frequency of politeness strategies that were used by the male and female
speakers were counted, the implication can be made.
Lastly, to answer the fourth research question, the possible factors of the interruption
made by the speaker was explained. The reasons were based on Wardhaugh (as cited in Prasetyo,
2015) that propose possible factors that make the speakers interrupt. The possible factors that
affect the interruption of male and female speakers are presented in the table below.

7. Table 3.5 Factors that Affect Speaker to Interrupt
No. Factors Male Female Total Percentage
Breaking up
Disagreeing
Seeking for clarification
Completing
Correcting
Agreeing
Total
RESULTS
The result shows that from 14 minutes talk show, there are 15 interruptions occur. It may
due to the conversation setting that enables the speakers to interrupt. The host, co-hosts, and
guests are gathered and thus it makes power is distributed, not only controlled by the host. Even
if the host has the right to control the situation, the host still allows the guests to talk freely. Thus
it makes the interruptions cannot be avoided. Most of the interruptions are initiated by female
speakers with nine interruptions. The finding is in line with James and Clarke (1993), and Beattie
(1981) that state female speakers also interrupt male speakers and female speakers tend to speak
simultaneously.
This research adapted Ferguson (1977)’s theory to categorize the types of interruption.
He divides interruption into four types; they are simple interruption, butting-in interruption,
silent interruption, and overlap. All of the types of interruption occur in this conversation: Simple
interruption with four (26.7%) occurrences, butting-in interruption with four (26.7%)
occurrences, overlap with four (26.7%) occurrences, and silent interruption with three (20%)
occurrences. The findings of types of interruption are presented in the table below.
Table 4.1 Types of Interruption
Types of
Interruption
Cases
Frequency PercentageF Interrupter M Interrupter
F-F M-F F-M M-M

8. Simple
Interruption
- 2 - 2 4 26.7%
Butting-in
Interruption
- 2 2 - 4 26.7%
Silent
Interruption
1 2 - - 3 20%
Overlap - 2 1 1 4 26.7%
Total 1 8 3 3 15 100%
M-F means that male is interrupted by female
Besides types of interruption, this research also analyzes the functions of interruption.
This research adapted Local & French (1983)’s theory. They divide interruption into two
categories according to its function, there are competitive and cooperative. The data find that
there are 10 interruptions are intended to compete with the current speaker while five
interruptions are intended to cooperate with the current speaker. Female speakers and male
speakers in the data tend to interrupt to compete with the current speaker for the floor. The
findings of functions of interruption are presented in the table below.
Table 4.1 Functions of Interruption
Cases
Competitive
Interruption
Cooperative
Interruption
Total
Female
Interrupter
F-F 1 - 1
9
M-F 5 3 8
Male
Interrupter
F-M 2 1 3
6
M-M 2 1 3
Total 10 5 15
M-F means that male is interrupted by female
Interruption is an act that potentially threatens the current speaker’s face. In order to
minimize threaten other’s face, the speaker uses politeness strategy. In the data, the result shows
that there are two politeness strategies used by the speaker: positive politeness strategy and
negative politeness strategy. From positive politeness strategies that are proposed by Brown &
Levinson (1987), there are eight positive politeness strategies that occurred in the data. Positive
politeness strategies that are used by the speakers are: Seek agreement with six (40%)

9. occurrences, Use in-group identity marker with one occurrence (6.7%), Notice to hearer with one
occurrence (6.7%), Joke with two (13.3%) occurrences, Presuppose/raise/assert common with
two (13.3%) occurrences, Exaggerate with one (6.7%) occurrence, Avoid disagreement with one
(6.7%) occurrence, and Give gifts to H with one (6.7%) occurrence. The findings of this section
are presented in the table below.
Table 4.2 The Occurrences of Positive Politeness Strategies Based on Gender Perspective
Positive Politeness
Strategies
Male Female Total Percentage
Seek agreement 3 3 6 40%
Use in-group identity
marker
- 1 1 6.7%
Notice, attend to hearer - 1 1 6.7%
Joke - 2 2 13.3%
Presuppose/raise/assert
common ground
1 1 2 13.3%
Exaggerate - 1 1 6.7%
Avoid disagreement 1 - 1 6.7%
Give gifts to H - 1 1 6.7%
Total 5 10 15 100%
Moreover, a male speaker in the data uses negative politeness strategy to
minimize threatens other’s face. Negative politeness strategy that appears in the data is question
with one (100%) occurrence. The finding of negative politeness strategy is presented in the table
below.
Table 4.3 The Occurrences of Negative Politeness Strategy Based on Gender Perspective
Negative Politeness Strategy Male Female Total Percentage
Question 1 - 1 100%
Total 1 - 1 100%

10. Lastly are the possible factors that affect speaker to interrupts the current speaker’s
utterance. This research is following Wardhaugh (as cited in Prasetyo, 2015)’s theory of factors
to interrupt. He suggests seven factors, there are: (1) asking for help, (2) seeking clarification, (3)
correcting, (4) rejecting, (5) completing, (6) breaking up (7) disagreeing. The results show that
there are five factors proposed by Wardhaugh (1985) appeared in this conversation: breaking up
with six (40%) occurrences, disagreeing with one (6.7%) occurrence, seeking for clarification
with one (6.7%) occurrence, correcting with one (6.7%) occurrence, and completing with one
(6.7%) occurrence. Besides the factors that are proposed by Wardhaugh (1985), there is also
another factor why the second speaker interrupts the current speaker: it is to show agreement
with five (33.3%) The findings of this section are presented in the table below.
Table 4.4 Factors that Affect Speaker to Interrupt
Factors Male Female Total Percentage
Breaking up 2 4 6 40%
Disagreeing - 1 1 6.7%
Seeking for clarification - 1 1 6.7%
Completing 1 - 1 6.7%
Correcting 1 - 1 6.7%
Agreeing 2 3 5 33.3%
Total 6 9 15 100%
CONCLUSION
After conducting the research on the interruption in a mixed-gender conversation, the
result shows that from 14 minutes talk show, there are 15 interruptions occur. It may due to the
setting of conversation. The conversation happens in comedic talk show. In comedic talk show,
speakers do not always follow the rules and norm of conversation, instead comedic talk shows
tend to break the rules to make the conversation more comedic. Thus it makes the interruption
cannot be avoided. Besides, in Ini Talk Show the host, co-hosts, and guests are gathered and thus
it makes power is distributed, not only controlled by the host. Even if the host has the right to
control the situation, the host still allows the guests to talk freely. Mostly the interrupters are

11. female speakers. Female speakers interrupt more than male speakers with nine (60%) times
while male speakers interrupt only six (40%) times. It is in line with James and Clarke (1993),
and Beattie (1981) that state female speakers also interrupt male speakers and female speakers
tend to speak simultaneously.
All the types of interruptions occur in this mixed-gender conversation. The frequencies of
all the types of interruptions are same with four occurrences, except for silent interruption with
three occurrences. From the types of interruption, it can be seen that most of the speakers are
succeeds in interrupting the current speaker. Furthermore, most of the interrupters interrupt to
compete with the current speaker for a floor with 11 occurrences.
Since interruption is an act that potentially threatens the current speaker’s face, most of
the interrupters in this conversation use positive politeness strategies to minimize threaten. From
politeness strategies propose by Brown & Levinson (1987), there are positive and negative
politeness strategies that are used by the interrupters. Most of the interrupters use positive
politeness strategies than negative politeness strategies. Negative politeness strategy only occurs
one time in this mixed-gender conversation. In this research, all female speakers use positive
politeness strategy, it is because generally female speakers want to build rapport and build
closeness with other speakers. It is supported by Burrow (2007) who says that because women
are generally engaged in involvement strategies, we should conclude that women are more
concerned with positive face than negative face.
Wardhaugh (as cited in Prasetyo, 2015) proposed seven factors that may affect speaker to
interrupt. From seven factors that are proposed by Wardhaugh, breaking up, disagreeing, seeking
floor clarification, correcting, and completing occur in this mixed-gender conversation. Besides
the factors proposed by Wardhaugh (as cited in Prasetyo, 2015), there is also another factor why
the second speaker interrupts the current speaker. They interrupt because they want to show
agreement with four (26.6%) occurrences. Female speakers tend to interrupt for break up the
current speaker’s utterance while male speakers interrupt to break up and agree with the current
speaker. Moreover, it can be concluded that breaking up is the first factor for the interrupter to
interrupt the current speaker.

12. Furthermore, gender and power can be considered as factors that affect speakers to
interrupt the conversation. It is because Male is stereotyped to have powerful personality and it
makes male speakers interrupt more than female speakers. The argument is supported by
Rosenblum, (as cited in James and Clarke, 1993), Zimmerman &West (1975), and Smith-Lovin
& Brody (1989) that state male speakers interrupt female speakers more than the reverse. On the
other hand, this research found that female speakers interrupt more than male speakers. The
finding is in line with James and Clarke (1993) and Beattie (1981) that state female speakers also
interrupt male speakers and female speakers tend to speak simultaneously. Moreover, it shows
that gender is not only the factor which can affect speaker’s behavior in conversation. It is
because the female speaker is powerful than male speakers. In the data, Maia as the guest is the
female speaker who most interrupts both male and female speakers: from nine interruptions that
female speakers initiate, she interrupts eight times. She interrupts more than other speaker is
because of some reasons: First, she is a senior musician compared to other guests. Second, she is
older than the host and others guests. Thus her age and seniority makes her is more powerful
than other and she is being respected by others.
REFERENCES
Aziz, E. A. (2008). Horison Baru Teori Kesantunan Berbahasa: Membingkai yang Terserak,
Menggugat yang Semu, Menuju Universalisme yang Hakiki. Bandung: Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia.
Bennet, A. (1981). Interruptions and the Interpretation of Conversations. Discourse Processes ,
(4), 171-188.
Brennan, S. E. (2010). Conversation and Dialogue. Sage Publications.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Burrow, S. (2007). "Gendered Politeness, Self-Respect, and Autonomy" in De la Politesse
Linguistique au Cameroun/ Linguistic Polieness in Cameroon.
Coates, J. (1986). Women, men, and language: A sociolinguistic account of sex differencesin
language. London: Longman.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating
Quantittative and Qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

13. Danileiko, N. (2005). Formal and Functional Questions in an American Talk Show Late Night
With Conan O'Brien. (Thesis). University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1982). Inferred Sex Differences in Status as a Determinant of
Gender Stereotypes About Social Influence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 915-928.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Ersory, S. (2008). Men Compete, Women Collaborate: A Study On Collaborative Vs.
Competiitve Communication Styles In Mixed-sex Conversation. (Paper). Kristianstad
University, Norway.
Faizah, I. (2015). A Study of Interruption and Overlap in Male-Female Conversation in the Talk
Show Mata Najwa. (Paper). Indonesia University of Education, Bandung.
Fei, Z. (2010). An analysis of Gender Differeneces Based on the American TV Series Friends.
Kristianstad University.
Ferguson, N. (1977). Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. British Journal of
Social anil Clinical Psychology, 16(4), 295-302.
French, P., & Local, J. (1983). Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics, 17-38.
Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (1999). Gender and Conversational Style As Predicators of
Conversational Behavior. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(2), 153-174.
Heritage, J. (1985). Sex and Power in Interruption: Conversational Privilages and Duties.
American Sociological Review, (50), 24-46.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Routledge.
Hutchby, I. (2006). Media Talk: Conversationn Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversational Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ilie, C. (2001). Semi-Institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Show. Journal of Pragmatics,
(33), 209-254.
James and Clarke. (1993). Women, Men, and Interruptions: a critical review. Retrieved from
web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/jamesClarke.pdf
LaFrance, M., & College, B. (1992). Gender and Interruptions: Individual Infraction or Violation
of the Social Order? Psychology of Women Quarterly, (16), 497-512.
Leffler, A., Gillespie, D. L., & Conaty, J. C. (1982). The Effects of Status Differentiation on
Nonverbal Behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(3), 153-161.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.

14. Nolasco, R., & Arthur, L. (1987). Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. New York: Continuum.
Prasetyo, J. Lambang. (2015). Irregular Turn taking used by all characters in Denzel
Washington’s The Great Debaters. (Paper). The State Islamic University Sunan Ampel,
Surabaya.
Roach, P. (1991). English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course. Second Edition.
Cambridge: CUP.
Roger, D., & Nesshoever, W. (1987). Individual Differences in Dyadic Conversational
Strategies: A Further Study . British Journal of Social Psychology, 247-255.
Ryfa, J. (2005). Chavs and Grungers: The Creation of Distinct Speech Styles by Two Hostile
Communities of Practice in Colchester, Essex, M.A. Dissertation, University of Essex,
Colchester. Retrieved from
http://sociolinguistics.w.interia.pl/PDF/Joanna_Ryfa_MA_Essex.pdf
Sacks, H., Schegloff, A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A Simplest Systematic for the Organization of
Turn taking for Conversation. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization
of Turn taking for Conversation. Linguistic Society of America, 696-735.
Smith-Lovin, L., & Brody, C. (1989). Interruptions in group discussion: the effect of gender and
group composition. American Sociological Review.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983). Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-sex
Conversations Between Unacquainted Persons. In B. Throne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley,
Language, Gender and Society (pp. 102-117). Cambridge: Newbury House.
Woffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical
Introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language (Second edition). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.