A study of interruptions in 2008 US presidential debates

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


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.

i

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

ii


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.

iii


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
iv


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

v


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

vi


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

vii


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
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

1

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.
2


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 turntaking. 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.
3


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.

4


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
5


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
6


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.
7

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)
8


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
9


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.
10


(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.
11


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 suprasegmentally.

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.
12


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:
13


Attempt speaker switch
Successful?

Yes

No

Simulaneous speech present?

Yes

Simultaneous speech present?

No

First speaker’s
utterance
complete?

Yes

No

Overlap

Simple
interruption

Yes

No

First speaker’s
utterance
complete?

Yes

Smooth
speakerswitch

No

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.
14


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)
15


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:
P:

Ehrinton?
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
I’m

A:

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
16