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[.]
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 Rationale for the study Aims and objectives of the study Research questions Scope of the study Methods of the study Significance of the study Design of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Conservation Analysis 1.1.1 Background 1.1.2 Turns, turn-constructional units, and turn-taking 1.1.3 Institutional talks 1.2 Interruption 1.2.1 Definitions of interruption 1.2.1.1 Definitions of interruption by lexicographers 1.2.1.2 Definitions of interruptions by linguists 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 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 Recapitulations 38 1.1 Interruption patterns 38 1.2 Effects of interruption patterns 40 Implications 41 Limitations and suggestions for further studies 42 REFERENCES 43 APPENDIX I APPENDIX III APPENDIX XXII APPENDIX 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 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 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 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 as cited in O’Reilly (2006, p 550) 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 60 50 40 30 20 10 Simple interruption Overlap Obama Butting-in interruption McCain Silent interruption Chart 1: Relative frequency of different categories of interruption made by Obama and McCain 35 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 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 36 “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) 20 18 16 14 Clarification Agreement Disageement 12 10 Tangentialization Subject change Obama McCain 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 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 37 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 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% Buttingin 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 38 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 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 and 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 39 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 agreement interruptions, 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 40 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 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 41 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 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 42 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 43 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 44 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 vicepresidential 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 45 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 46 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, 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 Tải FULL (99 trang): https://bit.ly/3EfV97U Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net 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 47 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 crosssex 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 Tải FULL (99 trang): https://bit.ly/3EfV97U Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net 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 48 APPENDIX 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 any unspecific research tasks; they are properly used as an adjunct to visualaudio recordings of the debates (x) Parentheses encasing an "x" indicate a hitch or I’ve (x) I’ve met him once stutter on the part of the speaker // Double obliques indicate the point at which one J : Well really//I speaker is overlapped or interrupted by another C: I don't care When nothing appears to the right of this symbol, the speaker has been overlapped in the middle of the last syllable preceding the slashes [] Brackets around the first part of a speaker's utterance J: If I//could mean that the portion bracketed overlapped or D: [But] you can’t interrupted a previous speaker's utterance ::: Colons indicate that the immediately prior syllable is A: Well::: now prolonged = An equal sign is used to indicate that no time elapses A: ’Swat I said= between the objects “latched” by the marks Often B: But you didn’t 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 (?), (!), (,), (.) Punctuation marks are used for intonation, not Are you sure (?) grammar I 6815361 ... International Debate Education Association 5, 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... 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... analytic and comparative are also used to bring about the patterns of interruptions and their effects in the debates 27 CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS Classification of interruptions 3.1.1 Simple interruptions