1887
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper considers issues relating to the identification and categorisation of interruptive acts for cross- cultural study, as revealed by the conflicting methodological requirements of a medium-scale project involving contrastive analysis of confrontational native speaker and non-native speaker talk in French and English. The paper opens with a brief introduction to the project, followed by a review of issues from the conflicting ends of corpus annotation and Conversation Analysis, the main locus of information about, and research into, sequential aspects of talk and interruptive phenomena. It then uses two examples from the project data for native English and French respectively to reveal and discuss tensions between diverging requirements in the categorisation of interruptive acts. It shows that, while categorising interruptive phenomena inevitably entails a degree of arbitrariness - minimised in either very large corpora or small scale situated analysis -, medium-size data are peculiarly vulnerable to issues of empirical validity, but that their function and the options they create to derive critical findings from the tensions between approaches make them an important tool for research, notably cross-cultural research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.15.1.02gui
2005-01-01
2019-08-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beattie, G
    (1983) Talk. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brower, C.E. , and J. Wagner
    (2004) Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics1.1: 29-47. doi: 10.1558/japl.1.1.29.55873
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.29.55873 [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , O. Tsuyoshi , and S. Vorreiter
    (2003) Incrementing in conversation: A comparison of methods in English, German and Japanese. Paper given atthe 8th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Toronto Canada, July 13-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Drummond, K
    (1989) A backward glance at interruptions. Western Journal of Speech Communication53: 150-66. doi: 10.1080/10570318909374297
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318909374297 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ferguson, N
    (1977) Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 16.4: 295-302. doi: 10.1111/j.2044‑8260.1977.tb00235.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1977.tb00235.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Ford, C
    (2003) Turn construction and the discourse and grammar research agenda. Paper given atthe 2003 Georgetown University Round Table, Washington DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ford, C. , B. Fox , and S. Thompson
    (1996) Practices in the construction of turns: The "TCU" revisited. Pragmatics6.3: 427-454.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, C. , and S. Thompson
    (1996) Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs , E. Schegloff and S. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134-184. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2003) Pragmatic projection and the place of “action” in turn construction. Paper given atthe 8th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA),Toronto Canada, July 13-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Garside, R. , G. Leech , and A. McEnery
    (1997) Corpus annotation. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, J
    (1983) A move towards describing conversational coherence. In R.T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure and strategy. London: Sage, pp. 22-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1990) Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power and rapport oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics14: 883-903. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90045‑F
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90045-F [Google Scholar]
  13. Greatbatch, D
    (1992) On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 268-301.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hutchby, I. , and R. Woofitt
    (1998) Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jefferson, G
    (1983) Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 28. The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C
    (1996) La Conversation. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mey, I
    (2001) The CA/CAD controversy. Journal of Pragmatics33: 609-615. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00016‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00016-3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Murray, S
    (1985) Toward a model of members’ methods for recognising interruptions. Language in Society13: 31-41. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010927
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010927 [Google Scholar]
  19. Okamoto, D. , L. Slattery Rashotte , and L. Smith-Lovin
    (2002) Measuring interruption: Syntactic and contextual methods of coding conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly65.1: 38-55. doi: 10.2307/3090167
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3090167 [Google Scholar]
  20. Roger, D. , P. Bull , and S. Smith
    (1988) The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology7: 27-34. doi: 10.1177/0261927X8800700102
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8800700102 [Google Scholar]
  21. Schegloff, E
    (1997) Whose text? Whose context?Discourse and Society8.2: 165-187. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008002002
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Talbot, M
    (1992) “I wish you’d stop interrupting me!”. Interruptions and asymmetries in speaker rights in equal encounters. Journal of Pragmatics16: 451-466. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90084‑O
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90084-O [Google Scholar]
  23. Sacks, H. , E. Schegloff ,. and G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking for conversation. Language50: 696-735. doi: 10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  24. Selting, M
    (2000) The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society29: 477-517. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500004012
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004012 [Google Scholar]
  25. Tannen, D
    (1994) Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ten Have, P
    (1990) Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique27: 23-51. doi: 10.1177/075910639002700102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/075910639002700102 [Google Scholar]
  27. West, C. , and D. Zimmerman
    (1983) Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations with unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne , C. Kramarae and N. Henley (eds.), Language, gender and society. Rowley M.A.: Newbury House, pp. 102-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Zamouri, S
    (1995) La formation de coalitions dans les conversations triadiques. In C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni et C. Plantin (eds.), LeTrilogue.Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, pp.54-79.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Zimmerman, D. , and C. West
    (1975) Sex role, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne and N. Henley (eds.), Language and sex. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, pp. 105-29.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.15.1.02gui
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Conversation analysis , Corpus annotation , Cross-cultural study and Interruptions
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error