Master minor programme thesis English linguistics: A study of interruptions in 2008 U.S presidential debates

Chia sẻ: Minh Tú | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:99

Thêm vào BST

Báo xấu

24
lượt xem 4
download

Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

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.

Chủ đề:

Bình luận(0) Đăng nhập để gửi bình luận!

Lưu

Nội dung Text: Master minor programme thesis English linguistics: A study of interruptions in 2008 U.S 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 2 The word “interrupting” and “interruption” are used interchangeably to refer to the act of interrupting as a concept, a linguistic phenomenon 3 as cited in O’Reilly (2006, p. 550) 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 turn- taking. Meanwhile, the functions and meanings of those interruptions are examined by a content analysis. In addition, such methods as descriptive, analytic and comparative are also utilized to describe, analyze and compare the data in order to bring about the patterns of interruptions used by each candidate and their effects in the three debates. 6. Significance of the study This study is expected to contribute humbly to the knowledge of those who want to improve their debating skills. Hopefully, the information provided in this study will shed some light into and raise interest in the phenomenon of interruption in political debates which is usually underappreciated. When employed appropriately, interruption can be an effective tactic to achieve the interrupter’s objectives. 7. Design of the study The study is organized into three main parts and subdivisions as follows: Part A (Introduction) deals with the rationale, objectives, research questions, scope, methodology, significance, and design of the study. Part B (Development) consists of three chapters: Chapter 1 (Literature Review) provides a theoretical framework and a compendium of relevant existing studies on interruption in general and interruption in political settings and presidential debates in particular. 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