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.
Beattie, G. (1983) Talk. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Brower, C.E., and J. Wagner (2004) Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1.1: 29-47. BoP
Couper-Kuhlen, E., O. Tsuyoshi, and S. Vorreiter (2003) Incrementing in conversation: A comparison of methods in English, German and Japanese. Paper given at the 8th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Toronto Canada, July 13-18.
Drummond, K. (1989) A backward glance at interruptions. Western Journal of Speech Communication 531: 150-66.
Ferguson, N. (1977) Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 16.4: 295-302.
Ford, C. (2003) Turn construction and the discourse and grammar research agenda. Paper given at the 2003 Georgetown University Round Table, Washington DC.
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. BoP
Ford, C., and S. Thompson (2003) Pragmatic projection and the place of “action” in turn construction. Paper given at the 8th International Pragmatics Conference (IPrA), Toronto Canada, July 13-18.
Garside, R., G. Leech, and A. McEnery (1997) Corpus annotation. London: Longman.
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.
Goldberg, J. (1990) Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power and rapport oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 883-903. BoP
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.
Hutchby, I., and R. Woofitt (1998) Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press. BoP
Jefferson, G. (1983) Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 281. The Netherlands: Tilburg University.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1996) La Conversation. Paris: Seuil. BoP
Mey, I. (2001) The CA/CAD controversy. Journal of Pragmatics 331: 609-615.
Murray, S. (1985) Toward a model of members’ methods for recognising interruptions. Language in Society 131: 31-41.
Okamoto, D., L. Slattery Rashotte, and L. Smith-Lovin (2002) Measuring interruption: Syntactic and contextual methods of coding conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 65.1: 38-55.
Roger, D., P. Bull, and S. Smith (1988) The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 71: 27-34. BoP
Schegloff, E. (1997) Whose text? Whose context?Discourse and Society 8.2: 165-187. BoP
Talbot, M. (1992) “I wish you’d stop interrupting me!”. Interruptions and asymmetries in speaker rights in equal encounters. Journal of Pragmatics 161: 451-466.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff,. and G. Jefferson (1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking for conversation. Language 501: 696-735. BoP
Selting, M. (2000) The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 291: 477-517. BoP
Tannen, D. (1994) Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Ten Have, P. (1990) Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique 271: 23-51.
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. BoP
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.
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.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Béal, Christine & Kerry Mullan
2017. The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English. Language & Communication 55 ► pp. 24 ff.
Tobback, Els
2014. À chacun son tour: analyse comparative des styles conversationnels des néerlandophones et des francophones de Belgique dans des débats télévisés. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 59:3 ► pp. 373 ff.
Guillot, Marie-Noëlle
2008. Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions. Journal of Pragmatics 40:2 ► pp. 179 ff.
Xudong, Deng
2008. Overlap. In Handbook of Pragmatics, ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.