Revisiting the methodological debate on interruptions: From measurement to classification in the annotation of data for cross-cultural research

Marie-Noëlle Guillot


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.

Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Beattie, G
(1983) Talk. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Brower, C.E., and J. Wagner
(2004) Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1.1: 29-47. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
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 53: 150-66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, N
(1977) Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 16.4: 295-302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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., B. Fox, and S. Thompson
(1996) Practices in the construction of turns: The "TCU" revisited. Pragmatics 6.3: 427-454.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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
(1990) Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power and rapport oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 883-903. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
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
Hutchby, I., and R. Woofitt
(1998) Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G
(1983) Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 28. The Netherlands: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C
(1996) La Conversation. Paris: Seuil.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mey, I
(2001) The CA/CAD controversy. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 609-615. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murray, S
(1985) Toward a model of members’ methods for recognising interruptions. Language in Society 13: 31-41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roger, D., P. Bull, and S. Smith
(1988) The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 27-34. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E
(1997) Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society 8.2: 165-187. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Talbot, M
(1992) “I wish you’d stop interrupting me!”. Interruptions and asymmetries in speaker rights in equal encounters. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 451-466. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff,. and G. Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Selting, M
(2000) The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society 29: 477-517. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D
(1994) Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ten Have, P
(1990) Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique 27: 23-51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.  BoPGoogle Scholar
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
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