Interruptions in the conversational analysis
Starting
from the work of the analysis of the conversation present in Bettoni's
text 'Usare un'altra lingua'. Guida alla pragmatica interculturale(2006)
we examine the phenomenon of interruption within verbal interaction.
In the choreography of the conversation, the central place is occupied by the shift change between those who participate in the language exchange. This change occurs at a point called as a Transitional Relevance Point (PRT) identifiable through syntactic, semantic, intonative elements where one speaker stops speaking and the other begins to do so. The golden rule would be one speaker at a time even if the violations are very numerous. The reasons for these violations may depend on cultures and situations within the same culture.
Wanting to deal with simultaneous or superimposed discourse, an analysis of the theme linked to the issues of power, gender, social anxiety or loquacity was observed. In fact, the opinion persists that interrupting generally means a lack of care for the interlocutor's positive and negative face, hostile attitude, violation of the right to speak (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Hutchby, 1992; Bilmes, 1997). On the contrary for Fergusson (1977), simultaneous speech can be an expression of enthusiasm connected to an affective and emotional question of participation (Bazzanella, 1994; Tannen, 1987).
These divergent opinions find an explanation in the fact that simultaneous speech also varies structurally in three ways:
In the choreography of the conversation, the central place is occupied by the shift change between those who participate in the language exchange. This change occurs at a point called as a Transitional Relevance Point (PRT) identifiable through syntactic, semantic, intonative elements where one speaker stops speaking and the other begins to do so. The golden rule would be one speaker at a time even if the violations are very numerous. The reasons for these violations may depend on cultures and situations within the same culture.
Wanting to deal with simultaneous or superimposed discourse, an analysis of the theme linked to the issues of power, gender, social anxiety or loquacity was observed. In fact, the opinion persists that interrupting generally means a lack of care for the interlocutor's positive and negative face, hostile attitude, violation of the right to speak (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Hutchby, 1992; Bilmes, 1997). On the contrary for Fergusson (1977), simultaneous speech can be an expression of enthusiasm connected to an affective and emotional question of participation (Bazzanella, 1994; Tannen, 1987).
These divergent opinions find an explanation in the fact that simultaneous speech also varies structurally in three ways:
- length of the overlap
- your position
- and the effect it produces
In the context of superimposed discourse it is frequent to distinguish between superimpositions and interruptions. The former often occur near the PRT while the latter occur further away from the PRT.
For Zorzi (1990), the term 'overlap' is of a descriptive type, while that of 'interruption' is more interpretative with implications of rights and obligations on the part of the interlocutors. According to Bazzanella (1991) there is a distinction between supportive and competitive interruptions.
All these elements are not given a priori but are negotiated by the interlocutors in an 'interactive' way. Speakers understand the conversation with their interlocutor collaboratively or competitively. Bazzanella tries to list the objective and contextual parameters to better understand the overlapping discourse.
The objective parameters are:
- pitch of the tone / volume of the voice
- duration of the overlap
- insistence or yielding
-distance from the PRT
- presence or absence of modifiers
- agreement or propositional disagreement
- maintenance or change of subject
- your position
- and the effect it produces
In the context of superimposed discourse it is frequent to distinguish between superimpositions and interruptions. The former often occur near the PRT while the latter occur further away from the PRT.
For Zorzi (1990), the term 'overlap' is of a descriptive type, while that of 'interruption' is more interpretative with implications of rights and obligations on the part of the interlocutors. According to Bazzanella (1991) there is a distinction between supportive and competitive interruptions.
All these elements are not given a priori but are negotiated by the interlocutors in an 'interactive' way. Speakers understand the conversation with their interlocutor collaboratively or competitively. Bazzanella tries to list the objective and contextual parameters to better understand the overlapping discourse.
The objective parameters are:
- pitch of the tone / volume of the voice
- duration of the overlap
- insistence or yielding
-distance from the PRT
- presence or absence of modifiers
- agreement or propositional disagreement
- maintenance or change of subject
For example, in Italian 'guardi', 'ecco' are modifiers used as breaking mechanisms.
'Ecco' can also be a 'back-channel' confirming the agreement with the propositional content proposed in the previous round. 'well' accompanied with 'no, no' often introduces a disagreement while changing the subject in the conversation is a way to avoid disagreement.
The contextual parameters are those whose value is established by the specific circumstances of the statement. In fact, Bazzanella lists the following parameters:
- the status relationship between interlocutors
- the purpose of the interaction
- the psychological urgency
-the cause of force majeure
- individual style
- the cultural habit
'Ecco' can also be a 'back-channel' confirming the agreement with the propositional content proposed in the previous round. 'well' accompanied with 'no, no' often introduces a disagreement while changing the subject in the conversation is a way to avoid disagreement.
The contextual parameters are those whose value is established by the specific circumstances of the statement. In fact, Bazzanella lists the following parameters:
- the status relationship between interlocutors
- the purpose of the interaction
- the psychological urgency
-the cause of force majeure
- individual style
- the cultural habit
For
example, when a mother says to her children 'no, basta', it is a
clear way to make the status of the interlocutors explicit. All these
parameters affect not singularly but globally, like a pattern of traits.
From the correlation of these traits it will be possible to establish
the degree of competitiveness, psychological disorder, conflict, threat
of the face or degree of attention to the face, participation,
involvement, cooperation, encouragement. It becomes clear how the
cultural parameter is very relevant in this kind of analysis since it is
clear that culture can change the interpretation of each objective and
contextual parameter.
In contrastive and intercultural literature we have the studies of Tannen (1982,1984, 2005) on the conversational style of the Jews of New York which is defined as "machine gun".
Within the Jewish community of New York, this style represents an expressive social phenomenon of convinced interest in the topic and full interpersonal involvement. However, outside of that community, these speakers can appear aggressive. Tannen (2005) found that the tendency to extrapolate individual personality from a 'social' conversational style is general. In this regard, studies on Finns who tolerate longer silence between shifts and interrupt little are known (Halmari, 1993, Clyne, 1994). For the Egyptian Arabs, the situation is quite similar with little competition between the parties for the taking of the turn, minimal overlap and more silence (Hafez, 1991). For Murata (1994), Japanese culture subscribes to the territorial imperative in which greater emphasis is placed on the speaker's right to end his shift, rather than signing the cooperative imperative that takes care of the need for social involvement.
In the work of Cheng (2003) on the Chinese in Hong Kong it will be observed how the Chinese present fewer cases of simultaneous speech. When it is done they do it more often to the PRT or in its vicinity, they give the turn more promptly, regardless of the position in which the overlapped speech started, as well as if they are talking to them and are interrupted or if they are interrupting them.
In contrastive and intercultural literature we have the studies of Tannen (1982,1984, 2005) on the conversational style of the Jews of New York which is defined as "machine gun".
Within the Jewish community of New York, this style represents an expressive social phenomenon of convinced interest in the topic and full interpersonal involvement. However, outside of that community, these speakers can appear aggressive. Tannen (2005) found that the tendency to extrapolate individual personality from a 'social' conversational style is general. In this regard, studies on Finns who tolerate longer silence between shifts and interrupt little are known (Halmari, 1993, Clyne, 1994). For the Egyptian Arabs, the situation is quite similar with little competition between the parties for the taking of the turn, minimal overlap and more silence (Hafez, 1991). For Murata (1994), Japanese culture subscribes to the territorial imperative in which greater emphasis is placed on the speaker's right to end his shift, rather than signing the cooperative imperative that takes care of the need for social involvement.
In the work of Cheng (2003) on the Chinese in Hong Kong it will be observed how the Chinese present fewer cases of simultaneous speech. When it is done they do it more often to the PRT or in its vicinity, they give the turn more promptly, regardless of the position in which the overlapped speech started, as well as if they are talking to them and are interrupted or if they are interrupting them.
A
contrastive study between Italian and English speakers of Testa (1988)
shows how the most frequent reasons to start speaking before the
interlocutor is finished are the predictability of the unfinished shift
and the shared knowledge of what is about to be said. The Italians as
well as the English when they start in the interaction they allow
modifiers that have a double function: on the one hand they serve to
grab the shift in interactive terms while on the textual level they
serve to control the topic of the conversation. The big difference
between the English and the Italians is the different use of the lexical
elements used in the superimposed discourse. The British stop using
'well, yes, yea' and a little 'but' while the Italians use a lot of 'ma'
at the beginning of the interaction and little 'be, well'. In this way
the perception of greater aggressiveness of the Italians can be due not
so much to the number of interruptions as to the lexical choice. In
short, the Italians stop with 'but, not' while the British with 'yes,
well'.
Furthermore,
for Tannen, the differences are also attributable to the gender
difference since men and women have very different conversational
styles.
Men focus more literally on the message, while women focus on the relationship or the metamessage. The man expects the listener to listen quietly and attentively and with a woman offering many back-channels and signs of assent, the male interlocutor might think that such a woman is too talkative as a listener.
To a woman who expects the listener to be active and enthusiastic in showing interest, a man who listens in silence will seem not to listen and to wander with thought elsewhere (Tannen, 1990). As for the Italian conversational style we note a pressing and conflicting style and therefore it will be necessary to find a convergence when you are facing a person with a conversational style more attentive to the care of his interaction space and the face of others.
All this confirms that in the conversational analysis of interruptions it is essential to distinguish within the configuration of features such as those of a linguistic, situational and cultural nature within a broad system in which consistently tout se tient.
Men focus more literally on the message, while women focus on the relationship or the metamessage. The man expects the listener to listen quietly and attentively and with a woman offering many back-channels and signs of assent, the male interlocutor might think that such a woman is too talkative as a listener.
To a woman who expects the listener to be active and enthusiastic in showing interest, a man who listens in silence will seem not to listen and to wander with thought elsewhere (Tannen, 1990). As for the Italian conversational style we note a pressing and conflicting style and therefore it will be necessary to find a convergence when you are facing a person with a conversational style more attentive to the care of his interaction space and the face of others.
All this confirms that in the conversational analysis of interruptions it is essential to distinguish within the configuration of features such as those of a linguistic, situational and cultural nature within a broad system in which consistently tout se tient.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento