«Each of these strategies has its own set of tactics, which help to realise speaker's intentions, for example, to dominate in the conversation, change the theme, define the status, take the initiative, humiliate a partner, or to continue the conversation, establish contact between communicants, cooperate, express consent and support, encourage further interaction.»
Conversation, debate, discussion.
Tetiana Kyrychenko
«A communicative-pragmatic analysis of interruption realisation in modern English dialogical discourse»
Lege Artis, Vol. 2, Issue 1 (2017)
Lege Artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow | University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava (@UTrnava) | Trnava | SLOVAKIA
Se incluye a continuación un extracto seleccionado de las páginas 169 a 177 y 181 a 200 de la publicación en PDF. Las referencias pueden consultarse en la ubicación original.
Enlace HTML.
«Abstract
»The paper offers a study of speech interruptions on the basis of their communicative and
pragmatic peculiarities. It provides a dynamic model of interruptions, where the development of the
situation of interruption is revealed thanks to the dynamic character of speech interaction. The article
presents the analysis of speech acts employed in the process of interruption. It also introduces a
number of tactics of the interruption in terms of the cooperative and intrusive interruption strategy.
»Introduction
»In recent years, the key problem of linguistic studies with a communicative-pragmatic orientation is to describe the paradigm of verbal behavior. Up to now there is no single approach that would make it possible to describe communicative behaviour in its complexity. The communicative-pragmatic approach reveals the features of the language units, which are manifested in communication, i.e., in the interaction of communicative partners in the exchange of ideas to solve vital problems (Формановская 2002).
»Today, more and more researchers are turning to the problems of verbal interaction due to a growing interest in the nature of human communication and development of pragmalinguistics, a branch of linguistics, which deals with the “functioning of language” (Mey 2001: 10). The motivational component of communication, the targets set by the speakers, and the ways to achieve them are matters of utmost importance for pragmalinguistics.
»This implies that the impact on a recipient is one of the main goals in a communicative process and in the process of interruption in particular. The pragmalinguistic approach enables a detailed description of dialogical communication. This approach involves the use of language as a means of social interaction, which is based on a system of strategies, tactics, postulates, and rules (Демьянков 1981; Падучева 1982; Почепцов et al. 1981).
»Materials and methods
»The material of the article (2,357 fragments of dialogical discourse) consists of two subcorpora, i.e. discourse fragments taken from the prose texts of British and American writers (11,097 pages) and fragments taken from feature films / series (3078 minutes) of the XX – XXI centuries. All the interruptions from this corpus were analysed, some of the examples were presented in the paper to support the idea.
»The aim of the presented research is to study the interruption in the dialogical discourse. That is why in the course of my study I added video content to the written discourse with the aim to show the time limits and duration of the speaker's utterance. At the beginning of each turn I indicated the start time. In order to most accurately convey the speaker's turn I have applied literal recording that resembled scripting. In addition, visual support helped to distinguish the fragments containing speech interruptions.
»The methods of the investigation are the following: conversational analysis, speech act analysis, the method of interpretation, and the elements of quantitative analysis. Conversational analysis was applied to study the dynamics of interruptions, i.e., to study the phase development of interruptions, identify the basic structural components of the situation of interruption. This analysis enabled the identification of formal features of interruptions, the technology of communicative interaction within the interruption situation. This type of analysis helped to focus on the limits and transmission of the turn from one communicant to another, provided an opportunity to consider how communicative partners interpret the utterances of each other.
»Speech act analysis made it possible to identify illocutionary potential of interruptions in dialogical discourse, pragmalinguistic peculiarities of speech acts used to interrupt a partner. Speech act analysis helped to focus on pragmatic functions of speech interruptions, to reveal the intentional component of interruptions.
»The method of interpretation was used for the selection of fragments of dialogical discourse containing interruptions, the analysis and explanation of the realisation and functioning of interruptions in specific communicative situations.
»The elements of quantitative analysis were applied to determine the quantitative characteristics of discursive realisation of interruptions.
»Dynamic model of interruptions
»Basic stages of the interruption
»The mechanism of turn-taking is an important part of a communicative process. The ideal model of turn-taking implies the sequential change of the communicative roles. There are a lot of tactics of inclusion in the conversation, one of which is the interruption that violates the ideal model of turn-taking. This type of interaction is dynamic in its essence and demonstrates a desire of one of the speakers to adopt the communicative initiative.
»According to conversational analysis, speech is not chaotic, but has a clear structure and its own dynamics. The pre-verbal stage of the interruption is marked by formation of communicative goals, situation, and context development that will accompany the interruption, prediction of situation development.
»Analysing the interruption phenomenon in terms of its dynamics, I can distinguish three main phases of the verbal stage of the interruption: the pre-interruption, the interruption, and the post-interruption phase. To study these phases I will consider at least three communicative turns. The phase model “provides an opportunity to reveal the dynamics” (Морозова 2008: 22) of the interruption.
»The pre-interruption phase
»The first phase includes stimulus utterances that encourage the addressee to interrupt their partner. This phase is marked by the climax technique, intensification, aggravation of the situation, leading to emotional tension in the interruption phase. This stage of communicative interaction creates favourable conditions for the speech interruption. As far as the structure of this phase is concerned, it may embrace several turns. Consider this example:
»1) (а) “You know how I pretty much declared that all guys are scum?”
Tracy rolled her eyes. “Yeah.”
(b) “Well, I decided I'm not dating anymore–”
(с) “Penny.” Tracy interrupted.
“Tracy, can you just hear me out?” (Eulberg 2010: 28).
»The example illustrates a situation, where the pre-interruption phase is formed of two turns (a) and (b). The pre-interruption phase is the impulse to the speech interruption (с).
»The interruption phase
»Turn-taking may be of two kinds: a speaker selects the next speaker or the other speaker starts talking without the partner's permission to speak. The second type of turn-taking is a characteristic feature of the phenomenon of interruption. The interruption phase is marked by the inability of one of the speakers to complete their turn to an end. The interruption may be depicted with the help of a model that shows the components of the situation of interruption (an addressee, an addresser, their cognitive spaces, a social situation, which includes the conditions and characteristics of communication, the interruption, and chronotope (spatio-temporal continuity), in which the sender and the recipient are located (Fig. 1):
Figure 1. The base model of speech interruption in dialogical discourse. Picture made by the author with the use of standard Microsoft Office graphic tools.
»The interruption phase is characterised by the effect of defeated expectancy (Риффатер 1979). Linearity of speech is marked by the appearance of the next element, which is prepared by the previous one. The emergence of an unexpected element in a communicative situation, which is not prepared by the previous one, causes the effect of defeated expectancy. The interruption is the unexpected element of such kind.
»Depending on the communicative function of interruptions they may be cooperative (Кириченко 2015b; Li 2001; Murata 1994), which are aimed at cooperation and collaboration, and intrusive (Кириченко 2015a; Goldberg 1994; Kennedy et al. 1983; Li 2001; Murata 1994), which serve as an expression of superiority and dominance.
»It should be emphasised that very often interruptions, which serve as a feedback signal, acquire the status contact maintenance utterances. Such interruptions demonstrate a sincere concern, interest, and involvement in a communicative process.
»Taking into account the works of Dobrushina (Добрушина 2001), Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson (Sacks et al. 1974) Li, Zhang, Yum, Lundgren, Pahal J. (Li et al. 2008), Schegloff (Schegloff 2007), Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, Finegan (Biber et al. 1999) and considering the criteria of functional loading I single out the following types of interruptions that serve as a feedback signal and an indicator of sincere interest:
»• phatic reactive expressions that demonstrate interest in the topic of a conversation and immersion in the subject, reactive statements of agreement / disagreement / acceptance:
»2) “It's the principle of it, Nora. Don't you understand? We can forget about Christmas if we damned well choose, and–”
“Don't swear, Luther”
“And no one, not even Vic Frohmeyer, can stop us.” Louder. “I will not be forced into doing this!” He was pointing to the ceiling with one hand and waving the memo with the other. Nora retreated to the kitchen (Grisham 2001: 45).
»• expressions that carry out semantic connection and have the connotation of evaluation, such as: I know, I suppose, I think, I don't think, I agree, I don't agree, maybe, etc.:
»3) “First of all, I want to renew my motion for a change of venue–”
“We object,” interrupted Buckley
“Shut up, Governor! “ Jake yelled. “I'm not through, and don't interrupt me again!” (Grisham 1989: 379).
»• re-askings, echo questions, which are used to clarify, confirm, or disprove the information (often contain lexical entrainments):
»4) 00.09.29 Cook-boy: Thank you. Look, Mr. Jones, I just want to say, I...you've always been a hero of mine. We studied your menus and recipes–
00.09.36 Adam Jones: A hero or a god?
00.09.38 Cook-boy: I... I don't know the difference (Burnt, video).
»• repetitions, which are used with the same aim as re-askings, echo questions:
»5) “Yes, sir, we sure did. Charlene's sort of–”
“Sort of?”
“Well, sort of horny” (Woods 1991: 27-28).
»• completion of the utterance of the previous speaker:
»6) “A question. It seems to me that it's a long shot for Scully & Pershing to assign me to the litigation section that happens to be handling this case, and it's even more of a stretch to believe they would allow a green associate to get anywhere near it. I'm sure you've thought about this.”
“And the question is–?”
“What happens if I'm nowhere near this case?” (Grisham 2009: 43).
»The following extract of the dialogical discourse provides the example of the interruption, which serves as a feedback signal:
»7) “Funny you ask that. I actually just heard from a mutual friend that she got engaged.
(а) About a month after–” He stops, looks uncomfortable.
(b) “After you did?” (Giffin 2004: 90).
»In the fragment, the conversation happens between Rachel and Darcy. Rachel asks the man about his ex-girlfriends. When it is difficult for Darcy to complete the sentence (a), she interrupts him and finishes the utterance (b). The interruption in this case indicates full immersion into the conversation and awareness of the context, which limits the particular communicative situation.
»It should be emphasised that interruptions do not always break the conversation integrity and structuredness, but rather act as a repair device (Sacks et al. 1974: 724), especially in the case when something is not clear for one of the interlocutors. Thus, speech interruptions are characterised by not only a destructive function in speech, but also have a correcting purpose. So, the interruptions that serve as a feedback signal may have two functions, a disruptive and repair function, depending on the context and situation peculiarities.
»The post-interruption phase
»The post-interruption phase manifests itself in the form of folding of a communicative contact, full or partial change of a topic, and return to the topic, which was defined at the beginning of the conversation. There are two ways of development of the post-interruption phase: positive and negative. The phase will be positive, provided that there are no conflicts, communicative failures, or hostility, when the goals and interests of all participants are taken into consideration and understanding is achieved, otherwise the post-interruption phase will be marked by a negative tone.
»According to Bilmes (1997: 515), there are three ways of doing being interrupted: direct claims, interruption displays, and ignoring. Consider one of the types of reactions using an example:
»8) “Look, I already apologized–”
“You APOLOGIZED?”
“Penny, I'm so sorry–”
“SORRY?”
(а) “Please stop doing that and just listen to me, I can explain.”
“Fine, then.” I sat down on the couch, “Explain” (Eulberg 2010: 9).
»The above given example demonstrates the reaction for the interruption in the form of direct claims (а). The speaker does not like to be constantly interrupted as it is difficult to express the point of view. As a result, the speaker uses direct claims as a reaction to the interruption.
»The post-interruption phase can be executed verbally or nonverbally. In the following example we are dealing with the absence of the post-interruption phase, as the conversation ends with the interruption. Consider the case of the interruption 9), which consists of two phases: the pre-interruption (a) and the interruption phase (b):
»9) The bedroom was done in white, with all-white furniture, and a large mirrored ceiling over the bed. Tanner looked around and said, (а) “I'm impressed. This is the most–”
(b) “Shh.” Paula began to undress him (Sheldon 2004: 118).
»The post-interruption phase is omitted in the above given example for there is no need to continue the interaction any longer. The analysis of the post-interruption phase is rather important, because it helps to understand the speaker's reaction to the interruption and investigate what impact the interruption has on a communicative process as a whole.
»The post-verbal stage of the interruption begins when the conversation stops and is characterised by processing of the results of communication by the speakers. Summarizing: the speech interruption is not limited to one sentence. This is a complex communicative entity, which has the pre-verbal, verbal, and post-verbal stages that form the communicative situation of interruption.
»Strategies and tactics of the interruption depending on its functions
»Basic stategies of the interruption
»In a study of the interruption in verbal interaction taking as a basis communicative and cognitive-pragmatic nature of this phenomenon, I distinguish two overall communicative strategies: the cooperative (harmonious, aimed at rapprochement and cooperation) and the intrusive (confrontational, aimed at distancing) (Table 1).
»The boundary between the tactics is not very substantial, for one and the same interruption may have different purposes and functions. Moreover, the tactics presented in the previous section are used to implement different tactics depending on the communicative situation.
»One and the same tactic may be realised with the help of different speech acts. In this way the speech act classification and the tactics in the strategy list complement each other. The classification of tactics within each strategy is based on the main functions of intrusive (floor taking, disagreement / discontent, tangentialization, topic change) and cooperative (agreement, assistance, and clarification) interruptions.
Table 1. The use of strategies and tactics of speech interruption in the English dialogical discourse
»The cooperative strategy
»The cooperative speech strategy is a harmonious strategy that is aimed at collaboration and cooperation.
The tactic of theme development (6 %) is the tactic of providing new information, earlier unknown facts that help to develop the interaction, following the Politeness Principle. To put emphasis on new information a speaker may use the following phrases: What is more, Moreover, Furthermore, Additionally, I want to add, Besides, but they are optional. The next example of the interruption shows how the introduction of new information contributes to the development the topic:
»17) I reached across the table and took her hands in mine. “You taking your meds?” She said they'd told her in Med Line that they couldn't dispense any more of her antianxiety medication until Woody okayed it. “Well, that's not a problem, is it? He knows your history. If you're having flashbacks, then–”
“The earliest appointment I could get is October,” she said.
“That's unacceptable. Did you explain it was an emergency?” (Lamb 2008: 393).
»The tactic of approval / confirmation (3 %) is associated with the approval of communicative behavior, actions, attitudes of a communicative partner and is characterised by willingness of the addresser of the interruption to make concessions, compromise, and solve problems, even if it may involve losses or negative consequences for themselves. In addition, this tactic is used to approve of the partner's position, attitudes, or beliefs. The following phrases are used to implement this tactic: Let it be, Yes, You may be right, I agree / partially agree, completely agree, Fine. Promisives and constatives are the most common speech acts used for the realisations of this tactic. Besides, the tactic of approval / confirmation is marked by the observance of the Politeness Principle:
»18) Diane was puzzled. “Paperwork–?”
“Yes. The courier brought it yesterday, with your letter.”
“I didn't send any–”
“Frankly, I was a little surprised, but, of course, it was your decision” (Sheldon 2004: 41-42).
»The tactic of compassion / empathy (2 %) consists in empathy with a communicative partner, their life situation, feelings, mental, and emotional state. This tactic involves active listening, absorption in the situation, and compliance with the Politeness Principle:
»19) “Nothing, fucking nothing–”
“You look like you feel awful.”
“I feel like fucking shit.” I was about to say what an idiot I was, not listening to her about the booze (Flynn 2012: 47).
»The main feature of the application of this tactic is the use of You-sentences – sentences with “you”, “your” and “you're”.
»The tactic of advice (1 %) is aimed at the regulation of the partner's communicative or nonverbal behavior according to personal vision of the situation, attitudes, and preferences. Interruptions involving this tactic include expressions, lexical units that express possibility (maybe, perhaps, possibly, very likely) and suggestion (I suggest, My offer is, I'm offering):
»20) “Oh. No, I don't think... but, like you said, in private, she could–”
“Perhaps you would like to speak directly to Maureen?”
“Oh. Sure” (Lamb 2008: 339).
»The tactic of understanding / interest (6 %) indicates communicant's immersion in a topic and interest:
»21) 00.47.43 Jamie: Well?
00.47.44 Dylan: We talked, we laughed, she's Belgian–
v00.47.48 Jamie: Explains the reading (Friends with benefits, video).
»Such expressions as I see, I understand, Tell me more about it, I want to know more, That's interesting help to implement this tactic. It should be noted that the realisation of the tactic of understanding / interest requires compliance with the Politeness Principle.
»The tactic of offers / requests (3 %) consists in efforts of the addresser to persuade a communicative partner to perform some actions that can be profitable for one of the participants of the interaction or both. It should be mentioned that this tactic is realised exclusively within the Politeness Principle, considering the interests and opportunities of the partner. The following expressions make the realisation of this tactic possible: Promise you, Just promise you, Could / Would you do me a favour?, Would it be too much trouble for you + infinitive, Could I ask / bother / trouble you + infinitive, Could you possibly + verb, Would you mind + verb + ing, Could you please + verb. Here is an example of this tactic:
»22) And I knew this would be your reaction, I think, but instead I say, “I wouldn't call it 'sucked in'. For one, we haven't even made a final decision–”
Suzanne interrupts, “Just promise you won't start talking in a Southern accent.”
“Atlantans don't have much of an accent,” I say. “It's too transient ... Andy barely has an accent” (Giffin 2004: 79).
»The tactic of utterance completion (2 %) consists in logical completion of the utterance of a communicative partner because of their inability or unwillingness to finish it. The implementation of this tactic is only possible with full understanding of the relationship between the utterances of a communicative partner and their semantic loading:
»23) Dr. Patel nodded. “But I'm not sure about flashbacks, Mr. Quirk. More typically, vicarious traumatization manifests itself as hyper-vigilance or an inabilty to focus. Nightmares, sometimes. All classic symptoms of–”
“Posttraumatic stress,” I said.
“Yes, yes. Now I'm thinking the episode you experienced – vicarious flashback or not – may have triggered a rapid drop in your blood pressure. And that, in turn, may have been the reason you seem to have lost consciousness for a second or two. Were you alone when this happened?” (Lamb 2008: 457).
»This tactic may be realised with the help of one or two words, or even the whole sentence.
»The tactic of encouragement (1 %) is used to embolden or reassure a partner, to improve mood or moral state. For this purpose the speaker, who interrupts, may use compliments (You look / are great / perfect / fine / nice / beautiful / handsome, You weren't a loser. You were <...>), emphasise the strengths and positive qualities of the partner, suggest alternative opportunities encouraging to some verbal or nonverbal actions:
»24) “I'm sorry, Carolyn, but I just can't–”
Carolyn took Diane in her arms. “I know. But there are a lot of friends who want to see you.”
Diane shook her head. “No. It's im–”
“Diane, Richard's life is over, but yours isn't. Don't shut out the people who love you. I'll start making calls” (Sheldon 2004: 28-29).
»The tactic of assurance / conviction (2 %) implies the efforts of a speaker to convince a communicative partner of the positive development or insignificance of negative factors and an extraneous point of view:
»25) “No, wait!” I called. “Please just let me–”
“Don't listen to any of that stuff she said about you, Mom! I'm going to come visit you! I love you, Mom!” (Lamb 2008: 367-368).
»This tactic concerns also the conviction of a communicative partner in one's promising future or positive state of affairs:
»26) “Thanks. You sure you're going to be okay here by yourself? Because you could always call–”
“I'll be okay,” she said (Lamb 2008: 253).
»The implementation of this tactic involves the use of such phrases as: Believe me, Trust me, I'll be /everything will be okay / fine / great.
»The tactic of correction (2 %) is realised by providing the faithful informative explanation or correction of errors and inaccuracies (verbal or non-verbal) of a communicative partner:
»27) 00.09.29 Joey: There was a seen in Footloose–
00.09.31 Chandler: Flashdance.
00.09.32 Joey: Yeah-yeah, yeah, with that-that uh, plumber girl–
00.09.34 Chandler: She was a welder.
00.09.35 Joey: What? Were you like in the movie, or... Anyway, she takes off her bra under her shirt and pulls it out the sleeve. Very sexy, and classy (Friends 4/16, video).
»To realise this tactic the addresser of the interruption may use the phrases: You see / understand / know, The correct / accurate <...> is <...>, that contribute to the observance of the Politeness Principle.
»The tactic of providing information / clarification (4 %) is used to clarify the points of communicative interaction, which may be unknown or confusing for the addressee of the interruption from the position of the person who interrupts. This tactic is used to adjust communicative behavior of a partner. Such interruptions may be introduced by in order to, so that, in order that, so as, because, as, since, whereas, for, seeing, indicating the addresser's wish to as accurately as possible formulate their views, ideas, what illustrates the following example:
»28) “Wait a minute. The horrible boating accident that took the life of my wife and brother and four close friends was on the third of November that year. I was in the hospital until November twentyfourth. Are you daring to suggest that a week later, when I was still recovering from terrible injuries, that somehow I was involved in–?”
Ramsey interrupted him. “Mr. Connelly, we are suggesting nothing. We are here because that girl's skeletal remains were found on your property” (Clark 2013: 167).
»In addition, the phrases What I want to say is, What I mean, My idea is, and lexical units that express contradiction (but, on the other hand, yet, only, still, however, except for) help to convey the point of view clearly and correctly.
»The tactic of requesting information / clarification (7 %) is involved in a situation of inability of the addresser of the interruption to understand the wishes of a communicative partner, the main goal, key idea, or some points of the situation. This tactic is implemented mainly with the help of interrogative sentences, which may also be re-askings or echo-questions (often containing lexical entrainments) and questions that include reformulation of the utterance of a communicative partner. The phrases You think, Your idea is, What you mean is, Your point is, You saying, What you are saying is help to adhere to the Politeness Principle. The next example, on the other hand, shows that the Politeness Principle is not always maintained within this tactic:
»29) “Yes, sir. In Mrs. Quirk's case, what we'll do, what I'll do, probably – most women and girls seem to feel more at ease with another female – so what I'll do is get down on the floor with her. Have her get inside the cabinet and close the door. And then, while we're sitting there, I'll interview her. Record her recollections. We find that on-site interviews are effective in–”
“Is it cleaned up?”
“The crime scene? No, sir. Everything has to be left as is while the investigation is ongoing. With the exception of the bodies. We've put cards down where the victims were” (Lamb 2008: 267).
»The tactic of drawing attention (2 %) consists in attempting to focus the partner's attention on what might be interesting or useful for him at some point of communicative interaction. This tactic involves the use of exclamatory sentences (Attention!), requestive speech acts, expressions such as Look, See, Pay your attention to <...>:
»30) “It's unsigned,” she said. “But my god, it looks an awful lot like–”
Annie interrupted her. “Look at the back.”
When she did, “Viveca read aloud what was written there.” This painting is a gift to Mr. and Mrs. Skloot. I call it “The Cercus People”. I hope you like it. Joe J. November 1957. Annie noted that he must have meant circus people (Lamb 2013: 246).
»The intrusive strategy
»The intrusive speech strategy (non-cooperative) is by nature confrontational, aimed at distancing and domination.
The tactic of persuasion (2 %) is used by the communicants who are confident in the accuracy and consistency of their actions, decisions, attitudes, beliefs, and positions, in what they aim to reassure a communicative partner. The basis for the implementation of this tactic is clear and consistent argumentation, the use of prompting examples, accurate expressions / lexical units, modal verbs (must, could, may, might, can't – the order of these verbs shows the degree of probability), that indicate confidence, express logical conclusion (must – “logically possible”, can't – “logically impossible”), and expressions that help to demonstrate their own position clearly (I think, I'm sure, I mean, I'm certain):
»31) 00.03.50 Monica: He's not great umm, but he's dealing with it. Oh wait a minute, you're not gonna try–
00.03.55 Rachel: Oh, honey, please, no, I can't get started with all that Ross stuff again. I mean, he's gonna screwed up for a looong time. And besides y'know, I don't, I don't go for guys right after they get divorced.
00.04.05 Monica: Right, you only go for them 5 minutes before they get married (Friends 5/07, video).
»The tactic of self-presentation (1 %) is directed to create the desired impression of oneself and draw the attention of a partner:
»32) “Uh-huh. And are we going to have to wear matching T-shirts or chastity belts or something? I can't wait to see that logo.”
“Tracy–”
“I think having rules or guidelines or a mantra of some sort would be fun,”
Diane chimed in, interrupting what could've been the Club's first official fight (Eulberg 2010: 42).
»The phrases I think, I believe, I'm convinced, Knock knock, This is me (who), Here I am, It's me here + (a description of their own merits, advantages, position), and also I-sentences, me-sentences help to realise this tactic. The motive of power, domination, preservation of own interests, maintaining a good image, the need for approval and respect are at the core of this tactic. This tactic can also be implemented to avoid setbacks and failures:
»33) I ran downstairs just in time to hear Dad tell Ryan, “You know, I think it's good that bands want to keep the music alive, but the audience shouldn't kid themselves–”
“Here I am.” I interrupted. I was afraid that Ryan would bolt out the door if my parents kept this up (Eulberg 2010: 74).
»The tactic of threats / warnings (1 %) expresses willingness and readiness to perform verbal or non-verbal actions that may harm the addressee of the interruption. Such interruptions often contain phrases that indicate warning and threat (I warn you, I'm telling you), and utterances that express restriction and condition If you <...>, I <...>, Back off or I will, indicating the possibility of avoiding the presented scenario:
»34) “I've never heard such terrible lies in my whole life.” Eve's voice was quivering with indignation. “Don't think I'm not going to report this to my grandmother. When she hears–”
“I will spare you the trouble,” the headmistress interrupted. “I would prefer to avoid embarrassment to L'Institut Fernwood, but if you do not leave quietly, I have a list of names I intend to send to your grandmother” (Sheldon 1982: 142).
»In other cases the speaker, who interrupts their partner, expresses their resolve to take actions that are almost impossible to avoid (I will / I'm gonna kill you / hurt you / hunt you down). This tactic may be implemented without violating the Politeness Principle; a threat or warning will be expressed implicitly (My lawyer will call you). This tactic is embodied mainly by promisive and menasive speech acts.
»The tactic of demonstrating power / status (2 %) is manifested by the expression of the speaker's superiority, preferences, and priorities in relation to a communicative partner. The basis of this communicative behavior is asymmetrical relationship between speakers (the head – the subordinate, the judge – the accused, the man – the woman).
»The interruptions with this tactic are characterised be neglect of the Politeness Principle, the use of injunctive speech acts (Stop talking!), rhetorical questions, negative assessments of a partner (It does not make sense!), mockery (You are silly!), emphasis on failures (You didn't think; You can't do everything in time!). Interruptions of this kind are typical mainly for speech behaviour of the superiors in conversation with the subordinates, where the point of view of the subordinate is not taken into account:
»35) 00.06.44 Tom Stansfield: But, sir, l didn't say–
00.06.45 Jack Taylor: Audrey? Which file did l ask you for?
00.06.49 Audrey: Uh, the Platt file?
00.06.51 Jack Taylor: John Platt, Not Sam Platt.
00.06.53 Audrey: I'm sorry, I guess I didn't think that–
00.06.55 Jack Taylor: That's right, You didn't think. Now if it's not too much trouble, if you could fetch me the right file.
00.07.02 Audrey: OK (My boss's daughter, video).
»The interruptions involving this tactic are present in the speech of people who occupy high social level or hold high positions:
»36) 00.26.38 Joy McNally: I don't at the moment, Your Honor, but I will. You see, I... My ex-fiance and I broke up, and–
00.26.45 Judge:You know, Mrs. Fuller, you're not helping make your case here, okay? What about you, pretty boy? You got a crash pad?
00.26.53 Jack Fuller: Yes (What happens in Vegas, video).
»The tactic of pressure (1 %) is intended to force a communicative partner to make concessions in order to have a positive result for the addresser of the interruption. To realise this tactic a speaker may involve injunctive speech acts (Tell me the truth!), exclamatory sentences, violate the Politeness Principle, give an ultimatum (If you <...> I will <...>), or intimidate a communicative partner. A reaction to this tactic may be of two types: a defensive position or willingness to give up. The example shows the second scenario:
»37) “I uh – I'm sorry I should have called–”
“Tell me, goddamn it!”
“We c-can't find Amy,” I stuttered (Flynn 2012: 39).
»The tactic of reproach (3 %) is aimed at evoking the feeling of guilt often violating the Politeness Principle. This tactic may involve humiliation, emphasis on negative traits or inappropriate verbal / non-verbal behavior. Thus, a speaker does not care for the preservation of face. In the example the addresser of the interruption is reproaching his partner for mockery:
»38) “Maureen, you're what? Five-four? Klebold must have gone six-three, six-four. You would've had to stand on a chair before you hit him with one. And what was his buddy going to do? Stand there and wait his turn while Wonder Woman–”
“Don't make fun of me!”
“I'm not, babe. I'm sorry. I just... look, you have to give yourself a break here. You did the only thing you could do. You survived” (Lamb 2008: 200).
»This tactic can also be implemented by means of emphasising the verbs do / did: And you did nothing!, What you did was nothing!, That's all what you did.
»The tactic of accusation (1 %) consists in the expression of negative attitude to the actions or inactions of a communicative partner that could negatively affect the addresser of the interruption, their comfort. The following phrases help to implement this tactic: It's (all) your fault, You are bothering me / giving me headache. Blaming their partner a speaker may also use rhetorical questions, negative sentences (I don't <...>, You don't <...>), such stylistic figures as emphasis and antithesis, lexemes and utterances that express negation (never, dis + root, un + root, non + root, in + root, mis + root, im + root, ir + root, root + less) due to experiencing of negative emotions, modal verbs denoting the need to perform an action (I / we / you needed / should have had). Such interruptions force the addressee to apologise. The following example demonstrates the tactic of accusation:
»39) “I saw your – I read this article about you, and it say that you were born in Philadelphia.” His voice grew enthusiastic. “I was born there, too, and when I sat your pictures, I felt like I knew you and–”
Kelly said coldly, “You don't, and I don't like strange men bothering me.”
“Oh, I'm sorry.” He swallowed (Sheldon 2004: 71).
»The tactic of negative evaluation / insult (2 %) is associated with the expression of negative attitude towards a communicative partner, their verbal or non-verbal behavior, expression of disapproval of the views, decisions, beliefs, traits of character, actions, or appearance. Such a negative evaluation may also be accompanied by a commentary. This tactic may be implemented using the following phrases: I don't like your <...>, You (are) +adj. / noun expressing negative attitude, Your <...> is disgusting, hideous, stupid, And for you to <...>. To express a negative assessment one may use coarse language that expresses insult and humiliation (dull, idiot, stupid), mockery, and jeering. In the next example negative assessment is combined with contempt for the addressee of the interruption:
»40) 00.15.12 Officer: Ma'am–?
00.15.14 Lynette: (gets right in the policeman's face) And for you to stand there, and judge me.
00.15.27 Officer: Okay. I'm not gonna give you a ticket. I'm just gonna let you off with a warning (Desperate housewives 1/2, video).
»The tactic of censure (2 %) implies negative attitude towards verbal behavior, nonverbal actions, decisions, opinions, or inactions of the addressee of the interruption. Often this tactic involves the use of phrases like I can't understand why, What the hell, Why on Earth, How could you, quesitive speech acts, rhetorical questions, and vocabulary with negative connotation. Besides, this tactic involves the violation of the Politeness Principle:
»41) “We're not sure. I left this morning, a little after seven–”
“And you waited till now to call us?”
“I'm sorry, I didn't want to—”
“Jesus Christ. We played tennis tonight. Tennis, and we could have been… My God. Are the police involved? You've notified them?” (Flynn 2012: 39).
»The tactic of order (9 %) is aimed at prompting the addressee of the interruption to certain actions imposed by the addresser. This tactic is implemented mainly through injunctive speech acts and imperative forms of verbs: Don't do this, Go home!, Tell me the truth, and, as a result, the Politeness Principle is violated:
»42) “He doesn't have to go to school,” said Charles. “He can do whatever he fucking pleases. He can fail every single fucking class and his dad'll still send him that fat allowance check every month–”
“Don't say 'fuck' anymore,” said Henry, in a quiet but ominous voice.
“Fuck? What's the matter, Henry? You never heard that word before? Isn't that what you do to my sister every night?” (Tartt 1992: 379-380).
»The tactic of questioning (3 %) consists in asking questions ignoring the remarks of a communicative partner, his desires, and goals. This tactic is embodied mainly by the quesitive speech act. Since the addresser of the interruption does not care about the preservation of face and cooperation within the Politeness Principle, the questioning tactic is perceived by a partner as inappropriate and unacceptable:
»43) “Are you Mr. Quirk?”
“Yeah, but look. No telemarketing at this number. Take us off your–”
“Do you know who Maureen's out with?”
I uncapped my pen. Tore off a piece of some kid's blue book to jot down her number. “Excuse me,” I said. “Who'd you say this is?” (Lamb 2008: 8).
»The tactic of topic changing (7 %) implies a violation of the postulate of relevance or relation, the Politeness Principle and involves the change of a theme. Therefore, relevant to a communicative partner topic is being ignored:
»44) “Try sleeping when you're a single mom,” Layla said. “Last night–”
“Well, then,” Viv interrupted. “You're all set. Concourse B, gate thirty-six.”She handed me my boarding pass. “Have a nice flight” (Lamb 2008: 65).
»Interruptions within this tactic may be accompanied by expressions such as Well, then, Wait a minute, but they are optional because the shift is mainly made without any markers, with a sharp change of a theme vector.
»The tactic of resentment / dissatisfaction (2 %) implies the loss of self-control, restraint and, consequently, high emotional tension, dissatisfaction, irritation, and disapproving attitude due to actions of a communicative partner. For the realisation of this tactic the addresser of the interruption may use exclamations, orders (Don't talk about him any more!), questions (Why did you do that?), questions with exclamation marks (Why do you tell it to me?!), the vocabulary with negative connotation, which reflects the emotional state of a speaker (boring, disgusting, hideous, abominable, revolting, nasty, loathful, repellent), negative sentences (You can't (just) do (that)) and violate the Politeness Principle:
»45) “You are such a–” Alex threw his hand over my mouth. I thought about biting it, but then decided against it. I'm not sure why.
“Alex!” Aislin exclaimed. “You can't just do whatever you want with her” (Sorensen 2011: 454-455).
»The tactic of manifestation of doubt (1 %) is associated with hesitation concerning the veracity of the parner's point of view. For explicit manifestation of doubt communicants may use the following expressions: I doubt it, It's apparent / obvious / doubtful / clear that, I doubt if + that-clause, I am not certain + that-clause, It looks (to me) as if / as though; adverbs with negative meaning (hardly, scarcely), seem / assume to (be), might + Indefinite (Perfect) Infinitive (for a high degree of doubt); can, can't, will, would, should, ought to, have to, be to + Indefinite (Perfect) Infinitive (for a smaller degree of doubt); and lexemes that indicate fallacy of a communicative partner: mistake, be wrong, err, misunderstanding, oversight; adverbs maybe, perhaps, arguably. The next example shows the tactic of manifestation of doubt:
»46) “Madame–”
“There is some – some mistake,” Kelly said. “Mark wouldn't–”
“I am sorry.” The chief inspector was watching Kelly closely. “Are you all right, madame?” (Sheldon 2004: 47).
»The tactic of rejection / disagreement (14 %) consists in the manifestation of dissent in respect of the information or actions of a communicative partner that may occur with preservation of the Politeness Principle with the help of the following expressions: That's very kind / nice / sweet of you, but <...>, Thank you for your offer / present / invitation, but <...>. The embodiment of this tactic has two components: gratitude / highlighting the positive aspects / quality of a communicative partner + rejection / disagreement. Moreover, the refusal may be supported by the causative component (I don't think I can):
»47) When Alexandra and George returned from their honeymoon, Kate told them, “I'd like you to move in here with me. This is an enormous house, and we wouldn't be in one another's way. You–”
George interrupted. “That's very kind of you,” he said. “But I think it would be best if Alex and I had our own place” (Sheldon 1982: 174).
»However, most speakers disregard the Politeness Principle. In this case, the speaker who interrupts, uses the expression like No., No, I wouldn't do that, That's out of question, I don't want (to) / need (to) <...>, I don't think it's right / it will do, No way.
»The tactic of evasion from answer / theme (2 %) is associated with the lack of desire or capacity (due to the lack of sufficient experience or awareness) to maintain the conversation within a pre-selected theme. The tactic of evasion is realised in compliance with the Politeness Principle using the phrases Sorry, I don't want to discuss that, It's painfull for me to talk about that, or without the Politeness Principle using the phrases I don't think that's <...>, It's / this is none of your business, Stay out of it, and answering the question with a question:
»48) “Go sit down so I can look at that.” I shook my head, my hand still grasping at my wounded side. “Not until you tell me where we are? And how in the world we got here? And–”
Alex cut me off. “I really don't think that's the most important thing right now, considering you have a piece of glass sticking out of your rib.”
He had a point, I guess, but I deserved some answers. “Fine. I'll go sit down. But I'm not going to drop this. You are going to tell me what's going on” (Sorensen 2011: 250-251).
»The tactic of contact termination / ignoring (6 %) is related to the unwillingness or inability of the speaker, who interrupts, to continue the communication. Communicants, who interrupt their partners, force them finish the interaction without preservation of the Politeness Principle using the phrases: Stop!, Ring off!, Shut up!, Shhh, Go away!, Stay away!, Shut your mouth! Shut your trap!, Turn it up!; or preserving this principle, using arguments and alternative suggestions (I'm short of time. Let us discuss it next time. / Can we talk about it later?). The following example demonstrates the tactic of contact termination / ignoring:
»49) “That's not what I was told.” The smug look Laylen was giving Alex made me wonder if there was some kind of bad history between them. “From what Aislin said you–”
“Laylen,” Aislin hissed. “Shut up” (Sorensen 2011: 303-304).
»In conclusion, speech interruptions may occur within two communicative strategies: the cooperative and the intrusive (non-cooperative). Each of these strategies has its own set of tactics, which help to realise speaker's intentions, for example, to dominate in the conversation, change the theme, define the status, take the initiative, humiliate a partner, or to continue the conversation, establish contact between communicants, cooperate, express consent and support, encourage further interaction.
»Discussion and concluding remarks
»The situation of interruption is a micro situation within the sphere of communicative interaction, so it has its own structure. The pre-verbal stage of the interruption is marked by the formation of goals, situation and context development that will accompany the interruption. The verbal stage of the interruption has three phases: the pre-interruption, interruption, and post-interruption phase. The post-verbal stage of the interruption begins when the conversation is finished. It is marked by the results processing and sometimes by the alterations in the conceptual system of the speakers. These stages form the communicative situation of interruption.
»If we juxtapose the interruption with the speech act theory, we may notice that the most common speech acts that help to interrupt a person are injunctives and constatives. Injunctives are used mainly when the speaker, interrupting their partner, wants to turn the conversation in the needed direction, encouraging the addressee to perform some actions. Injunctives prevail in intrusive interruptions. Constatives, on the other hand, are the utterances that reflect facts. This speech act is common for both, intrusive and cooperative interruptions.
»Taking the cognitive-pragmatic nature of the phenomenon of interruption as a basis, we may single out two communicative strategies. These are the intrusive and cooperative strategy. The cooperative strategy of the interruption is characterised by adherence to the principle of cooperation and the Politeness Principle, and maximisation of efforts to preserve face. The intrusive strategy is aimed at achieving the goals regardless of the needs and wishes of a communicative partner.
»That is why this strategy is associated with a violation of the Politeness Principle and the principle of cooperation. The speakers, who interrupt in terms of this strategy, do not care for the preservation of their face. Within these strategies the speakers resort to certain tactics that comply with goals and peculiarities of a communicative situation. The perspective of the further research is the study of the interruption in homogeneous and heterogeneous communicative groups».
