國立政治大學八十六學年度研究生研究成果發表會

Interruptions as a Reflection of Solidarity and Power: A Study of Cross-Examinations in Chinese Competitive Debates

指導教授 詹惠珍博士

政治大學英語系副教授

發表人 林千哲

政治大學語言所研究生

2

Interruptions as a Reflection of Solidarity and Power: A Study of Cross-Examinations in Chinese Competitive Debates

林千哲 Charles Chien-Jer Lin

政治大學語言所

Abstract This paper looks into antagonistic interruptions that appear in Chinese competitive debates. It is postulated that interruptions reveal the solidarity and power differences of the interlocutors. We first compare the interruptions committed by questioners with those committed by respondents in cross-examinations in four dimensions: frequency of occurrence, success rate in taking over the turn, their pragmatic functions, and turn sizes. In our data, antagonistic interruptions occur approximately once every four turn transitions. Questioners interrupt more frequently than respondents, and stand a higher chance of success in taking over the turn through these interruptions. Questioners and respondents interrupt for different pragmatic purposes. Questioners are prone to disagreeing by questioning the validity of an argument; respondents tend to use declaratives. In addition to disagreements, questioners are more likely to interrupt to confirm an argument for further assaults, while respondents interrupt to defend themselves or clarify their arguments. Concerning turn sizes, questioners usually hold the floor for a longer time (approximately three seconds longer in average) and occupy up to two-thirds of the entire discourse. For the same subject, s/he shows a shrink in turn size as a respondent. Then we argue that the lack of solidarity between the interlocutors, the opposition against each other, and the regulated power asymmetry brought about by debating regulations have resulted in these distinctive linguistic behaviors of questioners and respondents.

3

Interruptions as a Reflection of Solidarity and Power: A Study of Cross-Examinations in Chinese Competitive Debates

Charles Chien-Jer Lin1

1. Introduction

In the talking-walking metaphor of conversation, turn-taking is compared to walking in the streets (Mey, 1993; Duncan 1972). As people somehow manage to walk along without always bumping into one another, interlocutors in a conversation also “talk along”, usually with smooth turn-shifts, as stated by Sacks et al. (1974: 700-701) that overwhelmingly one person talks at a time and that “transitions with no gap and no overlap are common.” Sacks et al.’s (1974) “simplest systematics” pictures the general situations in which conversation takes place. However, around the shadowy corners where the sun shines no more, there are people unafraid of bumping into others. This happens especially when such a person is armed (as gangsters), physically well-shaped, or social-economically high-ranked, a scene frequently depicted in movies. S/he may act this way because of the protection of the special “power”. In a conversation, likewise, the different relationships among the interlocutors and their social backgrounds result in different conversational styles and linguistic strategies. Interlocutors do not necessarily avoid bumping into each other in the speech highway. Particularly in competitive debates—a variant genre from the normal speech of daily conversation—where the opposition between interlocutors is exaggerated, it is to be expected that solidarity and power play an important part in determining the taking of turns. And “bumping” in speech reflects solidarity and the asymmetry in power. Power and solidarity semantics, as stated by Brown and Gilman (1972), are universal aspects of social life. These two concepts exist universally, though the actual mechanisms of realization are subject to cultural differences. Previous studies have been examining their linguistic realization within specific institutional or organizational settings, such as legal, medical, academic sites, etc. (O’Donnell, 1990: 211). According to O’Donnell, “floor-holding, topic control, and interruptions” are possible revelations to power and solidarity asymmetries. In this paper we specifically focus on the cross-examinations in competitive debates—a special type of institutional discourse. We are interested in the linguistic realizations of solidarity and “regulated power” in debates. By “regulated power”, we refer to the different powers that the questioners and respondents are each bestowed with by the debating

1 Correspondence with the author: Charles C-J. Lin, Graduate Program in Linguistics, National ChengChi University, Taipei, Taiwan; email: charlesl@hp.iis.sinica.edu.tw.

4

regulations. For example, a questioner is expected to propose relevant and concise questions, and could stop the respondent from speaking at any time. A respondent, on the other hand, is required to answer reasonable questions, to remain silent unless he is asked to speak and is not allowed to propose questions to questioners. We are interested in how solidarity and the asymmetric power generated by such debating regulations are realized in the speech of interlocutors in a cross-examination. We specifically look into interruptions and the ability to hold the floor in the speech of questioners and respondents and address the following questions: How often do interruptions occur? Do questioners interrupt more frequently than respondents do? When questioners and respondents do interrupt, who stand a higher chance to succeed in taking over the turn? Do questioners and respondents interrupt for different purposes? What are the purposes? Along with interruptions, we look into the turn sizes of questioners and respondents as an index of the interlocutors’ ability to maintain their speakers’ rights. The longer turns frequently imply the more power a person has got in a conversation. This paper is thus organized as follows: Section 2 introduces solidarity, power, the role they play in competitive debates, and defines interruption in this research. Methodology and data composition is provided in section 3. Section 4 defines the pragmatic functions of antagonistic interruptions, supplied with examples from real data. Section 5 provides results and discussion. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Solidarity, Power and Interruptions Tannen (1986, 1990) describes power and solidarity as a paradox between distance and closeness. Power stresses the ‘nonreciprocal forms of address” and the asymmetrical relationships between the interlocutors; solidarity is reflected by “reciprocal forms of address” and it emphasizes symmetrical relationships. Power is related to “respect”, thus creating “distance”, while solidarity is related to “friendliness” and “rapport”, thus resulting in the closeness between the interlocutors.

Previous accounts of solidarity generally center around the pronominal choice—the Tu/Vous distinction, and the use of naming and address terms, as a reflection of the closeness between the interlocutors. Particularly in competitive debates, solidarity operates in a slightly different way than described above. It focuses on the idea of group membership—the rapport relationship among the people of the same team, as against people of other teams, and thus ties teammates with each other, and meanwhile separates one team from another. Because of solidarity, people of the same team feel they belong to the same group, and the lack of solidarity between people of different teams creates a distance and even hostility between them.

5

In competitive debates, the concept of solidarity constitutes the basis on which asymmetrical power could have any effect. That is to say, because of solidarity, we have people belonging to different groups in a contest; with different groups of people, power differences get to have influence over the styles of conversational speech. Imagine your instructor who has power over you. Once you become very close friends with each other, that is, once the differences/distance between you and your instructor become less important, power does not seem to have as strong an effect as it used to have. In competitive debates, people feel that they belong to different groups, and at this point, if there is any power asymmetry, we will easily see its operation.

Van Dijk (1997: 16-17) describes power as one of the concepts that organize many of the relationships between discourse and society. Sociolinguistic account of power conventionally include corporate power in the dominant discourses of a business company, the male power in sexist discourse, white power in racist text and talk, political power in the discourses of political institutions, etc. Van Dijk further points out that “control” is the “explanatory concept to define social power” and that “one group has power over another group if it has some form of control over the other group” (17). In competitive debates, social power is less visible. Lin (1998) has demonstrated that the gender variable (male vs. female) has little influence on the discourse of Chinese competitive debates. As a matter of fact, the starting point of competitive debates is that participants be placed at an equal status, disregarding their different social-economical backgrounds and gender differences, so that they could focus on the issue itself. Therefore, instead of social power, the power in question refers to the “regulated power” generated by debating regulations. As exemplified in the introduction, the regulations in competitive debates have bestowed the questioner in a cross-examination with far more power than the respondent. We thus expect different linguistic styles in questioners and respondents in their interactions. Artificial as regulated power is, the reflection of it in language is very similar to how social power has affected linguistic behaviors in normal discourse.

By now, we have solidarity and power that operate at the social level. Through linguistic realizations, they are reflected at the linguistic level by such strategies as indirectness, topic raising, interruptions, floor-holding, silence, etc. Among the many linguistic realizations of solidarity and power, we set our eyes on interruptions and floor-holding in this research.

Interruption has long been established as a device to demonstrate power asymmetry and relation differences among interlocutors. West and Zimmerman (1983), for example, examine gender differences through interruptions. Tannen (1981, 1984) discusses the different interpretation of interruptions resulting from

6

different ethnic backgrounds. Talbot (1992) studies interruptions and asymmetries in speaker-rights. Different researchers, however, have applied somewhat different criteria in recognizing interruptions. Below I define the term “interruption” and types of interruptions applied in this research.

In view of the confusion frequently brought about by the terms “overlapping” and “interruption” in previous research, the present research treats “overlapping” as a mere structural phenomenon, in which more than one speaker talk at the same time. An interruption occurs, if the interlocutor speaks before the current speaker is ready to yield the turn. Therefore, an interruption could appear with or without overlapping speech. Example (1a, b) exemplifies these two possibilities of interruption, (1a) with overlapping, while (1b) with no overlapping:

(1)2 a. (A2ff: 3)

Q: 那您知不知道他擁有了立法權../他可能因為說 [為了私人利益] → R: [那只是可能] ../

你沒有證據顯示他確實是那麼做 Q: 對沒有錯../但是../但是我們必須要../但是我們必須把這一點考慮進去../

b. (A1ff: 1)

Q: /請可以請重複一下您對黑道的定義嗎…/ R: 哦我們對於黑道的定義../是../嗯../我們

→ Q: 就是以上這些../ R: 對就是以上這些

Interruptions are further divided into “cooperative” and “antagonistic” based on the interrupters’ intention, which is revealed by the utterances and the context of the interruptions. The distinction between cooperative and antagonistic interruptions corresponds with what Goldberg (1990) calls “rapport-oriented” and “power-oriented” interruptions. In cooperative interruptions, the interrupters interrupt to show their interest, concern, and empathy to the interruptee’s speech, as a revelation of the interlocutors’ solidarity and intimacy. In antagonistic interruptions, however, interrupters cut in because of dislike, apathy or hostility. It is ostensible that in competitive debates, cooperative interruptions rarely occur. It is antagonistic interruptions that demonstrate the conflict in speech and how power and solidarity get to play a role. It is therefore antagonistic interruptions that the present research is primarily concerned about.

2 See Appendix II for transcription conventions.

7

3. The data and the Oregon Debating Format Competitive debates are generally composed of monologue speeches and cross-examinations. The data3 used in this research is composed of 23 videotaped cross-examinations from four sets of students in the NCCU Freshman Debating Contest, which took place in National ChengChi University in 1996. The issue of debating is on whether mob citizens should be banned from running for civil servants in the law. All the cross-examinations are dyadic conversations, each carried out by a questioner and a respondent. The 23 pieces of data are from four games of debating, three games each with 6 pieces and one game with 5 pieces. Twenty-four subjects are involved (10 male, 14 female); all of them are freshmen and native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. The numbers of male and female subjects are not equated because the pilot study in Lin (1998) has suggested gender to be a less influential variable in the debating genre. As stated above, in competitive debates, it is the debated issues to which attention is paid; therefore, the effect of gender or social differences is minimized. The subject composition is given in Table 1. Each recording lasts no more than three and a half minutes; the data total around 70 minutes. Table 1. Subject Composition of the Data.

Subjects Subject Composition data set male female male to male female to female male to female female to male SUM

A 1 5 0 4 1 1 6 B 3 3 2 2 1 1 6 C 1 1 0 4 1 1 6 D 5 5 3 0 1 1 5

SUM 10 14 5 10 4 4 23

The debating tournament follows the Oregon Plan of Debating, developed by Stanley Gray in 1926. Each cross-examination should last no longer than three and a half minutes. The questioning and responding is forced to end by the time limit. The size of the audience is around thirty people, including three judges who sit in front of the platform. The plan of setting is provided in Appendix I. The Oregon plan regulates questioners and respondents with a set of rules. In such a genre, principles of politeness hardly function. The relevant regulations on cross-examinations are listed below:

3 The author is grateful to Prof. I-li Yang, director of the 1996 National Science Council granted project entitled “A Study of Pauses in Mandarin Speech”(NSL 86-2411-H-004-015) and chairperson of Graduate Program in Linguistics, National ChengChi University, for providing the data. I am, of course, solely responsible for any error in the data used in the present research.

8

A. For questioners 1. Questioners should propose questions that are relevant and concise. 2. Questioners are not supposed to develop arguments or comments on the

responses obtained during cross-examination. 3. Questioners could stop respondents from speaking at any time, but they

should do it with courtesy. 4. Questioners should not quote propositions not yet confirmed by respondents. 5. Questioners may not consult their colleagues once the questioning has

begun. B. For respondents

1. Respondents must answer any reasonable question. 2. Respondents may qualify their responses by answering more than yes or no. 3. Respondents must not propose questions to questioners. 4. Respondents may not consult their colleagues once the questioning has

begun. 5. Respondents could courteously ask questioners to repeat their questions. 6. Respondents are not supposed to speak unless they are asked to by

questioners. 7. Respondents should stop talking when they are asked not to by questioners. From the regulations above, it could be observed that questioners are granted far

more power than respondents. For example, questioners could stop respondents from speaking at any time, and respondents should stop talking when they are asked not to. Respondents should not propose questions and are not supposed to speak unless they are asked to by the questioners. These regulations have led to power asymmetry between questioners and respondents. The regulation that questioners should not quote propositions not yet confirmed by respondents has also forced the questioners to frequently make confirmation on what the respondents have said before they could develop further arguments. Confirmation thus becomes an important pragmatic function of questioners. We will talk more about this in section 4.

The conversation system characterized by Sacks et al. (1974) as the “simplest systematics” is an idealized one, which attempts to capture the generality of normal, mundane conversations. It is proposed that mundane conversations with the locally managed system of turn taking and debates with preallocated turn-shifts form a continuum, each at two ends. However, our debating system is not as strictly preprogrammed as that mentioned by Sacks et al. (1974). Our cross-examinations of competitive debates, with turns neither naively locally managed nor strictly preallocated, fall somewhere near debates on the continuum.

9

4. Pragmatic Functions of Antagonistic Interruptions

What pragmatic functions these antagonistic interruptions serve is an important issue in this research. Pragmatic functions are the purposes for which interrupters interrupt. The pragmatic functions observed in this research could be divided into two major sorts—those concerned with the semantic content of speech and those concerned with conversation management. The latter refers to those functions that focus not on the validity of semantic content, but on how conversation should be carried out, namely the linguistic mechanisms. We observe four types of pragmatic functions concerning the semantic content of conversation in the discourse of Chinese competitive debates, including disagreement, defense, clarification, and request for confirmation. Concerning and conversation management, we have three: topic shifting, floor-grabbing, and speech rate control. Each of the function is defined below, with examples provided. A. Pragmatic Functions Concerning Semantic Content Disagreement (DG)

The interrupter interrupts to disagree with the interruptee’s statements or propositions. This happens in two ways: pure statement of disagreement with declaratives, and questioning the validity of an argument. In example (2), the interrupter disagrees, using declaratives. The questioner was saying that we should not sentence a person until we are sure that he has committed a crime. Before she finished her statement, she was interrupted by the respondent, disagreeing by saying that the harm will have been made by the time the crime is committed. In example (3)the interrupter disagrees with questions. The respondent said that for people related to the mobs to be selected as civil servants will bring much harm to the society. She was confronted with a question asking her in which way the society is harmed. (2) (C2ff: 2) R: 因為我們 [有高的累犯率]

Q: [如果我們要預防]我偷竊../所以是不是要把我雙手綁起來或是把我

關起來所以我這樣就絕對不會再犯了../好..謝謝你 (audience laugh)../那我是我的意思

是說你根本就沒有辦法確定一個人../未來他可能再犯的機率../ [如果] → R: [可是]我們累犯率相

當的高 Q: 如果他再犯的話../那他絕對就是../他../要讓他犯罪之後../然後就把他繩之以法../並不是在他 [**]

→ R: [可是]傷害已經造成了../他已經犯罪了../傷害已經造成了 (3) (D3mf: 2)

Q: OK..謝謝你對方辯友 R: [可能的危害]相當大

10

→ Q: [再請問一下] R: 所以我們要 [限制]

→ Q: [對方辯友]../請問一下../他們的危害在那裡 R: 我不是已經告訴過你了嗎../他進入了議會之後/他就可以控制預算箝制檢警要去 辦案 [啊] Q: [好]..是../黑道會控制預算對不對

R: 對 Q: 會箝制../箝制警察機關對不對

R: 沒錯 Q: 那請問一下../這些行為../其他::不是黑道的立委有沒有可能會做呢

R: 對方…我要強調../其他立委他們是合法的../今天../ [這個立法委員他本身可能不太對] → Q: [請問他能不能做到../ 對方辯友]../ 請問../ 不是黑道的立委能不能做到這些 事情

R: 他的確可以做到這點/ 但是 [他**是合法的] Q: [好謝謝對方辯友]

Defense (DF)

The interrupter interrupts to defend himself, to provide more information or arguments, especially when his points are attacked by the current speaker, namely the interruptee. In example (4), the questioner attacked the respondent, saying that she limited her discussion to elections only; the respondent defended herself by replying that this was because the issue of this debate was on election. (4) (B5mf: 4)

Q: [好] ../那你限制他參選權你有沒有限制他考試權或其他權利 R:這不是很重要的吧

Q:我問你有沒有好不好../你們../你們如果沒有**到就沒有…/你們只討論參選權嗎 R: 對../參選

Q: 對好../現在黑道會藉由參選../來重新去違反社會../ [公平的]秩序的事情 R: [對]

Q: 但是../他同樣也可以藉由考試權來做到這件事情../那這個怎麼辦../ R:我們不否認/

Q: [為什麼呢] R: [拜託我們]看到了他參選之後的確會造成更大的危害/ Q: 對../那你../你只把角度放在這個參選 [問題上]

→ R: [因為我們今天討論的是參選] Q: 沒有錯../但是我們要注意到整體啊../謝謝../因為這只是一個 /對方辯友

Clarification (CL)

The interrupter interrupts to clarify his/her previous points. A clarification is different from a defense in that the latter is aimed at responding to an attack, while the former is not. With a clarification, the interrupter clarifies or elaborates what he has said. Example (5), in which the respondent restated and elaborated a previous statement, exemplifies this function. (5) (D5mm: 1)

Q: 針對剛剛您的發言我有問題想請問您…/傳染病這種東西..基本上是不是屬於一種

自然科學的範圍../嗯是不是..是不是一種自然科學推證出來說…/嗯這個人**..他就傳

11

給…/是不是屬於自然科學的範圍../ [是] R: [是]的 Q: 也就是說../自然科學基本上是屬於一種絕對性的東西../而社會科學呢…/基本上它

是屬於一種相對性的東西../今天我們..我們不能夠以這種…/這種相對性的推測../而來

證明所有的人都是…嗯都是黑道的…/是黑道 [***] → R: [對方辯友]../

我剛剛已經講的非常得清楚../我們已經達到那個../ [嗯限制保安處分] Q: [嗯是嗯 對方辯友 嗯]

Request for Confirmation (RC)

The interrupter may interrupt to request for the confirmation of a point or a position adopted by the interruptee, usually by paraphrasing or repeating the interruptees’ previous statements. In examples (6) and (7), the questioner restated the respondent’s position and requested for her confirmation. (6) (B4ff: 2) R: 那是程度上不同的問題 / [我們的說法並不能不算]

→ Q: [您現在../ 您現在的立場就是說]../ 黑道參選他就有很有可能去危害社會大眾../去做一些危害社會大眾的../不法事情對

不對 R: 很有可能

Q: 對../ 好 (7) (B4ff: 3)

Q:[應該是因為他] R: [以後我會冷靜******] Q: [你想] R: [********]

→ Q: [你說應該是因為他會危害社會秩序]../對不對../危害社會生存的利益../對不對/ R: 黑道基本上是會的 B. Pragmatic Functions Concerning Conversation Management Topic-Shifting (TS)

Interrupters interrupt to change the topic of the current speaker. When interrupters aim at shifting the topic, they are not concerned about the actual propositions of previous speech. They place more emphasis on what should be talked about instead of what is being talked about. See example (8) below. The questioner changes the topic by directly telling the respondent that they should move on to the next topic. In cross-examinations, questioners are generally bestowed with more right in controlling the topics in cross-examinations. (8) (A5mf: 1) Q:而不是因為他今天因為跟../跟政治或是弊案有勾結../我們承認今天鄭太吉可能他../

他可能會具有黑道背景但是../今天您方也認為啊../今天之所以黑道會影響../會影響民

生是因為他在政治上做了一些勾結對不對 R: 是因為他利用他的../ [參選機會]

→ Q: [好對方辯友]我們先不討論這個../今天您方也../今天我 們也發現../今天正方辯友其實也說../鄭太吉他這個例子啊../其實是不能夠拿來被證證

12

嗯…/不能夠拿來被正方提作例子的../因為今天[你說他們]

Floor-Grabbing (FG)

The interrupter interrupts mainly to stop the speaker from speaking and to grab the right of speaking. No semantic content is involved here; the speaker just interrupts to hold control of the conversation. In example (9) the questioner grabbed the floor twice. The first time, she grabbed the floor by saying “thank you”, indicating that the respondent has given enough information and should stop speaking. The second time, the questioner told the respondent that she should not speak unless a question is proposed to her. (9) (C2ff) Q: 對…/所以基../那你們的觀察期的意思是不是就是要輔導再教育他 R: 是../ [給予再教育] → Q: [好謝謝]…(1.212)/那既然這樣子你在獄中受到輔導跟他們所謂觀察期所

要接受的輔導再教育事實上意思上是相同的.. [那要*] R: [是不同的*].. → Q: 對不起我並沒有問你

問題../謝謝…(.898)/那既然***.../我們認為他們兩個的意義上是相同的話../那你何必

設觀察期../你應該在獄中輔導的時候../你就應該把那樣的輔導做的確實../還有../我想

請問你../我國五歲的小孩可以參與公職人員選舉嗎 R: 不行

In these two examples, the interruptions were followed by pauses of a salient length, which suggested the interrupter’s planning process of the next utterances after grabbing the floor. Semantic content does not seem to be significantly involved, since what to say next was still being planned. Speed Manipulation (SM)

Sometimes the interrupter interrupts to manipulate the speed of the interruptee's speech. This happens in debating when the questioner wishes to speed up the respondent in answering the question because of the time limit. Example (10) is a demonstration, in which the interrupter cut into the interruptee’s hesitant, influent speech, emphasizing that he should speed up and be concise because time was valuable to the interrupter. (10) (A6fm: 5) Q:好那我想請問一下好了../我們現在有不交稅的必要嗎../現在有嗎../有這個迫切性 嗎../有嗎現在有嗎

R: 如果您../那是../ [那是] → Q: [請你]簡短告訴我好嗎../我的時間是很寶貴的謝謝你../請你簡短 告訴我../現今今有繳嗯有不交稅的必要嗎

5. Results and Discussion

In this section, we quantitatively examine the antagonistic interruptions

13

committed by questioners and respondents, the rate of successful turn-taking brought about by antagonistic interruptions and the pragmatic functions these interruptions serve. We further look into the average turn sizes of questioners and respondents, and how a person might linguistically behave differently as a questioner and a respondent. Frequency of Antagonistic Interruptions and Success Rate of Turn-Taking In general, antagonistic interruptions in the analyzed Chinese competitive debates occur once every four turn transitions. Among the total 1041 turn transitions in the present data, 24.11 percent are found with interruptions. Table 2 presents the frequency of interruptions committed by questioners and respondents and their success rate in taking over the turn. Questioners tend to interrupt more frequently than respondents do. Among the 251 interruptions, questioners commit over 70 percent, while respondents commit less than 30 percent. In terms of the rate of successful turn transition through interruptions, questioners also stand far higher a chance to succeed; 83.15 percent of the questioners’ interruptions lead to a shift of turn rights, while only 50.68 percent of that of the respondents succeed in taking over the turn. Respondents are more liable to turn-grabbing failures through interruptions. Table 2. Interruption Frequency & Success Rate of Turn-Taking

success in turn-taking failure in turn-taking Unidentifiable total % N 148 24 6 178 70.91%Questioners % 83.15 13.48 3.37 -- -- N 37 30 6 73 29.08%Respondents % 50.68 41.10 8.22 -- --

total -- -- -- 251 100%

These figures have shown to us that questioners, given more regulated power, tend to interrupt more frequently and their interruptions are more likely to succeed. The more power leads to the more interruptions and the higher chance of success in taking over the turn. Pragmatic Functions Our next concern is what function an interruption serves. Do questioners and respondents interrupt for different purposes? We have introduced and defined the pragmatic functions of antagonistic interruptions in the last section. There are two major types of pragmatic functions, those concerned with semantic content and those concerned with conversation management; they are further divided into a total of seven subcategories.

14

Table 3. Pragmatic Functions of the Questioners’ and Respondents’ Interruptions. Major types Semantic

Content Conversation Management

Sub-types DG DF CL RC TS FG SM UnID SUM (declarative) (questioning)

N 23 71 5 12 24 2 36 2 3 178Ques-tioners % 12.92 39.89 2.81 6.74 13.48 1.12 20.22 1.12 1.69 100

N 23 3 21 12 2 1 2 0 9 73 Res-pondents % 31.51 4.11 28.77 16.44 2.74 1.37 2.74 0 12.33 100

N 46 74 26 24 26 3 38 2 12 251Total % 18.33 29.48 10.36 9.56 10.36 1.20 1.54 .80 4.78 100

* disagreement (DG)-{declarative, questioning}; defense (DF); clarification (CL); request for confirmation (RC); topic-changing (TC); floor-grabbing (FG); speed manipulation (SM); unidentifiable (UnID)

Table 3 summarizes the crucial figures among the purposes of questioners’ and

respondents’ interruptions. Concerning the two major types of interruptions, we find that questioners tend to interrupt much more to manage the conversation than respondents do. In the data, 22.46 percent of the questioners’ interruptions are for conversation management; only 4.11 percent of the respondents’ are for this purpose. Interruptions in order to manage the conversation is a direct revelation of power over the conversation, and these results indicate that questioners more frequently wield their power over respondents.

With a look at the sub-types, overall, most (47.81%) of the interruptions are aimed at disagreeing with the interruptee. However, viewing questioners and respondents separately, we find that questioners and respondents actually disagree in very different manners. Seventy-five percent of the questioners’ disagreements are made by using interrogatives; eighty-eight percent of the respondents’ are made with declarative sentences. Questioners are much more likely to disagree by questioning the validity of the interruptees’ argument, and respondents are more likely to disagree by using declaratives. Disagreements with declaratives are direct and sharp; disagreements with interrogatives, like rhetorical questions, may sound even more pungent. The stronger power bestowed has backed the questioners up for the use of pungent disagreements. This phenomenon may also have to do with the regulation that questioners are question proposers, while respondents are supposed to respond to questions instead of proposing questions themselves.

It is worth noticing that about twenty percent of questioners’ interruptions aim at merely grabbing the floor without any involvement of the semantic content; only less than three percent (2.74%) of those of respondents serve this function. In competitive debates, floor-grabbing, as a mechanism in managing conversations, is a forceful index of the operation of regulated power. More often than not, it is those with more power who dare to interrupt merely to grab the floor, instead of having in mind other legitimate purposes such as attacking their opponents’ propositions.

15

Example (9) in section four demonstrates a typical instance where questioners interrupt to stop the respondents from talking by imposing the regulation that respondents should not speak unless they are asked to by the questioners. For respondents, the second frequent function is defending. There is a sharp difference between questioners and respondents. Up to 28.77 percent of the interruptions of respondents while only 2.81 percent of those of questioners serve this function. Naturally, in a cross-examination, a respondent does more than responding to questions; he must defend himself or at least show disagreement with the questioners to demonstrate the conflict between the two sides. By successfully showing the drawbacks of his opponent’s arguments and defending his own arguments, the respondent would stand a higher chance to win the debate. The same reason explains why clarification is also an important pragmatic function for respondents. Questioners, on the other hand, much more frequently (13.48% vs. 2.74%) interrupt to request the confirmation of the respondents’ arguments. Questioners often request for confirmations to prepare for a further attack on these points.

Figure 1. Pragmatic Functions of Questioners' and Respondents' Interruption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

DG DF CL RC TS FG SM

Pragmatic Functions

%questioners

respondents

Figure 1 summarizes the pragmatic functions of questioners’ and respondents’ interruptions. Except for the primary function—disagreement, they interrupt for very different purposes. Even for disagreements, as discussed above, they use very different linguistic forms—questioners use more interrogatives; respondents use more declarative sentences. These differences result from the different regulated power in a debate, the different roles questioners and respondents' play respectively, and the

16

different purposes they have in mind. Questioners and respondents indeed have very different linguistic behaviors, from intention to linguistic realization. So far, we have seen that the regulated role as a questioner and as a respondent and the unequal regulated power bestowed on each of the two roles have resulted in different frequencies of interruptions and probabilities of success in taking over the turn. Questioners interrupt more frequently and are more likely to succeed in grabbing the turn; respondents do not interrupt as much and are more liable to fail. The different pragmatic functions for which questioners and respondents interrupt have further supported our claim that questioners and respondents in debates are not merely interlocutors in ordinary conversation, but atypical personage forged by the debating regulations. The discourse of debating, nonetheless, captures and magnifies the influence of power in global human communication. Turn Sizes of Questioners and Respondents

Let us now turn to the temporal aspect of questioners’ and respondents’ discourse in a debate. Our focus would be how long a turn could be and whether there is any difference in the turn size of questioners and respondents. The longer turn indicates the more power an interlocutor has in holding his/her floor. The measurement of turn size in this research is based on the number of intonation units (IUs) per turn. Schaffer (1983) suggests that prosodic information, especially intonation, serves as an important cue for listeners to tell the speaker status and turn boundary (though it is also highly interactive with other syntactic and contextual information). Intonation is taken as a turn signal by both Duncan (1972) and Duncan and Fiske (1977, 1985). In addition, pause, which is deemed an important cue for turn-taking, serves as one of the important criteria for IU boundaries. These properties of IUs all suggest that each IU boundary serves as a potential transition relevance place. The more IUs a turn contains, the more power the speaker has in holding the floor.

We are, however, fully aware that syntactic units, semantic propositions and real time information could also serve as units for measuring turn size, and that there are interactions among these candidates of measurement. IU is first applied in the present research; the rest will have to be verified in further studies. Table 4. Turn Size of Questioning and Responding (Number of IUs per Turn).

Questioning Responding Data Type Average N of IUs

per turn %* Average N of IUs

per turn %*

Sum (total N of IUs)

Data set A 4.29 71.73 1.70 28.27 856 Data set B 3.44 62.45 2.11 37.55 815 Data set C 3.80 66.71 1.97 33.29 706

17

Data set D 4.28 66.71 2.23 33.29 796 Total Average 3.94 66.97 2.00 33.03 3173

* The average percentage of IUs that questioners and respondents occupy in a cross-examination. Table 4 shows the distribution of IUs by questioning turns and responding turns

among the four sets of data. It shows a stable difference between the turn sizes of questioning and responding across different sets of data. The average turn for questioners contains 3.94 IUs, while that of respondents contains 2.00 IUs; there is a difference of approximately two IUs. An average IU in Mandarin Chinese lasts approximately one and a half seconds4, which means that questioners in average speak three seconds longer than respondents in each turn. In conversational speech, a length of three seconds is already a long time. In addition to that, of all the IUs in the data, up to 66.97 percent are within the questioning turn. These figures tell us that the power bestowed on questioners in managing the conversation has resulted in the questioners’ occupation of turn size and the priority to speak over the respondents.

Table 5. Average Turn Size for Interlocutors as Questioners and Respondents. Data No. Subjects ID Average Turn Size

As Questioners Average Turn Size

As Respondents A1ff/A2ff A1f 3.67 1.53 A1ff/A2ff A2f 7.13 2.54 A3ff/A4ff A3f 5.93 2.13 A3ff/A4ff A4f 5.65 1.93

A5mf/A6fm A5m 2.95 1.57 A5mf/A6fm A6f 3.57 1.08

B1mm/B2mm B1m 3.96 3.56 B1mm/B2mm B2m 1.78 2.08

B3ff/B4ff B3f 4.24 2.30 B3ff/B4ff B4f 2.58 2.29

B5mf/B6fm B5m 4.07 1.70 B5mf/B6fm B6f 3.29 1.74 C1ff/C2ff C1f 4.55 2.00 C1ff/C2ff C2f 5.53 2.47 C3ff/C4ff C3f 5.79 1.84 C3ff/C4ff C4f 2.85 1.50

D1mm/D2mm D1m 3.82 2.38 D1mm/D2mm D2m 4.96 2.24 D3mf/D4fm D3m 4.59 2.64 D3mf/D4fm D4f 3.88 1.73

Table 5 above shows to us that for the same interlocutors, the change of role

(from a questioner to a respondent and vice versa) in cross-examinations does affect their control in turn size. All subjects but one show a shrink in turn size when

4 The information has been provided by Prof. I-li Yang. See Yang (1996) for more information on intonation units in Mandarin Chinese.

18

playing the role of a respondent. The discussion above has indicated that the rights and power given to questioners in the cross-examinations of competitive debates do impose influence over the interlocutors. The quantitative data have shown that in turn sizes as well as interruptions, questioners stand a predominant position, and this predominance has been well-reflected in their language and turn characteristics.

6. Concluding Remarks The results and discussion above have shown that antagonistic interruptions occur approximately every four turn transitions in my data. Questioners not only interrupt more frequently than respondents, but stand a higher chance to succeed in taking over the turn through these interruptions. Questioners and respondents interrupt for different pragmatic purposes. Questioners interrupt to manage the conversation much more often than respondents do. Questioners are prone to questioning the validity of an argument to show disagreements; respondents tend to use declaratives. In addition to disagreements, questioners are more likely to interrupt to confirm an argument for further assaults, while respondents interrupt to defend themselves or clarify their arguments. Concerning turn sizes, questioners usually hold the floor for a longer time (approximately three seconds longer in average) and occupy up to two-thirds of the entire discourse. An even more persuasive demonstration is the change of turn sizes when an interlocutor plays a questioner and a respondent: the change of turn size does not result from subject differences; for the same subject, s/he shows a shrink in turn size as a respondent. These evidences have all in all confirmed our hypothesis that the lack of solidarity between the interlocutors, their strong opposition against each other, and the regulated power asymmetry brought about by debating regulations have resulted in different linguistic behaviors of questioners and respondents. A case of language as a reflection of power and solidarity is thus demonstrated. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Prof. Hui-Chen Chan, who as an advisor has pored through previous drafts, given indepth comments, and pointed out the insufficiencies in previous accounts. I would like to thank Prof. Sai-Hua Kuo, Prof. Zhen-Kuan Chen and other anonymous reviewers of this paper, for their extremely detailed comments on both the writing and the contents. I am also indebted to Prof. I-li Yang, who has provided the data in this research as well as information on speech units of Mandarin.

19

References A. English References Brown, Roger and A. Gilman. 1972 [1960]. “The pronouns of power and solidarity.” In

P. Giglioli ed. Language and social context. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 252-82.

Duncan, Starkey Jr. 1972. “Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations.” Journal of personality and social psychology 23, 283-92.

---, and Donald W. Fiske. 1977. Face-to-face interaction: research, methods, and theory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

---, and Donald W. Fiske. eds. 1985. Interaction structure and strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goldberg, Julia A. 1990. “Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: an analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power- and rapport-oriented acts.” Journal of pragmatics 14, 883-903.

Lin, Charles Chien-Jer. 1998. “A turn-taking system for competitive debates in Chinese.” ms., National ChengChi University, Taipei.

Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. O’Donnell, K. 1990. “Difference and dominance: how labor and management talk

connflict.” In Allen D. Grimshaw ed. Conflict talk: sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 210-40.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50, 696-735.

Schaffer, Deborah. 1983. “The role of intonation as a cue to turn taking in conversation.” Journal of phonetics 11, 243-57.

Talbot, Mary. 1992. “‘I wish you’d stop interrupting me!’: interruptions and asymmetries in speaker-rights in equal encounters.” Journal of pragmatics 18, 451-466.

Tannen, Deborah. 1981. “New York Jewish conversational style.” International journal of the sociology of language 30, 133-39.

---. 1984. Conversational style: analyzing talk among friends. Norwood: Ablex. ---. 1986. That’s not what I meant!: How conversational style makes or breaks your

relations with others. New York: William Morrow, Ballantine. ---. 1990. “Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance.” Proceedings of

the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. BLS, 519-29. Van Dijk, T. A. 1997. “Discourse as interaction in society.” In T. A. van Dijk ed.

Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage Publications, 1-37. West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1983. “Small insults: a study of interruptions in

cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons.” In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae and J. Wagner eds. Language, gender and society. Rowley: Newbury, 102-17.

Yang, I-li. 1996. “What is the unit of utterance?” (in Chinese) Research Newsletter of National Chengchi University 7: 75-100.

B. Chinese References 台灣省政府教育廳 1991。《奧瑞岡式辯論簡介 : 國民中學公民科辯論課程輔助教材》。

台灣省政府教育廳台灣書店。 王淑俐 1991。《語言表達你、我、他—說話的禮儀、演講與辯論(第一冊)》。幼獅文化。

20

Appendix I. The Plan of Setting for the Debates.

interlocutors

three judges

the affirmatives the negatives

desk

video camera

platform

audience seats

blackboard

21

Appendix II. Transcription Conventions

/ intonation unit boundary [overlapping part] simultaneous speech the utterance is immediately continued by a different interlocutor .. short, audible pause … long pause (1.00) pause of one second : syllable lengthening * unrecognizable syllable ( ) contextual information or nonverbal behaviors Q: the utterance(s) of questioners R: the utterance(s) of respondents

22

Appendix III. Original Data with Detailed Figures:

The Complete Distribution of Interruptions among the Data: Data Q+

(success) Q-

(failure) Q!

(unidentifiable)sum of Q

R+ (success)

R- (failure)

R! (unidentifiable)

sum of R

Total Interpt.

Total Transition**

A1ff 3 3 1 1 4 47 A2ff 1 1 2 2 3 29 A3ff 6 6 0 6 29 A4ff 4 4 1 2 3 7 33

A5mf 12 12 4 4 3 11 23 73 A6fm 12 2 4 17 2 3 5 23 69 B1mm 13 13 0 13 52 B2mm 3 3 1 1 4 17 B3ff 7 1 1 9 2 2 11 41 B4ff 11 7 18 3 3 21 65

B5mf 6 6 5 2 7 13 52 B6fm 2 1 3 3 3 6 60 C1ff 4 4 0 4 38 C2ff 6 1 7 4 1 1 6 13 37 C3ff 1 1 1 2 2 5 6 36 C4ff 5 2 7 2 2 9 50 C5ff 10 1 11 4 1 5 16 46 C6ff 2 2 0 2 29

D1mm 6 1 7 0 7 50 D2mm 12 12 1 2 3 15 48 D3mf 9 2 11 2 5 7 18 52 D4fm 9 1 10 1 1 11 50 D5mm 7 3 10 2 4 6 16 38

148 24 6 178 37 30 6 73 251 1041 * Q+: The questioner interrupts the respondent and succeeds in taking over the turn. Q-: The questioner interrupts the respondent, but fails to take over the turn. Q!: The questioner interrupts the respondent; whether he succeeds in getting the turn is unidentifiable. R+: The respondents interrupts the questioner and succeeds in taking over the turn. R-: The respondents interrupts the questioner, but fails to take over the turn. R!: The respondents interrupts the questioner; whether he succeeds in getting the turn is unidentifiable. ** Total transition is the number of transition relevance places, namely IU boundaries.

23

Pragmatic Function of Each Interruption from Each Subject: DG DG DF CL RC TS FG SR UnID declarative questioning

qA1f 1+ 2+ rA1f 1- qA2f 1+ rA2f 2+ qA3f 2+ 4+ rA3f qA4f 1+ 3+ rA4f 1+ 1- 1-

qA5m 4+ 2+ 1+ 3+ 1+ 1+ rA5f 2+ 3- 1+ 1+ 1- 3! qA6f 6+ 2- 1+ 1+ 1+ 1! 2+ 3! 1+ rA6m 1- 2+ 1- 1- qB1m 1+ 9+ 1+ 1+ 1+ rB1m qB2m 1- 2- rB2m 1+ qB3f 2+ 3+ 1- 2+ 1! rB3f 1+ 1+ qB4f 1- 5+ 1- 1+ 5+ 2- 1- 2- rB4f 1- 1- 1-

qB5m 1+ 4+ 1+ rB5f 4+ 1+ 1- 1- qB6f 1+ 1- 1+ rB6m 1+ 2+ qC1f 1+ 2+ 1+ rC1f qC2f 2+ 4+ 1- rC2f 3+ 1- 1! 1+ qC3f 1+ rC3f 1+ 2- 1! 1! qC4f 3+ 1- 2+ 1- rC4f 2+ qC5f 3+ 4+ 2+ 1+ 1- rC5f 1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ 1- qC6f 1+ 1+ rC6f

qD1m 1! 1+ 2+ 1+ 2+ rD1m qD2m 10+ 2+ rD2m 1+ 1- 1- qD3m 2+ 5+ 1- 2+ 1- rD3f 2+ 3- 1- 1- qD4f 2+ 1- 3+ 1+ 3+ rD4m 1+ qD5m 2+ 1+ 1+ 3+ 3- rD5m 1- 2+ 1- 2- SUM 46 74 26 24 26 3 38 2 12

* disagreement (DG)-{declarative, questioning}; defense (DF); clarification (CL); request for confirmation (RC); topic-changing (TC); floor-grabbing (FG); Speech Rate Control (SR); unidentifiable (UnID) ** turn-taking: + = success, - = failure, ! = unidentifiable