Turn-taking and interruption in politicalinterviews: Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan

compared and contrasted

GEOFFREY W.BEATTIE

Introduction

This sludy presents some analyses of the speech and conversational stylesof iwo of Britain's leading political figures — Margaret Thatcher, nowPrime Minister, and Jim Callaghan, now leader of the Opposition.1 Thecorpus on which the analysis is based consists of iwo televised interviewsshown on British television in April 1979, just before ihe lasl generalelection. They were shown on ITV's "TV Eye" program. At the time of theinilial recording the political role of ihe Iwo politicians was reversed. Mr.Callaghan was then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher was leader of theOpposition.

The analysis presented in this paper focuses on conversational turn-taking in these interviews and the study only considers other aspects ofspeech where they are thought lo be relevant to turn-taking. In this paper Iiim especially interested in deviations from the turn-taking rule thatspecifies thai only one party should lalk at a lime — we normally refer losuch deviations as 'interruptions'.

Turn-taking is a central and apparently universal feature of con-versation (Miller 1963) that is made necessary by the cognitive limitationsof human beings. People find it very difficult lo talk and listen simul-taneously, especially when the speech is relatively complex, and therefore,for reasonable efficiency in conversation, there must be some means ofallocating turns so that for some limited period one person alone holds thefloor and acts primarily as speaker and the other person acts primarily aslistener, contributing only briefly to provide support, encouragement, andfeedback. Turn-taking skills develop early. In the very earliesl interactionsbetween mothers and children simultaneous vocalization predominates(Anderson 1977; Anderson and Vietze 1977), but within two yearschildren leam lo terminate simultaneous vocalization by shifting to alistener role (Stern 1974; Slern el al. 1975). Some of the signals used in theregulation of turns have been observed in nursery school children (DeLong 1974, 1975).

Srmlmica 39-1/2 (1982), 93-114.

V

0037-1998/82/0039-0093 $2.00Mouloii Publishers, Anislcrdam

94 Geoffrey W. Beanie

Despite the apparently universal status of turn-taking, and Ihe fact thaiit can be traced lo conversations involving young children, it maynevertheless appropriately be thought of as a highly skilled act (see Beanie1980), since groups can be identified who are poor in its execution. Forexample, one of the major differences between shy people and others is theabi l i ty of the latter lo initiate and structure conversations (see Pilkonis1977). The shy individuals have longer pauses between turns and speakless frequently and for a shorter percentage of ihe lime. Clinical groupsshow even more marked effects. Conversations involving schizophrenicsshow marked disruption in turn-taking skills (see Chappie and Lindemann1942; Matarazzo and Saslow 1961; but see also Rutier 1977a. b). Trowerelal. (1978) also found poor turn-taking skills in neurotic patientsdiagnosed as socially unskilled. Trower el al. describe how 'their speechlacked continuity and was punctuated with too many silences; Ihey failed tohand over or take up I he con versa lion and generally, did little or nothing tocontrol the interaction, leaving the other person to make all the moves'(1978: 50). Depressed persons also show disruption in turn-taking — asLibel and Lewinsohn (1973: 311) note, the available evidence indicates that'the depressed person's timing of social responses is off'.

In social psychology, the majority of research has attempted to l inkaspects of turn-taking and interruption lo fairly gross social or personalityvariables such as sex. intelligence, degree of extroversion, etc. This studydiffers in that it considers the turn-taking style of individual speakers.Such an enterprise may prove interesting on at least two accounts. Firs!,we may learn something about the variability of a central aspect ofconversational behavior as displayed by two very different individualsplaced in a similar situation. Second, we may at leasl speculate how anyobserved behavioral differences may influence oiher people's perceptionsof these politicians. There is no doubt, of course, thai noncontem aspectsof speech in conversation do have a strong influence on interpersonalperception. A number of studies have demonstrated that the nonverbalchannel in communication has a greater effect on the communication ofinterpersonal altitudes lhan the verbal channel (Argyle el al. 1970; Argyleel al, 1971). Facial expression seems to outweigh the vocal channel incertain kinds of communication of interpersonal alti tude (Mehrabian andFerris 1967) and the lone of communication generally seems lo outweighcontent (Mehrabian and Wiener 1967). There is also evidence thai peoplewill ascribe certain traits to individuals on the basis of particular aspectsof their nonverbal and conversational behavior. Lay and Burron (1968)found that people ascribe desirable traits to fluent speakers and undesir-able traits to hesitant speakers who used frequent pauses and repetitions.Cook and Smith (1975) found that individuals who averted eye gaze n

v

Turn-taking and i

interaction were perceived as 'nervoand Nuessle (1968) found that pecinteraction were perceived as 'deft*research has shown that in real-lifestyle critically affect interperscmaljuiselection interviews depends uponcontact, smiling, and head movemciIhe cenirality of the turn-taking metstyle of its operation wi l l undoubicdTherefore, turn- taking in political itsince, for politicians, interpersonal |

The emergence of the televised polgell ing a political message across mataking ski l ls) all the more importarpol i t i c ian and an interviewer are bwitness at close quarters the speechMany people seem lo have becomgeneral election there was a good ipoliticians that viewers were morepolitical message than the way itpolitician mast be as adept at [he skill:generations were at the skills of oralcexcuse temporary lapses in perform.perfect performance to the stresses;considerable evidence to suggest thathemselves) are prone lo explainpersonality of Hie individual conedemands of the situation (see Ross IAny behaviors tha i appear discrepapersonality traits that are likely to etaking style may critically mflucnpoliticians and may indeed lead to stpersonalities of the politicians coneindividual differences in turn- takingfont for reasons other than thosephenomena in question.

Before t u r n i n g to the analysis. ho\lhat turn-taking, and especially intersocial and personality variables andbehaviors have complex meanings.

A number of studies have demterriiption in conversation are aft

turn-taking, and the tan thatng young children, it mayhighly skilled aci (see Beaitic

re poor in its execution. Forn shy people and others is ihe: conversations (see Pilkonisses between turns and speakof the time. Clinical groups

ons involving schizophrenics(see Chappie a rid LJndemannilso Rulter I977a. b). T rower; ski l ls in neurotic patientsil. describe how "their speech•a many silences; they failed tonerally.did l i t t le or nothing to:rson to make all the moves'sruplion in turn- taking — asailable evidence indicates thatjonses is off'.iearch has attempted lo linkirly gross social or personalityextroversion, eic. This studystyle of individual speakers,

i at least two accounts First,bil i ty ol" a central aspect ofNO very different individualsay at least speculate how anyice other people's perceptions•urse. tha t nonconlenl aspectsig influence on interpersonalonstratcd that the nonverbaleel on the communication ofnel (Argyte et a/. 1970; Argykatweigh the vocal channel inonal a t t i tude (Mchrabian andi generally seems lo outweighre is also evidence that peopleihe basis ol" particular aspectsivior. Lay and Burron (l%8)> flueni speakers and undesif-:quent pauses and repetitions,uals who averted eye gaze in

I Turn-taking and interruption /„ political interview, 95

interaction were perceived as 'nervous' and 'lacking in confidence', Kleckand Nuessle (1968) found [hat people who displayed l i t t l e eye gaze ininteraction were perceived as 'defensive' and 'evasive'. More recently,research has shown that in real-life situations aspects of conversationalstyle critically affeci interpersonal judgment, such tha t success or failure inselection interviews depends upon behaviors such as amount of eyecontact, smiling, and head movement (Forbes and Jackson 1980). Givenihe central!ly of the turn-taking mechanism, individual differences in thestyle of its operation will undoubtedly influence interpersonal perception.Therefore. lum-taking in political interviews wi l l be especially imporiantsince, for politicians, interpersonal perception is of crucial significance.

The emergence of the televised political interview as the chief vehicle forgetting a political message across makes skills of dialogue (including lurn-taking skills) all ihe more important. Intimate conversations between apolitician and an interviewer are broadcast, to millions of viewers whowitness at close quarters the speech and nonverbal style of the politician.Many people seem to have become aware of this and before (he lastgeneral election there was a good deal of consternalion among Britishpoliticians that viewers were more likely to forget the content of thepolitical message ihan Ihe way it was delivered. Clearly, the modernpolitician must be as adept at ihe skills of dialogue as politicians from earliergeneralions were at the ski Us of oratory. Moreover, viewers arc unlikely toexcuse temporary lapses in performance, or lo attribule deviations fromperfect performance 10 the stresses and strains of the interview. There isconsiderable evidence to suggesi ihal observers (as opposed to the actorsthemselves) are prone lo explain behavior in terms of ihe traits orpersonality of Ihe individual concerned rather than in terms of ihedemands of the situation (see Ross 1977; Ross et at. 1977; Beat tie. I979a).Any behaviors ihat appear discrepant in interviews will be used to inferpersonality traits Ihal are likely to endure. Thus, any differences in turn-taking style may critically influence the viewers' perceptions of thepoliticians and may indeed lead to strong beliefs about the characters andpersonalities of the poliiicians concerned. Consequently, exploration ofindividual differences in turn-taking style becomes interesting and signi-ficant for reasons other lhan those of simply learning more about thephenomena in question.

Before turning lo the analysis, however, we must consider ihe evidenceihat turn-taking, and especially interruption, is influenced by a number ofsocial and personality variables and tha t in addilion these conversationalbehaviors have complex meanings.

A number of studies have demonstrated that turo-iaking and in-terruption in conversation are affected by a number of social and

96 Geoffrey W. Beattie

personality variables. Rim (1977) found thai in three-person discugroups, the less intelligent subjects interrupted more frequently than 'more intelligent subjects. He also found that subjects high in neurolicil(interrupted more often than less neurotic subjects, and extroverts mterrupled, and spoke simultaneously, more often than introverts,striking omission from this study, however, is that 'interruption' is notdefined. All that we do know is thai interruptions are not defined solely onthe basis of ihe occurrence of simultaneous speech, as in many otherstudies, because the levels of interruption and simultaneous speech are notthesame.)Fe!dsteint?ia/. (1974) (cited by Feldsteinand Welkowitz 1978)analyzed the relationship between frequency of initiation of simultaneousspeech and the personality characteristics of subjects (all female) asindexed by the personality test -- the Catell 16PF. They found that'women who are relaxed, complacent, secure and not overly dependent onthe approval of others tend to initiate more simultaneous speech thanwomen who are generally apprehensive, self-reproaching, tense andfrustrated' (Feldstein and Welkowitz 1978: 357). But Feldstein ei al. alsofound that the personality characteristics of their subjects' conversationalpartners affected the rate of simultaneous speech as well; such that'women tend to initiate more simultaneous speech when they conversewith others who are cooperative, attentive, emotionally mature andtalkative than with others who are aloof, critical, emotionally labile,introspective, silent and self-sufficient'- Similarly, Natale el at, ll°<79)found that the personality characteristics of subjects and of their con-versational partners were related to rate of interruption. They found thaifrequency uf interruption is inversely related to social anxiety (e.g., fear ofnegative evaluation) and to speech anxiety, but positively related toconfidence as a speaker. They also found that 'the more confident thepartner felt about speaking, the higher the proportion of successfulinterruptions by the other subject (approximately 18% of the predictedvariance was accounted far by the partner's speech confidence' (Natale *ial. 1979: 875).

Zimmerman and West (1975) have, however, probably reported themost striking effects of social variables on interruption in conversation,They found that in male-female conversation men inlerrupt much morefrequently than women. In fact, in ten male-female conversations of aroutine lype, they found that virtually all the interruptions were initiatedby men — the only instance recorded by Zimmerman and West of afemale-initiated interruption occurred when a female teaching assistantinterrupted a male undergraduate. Zimmerman and West note, however,that this same undergraduate had interrupted the female assistant eleventimes to her two. Sex differences in frequency of interruption have also

in three-person discussiond more frequently t han theiubjects high in neuroticismubjccts, and extroverts in->ften than introverts. (Ones ihat 'interruption' is not'ns are not defined solely onspeech, as in many otherimultancous speech are notIstein and Welkowilz 1978)r initiation of simultaneousf subjects (all female) as

II I6PP. They found thatid noi overly dependent onSimultaneous speech thanIf-reproaching. tense and'). But Feldstcin el al. also:ir subjects' conversationalpcech as well; such lhaiTeech when they converseemotionally mature and

ilical. emotionally labile,irly, Naiale ei at. (1979)ubjecls and of iheir con-rruption. They found ihatsocial anxiety (e.g., fear ofbut positively related to: 'the more confident theproportion of successfulely 18",. of (he predictedech Confidence' (Natale el

r, probably reported therruption in conversation,nen interrupt much more:malc conversations of a:erruptions were initialedimerman and West of aemale teaching assistantand West note, however,* female assistant elevenif interruption have also

Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews 97

been reported by Esposito (1979), who found that boys (between 3.5 and4,g years old) interrupted girls more frequently than vice-versa; and hNatale el at. in the study already mentioned. Zimmerman and Wesiunequivocally interpret their results in terms of male dominance and thpower relalionships between men and women: "... just as male dominanceis exhibited through male control of macro-institutions in society, it is alsoexhibited through control of al least a part of one micro-institution'(Zimmerman and West 1975: 125). Beaitie (1981a), however, found nodifference in either frequency of interruption or type of interruptionbetween men and women in university tutorials.

Interruption has traditionally been interpreted as a sign of dominancein the psychological literature (Farina I960; Mishler and Waxier J96&-Hethenngton el al. 1971; Jacob 1974, 1975). But more recently someauthors have cautiously suggested that it may not always reflect or signaldominance. For example. Gallois and Markel (1975) have providedevidence to suggest that interruptions may have different psychologicalrelevance during different phases of a conversation. They suggest ihat inthe middle section of a conversation, they may actually signal heightenedinvolvement rather than dominance or discomfort (Long 1972). Mellzer ?/al, (1971): 392) have emphasized thut 'it would be a mistake ... to inferihiit each interruption event is a miniature batlle for ascendency' Nataleeiai. found that a person who has a high need for social approval tends tointerrupt more often, and that at least some interruptions may serve toexpress 'joint enthusiasm' (1979: 875). Ferguson (1977) actually in-vestigated the relationship between interruption and the dominance ofinteractants. She did not find any significant relationship between overallmeasures of inierruption and dominance, contrary to the traditional viewShe did, however, find that ihose subjects who used a lot of overlaps(which involve simultaneous speech, but in which the original speaker'sutterance is complete) rated themselves as highly dominani. Zimmermanand West, in iheir study, had also investigated overlaps and found thaimen used these much more frequently lhan women.

Recent evidence thus suggests thai the relationship between inter-ruptions and dominance is much more complex than had previously beenassumed. Interruptions are a social phenomenon affected by manyvariables, including the personality characteristics of subjects as well asIhe personality characteristics of their fellow inieraclams. It has also nowbeen suggested that interruption may<be indicative of social relationshipsolher than those purely of dominance. In this study the turn-taking stylesof Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan are analyzed and contrasted.Special attention is devoted to Ihe frequency, nature, and significance ofthe interruptions that punctuate these interviews.

98 Geoffrey W. Beanie

Method

The analyses presented below were based on data drawn from videotapesof two televised interviews broadcast in April 1979. James Callaghan, thenPrime Minister, was interviewed by Llew Gardner for ihe 'TV Eye'program. Margaret Thatcher, then leader of the Opposition, was inter-viewed for the same program by Denis Tuohy. At Ihe lime of recording, ageneral election in Britain was imminent. Both interviews lasted 25minutes. The two interviews were recorded in different locations — Mr.Callaghan was interviewed in 10 Downing Street, the official residence ofthe British Prime Minister. Mrs. Thatcher was interviewed in a televisionstudio. These televised interviews were video-recorded by the author usinga Sony VTR and a timer was mixed onto the recording, allowingidentification of individual frames on ihe video-tape.

The video-tapes were played back and analyzed on a Sanyo Video EditMachine. The time of each speaker-switch was noted and ihe accompany-ing speech was transcribed in considerable detail. Notes were also madeon the transcripts of relevant nonverbal behavior. A pause/phonationanalysis using specially constructed equipment (details of which areprovided below) was also performed on selected speaker turns of the twopoliticians from the beginning, middle, and end of the interviews, in orderlo calculate speech rate and articulation rate. Speech rale is defined as ihenumber of words per minute of ihe whole utterance. Articulation rate isdefined as the number of words per minute of ihe time spent in vocalactivity (see Goldman-Eisler 1968: 24). The same equipment was also usedto analyze switching pauses (the period of joint silence bounded by theturns of different speakers), which are marked, where appropriate, on theexamples provided.

Equipment

The recorded audio signal is first amplified and full-waverectified. To remove the audio frequencies from the waveform. UK'rectified ouiput passes through an (active single-pole) low-pass filter witha time constant of 33 ms. The output from the filler represent the speechintensity 'envelope'. This signal is then compared with a fixed referencevoltage (by a Schmitt trigger circuit), giving a digital speech/pause outp"1

signal. In use, jhe gain of the amplifier stage is adjusted to be as high aspossible without producing spurious 'speech' outputs from the back-ground noise level.

The measured response time of the pauseometer over the audio

Turn-taki

frequency range 150 Hz t<transition and 40-60 ms forments were made with a s.represent worst-ease figures.

Computer Analysis The digis fed into a NASCOM 2 miprogram written in BASIC.allows the user to manually sThe computer automatical!;pause and individual phonalurn. and displays a separaclassified as long or short, atprogram by the user (in this200 ms was not classified as

The Jurat ions of ihe longtiming measurements are deilime resolution of 10 ms.

Procedure

Analysis of corpus

The first decision that muconstitutes a tu rn at talk. Th.this in the literature — Jaffa Ecriteria — any vocalization al'he other hand, excluded u t iunder 5 sec as listener respi970) would exclude quite Ic

Ihey indicate a certain kind olYngvcU970). for example, igood deal of nettled personalhaving ihe floor could contim' U r n ; i l t a lk . In the present SILh m niyuh-hiih'(Pitlengcran<yeah'and -| sec- w i t h a t t e n i i itcludcd from Ihe class of lur

l«rns. Interestingly, listener-SKrtraj functions provided

yes', did not tendtooccidid occur, they were ela

Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews 99

m data drawn from videotapesril l979.JamesCallaghan.thenA Gardner for (he 'TV Eye'of the Opposition, was inter-

ihy. Ai ihe lime of recording, ai l . Both interviews lasted 25j in different locations — Mr.Street, the official residence ofwas interviewed in a televisiono-rccorded by the author usingonto the recording, allowingvideo-tape.nalyzed on a Sanyo Video Edilwas noted and ihc accompany.; detail. Notes were also madebehavior. A pause/phonal ionipment (details of which arelected speaker turns of the twoend of UK interviews, in order

te. Speech rale is defined as theutterance. Art iculat ion rate is

Jte of the time spent in vocalsame equipment was also used

f joint silence bounded by theked, where appropriate, on the

is first amplified and full-wavecies from the waveform, the(ingle-pole) low-pass filler withthe filler represents the speech

•mpared with a fixed referenceg a digital speech/pause outputige is adjusted to be as high as:ech' outputs from the back-

pauseomeler over the audio

frequency range 150 Hz to 20 KHz is 10 ms for a pause-to-speechiransition and 40-60 ms for a speech-to-pause transition. These measure-ments were made with a sinusoidal tone-burst input and so probably

worst-case figures.

Analysis The digital speech/pause output of the pauseometeris fed into a NASC'OM 2 microcomputer and analyzed by a single timingprogram writ ten in BASIC. A separate switch connected to the computerallows the user to manually select the required speech passage for analysis.The computer automatically measures the durations of the switching-pause and individual phonalion and pause intervals during the selectedturn. and displays a separate total for each. Additionally, pauses areclassified as long or short, according to a time threshold entered into theprogram by the user (in this case 200 ms). Any period of silence less thiin200 ms was not classified as an unfilled pause (following Boomer 1965).

The durations of the long and short pauses are totaled separately. Alltiming measurements are derived from a crystal-Controlled clock, with alime resolution of 10 ms.

Procedure

Analysis oj corpus

The first decision that must be made in such an analysis is whatconstitutes a turn at talk. There has been widespread disagreement aboutthis in the literature — Jaffe and Feldslein (1970) have used an automatedcriteria — any vocalization above a certain amplitude. Kendon (1967), onthe other hand, excluded utterances of less than 5 sec, classifying thoseunder 5 sec as listener responses instead. Others (for example, Yngve1970) would exclude quite long utterances from the class of turns whenthey indicate a certain kind of attention and interest in a previous speaker.Yngve (1970), for example, identifies a case in which a person fills in agood deal of needed personal background information so that the personhaving the floor could continue as 'back -channel' activity rather lhan as aturn at lalk. In the present study, however, only the vocal identifiers 'mm-hmm', 'uh-huh'(Pittengerarid Smith 1957), and brief lexical terms such as'yeah' and 'I see' with attentional functions (see Rosenfeld 1978: 296) areexcluded from the class of turns. This provides us with a large category ofturns. Interestingly, listener-response (or back -channel) examples withasserting functions provided by Kendon (1967), such as 'that's true' or'mm yes', did not (end to occur in isolation in these political interviews. Ifthey did occur, they were elaborated.

100 Geoffrey W. Beanie

ATTEMPTED SPl;AKllR-5 WITCH

FIRST SPEAKER SUTTERANCE COMPLETE?1

FIRST SPEAKER SUTTERANCE COMPLETE'

YES

(l\n» AC

NO

SIMPLEINTERRUPTION

SMOOTHSPEAKER-SWITCH

SILENTINTERRUPTION

BUTTING ININTERRUPTIO\

Notes

1. By successful it is meant that the initiator of the attempted speaker-switch gains the floor.In ,-, buiung-in inlerruption — an unsuccessful attempted speaker-switch — the initiatorof the interruption does not gain Ihe floor, i.e.. (here is no exchange of turns.

2. Completeness was judged intuitively, tuking into account the intonation, syntax, andmeaning of Ihe utterance. Nonverbal behavior was also considered, since nonverbalbehavior often substitutes for the linguistic channel, as in the following example (from acorpus of university tutorials):

Tutor: V . , so you might imagine it would be ...'

Al the end of the utterance ihe tutor gestured in a downward direction. Without thebenefit of video-recording, this utterance would have been categori/cd as incomplete,since i t was incomplete in terms of symux and intonation, and the speaker-switch wouldhave been regarded as an interruption. Using video-analysis, the utterance was classifiedas complete and the speaker-switch categorized as a smooth speaker-switch

Figure I . dassificoiioii oj inierrupiinits and smooth speakvr-XKifcht.i

Smooth speaker-switches and interruptions were classified according toa categorization scheme devised by Ferguson (1977) and used by Beatlie(198Ia). Tesl-retest reliability in applying this categorization schemewas 93%, A belter measure of reliability that takes into account 'chance

Turn-iakii

agreement' is Cohen's Kapjwas 0.89, indicating very hi

Figure 1 shows [he deciatlempted speaker-switch.

Examples2

0

1

floor,ialor

•, anderbal(ima

it theplete.•Oil III

sifted

ngto:altieicrneance

4

(1) Smooth speaker-switcpresent, first speaker's

Example AMT: ... I hope it

feet/Some of

DT: What about ipeople who y

Example BJC: . . . IheConse

called the ofllaw to get theit and failed/

LG: Mr, Callaghiappeal.

(2) Simple interruption: (first speaker's turn a]

Example AJC: ...and I dor

one of my (LG: I

of fallibility

Example BMT: . . . People ft

social/servio\andlte

DT: (but that's t

h

SWITCH

SIMULTANEOUS SPEECH PRE5EJVT?

YES

•UTTIMG.ININTERRUPTION

pted speak er-swilch gains ihe floor.)led speaker-switch — ihc initiator: is no exchange of turns,count ihe intonation, syntax, and

.'I- . , considered, since nonverbala in Ihc following example (from &

downward direction. Without ihre been categori/eJ as incomplete,ion, and the speaker-switch wouldniilvsis, ihe utterance was classifiedsmooth speaker-switch.

were classified according to(1977) and used by Bealliethis categorization schemetakes into account 'chance

Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews 101

agreement' is Cohen's Kappa (Cohen I960). Kappa in this particular casewas 0.89, indicating very high lest-retesi reliability.

Figure 1 shows the decision palh necessary in order to classify anyattempted speaker-switch.

Examples2

(1) Smooth speaker-switch: exchange of turns, no simultaneous speechpresent, first speaker's utterance appears complete.

Example AMT: ... I hope it will succeed/We can put the ball at/people's

feet/Some of them will kick it.

(0)

DT: What about the people below the lop rate tax payers. Thepeople who you feel might come back to the country.

Example BJC: ... the Conservative Attorney General/had to find this man

called the official solicitor/in order to invent some piece oflaw to gel ihem out again/Now for heaven's sake we've triedit and failed/Now we've got to go the other way.

(200)

LG: Mr. Callaghan/it' the polls are to be believed your ownappeal.

(2) Simple interruption: exchange of turns, simultaneous speech present,first speaker's turn appears incomplete.

Example AJC: ... and 1 don'l claim to be infallible. You may remember in

one of my \earliest broad-LG: [a degree

of fallibility Prime Minister.

Example BMT: ... People forget/thai he was one of the best minisicrs of

social/services this country's ever had(and he

DT: [but that's one kind of public spending.

102 Geoffrey W. Beat tie

(3) Overlap: exchange of turns, simultaneous speech present, firstspeaker's turn reaches completion. In example C the interruptionextends for more than a sentence (7 words in all), but the firsl speakerneverlheless manages to complete his utterance; thus ihe speaker-swiich is classified as an overlap,

Example AMT: ... it cannot tell you exactly what economies it's going to

make in each department \ it just can'tDT: {can it tell you

that il will be able to make any?

Example BLG: ... 1 wonder whether people feel thai this is because the

Labour Party has run out of some steam. It hasn't so many(new ideas

JC: \I think <-/I think it's because they are/ah answers to what are/grossoverclaims by the Conservative Party/...

Example CLG: Noi every other other country ev-every other malpractice

our driving/our driving Ihe way we behave in thestreet/{everything else why are trade unions different

JC: [look trade unions are a voluntary bodytrade unions are covered by the law too/they are covered bythe law in a great many ways.

(4) Butling-in interruption: no exchange of lurns. simultaneous speechpresent.

lixanif/e AJC: ... bui if anybody suggests thai in a democracy you can do

more than that/then they're saying this shouldn'i Ire a( democracy

LG: < everybody elxe's malpracticesJC: (_ now heavens

for heaven's sake/in Eastern Europe/'you can/youcan/perhaps enforce guidelines.

Example BMT: ... if you've got the money in your pocket/you can

choosc/wheiher you spend it on things which allract ValueAdded Tax/or not/

DT:MT:DT:

Turn-taking and

Yous-and the main neces

You say a little on ^

(5) Silent interruption: exchangespeaker's utterance appears i

Example ADT: ... and you gave a I

sector workers whomonths/you said yoments w i t h

MT:DT:MT:

unremitting hostility

you have seen desirttelevision

This example may seem ambfloor-holders often hand overlistener lo complete their uttethe above example is not aimentionally omitted. The grinterruption depend cruciallysubsequent behavior of DT,regain the floor. It should befloor is unsuccessful (resulting

Symbols used in transcription (at1973):

/ indicaies un f i l l ed paused(x) indicaies switching pause

I word I\\vord2 indicates simullaneo

Results

In the Callaghan interview, Callaghwho put (he first question and conlimes. There were thus 76 exchan

tfaneous speech present, firstIn example C the interruptionords in all), hut the first speakeris utterance; thus the speakcr-

i what economies it's going tot just can't•an it tell youo make any'?

e feel that this is because the"some steam. It hasn't so many

:/ah answers to what are/grosslive Party/..,

itry ev-every other malpractice(he way we behave in Ihe

de unions differentuatary bodythe law too/they are covered by

of turns, simultaneous speech

hat in a democracy you can dosaying this shouldn't be a

istern Europe/you can/youics.

icy in your pocket/you can: on things which attract Value

r Turn-taking ami interrupttan in political interviews 103

DT:MT: {and Ihe main necessities don'tDT: You say a little on Value Added Tax

(5) Silent interruption: exchange of turns, no simultaneous speech, firslspeaker's utterance appears incomplete.

Example ADT: ... and you gave a list which included/most of the public

sector workers who have been on strike in the last fewmonths/you said you would/pursue those disruptive ele-ments with

(0)

MT: unremitting hostility \qatle rightDT: {yes and is that a wordMT: you have seen destructive elements today/yesterday on the

television

This example may seem ambiguous in terms of classification, sincefloor-holders often hand over Ihe floor in conversation by allowing alistener to complete their utterance. It can be argued, however, thatIhe above example is not a smooth speaker-switch with the endintentionally omitted. The grounds for its classification as a silentinterruption depend crucially on the intonation of the turn and thesubsequent behavior of DT, in that DT immediately attempts toregain the floor. It should be noted that DT's attempt to regain thefloor is unsuccessful (resulting in a hutiing-in interruption).

Symbols used in transcription (adapted from Schegloff and Sacks1973):

/ indicates unfilled paused200m sec(xj indicates switching pause of x m sec

j word I\vwrd2 indicates simultaneous speech

Results

In the Callaghan inierview, Callaghan held the floor 38 times and Gardner,who put the first question and contributed the last turn, held the floor 39times. There were thus 76 exchanges of turn. In addition, there were 8

1

104 Geoffrey W. Beanie

butting-in interniptions. i.e.. interruptions in which there was no exchangeol" turn. In all there were 84 smooth speaker-switches and interruptions inthis interview.

In the Thatcher interview, Thatcher held the floor 26 limes and Tuohy 26times. There were thus 51 exchanges of turn. This means thai the averagelength of turn was longer in this interview than in the Callaghan interview,because both interviews lasted exactly 25 minutes. There were 11 butting-ininterruptions in this interview and therefore there were 62 smooth speaker-switches and interruptions in all in the interview.

Table 1 shows the relative frequency of smooth speaker-switches andinterruptions in the two interviews. Interruptions account for 37.0% of allexchanges of turn and 45.2% of all attempted exchanges of turn. Thiscompares wi th 10.6% for dyadic university tutorials and 6.3% for telephoneconversations (Beattie and Barnard 1979). Clearly, interruptions are verycommon in political interviews. An interesting contrast between the twopoliticians is also immediately apparent — in the Thatcher interview theinterviewer interrupts Margaret Thatcher almost twice as often as sheinterrupts him, whereas in the Callaghan interview, Jim Callaghaninterrupts his interviewer more than the interviewer interrupts him.Margaret Thatcher is in fact interrupted significantly more frequently inher interview than Callaghan is in his (x:^3.05, df= 1, p = 0.05).

The two politicians did not, however, differ significantly in the frequencywith which they interrupted their interviewers (x2= 1.69, df= I, n.s.). Thepercentage figures allow some interesting comparisons. Tuohy interruptedThatcher 52.8% of the time and Callaghan interrupted Gardner 54.8% ofthe lime. Thatcher interrupted Tuohy 38.5% of the time and Gardnerinterrupted Callaghan 33.3% of the time. Thus, in this respect, Tuohy wasbehaving more like Jim Callaghan than Callaghan's interviewer Gardner,

Table 1 Relative frequency of smooth speaker-switches andinterruptions in tefevued political interview

Speaker, — Speaker, Smooth Imerrupuanipeaker-s witch

Margarel Thatcher — Denis Tuohy 17Denis Tuohy — Margarel Thmcher 16

Jim Oillaghan — Lie* GardnerLie* Gardner — Jim Callaghan

2819

80

19ID

1423

66

Turn-to

and Margarel Thatcher vopponent!

Table 2 shows how theinterview and speaker. 0lion and silent interrupt!used silent interruptions,interruption in universitythe most common formcommon (Beattie I98la)most common form of intTuohy. who displayed ainterruptions. In the Thainterruptions when Thaufloor. In the other interequal numbers of buttiibutting-in interruptions fcthe most striking aspect

If one compares the freibutting-in interruptions ;standard statistical procefails to reach significance(X2=2.89,dr=l,p<0.1)

One interesting point itions produced by the poltheir interviewers (33 in eapoliticians is a Imost doubopposed to 10). Fergusonform of interruption thai

Tahle 2. St-faiivr frequencyttevtud political fat

Speaker, - Speaker, Simpleinterr.

Thatcher — Tuuhy 4Tuohy — Thatcher 1

— Gardner 4Gardner — Callaghan 8

17

hich there was no exchange'itches and interruptions jn

loor 26 limes and Tuohy 26"his means that the averagein the Callaghan interview:s. There were 1 1 builing-jnre were 62 smooth speaker-ew.ooth speaker-switches andns account for 37.0",, of alld exchanges of (urn. This•ials and 6.3",, for telephonejrly, interruptions are very; contrast between the twothe Thatcher interview iheiost twice as often us sheinterview, Jim Callaghaniterviewer interrupts him.ficantly more frequently in)5, df= l,i=: 0.03).gnificantly in ihe frequency

arisons. Tuohy interruptedirrupted Gardner 54.8"0ofof the lime and Gardner

. in this respect, Tuohy washan's interviewer Gardner,

> anil

ill on

Turn-taking and Interruption in political interviews 105

8nd Margaret Thatcher was behaving more like Gardner than her politicalopponent!

Table 2 shows how the different categories of interruption varied acrossinterview and speaker. Overlaps were the most frequent form of interrup-tion and silent interruptions ihc least frequent. (Only Margaret Thatcherused silent interruptions, and then only once.) Interestingly, in a study ofinterruption in university tutorials, I also found there that overlaps wereIhc most common form of interruption and silent interruptions the leastcommon (Beattie 198la). In these political interviews, overlaps were themost common form of interruption for all individual speakers except DenisTuohy, who displayed a disproportionately large number of butting-ininterruptions. In (he Thatcher interview there were 11 cases of butting-ininterruptions when Thatcher held the floor but none when Tuohy held ihcfloor. In the other interview Callaghan and Gardner produced exactlyequal numbers of bulltng-in interruptions (4). The high frequency ofbuiting-in interruptions by Tuohy when Thatcher held Ihe floor is perhapsihc most striking aspect of this data.

If one compares the frequency with which the two interviewers producedbutling-in interruptions as opposed to other kinds of interruption usingstandard statistical procedures, the difference tends towards but narrowlyfails to reach significance, largely because of the small numbers involvedry = 2.89.df=l,p<0.1).

One interesting point is that although the overall number of interrup-tions produced by the politicians does not exceed the number produced bytheir interviewers (33 in each case), the number of overlaps produced by thepoliticians is almost double the number produced by the interviewers (I9asopposed to 10). Ferguson (1977), of course, found that overlaps were theform of interruption thai was ihe most reliable index of dominance. In

Table 2. Relative frequency of different categories of inlcrtuplian inlelrviseti political interviews

Speaker i

ThoicherTuohy —

CallaghanGardner -

- Speaker;

- TuohyThatcher

— Gardner- Callaghan

Simplemien

41

48

17

Overlap

48

6I I

29

Buidng-inmterr-

II0

44

19

Silentmterr.

01

00

1

Allinlcrr.

19ID

1423

66

" 1111

106 Geoffrey W. Beattie

university tutorials overlaps were more significantly used by tutors thanstudents, again suggesting ihat this form of behavior reflects dominance(Beattie 1981 a).

In the Discussion, 1 will consider possible interpretations of theobservation of ihe high frequency of bulting-m interruptions by DenisTuohy when Margaret Thatcher held the floor. But first I want to discusssome other aspects of the two politicians' speech that will probably havesome bearing on this issue. Using the pauseometer and Nascoin micro-computer 1 analyzed samples of speech of the two politicians from ihebeginning, middle, and end of the interviews. The computer program gaveme a reading of ihe total duration of unfilled pauses (^ 200 m sec. Boomer1965; Beattie I979b)in ihe speech sample, the total duration of phonation,and the tola I length of the sample (as well as the switching pause, but this isnot relevant here). The speech was then transcribed and the number ofwords counied. From these measures the speech rate and articulation ratewere calculated (see Gold man-Eisler 1968: Ch. I). Table 3 shows thespeech rate and articulation rate of ihe two politicians estimated atdifferent points in the interview. Again, some interesting differencesemerge — Callaghan's speech rate and articulation rate decline steadilythroughout the course of ihe interview. On the other hand, MargaretThatcher's speech rate and articulation rale reach their maximum in themiddle of the interview. Callaghan starts fast and gels slower. Thatcherneeds some time to warm up. However, even after Margaret Thatcher haswarmed up, her articulation rate and speech rate never exceed Callaghan'slowest limits!

There are also striking differences in the incidence of filled pauses in thespeech of the two politicians. Filled pauses (ah, er, um, etc.) have beenhypothesized to possess a floor-holding function, in addition to makingtime for cognitive planning in speech (Maclay and Osgood 1959; Ball 1975;Beattie 1977; Bcaltic and Barnard 1979). Margaret Thatcher, in ber

Table 3. Speech rule and arliadalion rale of MargaretThatcher and Jim Caltag/ian fin words/mitt)

Slugc ofinterview

BeginningMiddleEnd

Mean

Margaret Thatcher

Speechrule

167.41M4.0

174.5

175.5

Articulationrale

181.9202.1189.8

191.4

Jim Calhiyhan

Speechrale

220.9207.8196.1

207.3

Articulationrule

241.4223.2212.7

224.S

Turn-tat int

interview, only used four in(Gardner used 20, and Tuolrate is an important determinhe emphasized that Callaghathan Margaret Thatcher's. Iremarkably few.

Discussion

This study focussing on turn-interviews has produced ainterview behavior betweeiMargaret Thatcher is interruas she interrupts him. Jim (inierviewer more than he 1overlaps most frequently, attwice as often as their mteiinvolving simultaneous spemanages to apparently coni|interruption found by Fergidominance. Beattie (I981a)more frequently by tutors tlpresent study again suggestsreflection of dominance relai

Perhaps the most surprisinthai Margaret Thatcher is inlinterview than Callaghan isevidence thai turn-taking st>perception and that with thiniimate Conversational behaobservers, there are l ikely icharacter and personality olbehavior. However, we seemwidespread view among thedomineering in interviews,relaxed and affable. HowevciJim Callaghan interrupts hisinterrupts hers, and moreo'interrupts her more frequent Iihe perception of Thatchersuggestion is thai i t is her <

Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews 107

tly used by tutors lhanvior reflects dominance

interpretations of theinterruptions by Denisit first ] want to discussthat will probably haveer and Nascom micro-vo politicians from thecomputer program gaves (> 200 m sec. Boomerduration of phonation,

itching pause, but this is?ed and the number ofite and articulation rate1). Table 3 shows the

lOliticians estimated atinteresting differences

on rate decline steadilyother hand, Margaret

i iheir maximum in thej gets slower. ThatcherMargaret Thatcher hasever exceed Callaghan's

ce of filled pauses in I heer, urn, etc.) have beenin addition lo milking

Osgood 1959: Ball 1975;garet Thatcher, in her

interview, only used four in the whole time, whereas Callaghan used 22(Gardner used 20. and Tuohy 10). Undoubtedly Callaghan's high speechrate is an important determinant of his higher filled pause rate, but it shouldbe emphasized that Callaghan's filled pause rale is much closer lo the normthan Margaret Thatcher's. Four filled pauses in a 25-minute interview isremarkably few.

Discussion

This study focussing on turn-taking and interruptions in televised politicalinterviews has produced some evidence of significant differences ininterview behavior between Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan.Margaret Thatcher is interrupted by her interviewer almost twice as oftenas she interrupts him. Jim Callaghan. on the other hand, interrupts hisinterviewer more lhan he himself is interrupted. Bolh politicians useoverlaps most frequently, and they use this form of interruption almosttwice as often as their interviewers. Overlaps, which are interruptionsinvolving simultaneous speech bui in which the interrupted personmanages to apparently complete his or her turn, were the only form ofinterruption found by Ferguson (1977) to correlate wiih self-ratings ofdominance. Beanie (I981a) found thai overlaps were used significantlymore frequently by tutors than by students in university tutorials. Thepresent study again suggests that this form of interruplion acts as a subtlereflection of dominance relationships in conversation.

Perhaps the most surprising and counterintuitive finding of this study isthat Margaret Thatcher is interrupted significanily more frequently in herinterview lhan Callaghan is in his. In the Introduction I reviewed theevidence that lurn-laking style is likely to be influential in interpersonalperception and that with the televised political interview, in which I heirilimate con versa lional behavior of politicians is witnessed by millions ofobservers, there are likely to be strong beliefs developing about thecharacter and personality ol" politicians on the basis of conversationalbehavior. However, we seem to have a paradox. There is undoubtedly awidespread view among the general public that Margaret Thatcher isdomineering in interviews, whereas Callaghan is generally viewed asrelaxed and affable. However, the analyses of the interviews revealed thaiJim Callaghan interrupts his inierviewer more than Margaret Thatcherinierrupls hers, and moreover, that Margaret Thatcher's interviewerinterrupts her more frequently than she interrupts him. Where, then, doesthe perception of Thatcher as domineering arise from? One possiblesuggestion is that it is her determination not to yield ihe floor when

•

i _ -.

108 Ceoffrey W. Beanie Tu

interrupted (hat leads lo this perception. I have already discussed how herspeech is punctuated by butting-in interruptions from her interviewee.What is striking aboui some of these interruptions and other interruptionswhere she holds [he floor is iheir length.

When interrupted, Margaret Thatcher often iries lo finish her pointregardless of ihc duration of simultaneous talking required. Sacks el a!.(1974) make ihc point lhal 'occurrences of more than one party speakingsimultaneously are common, bul brief. Beanie and Barnard (1979)reported that ihe mean duration of simultaneous speech in face-lo-faceconversation is 454m sec. In the Thatcher interview, however, someperiods of simultaneous speech last for as long as 5 set.

In the example below, the italicized words were spoken simultaneouslyby Margaret Thatcher and Denis Tuohy. Tuohy started speaking in thejuncture after the second 'society'.

MT: ... ihere arc comparatively few people/they could be measured inihousands/who wish to destroy ihe kind of society which you and Ivalue/destroy the free society I Please, please this is the most please this uihe most please ihis is/ the most irnporiani point you have raised/Thereare people in this country who ate Ihc greut destroyers.

DT: You were talking about striking ambulance workers you were miking aboutanciiliary workers in hospitals

Margaret Thatcher often wins the battle for the floor when she isinterrupted, as can be seen from the high proportion of butting-ininterruptions in her speech (i.e., interruptions in which the interrupterDenis Tuohy does noi gain the floor), and it is perhaps for this reason thattelevision viewers perceive her as domineering. What viewers often fail tonotice is that it is not she but her interviewer who interrupts in the firstplace.

An important question, of course, is why she is interrupted so frequentlyin the first place. One hypothesis, which, following Zimmerman and West(1975). might be termed the 'male dominance' hypothesis, is that there issome evidence that women are interrupted more frequently than men; andMargaret Thatcher, despite being leader of the Opposition al the time ofthe interview, with all the power that goes with it, is still fundamentally awoman, to be dominated by men. This hypothesis would maintain thatMargaret Thatcher and Denis Tuohy are simply displaying behaviorstypical of women and men, respectively. This, of course, could easily betested, by investigating whether Tuohy interrupts other women to a similardegree. My guess is that there is probably something else going on here. Thecause of the high frequency of interruption in Margaret Thatcher's speechmay lie in the para linguistic and nonverbal behaviors that regulate

conversation. SlarktFiske( 1977) have idconversation. Dumintonation, drawl 01sociocen l ric sequcncsyntactic clause conthat the higher theprobability of a listchave some rcservatuBeattiel981b]). He;lhal could overrideonly attempt supprela lion, and he demo:geslure, the incidentAnolher possible attilled pause (ah, er,pauses effectively -versationaldyads.fiprobability of a spoccurrence.

Mrs. Thatcher nlionally sends out alhat result in an altMargaret Thatcher!clauses in her speechclause and there wa:the clause. DuncanMargaret Thatcherthat could overrid'interview I found (Iwhile Tuohy used H"ses a hand gestunfollowing exchange

MT:DT:MT:DT:

The police (Coming;md we in usComing u>«

°enis Tuohy staito be an apj

TTurn-taking and interruption in political interviews 109

[ready discussed how heris from her interviewer* and other interrupuons

iries to finish her pointig required. Sacks ei a I,than one party speakingie and Barnard (1979)is speech in facc-to-facc:erview, however, someis 5 sec.: spoken simultaneouslystarted speaking in the

:y could be measured insociety which you and I

"i/j u the most please this isiini you have niised/Theredesi rovers.

you were talking about

l he floor when she isoportion of buiting-mi which Ihe interrupterbaps for this reason thathat viewers often fail to10 interrupts in the Hrst

iterrupied so frequently; Zimmerman and Westpothesis, is tha t there isequently than men; and^position at the time ofis still fundamentally a

is would maintain thaty displaying behaviorscourse, could easily bether women to a similarjelse going on here. Thegaret Thatcher's speechehaviors that regulate

Conversation. Starkey Duncan (1972, 1973, 1974, 1975) and Duncan andpiske(1977) have identified some of the cues involved in the regulation ofconversation, Duncan identified six turn-yielding cues (rising/fallingintonation, drawl on final syllable or stressed syllable of a terminal clause,jociocentric sequence, drop in pitch or loudness on a sociocenlric sequence,Syntactic clause completion, and gesture termination). He demonstratedihiit the higher the conjoint frequency of these cues, the greater is theprobability of a listener turn-taking attempt (although one should perhapshave some reservations about the magnitude of the correlation claimed |secBeanie I981b]). He also posited the existence of attempt suppression signalsthat could override the effects of any number of turn-yielding cues. Theonly attempt suppression signal he actually identified was speaker gesticu-lation, and he demonstrated that when the speaker was actually engaged ingesture, the incidence of listener turn-taking attempts fell virtually to zero.Another possible attempt suppression signal that has been identified is thefilled pause (ah, er, urn, etc.). Ball (1975), for example, found that filledpauses effectively delayed subject's assumption of the floor in con-versational dyads. BeattieU977) also showed that filled pauses reduced theprobability of a speaker-switch, at least for a short period after theiroccurrence.

Mrs, Thatcher may be interrupted frequently because she uninten-tionally sends out a set of para linguistic and nonverbal turn-yielding cueslhat result in an attempted speaker-switch. Many of the interruptions ofMargaret Thatcher thai occurred in this interview were found at the ends ofclauses in her speech in which there was drawl on the stressed syllable in theclause and there was a falling intonation pattern associated with the end ofthe clause. Duncan has identified all three of these as turn-yielding cues.Margaret Thatcher does not seem to display attempt suppression signalslhat could override Ihe effects of these cues. In the whole Thatcherinterview I found that Margaret Thatcher only used 4 filled pauses in a l l ,while Tuohy used 10. (Callaghanused 22 in his, and Gardner 20.) She oftenuses a hand gesture only after the interruption has begun. Consider thefollowing exchange between Margaret Thatcher and Denis Tuohy:

MT: The police do a fantastic jobDT: ComingMT: and we musi support ihem in every way possibleDT: Coming towards ihe end of our time. Mrs. Thatcher

Denis Tuohy starts to speak after Mrs. Thatcher says 'job'. This mightseem to be an appropriate point to begin, because it is the end of a

•I110 Geoffrey W. Beatlie

syniaclic clause, there is drawl on ihe stressed middle syllable of'fantastic', and there is a final-sounding intonation associated with theend of the clause. Denis Tuohy seems to think that Mrs. Thatcher hasfinished and begins to speak. A filled pause after 'job' might have beenappropriate in signaling that there was more speech to come and that thecombination of para linguistic cues did not constitute an appropriate pointfor a speaker-switch. One may only speculate that the speech trainingMargaret Thatcher received before the last General iileciion rnjiy have inpart contributed to this problem.

This study has attempted to contrast ihc interview style of two ofBritain's leading politicians by concentrating on deviations from i he turn-lakmg rule. It has tried to suggest how differences in behavior may affectinterpersonal perception and it has also tried to account for the differencesin terms of the mechanisms that control conversation. It is a preliminarystudy — clearly further work needs to be done before we more fullyunderstand the origin of habitual differences in conversational interactionand appreciate their full social significance.

Note

2.

Since this article was wntlen. Mr < . i l l . iy l t .m l i - i ' resigned I ' lmn Ihc leadership »f tLnbor Parly.Only words in italics art spoken simultaneously.

References

Anderson, B, J. (1977). The emergence of conversational behaviour. Journal of Comnuaiica-

lion 27(2). 65-91.Anderson, B, J. and Vict7C. P. (1977). Early dialogues; The structure of reciprocal

infanl-muHhcr vocalization. In S. Cohen and T J Comiskcy (eds.). Child Development. AStudy of Growth Processes. 2nd cd. lluscn, I I [.-. Peacock,

Argyle. M.. Alkema, F.. and GMmoui, ft. (1971). The communication of friendly and hoslifcattitudes by verbal and nonverbal signals. European Journal of Social Psychology I.3BS-402.

Argylc. M, Sailer, V., Nicholson. M.. Williams. M, and Burgess. P. (1970). The cotn-municjilion ol' inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals, flritt'"Journal "j Satiul and Clinical Ptychalvgy 9, 222-231.

Ball. P. 119751. Listener responses to filled pauses in relation to floor apportionmentJournal i>! Social and Clinical Psych-logy 14. 423-424.

Bcallic. G. W. (1977). The dynamics of interruption and the filled pause. British Jiiuinal "fSticiat and Clinical Psychology 16. 283-284.

—(1979a). The Troubles' in Northern Ireland. Bulltim nfiltc British Psychological Society

32, 249-2S2.—(I979b). Planning unils in spontaneous speech; Some evidence from hesitation in speecn

and speaker gaze direction, in conversation. Linguistics 17. 61-78.

Turn-la

—0980). The skilled art of coregulalion and management.The Analysis <>t Social Skill.

—(1981 a). Interruption in comthe inleraciants Linguistic?

—(!9Hlh). The regulation of sifor con versa I ion in jound-oi

Denllie. G. W. and Barnard.conversations (directory enq

Boomer, D. S. (1%5). Hesita148-158,

Chappie. E. D. and Lindeniiintcraciing rales in psychiati

Cohen,J (I960). A coefficienMfaxurrmrnt 20. 37-46.

Cwk.M and Smuh. J. M. CJnuriuil nt Social anil Clinitt

DeLong. A.J. (1974), KinesSemioitca 11(1). 4.1-73.

H1975). Yielding the floor:Childhood I, 98-103.

Duncan, S 11972). SoEne signJournal nl Personality anil S

—(197.1). Toward a grammar I—11974). On the structure of s

in Society 2. 161-181).—11975). Interaction utnts du

A. Kcndon. R. M Harris, ar/•arc Interaction, The Hague

Dancan. S and Rslw. D. W.Theutv. Mjllsdak. N J.: Law

Espmito, A (1979). Stx differ213-221

Farina, A (I960). Patterns ofpatienis J,-urrral til Abnorim

Feldsictn, S. Alherti. 1.,, Ben 1laneous speech. Paper prtseAssoelatioD, New Orleans.

Feldstein. S ,ind Wclko*ilz.J.ohjeclivc .ipprouch. In A. ViCommunication Hillsdak, N

H. N. 119771. Simullanct-iat and tliiiuut Pstrhnli$

. R J and Jackson, P. Rinterviews. Journal ut Orrupi

fialliiis.c and Markel. N N.slylt. Journal <,; renotuiltty .

Goldman-Bister. K. (I')6S). fsyAcademic Tress.

Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews 111

stressed middle syllable ofonation associated with ih.elink thai Mrs. Thalchcr hasafter 'job' might have beenspeech to come and (hat thensti iuteiin appropriate pointate tha i the speech t ra in ingJeneral Election may have in

e interview style of iwo ofon deviations from the lurn-ences in behavior may affectto account for the differencesversation. li is a preliminarydone before we more lul l)in conversational interaction

-Mtgned From ihc leadership of the

I behaviour Journal n/ C'atnmuniea-

,ucv The structure of reciprocalmiskcy teds.). Child Development: A»ck.mmuincaiion of friendly and hostilein Jaurnal of Soda! fsyehalogt I,

ind Burgess. P. (1970). The coro-•biil and non-verbal signals British

lion la floor apportionment. British4.d the filled pause. British Journal of

of the British Psychological Sarittv

evidence from hesitation in speechIM 17. 61-78,

—{1980). The skilled art of conversational interiiclion: Verbal and nonverbal signals in usregulation and management. In W. T. Singleton, P. Spurgeon, and R B. Stammers (eds,).The Analysis of Social Skill. New York; Plenum.

— ( ] 9 K l . i i Interruption in conversational in [cruel ion, and its relation to (he sex and status ofIhe intcractanls. Linguistics 19. 15-35.

—(198lh). The regulation of speaker turns in face-lo-facc conversation: Some implicationsfor conversation in sound-only communication channels. Semiotica 34(1/2). 55-70,

Bealtie. G. W. and Barnard, P. J. (1979). The temporal structure of natural telephoneconversations (directory enquiry cullH Lingmsnti 17,313-230.

Boomer. D. S- 11965). Hesitation and grammatical encoding. Language and Speech 8.148-158.

Chappie. E, D. and Lindemann. E. (1942), Clinical implications of measurements ofinteracting rales in psychiatric interviews. Applied Anthropology I , 1-11.

Cohen, J. (I960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational PsychologyMeaMtremem 20, 37-46.

Cook.M. and Smith. J. M. C. (1975). The role of g32e in impression formal ion BritishJournal of Sotill and Clinical Psychology 14. 19-25.

De Long, A. J. (1974). Kinetic signals at utterance boundaries in preschool children.Stmiattea 11(1) , 43-73,

—(1975). Yielding the floor: The kincsic signals. Camtmlcation in Infant r and EarhChildh,Md 1.98-103.

Duncan. S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23, 283-292.

—{1973). Toward a grammar far dyadic conversation. Sumiotica 9(1). 29-47.—(1974). On the sinicture of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language

in Society 2, 161-180.—(1975). Interaction units during speaking '"rns in dyadic race-to-faec conversation. In

A. Kendon, R. M. Harris, and M. R Key (cds.). The QrgaxixaliotiofSehttrforin Fare-to-Fact Inttractum, The Hague: Mouton.

Duncan, S. and l-'iskc, D. W. (1977). Fai't-lfFacr Interaction: Research. Methods aiulTheory Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eaposito.A. (1979). Sex differences in children's conversalion language anil Speech 22.213-221.

Farina, A. (I960). Patterns of role dominance and eonflici in patent;, of schi/ophrenii-paueim. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychalt/gy 61, 31-38.

Feldstein, S., Alberti, L., Ben Debba. M. and Welkowitz. J. (1974). Personality and simul-taneous spe«:h. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation. New Orleans.

Feldstcin, S. and Welkowitz, J. (1978). A chronography of conversation In defense of anobjective approach. In A. W. Sicgman and S. Feldstcin (cds.). Nonverbal Behavior andComntfmication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

I-'erguson. N, (1977). Simultaneous speech, interruptions and dominance. British Journal ofSocial anil Clinical Psychology 16(4), 295-302.

Forbes, R. J. and Jackson, P. R. 11980). Non-verbal behaviour and the oulcome of selectioninterviews. Journal of Occupational Psychology 53. 65-72.

Gallois.C. and Marks!. N. N. (1975). Turn-taking: Social personality and conversationalstyle. Journal of Personality anil Social Psychology 31,1134-1140.

Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontanema Speech. London;Academic Press.

112 Geoffrey W. Beanie

Heihermgton. E. M., Slouwic. R.J.. and Ridberg, E. H. (1971), Patterns of familyinteraction anil child-rearing attitudes related to three dimensions of juvenile delinquency.Journal of Abnormal Psychology 78. 160-176.

Jacob. T. (1974). Patterns of family conflict and dominance as a function of child age andsocial class. Developmental Psychology 10. 1-12.

—(1975), Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological andsubstantive review. Psychological Bulletin 82, 33-65.

JalTc, J. and Feldslein, S. (1970). Rhythms of Dialogue. New York: Academic Press.Kcndon. A. (1967). Some functions of ga« direction in social interaction. Ada Psychologies

26, 22-63.Klcck, R. E. and Nuessle. W.(I968). Congruence between ihc indicative and communicative

functions of eye-contact in interpersonal relations. British Journal of Social and ClinicalPsychology 1, 241-246,

Lay, C. H. and Bumm. B. F. (1968). Perception of the personality of me hesitant speaker.Perception and Mt-ior Skills 26, 951-956.

Libel. J. M. and Lcwinsohn. P. M. (1973). Concept of social skill with special reference to thebehavior of depressed persons. Journal of Conxuliins and Clinical Psychology 40.304-312,

Long, J. M. (1972). Biosocial factors in conversational interaction. Unpublished master'sthesis. University of Florida.

Maclay, H. and Osgood. C, E. 11959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous Englishsp«ch. Word 15. 19-44.

Maiarazzo, J. D. and Saslnw.G, (1961). Differences in interview interaction behaviouramong normal and deviant groups. In I A. Berg and R. M Bass (eds.). Canformitv andDeviation. New York; Harper Row.

Mehrabian. A. and Ferris. S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communica-tion in two channels. Jntirnal nf Consulting Psychology 31. 248-252.

Mehrabian, A. and Wiener. M.U967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychnlugji 6, 109-114.

Meltxcr, 1. . Morris. W. N., and Hayes. D. P. (1971), Interruption outcomes and vocalamplitude: Explorations in social psychophysics. Journal of Personality anil SocialPsychology 18, 392-402.

Miller, G, A. (1963). Review of Grcenbcrg. J. H. (ed.), Univenab of Languagf-Con temporary Psychology 8, 4I7-41H.

Mishler. E. G and Waxier. N, E. 11968). Interaction in Families. An E.\i>trimtnial Study offamily Processes and Schizophrenia. New York: Wiley.

Naiale. M,, Enlin, E.. and Jaffc. J. (1979), Vocal interruptions jn dyadic communication asafunction of speech and social anxiety Journal of Personaliiv and Social Psychology 57.865-878.

Pilkonis, P. A, (1977J. The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal of Personality ̂596-611.

Pittenger. R. E. and Smith, H. L. (1957). A basis for some contributions of linguistics topsychiatry. Psychiatry 20. 6i-7B.

Rim. Y. (1977), Personality variables and interruptions in smull discussions. Europe***Journal oj Sui'ial Psychology 7, 247-251.

Roscnfcld, H- M. (1978). Conversational control functions of nonverbal behavior. In A. W-Siegman and S. Feldstein (eds.). Nonverbal Behavior and Communication. Hillsdale. N J.:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ross. L. (1977). Shortcomings of the intuitive psychologist. Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology 10. 174-214.

Turn

Ross. L.. Green. D.T and H>in socinl perception aiPsychology 13,279-301.

Rimer. D. R. (I977a>. SF

schizophrenic patients, bH1977b). Visual interact!'

patients. Btilish JournalSacks. H.. ScheglofT. E. A

nrgiinntation of lum-takSchcgloiT. £, A. and SacksStern, D.N.I 1974). Mothe

and ga/e behaviour. In rits Caregiwr. New York

Stern, D. N.. Jaffc, J,. Betalternation; Two modeiNew York Academy of:

Trowcr. P.. Bryant, B.. enMeihuen.

Yngve.V.I-l.(l970).Ongivf ihe Chicago Linguaii

7jmmerniuii, D. H. andversa lion. In B. ThorrDiuuinaace. Rowley. M

Geoffrey W, Beanie (b. 1*principal research inierewnvcisalional interact! otplanning in speech' (1978,ol spontaneous spwcli' Inonverbal signals in itsproduction processes in i

E.H. (1971). Patterns of familjdimensions of juvenile delinquency

ance as a function of child age and

j| families: A method illogical an^

New York. Academic Press,ioeial interaction, Ada PsychologiCa

:n the indicative mid communicativelri/j,iA Journal of Swiul and Clinical

personality of the hesitant speaker.

cial skill with special reference lit ihcmil Clinical Psyi-kalog)40. 304-312.I interaction. Unpublished mailer'u

icnomena in spontaneous English

in interview interaction behaviourI R. M. Hass leds.), Conformity and

nudes from nonverbal commumca-0'JJ. 248-252nsistenl communications Journal uj

Interruption outcome!, and vocalJournal af Personality and Uncial

. (ed.). l/nivcr.tals oj Language.

Families. An Ei/wriinenial Study af:y-Hioni in dyadic communication as atsaaaltty and Soiiol Psyrhology 37,

shyness, Journal u] Personality 45,

ome contributions of linguistics to

n< in small discussions. European

>ns of nonverbal behavior. In A. W.md Communication. Hillidale, N.J.;

ist. Advances in Experimental Social

Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews 113

Ross L., Green, D..and House. P. (1977). The 'False Consensus Effect'; An egocentric btiisin social perception and atlribulional professes. Journal af Experimental Soda!Psychology 13.279-301.

Ruder. D. R- (I977a(. Speech patterning in recently udmilled and chronic long-slayschizophrenic patient.1.. lintt.ib Journal of Social and tV/>wa/ Psychology 16( 1). 47-55.

_j|a77h). Visual interaction and speech patterning in remitted and acute schizophrenicpatients. British Journal oj Social and Clinical Psychology 16(4), 357-361,

Sick*. H . Schcgloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. A. (1974). A simplest systctnatics ft" theorganization of lurn-taking in conversation. Language 50, 697-

ScheglofT. E. A. and Sacks. H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiolicu 8, 289-327.Stern. 0- N.(J974). Mother ami infant at play: The dyadic interaction involving facial, vocal

anJ gave behaviour In M. Lewis and 1-. A. Rosenblum (eds.). 7"/ir Efferl ol the In./ani imit, Caregiver. New York: Wiley.

Stern. D- N.. Jaffc, J . Beebc, B., and Bennett. S. L. (1975). Vocalizing in unison and inalternation: Two modes of communication within the mot her- in fan I dyad. Annal> oj ihrfJi'H- York Arademy o/Scienfrs 263, 89-100.

Trower, P., Bryant. B.. nnd Argyle, M. (1978). Social Ski/It and Menial Health. London.

Yngvc, V. H. (1970). On gelling a word in edgewise. Papm from the Sixth Regional Meetingof the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society

Zimmerman. D. H. and West. C. (1975). Sex roles, inicrruptions ant) silences in con-versation. In B. Thome and N. Henley leds.), Language and Sc.t. Difference andDmtitnaine. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Geoffrey W. Beatlie <b. 1952) is a lecturer in psychology al lite University of Sheffield. Hisprincipal research interests are language production, nonverbal communication, andconversational interaction His publications include 'Gesture ami silence as indicators ofplanning in speech'! 1978. wilh B. Butlerworthl, 'The moditiabiliiy of tile temporal structureof spontaneous speech' (1979), The skilled an of conversational interaction: Verbal andnonverbal signals in its regulation and management' (1980). and 'The role of languageproduction processes in ihc organisation of behaviour in face-to-face interaction' (1980).

•