Speaking involves “linearizing” a message into a string of words. This process leaves us vulnerable to being interrupted in such a way that the aborted turn is a misrepresentation of the intended message. Further, because we linearize our messages in standard ways, we are recurrently vulnerable to interruptions at particular turn-construction junctures, and consequently to recurrent types of self-misrepresentation. These vulnerabilities can be exploited strategically when an interrupter responds to the truncated turn in a way that might not have been possible if the turn had run to completion: I refer to interruptions of this sort as “opportunistic.” I explore the connection between linearization and opportunistic interruptions using data from two institutional settings characterized by confrontational exchanges: Supreme Court oral arguments and Pentagon press briefings. The extracts illustrate how speakers open themselves to opportunistic interruptions through projection of incipient options, actions, reasons, consequences, opinions, and restrictions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChafeWallace1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
ClaymanSteven E.2001. “Answers and Evasions.”Language in Society30: 403–42.
3.
ClaymanSteven E.HeritageJohn2002. “Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan.”Journal of Communication52: 749–75.
4.
ClaymanSteven E.ReisnerAnn1998. “Gatekeeping in Action: Editorial Conferences and Assessments of Newsworthiness.”American Sociological Review63: 178–99.
5.
DrewPaulHeritageJohn1992. “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” Pp. 3–65 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited byDrewPaulHeritageJohnCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
FinchGeoffrey2000. Linguistic Terms and Concepts.New York: Palgrave.
7.
FordCecilia E.ThompsonSandra A.1996. “Interactional Units in Conversation: Syntactic, Intonational, and Pragmatic Resources for the Management of Turns.” Pp. 134–84 in Interaction and Grammar, edited byOchsElinorSchegloffEmanuel A.ThompsonSandra A.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
GibsonDavid2000. “Seizing the Moment: The Problem of Conversational Agency.”Sociological Theory18: 369–82.
9.
GiddensAnthony1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis.Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
GoffmanErving1981. Forms of Talk.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
11.
HeritageJohnGreatbatchDavid1991. “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews.” Pp. 93–137 in Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, edited byBodenDeirdreZimmermanDon H.Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
JeffersonGail1983. “Notes on Some Orderliness of Overlap Onset.”Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature28: 1–28.
13.
LernerGene H.1996a. “Finding ‘Face’ in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction.”Social Psychology Quarterly59: 303–21.
14.
LernerGene H.1996b. “On the ‘Semi-Permeable’ Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry Into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” Pp. 238–27 in Interaction and Grammar, edited byOchsElinorSchegloffEmanuel A.ThompsonSandra A.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
LeveltWillem J.M.1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation.Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
16.
MurrayStephen O.1985. “Toward a Model of Members' Methods for Recognizing Interruptions.”Language in Society14: 31–40.
17.
OkamotoDina G.RashotteLisa SlatterySmith-LovinLynn2002. “Measuring Interruption: Syntactic and Contextual Methods of Coding Conversation.”Social Psychology Quarterly65: 38–55.
18.
OkamotoDina G.Smith-LovinLynn2001. “Changing the Subject: Gender, Status, and the Dynamics of Topic Change.”American Sociological Review66: 852–73.
RaymondGeoffrey T.2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Type Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.”American Sociological Review68: 939–67.
21.
RobinsonDawn T.Smith-LovinLynn1990. “Timing of Interruptions in Group Discussions.”Advances in Group Processes7: 45–73.
22.
SacksHarvey1987. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” Pp. 54–69 in Talk and Social Organisation, edited byButtonGrahamLeeJohn R.E.Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
23.
SacksHarvey1995a. Lectures on Conversation.Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
24.
SacksHarvey1995b. Lectures on Conversation.Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
25.
SacksHarveySchegloffEmanuel A.JeffersonGail1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.”Language50: 696–735.
26.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1982. “Discourse As an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘Uh Huh’ and Other Things That Come Between Sentences.” Pp. 71–93 in Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics, edited byTannenDeborahWashington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
27.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1987. “Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction.”Linguistics25: 201–18.
28.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1988. “Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation.” Pp. 89–135 in Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, edited byDrewPaulWoottonAnthonyBoston: Northeastern University Press.
29.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1992a. “On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions.” Pp. 101–34 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited byDrewPaulHeritageJohnCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1992b. “Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.”American Journal of Sociology97: 1295–1345.
31.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” Pp. 52–133 in Interaction and Grammar, edited byOchsElinorSchegloffEmanuel A.ThompsonSandra A.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
SchegloffEmanuel A.2000. “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.”Language in Society29: 1–63.
33.
SchegloffEmanuel A.2002. “Accounts of Conduct in Interaction: Interruption, Overlap, and Turn-Taking.” Pp. 287–321 in Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited byTurnerJonathan H.New York: Kluwer.
34.
SchegloffEmanuel A.OchsElinorThompsonSandra A.1996. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–51 in Interaction and Grammar, edited byOchsElinorSchegloffEmanuel A.ThompsonSandra A.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SchiffrinDeborah1990. “The Management of Co-operative Self During Argument: The Role of Opinions and Stories.” Pp. 241–59 in Conflict Talk, edited byGrimshawAllen D.New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Smith-LovinLynnBrodyCharles1989. “Interruptions in Group Discussions: The Effects of Gender and Group Composition.”American Sociological Review54: 424–53.
37.
TomaselloMichael2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
von NeumannJohnMorgenstenOskar1980. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
39.
WardhaughRonald1995. Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach.Oxford: Blackwell.
40.
ZimmermanDon H.WestCandace1975. “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.” Pp. 105–29 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited byThorneBerrieHenleyNancyRowley, MA: Newbury House.
