Association for French Language Studies

AssociationforFrenchLanguageStudiesTurn-takinginconversation:overlapsandinterruptionsininterculturaltalk.1.IntroductionThemotivatingfactorforthisstudywaspersonalexperienceofcommunicatingininterculturalsettings,andthedifferencesthatseemedtoemergeinturn-takingbehaviourorinteractionpatterns(pauses,overlaps,speakerchanges,simultaneoustalk,prosodyandintonationpatterns,etc.).Thepresentstudycouldrepresentafirststageinexploringconveyculturalsimilaritiesanddifferencesinconversationalbehaviour,especiallyonaturn-takinglevel.Theunderlyinghypothesisisthatturn-takingbehaviourandinteractionpatternsplayakeyroleintheprocessthroughwhichtheparticipantsinterpreteachother’smeaningsandintentions.Thehypothesisincludesaviewaccordingtowhichtheparticipantsinaninterculturalsituationofcommunication,tryingtounderstandtheintentionsoftheirco-locutorsfromtheirownculturalperspective,canfrequentlycommitmisinterpretationsthatleadtomisunderstandings.Thesemisinterpretationsareassumedtostempartlyfromsociallyacquired“rules”ofinteractionthatareculturallybiased.Itwillbeproposedthatdiscoveringtheculturaldifferencesofconversationalbehaviourcouldincreasetheawarenessoftheprocessesinvolvedinface-to-faceinterculturalcommunication.Followingthislineofinquiry,acasestudyhasbeenconductedcomparingtheturn-takingbehaviourbetweenAmericansandFrenchengagedinFrenchconversations(Wieland1991).Wielandconductedrecordingsofordinarydinnertableconversations,andlaterinterviewedtheparticipantsinordertoelicitinsightsintotheirinterpretationsoftheinteraction.Thisarticlepresentstheresultsofasimilarkindofastudy,however,withoutaccesstoparticipants’opinions,andatthisstage,withoutaccesstothecomparativeaspects,duetothenatureofthedatausedinthestudy.Article15Cahiers10.1Spring/Summer20042.MethodologyTheaimofthestudywastogaininsightsintohowconversationsinFrenchwork,especiallyonthelevelofturn-taking,inaselectedcorpusofeverydayconversationsamongthreeparticipants,usingacorpusofspokenFrenchrecordedinFrancebySihvonen-Hautecoeurin1988andkeptattheInstituteofRomanceandClassicalLanguagesattheUniversityofJyväskyläinFinland.Fromthecorpus,threerecordingsofordinarydinner-tableconversationswiththreeparticipantswereselectedforanalysis(codesJKL8A,JKL8B,andJKL9A).Triadicconversationswerepreferredtodyadicduetothedifferentpatternsofturn-takingtheyconvey.Theparticipantsintheseconversationsweretwofemales,oneFrenchandoneFinnish,andoneFrenchmale,allabout30yearsofage.Asoneofthelocutorswasanon-nativebutneverthelessfluentspeakerofFrench(theFinnishfemaleparticipant),ithastobepointedoutthatthiselementmayhaveinfluencedtheFrenchinteraction.However,astheparticipantsseemedtobefairlywellacquaintedandconversinginarelaxedsetting,thedifferenceislikelynottohavehinderedtheinteraction.Furthermore,itneedstobedrawnintoattentionthatduetothelimitationsofthecorpus,comparativeaspectsbetweentheFrenchandtheFinnishcommunicationstylesdidnotfallwithinthescopeofthestudy,sincethiswouldhaverequiredadditionaldatainseparatenative-languagegroups.Thestudydrawsuponseveralapproachestoanalysinginteraction.AkeyelementisethnomethodologicalConversationAnalysis(henceforth,CA),focusingonthemakingofsocialrealitiesandonmeaning-makingthroughcommunication.Sacks,SchegloffandJefferson(1974)pioneeredthestudyofordinaryconversationsinordertodiscoverthedetailed“rules”ofconversationalbehaviour,turn-taking,overlappingofturns,pausingbetweentheturns,etc.ThislineofresearchhasbeenfurtherandmostrecentlydiscussedbyHutchbyandWooffitt(1998)andTenHave(1999).SomeofCA’sspecificaspects,whichwereofuseinthepresentstudy,includeframeworksdevelopedfortheanalysesonoverlapsandinterruptions(Drummond1989,Lerner1989).Inrelationtofunctionalanalysisoflanguageandinteraction,previousstudiesonfeedbackanddiscoursemarkersprovidedvaluablebackgroundfortheanalysisandcategorisationofthedata.DeGaulmyn(1987)inherstudyonFrenchSusannaKohonen16AssociationforFrenchLanguageStudiesdiscoursemarkersandPenningtonandDoi(1993)intheirpaperonEnglishforeignlanguagespeakers’useofdiscoursemarkersputforwardcategoriesbasedonhowdiscoursemarkersareusedratherthancategorisingthemarkersbasedontheirform.Thepresentstudywasalsoinfluencedbyacasestudyoncross-culturalconversation(Wieland1991),comparingtheinteractionofFrenchandAmericaninterlocutorsconversinginFrench.Furthermore,thestudywaspartlyinspiredbyamodeltakingintoconsiderationtheaspectoftheroleoflanguageuseinsituationsofinterculturalcommunication,asproposedforexamplebyMüller-Jacquier(1998).AnecessarycomparisontotheCAapproachtooverlapsispresentedwithresearchoninterruptionandoverlappingfromthepointofviewofanthropologicalinteractionstudies,asproposedforexamplebyBennett(1981)andCarroll(1988).Thisavenueofinvestigationfocusesontheparticipants'interpretationsonmeaning-makingandontheinteractionasanimportantsourceofreliabilityforanalyses.3.Conversationalanalysis:empiricalapproachesSacks,SchegloffandJefferson(1974)introducedthedetailedanalysisofordinaryconversations.Comingfromasociologicalbackground,andwithanethnomethodologicalunderpinning,theystudiedconversationalbehaviourfroma