Abstract
The simplistic conception of interruption employed in conversation analysis and survey research reports of male monopoly must be elaborated to include other social meanings in addition to violation of a speaker's rights if it is to account for conversational order or deviance. With no reason to suppose that the narrow, technical sense of interruption and the implacably negative evaluation conversation analysts make about interruption are generally shared throughout the rest of American culture, answers to questions in surveys about interruption cannot be assumed to refer to the category termed interruption in conversation analysis. Dissensus about coding instances of the category are reported and other situated meanings of interruption suggested.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
