Purposes of Interruption Discussion

interrogative sentence used by juror number three in employing simple interruption here perfectly means to refuse juror number Eleven’s idea. Juror number Three cuts juror number eleven’s utterance before he finished it. Juror number Eleven remains to stop his utterance when juror number Three grabs his floor. Juror number Three rises his voices to show that he disagrees with juror number Eleven’s ideas. This interruption occurs after all the jury take a secret ballot. There is one juror changes his vote from guilty to be not guilty. Juror number Ten wants to know who changes the vote. yet, juror number Eleven reminds him that they just take a secret ballot and everyone agrees that it should remain secret. When juror number Eleven is about to explain the secret ballot, juror number Three interrupts him to show his disagreement. He thinks that juror number Five is the one who changes his vote from guilty to be not guilty but he gets wrong. Another datum that shows disruptive interruption with the purpose to show disagreement about what is being talked about is shown in datum number 26. EIGHT : I think we’ve proved that the old man couldn’t have heard the boy say “I’m gonna kill you”. But supposing… TEN : you didn’t prove it at all. What are you talking about? 2646:09:84 3 – 46:11:539 Disruptive interruption which is supported by the purpose of to show disagreement is shown in dialogue above. In the dialogue, juror number Ten as the interrupter succeeds to cut the current speaker ’s utterance. Juror number Eight’s utterance remains incomplete when juror number Ten interrupts him to show his disagreement. Juror number Ten utters an opposite utterance to the juror number Eight. It is seen from the utterance “you didn’t prove it at all. What are you talking about?”. The conversation takes place when juror number Eight gives his statement that the old man liv ing downstairs cannot hear the boy’s utterance. Juror number Eight assumes that the phrase “I am gonna kill you” is a common utterance. Everyone uses it when they get angry and yell to someone. The expression does not mean that those people are really going to kill anybody. Unfortunately, juror number Three disagree with juror number Eight. He assumes that the kid who utters the phrase “I am gonna kill you” is really gonna kill his father. He expects it since the kid yelled it with all of his lungs. The findings also show that there is another example of disagreement interruption. It describes in the following dialogue. EIGHT : Now, if the killer began running immediately… TWELVE : maybe he didn’t. 3255:06:05 3 – 55:08:754 This last example of disruptive interruption uttered by juror number Twelve clearly shows that he disagrees with statement uttered by juror number Eight. Immediately juror number Twelve interrupts juror number Eight to show his disagreement about what is being talked about. It is seen from the negative utterance completed by juror number Twelve, “maybe he didn’t”. Juror number Twelve employs simple interruption to cut juror number eight’s utterance. This disagreement is expressed directly toward juror number Eight. Juror number Eight, Three, and Nine are talking about how long the old man could run to the front door. Actually, the old man encounters a stroke last year and only drags one foot when he walks. Juror number Eight explains that it is not possible for an old man who has a stroke and drags one of his foot when he walks, can reach about 55 feet in 15 second. Juror number Eight also explains that the kid begins running immediately after he killed his father, but juror number Twelve disagrees with him. According to the testimony from the old man, the kid runs immediately after kills his father. 2 Topic Change Topic change is the second purpose of disruptive interruption found in the movie. This purpose of interruption is used to show disagreement indirectly by changing the topic being discussed. The current speaker as the interruptee has his utterance remain incomplete. The interrupter speaks aggressively to get the floor. He cuts the current speaker’s utterance before the current speaker finishes it. This purpose of interruption appears six time in whole movie. An example of this purpose of interruption is shown in the datum below. TEN : you’re forgetting the important stuff. I mean, all of sudden, everybody here… EIGHT : I want to call for another vote. 2951:49:47 1 – 51:50:088 The overlap interruption occurs in the dialogue above is used to change the topic being discussed. It is seen from the utterance stated by juror number Eight who wants another vote to prove that there would be one juror changes his vote from guilty to be not guilty. The phrase “I want to call for another vote” is not in line with juror number Ten’s statement. Juror number Eight expresses it aggressively when he cuts juror number Ten’s utterance. Therefore, he left juror number Ten’s utterance remain incomplete. This utterance is used by juror number Eight to show that he disagrees with juror number Ten indirectly by changing the topic of the discussion. This conversation begins when juror number Ten expresses his anger about the discussion that is going nowhere. He depicts his madness by yelling to all the jury especially juror number Five. He claims that all the jury just concern about the little detail of the case that he thinks it is not very important for him. Juror number Ten keeps yelling for a moment until juror number Eight interrupts him. Juror number Eight interrupts juror number Ten to make him realize that he just makes a trouble in the jury room. Finally, juror number Eight asks Foreman to call another vote. This makes juror number Ten keep his yelling down. The datum below also shows how disruptive interruption is performed by the jury to change the topic being discusses. It is clear stated in the description of the example below. ELEVEN : Don’t you care… SEVEN : now, wait a minute. 3501:16:33 :953 – 01:16:35:00 1 Juror number Eleven and juror Number Seven discuss about why juror number Seven changes his vote from guilty to be not guilty. It is clear from the utterance stated by juror number Eleven that he wants to remind juror number Seven that they hold a big duty. Juror number Eleven remains his utterance incomplete because he is interrupted by juror number Seven. Juror number Seven interrupts juror number Eleven to show that he has a reason why he changes his vote. Juror number Seven states his disagreement by changing the conversation as his desire. The interruption which is done by juror number Seven appears after he changes his vote from guilty to be not guilty. He changes his vote to be not guilty because some of the jury have already changed their vote. It can be noticed from the utterance done by juror number Eleven that juror number Seven plays with his vote. he does not vote based on the facts they discuss from the beginning. However, he gives his vote based on other jury vote, so he can get out of the discussion as soon as possible. He has already had a baseball ticket in his pocket and he does not want it useless because of his duty to decide whether the boy is guilty or not. In the moment when this interruption occurs, several utterances supports this movie to describe how the jury takes the discussion with such lack of seriousness. They play with his decision and give a reason based on his desire, especially done by juror number Seven. The line “don’t you care” uttered by juror number Eleven reminds other juror to take a serious deliberation. Jury must not play with his decision on someone’s life. In this part of the scene, this movie wants to remind all the people in America to love everyone regardless his colour of his skin. It is because the boy as the accused comes from slum which is dominated by African American. This movie from this part of this scene reminds all the people in America to reunite and not to be racist. The purpose of interruption to change the topic being discuss is also shown in the datum below. TWELVE : Well maybe… THREE : let’s vote on it. 3701:23:03 :889 – 01:23:04:68 5 Juror number Twelve is on his explanation of why he votes for acquittal. While stated his reason, juror number Twelve is interrupted by juror number Three. Juror number Three cuts juror number Twelve’s utterance. It makes the utterance of juror number Twel ve remain incomplete. The utterance “well, maybe” uttered by juror number Twelve is full of hesitation. He is very anxious with himself until juror number Three interrupts him. He interrupts juror number Twelve to change the topic of the discussion by taking another vote. The conversation above appears when juror number Twelve gets his third change to vote whether the boy is guilty or not. It makes other jury feel annoyed to him since he assumes that it is hard to arrange all the evidence in order. Juror number Four remarks him that he does not have self-confidence to believe which one is right for him. He just follows what other people do in deciding the status of the boy. Juror number Three also adds that the fact of the woman saw the boy kill his father is clearly unbeatable facts. Everyone in the jury room cannot refuse it and also the district attorney. b. Cooperative This interruption is used by the new speaker to cooperate with the current speaker. This interruption is used to support the interruptee since they have the same idea. The interrupter performs interruption to show his interest, enthusiasm, and high involvement in the conversation. The interruption also shows that the interrupter is an active listener, enjoying a topic in the current discussion, or trying to seek a joint solution to a problem. This interruption is more cooperative rather than disruptive. This kind of purpose of interruption consists of four types. They are to show agreement, to show understanding, to show interest in topic, and to show clarification. All of this purpose of interruption is found in the movie except to show interest in topic. To show clarification reaches the highest rank of cooperative interruption which occurs seven times in the data. Then, the cooperative interruption to show interest in topic reaches the lowest rank since it does not appear in the data. Each of the purpose of disruptive interruption is described below. 1 To show Agreement This is the first purpose of cooperative interruption. This cooperative interruption is used by the interrupter to support the interruptee’s idea. In this interruption, the interrupter is in line with the interruptee. He supports the interruptee by saying his agreement directly to the interruptee. To show agreement occurs four times in the data. All of them constitutes two types of interruption; simple interruption and overlap interruption. In this purpose of interruption, the interrupter gives his approval by saying his agreement toward the topic being discussed. An example of cooperative interruption which is used to show agreement is described in the following example. FOREMAN : and uh, well, we can vote on it right now and… FOUR : I think it’s customary to take a preliminary vote. SEVEN : Yeah, let’s – let’s vote. Who knows? Maybe we all can get outta here, huh? FOREMAN : uh uhuh 110:51:317 – 10:53:902 This cooperative interruption appears in the first ten minutes of the movie. This cooperative interruption occurs in simple interruption which means the current speaker does not finish his utterance yet. The utterance of the current speaker or the interruptee remains incomplete since the interrupter is very enthusiastic to support the interruptee. It can be seen from the utterance uttered by juror number Four “I think it’s customary to take a preliminary vote.” This cooperative interruption used by juror number Four is to show his agreement to take a vote as the Foreman suggested to all the jury. This dialogue above contains cooperative interruption appears after all the jury gathered in the jury room. This cooperative interruption occurs after the Foreman gives an explanation and sets the rule about the discussion. The foreman wants to take a vote, so they know where all the jury stand for. Juror number Four interrupts the Foreman to show that he agrees with him. Preliminary vote is crucial to decide the next agenda in the jury room. In the dialogue above, there is not only one person who agrees to take a preliminary vote, but almost all the jury also take the same action. Moreover, juror number Seven expresses that he is really enthusiastic to take preliminary vote because he has an ag enda at 8 o’clock that night. It is crucial to notice from the conversation above that juror number Seven is not really serious to follow the discussion. He tries to do anything to make the discussion over as soon as possible. This personal reason reminds that people in the court of America must take a serious discussion while having duty. Because of the boy as the accused in the movie, his eternal life is decided by a group of men during a court case. His life is in his judgement whether he is guilty or innocence. The next example is described in the following datum. TEN : Oh, fine. SEVEN : I knew it 2033:58:56 2 – 33:95:292 Juror number Seven agrees with juror number Ten by employing “I knew it”. He speaks at the same time with juror number Ten, so juror number Ten is interrupted by juror number Seven but he is able to finish his utterance. Juror number Seven agrees with the statement by juror number Ten. Juror number Seven takes over the floor to give his support to juror number Ten. Then, his interruption is categorized as overlap interruption in which both speakers are in the same idea. Juror number Three expects that juror number Five is the one who changes his vote from guilty to be not guilty and makes the vote Ten to two. He says that because of a golden-voiced preacher, juror number Five change his vote. He also raises his voice to judge juror number Five. Unfortunately, juror number Three does not expect that juror number Nine is the jury who changes his vote. It remainds people to have a good prejudice toward one another since seeing something from the bad side will give a bad impact in the future. 2 To show Understanding To show understanding is a purpose of cooperative interruption which gives a signal that the listener is being cooperative with the current speaker. The interrupter tries to be involved in the conversation by taking the floor from the interruptee. The interrupter who interrupts the current speaker has a purpose to develop the conversation. The findings show that there are three datum containing this purpose. Each of the data employs different types of interruption. it means that the interrupter tries to have the floor since he knows very well about the topic in the conversation. To give a clear description of this purpose of cooperative interruption, an example of to show understanding is provided below. SIX : I mean I could be wrong, but I... ELEVEN : It was eight o’clock. 419:30:979 – 19:31:878 The conversation above takes place when juror number Six has his turn to express his reason why he gives a verdict of guilty to the accused. Juror number Eleven employs simple inter ruption in the purpose to support juror number Six’s utterance by showing his understanding on juror number Six’s idea. juror number Eleven succeeds to grab the floor and shows his understanding. He shows his understanding by employing “it was eight o’clock” which means the case happens at that time. This interruption appears to be cooperative by showing the understanding of the topic not disruptive. When juror number Six has his turn to complete his reason why he chooses guilty for the accused, juror number Eleven interrupts him to develop the conversation. Juror number Six does not give a bright argument about his reason, but he just looks for a motive of behind the murder. Juror number Eight is the only juror questioning about the motive that juror number Six is looking for. He asks whether the chronology when the father hit the boy twice which make the boy run angrily out of the house is a strong motive or not. Juror number Six replies that it is just only part of the picture. From the conversation between juror number Eight and juror number Six, it can be seen that the juror number Six gives nothing to the discussion. He just follows other juror’s decision about the case. It is clearly seen from every turn when juror number Six speaking about the case. He just repeats the facts stated by another juror. He also gets less appearance in the whole movie. It can be said that he is just a follower in the discussion. The next example of this purpose of interruption appears in the following datum. FOUR : He went directly to a neighbourhood junk shop where he bought one of those silent FIVE : switch knives. 1526:52:710 – 26:54:381 Juror number Five’s interruption takes place when juror number Four utters” … he thought one of those…silent” and juror number Five interrupts him by saying “switch knives”. This interruption appears merely to cooperate with the current speaker without any aim to change the topic. There is floor taking in this interrupti on which shows by juror number Five’s interruption in the purpose of showing his understanding toward the topic discussion. There is also no simultaneous speech in this interruption. Regarding to this purpose of interruption, juror number Four understands that juror number Five supports him by developing the conversation. Juror number Five listens carefully to all the facts that juror number Four describes to all the jury. He explains the facts in detail which makes juror number Five enthusiastic to listen to his speaking. Juror number Four believes that there is a tale in the story of the case because the facts give a turning point to take a bit serious thinking. Juror number Five is questioning about the switch knives whether the boy really lost his knife or not. The example of to show understanding as the purpose of cooperative interruption is described in the following dialogue. FIVE : Look, I don’t remember what he said, but I don’t see how he could have run to the door. FOUR : He said he went from his bedroom to the front door. 3153:49:059 – 53:50:804 Juror number Four overtakes a turn from juror number Five as seen in the dialogue above. He takes a turn to show that he knows very well about the case. He shares his detail memory in the discussion. Juror number Four interrupts juror number Five when juror number Five still manages his speaking but he is still able to finish it. This interruption appears in a simultaneous speech where both of the jury speak at the same time. This interruption which is categorized as overlap interruption takes place when juror number Five utters “how he could have run to the door”. Juror number Four interrupts him using the utterance “He said he went from his bedroom to the front door.”. Regarding to this interruption, juror number Four tries to enhance the quality of the conversation by showing his understanding about the facts that the boy runs out of his house. This interruption appears when juror number Seven says that the old man run to the door. It makes juror number Five curious about the old man. Then, he clarifies it by asking to juror number Seven but he just says that there is nothing different between walk and run. Juror number Four who understands the case tries to interrupts juror number Five by employing a supportive statement. 3 To show Clarification To show clarification is the last purpose of cooperative interruption that is found in the data. This purpose of interruption employs three kinds of interruption i.e. simple interruption, overlap interruption, and butting-in interruption. Mostly, the interrupter employs interruption in the purpose of gaining clear information and showing the need of clarification. In this purpose of interruption, the utterance that is used by the interrupter is mostly in the form of question. This purpose appears seven times in the data. Below is the example of this purpose. EIGHT : He let too many things go by. Little thing that… TEN : what little thing? 1424:42:688 – 24:43:891 The dialogue above happens between juror number Eight and juror number Ten. Juror number Eight lost his floor because juror number Ten interrupts him. Juror number Eight cannot finish his utterance which is shown in the utterance “He let too many things go by. Little thing that… “. Juror number Ten interrupts juror number Eight by taking the floor in a simultaneous speech. He interrupts juror number Eight to show that he cannot grab the intention from juror number Eight, so he demonstrates his curiosity by showing his clarification. Juror number Ten employs simple interruption by using the utterance “what little thing?”. He tends to confirm about the defence council which take the case carelessly. The defence council ignore too many facts during the trial. They do not ask the witnesses and the defendant completely. It makes juror number Ten curious to clarify that thing. In this utterance, juror number Eight believes that the trial was held carelessly by the defence council. They just built the evidence from the testimony. Juror number Eight also believe that the trial just makes the accused look guilty without built all the evidence together. However, juror number Ten believes that the defence council do not ask too many things because they already know the answer. They also really understand if they ask too many things, they will hurt the witnesses as well as the defendant. Another example of the need to show clarification found in the data is shown in the conversation below. EIGHT : That doesn’t mean we’re really gonna kill anybody. TEN : wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? 2746:24:868 – 23:26:491 In the conversation between juror number Eight and juror number Ten as seen in above example, juror number Eight is able to finish his utterance while juror number Ten interrupts him. Juror number Ten speaks exactly at the same time before juror number Eight finish his utterance. He employs overlap interruption to show his need of clarification. It is clearly seen in the utterance “wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here?”. In the dialogue, juror number Ten uses question to be highly involved in the conversation. This conversation happens when juror number Eight assumes that someone under emotional stress possibly to utter some dangerous expressions. Those people actually do not mean to do it at that time. It is just like a warning to the listener which makes them down psychologically. However, juror number Three hardly disagrees with that statement uttered by juror number Eight. He positively agrees if someone yells the expression “I’m gonna kill you” means to kill someone else. The last example of cooperative interruption that is used to show the need of clarification is described below. NINE : It would be so hard for him to recede into the background.. SEVEN : wait a minute NINE : when there was a chance. 2545:23:012 – 45:26:865 Juror number Nine explains how an old man really feels if he is quoted by others even just once. It is very important for him to be like that especially in public area. Juror number Nine is able to make this argument since his age is almost 80 years old and he really knows what has just happened to the witnesses. Juror number Nine also assumes that the old man needs to be recognized by others since his appearance attracts people around him. In all the utterance uttered by juror number Nine, it can be concluded that the old man might lie to his testimony. Juror number Seven employs butting in interruption to get a clarification from juror number Nine. However, he fails to interrupts juror number Nine since he still manages his floor to finish his word. Therefore, there is no floor taking in this simultaneous speech. Actually, there is a question after juror number second interrupts juror number Nine for the second time . He uses the utterance “what are you trying to do – tell us he’d lie just so he could be important once?” to convince himself that the old man is lying in a court session. c. Neutral Neutral is the last purpose of employing interruption. In this purpose, the interrupter does not want to take the floor on purpose. There is also no clear support or agreement to the statement being uttered. In other words, this interruption is neither clear cooperative nor clear disruptive. People who do an interruption with this purpose merely to convince themselves about the information they get. Actually, they do not understand what the speaker said or they do not get the important word or information from the speaker. They will make an interruption to ask more explanation. Neutral interruption appears only four times in the data. This purpose of interruption employs overlap interruption and butting-in interruption in his occurrence. For clear understanding about this purpose of interruption, below is the example of neutral interruption that is found in the movie. FIVE : No. Who do you think you are? FOUR : calm down calm down FIVE : No. Who does he think he is? Did you hear him? 1933:37:99 0 – 33:41:8352 Juror number Five is in his emotion insulted by juror number Three and he replies “who do you think you are?”. Juror number Four interrupts him neither to disrupt him nor to support him. He just wants the fight between juror number Five and Three over. In this interruption juror number Four fails to interrupts juror number Five since juror number Five keeps talking. This interruption does not have any other purposes except to clear the situation in the jury room. This conversation happens after a secret ballot is taken in the jury room to decide whether the jury number Eight continues to fight against eleven jury. Juror number Four’s interruption is categorized as butting-in interruption since he fails to take over the floor. There is turn taking in this interruption which is notice by the word “calm down” uttered by juror number Four. Finally, some silent comes over several minutes forward. Another example of neutral interruption is shown below. TEN : Sure, when you want them to, they do, or when he wants them to, they do. You know what I mean? FOREMAN : hey.. okey. keep the yelling down. 2851:34:510 – 51:36:371 The dialogue above displays that the Foreman interrupts juror number Ten. The Foreman interruption belongs to overlap interruption since the Foreman interrupts juror number Ten who still manages his speaking. Juror number Ten and the Foreman speaks at the same time in a simultaneous speech. The interruption used by the Foreman is used to show his neutrality toward every juror especially juror number Ten. He does not have any desire to disrupt juror number Ten. This conversation takes place when juror number Ten asks to juror number Eleven whether the old man sees the boy running out of the house at 12:10 or not. Then, juror number Eleven agrees on it. It makes juror number Ten feels so pleased with his question to juror number Eleven. He continues his joyful by yelling around. The Foreman who leads this discussion wants juror number Ten to lower his voice. Juror number Ten ignores the command from the Foreman. He keeps yelling in front of the Foreman to show his joyful. As expressed in above explanation, there are some points that can be pinned. First, there are four types of interruption employed by the characters in 12 Angry Men. Mostly, the jury uses overlap interruption and the purpose of employing this interruption is to show his disagreement. It is to show that generally people encounter overlap speaking in hisher daily conversation which means they are highly enthusiast with the conversation. Second, three purposes of interruption occur in this movie i.e. disruptive, cooperative, and neutral. Unfortunately, not all disruptive and cooperative purpose appears in the data. Mostly, the purpose of interruption is dominated by disruptive purpose. The jury intends to disturb the current speaker. 75

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter reports the results of the research it is divided into two subcategories, i.e. conclusions and suggestions. In the conclusion, there are two points concluded based on the findings of the research which are related to the objectives of the research. In addition, some suggestions for different parties are also presented in this chapter.

A. Conclusions

In relation to the objectives of this research stated in Chapter I, this research is aimed at giving a description about the types of interruption and the purposes of employing interruption that is performed by all the characters in the movie entitled 12 Angry Men. Some conclusion is drawn based on the findings and discussion in chapter IV. 1. In relation to the first objective of this research which is to find out the types of interruption employed by the characters in 12 Angry Men, four types of interruption are found in this movie. They are simple interruption, overlap interruption, butting-in interruption, and silent interruption. From the four types of interruptions, the overlap interruption reaches in the highest rank which constitutes 18 out of 39 data. This interruption is common especially in formal setting. The overlap interruption is performed by the characters in 12 Angry Men mostly to disrupt the current speaker. In addition, the overlap interruption is also to support the current speaker, and to be neutral in the conversation. The interrupter performs overlap interruption since they are highly involved in the conversation. They are very enthusiastic to show their ideas upon the case by speaking at the same time with the speaker. In addition, the interrupter performs interruption to make an elaboration on the topic being discussed. 2. The second objective of this research is to describe the purpose of performing interruption. Regarding the purposes of interruption, there are three main purposes of interruption, i.e. disruptive, cooperative, and neutral. The disruptive purposes are to show disagreement, to take the floor, to change the topic of the discussion. To show agreement, to show understanding, to show interest in topic, and to show clarification belong to cooperative interruption where the interrupter performed it to support the interruptee. In relation to the purpose of disruptive interruption, all the juries tend to employ his disagreement towards the current speaker ’s idea, the interruptee. However, cooperative interruption is employed mostly to show clarification. All the juries try to clarify the evidence stated by the current speaker. They try to seek the most significant evidence by discussing together. However, the neutral interruption occurs only in overlap interruption and butting-in interruption. It is performed by the jury to show his neutrality. This interruption appears neither to disrupt nor to collaborate with the current speaker. There is a correlation between types and purposes of interruption. Simple interruption is not used to show neutrality; it appears mostly to disrupt the interruptee. However, overlap interruption almost occurs in all the purposes of interruption except in floor taking and to show interest in topic. Butting-in interruption is performed to show disagreement, to show clarification, and to show neutrality. Finally, silent interruption merely occurs in the purposes of to show understanding and employed by juror number Five.

B. Suggestions

Some suggestions related to several parties are stated in the following based on the conclusion. They are: 1. to the readers The readers should be aware that the phenomenon of interruption is performed either to disrupt or to be cooperate in the conversation. Mostly, disruptive interruption occurs in formal setting, while cooperative interruption appears mostly in informal and casual conversations. 2. to other researchers To other researchers, it is possible to conduct a research under the same object. It is also probable to use the same approach to analyse different object since interruption is an interesting phenomenon in everyday life that mostly people do not aware of it. 3. to English Literature students Several approaches such as sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, and pragmatics can be used to conduct a research under this object. This research only focuses on interruption. Therefore, it is possible to conduct a research with the same approach to analyse an interruption especially in relation to age, social status, and cultural background. For the students of linguistics major, men’s language features and the degree of politeness are also an interesting topic to be analysed under the object of this research. 78 REFERENCES A. Printed Sources Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beattie, G. W. 1982. Turn-taking and Interruption in Political Interviews: Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan Compared and Contrasted. Semiotica, 39-12, pp. 93-114. Beaumont, S. L., Vasconcelos, V. C. B., and Ruggeri, M. 2001. “Similarities and Differences in Mother-daughter and Mother-son Conversations during Preadolescence and Adolescence”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 4, pp. 419-444. Cresswell, J. 1998. Research Design: Qualitative Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cutron, P. 2010. “The Backchannel Norms of Native English Speakers: A Target for Japanese L2 English Learners ”. Language Studies Working Paper, 2, pp. 28- 37 Goldberg, J. A. 1990. “Interrupting the Discourse on Interruptions”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 883-903. Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. 1990. “Conversation Analysis”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, pp. 283-307 Johnstone, B., and Marcellino, W. 2010. Dell Hymes and the Ethnography of Communication. Pittsburgh: The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Kerlinger, F. N. 1979. Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Approach. New York: Holts, Rinehart, and Winston. Lammi, R. L. 2010. “Backchannels and Repetition in ELF in a Hairdressing Setting”. Helsinki English Studies, 6, pp. 118-131 Larasati, C. K. 2010. “A Conversation Analysis of Interruption in Modern Family season I ”. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta State University.