Types of Interruption Discussion

The example above is found in the movie as simple interruption uttered by one of the jury, juror number Seven. Juror number Eleven fails to finish his utterance since juror number Seven interrupts him. This interruption belongs to simple interruption because the interruptee cannot finish his utterance and the interrupter succeed to stop the interruptee’s utterance. It happens when juror number Ten asks him about his vote. He changes his vote to not guilty because he is sick about all the talking in the jury room. It is getting nowhere after an hour discussion. This is also supported by the juror number Seven who states that he is getting little tired with the debate by saying ‘I am getting little tired of this yackety- yackin’ back and forth’. Further, it also means that he has no responsibility about his job. At the previous dialogue, it is stated that juror number Seven wants to see a baseball game. It is shown in the dialogue between juror number Eight and number Seven in preliminary vote. Juror number Eleven realizes that juror number Seven changes his vote because he holds a baseball ticket in his pocket. In addition, the baseball game starts at 8 o’clock. Then juror number Eleven continues to force juror number Seven to explain why he alter his vote to not guilty but he gets nothing. In this sense, both jury portray how people in society take a responsibility of something. One juror describes how people get in a duty but he made it easy as a game because of a personal reason. In other side, it portrays how people care a lot about somebody’s right and shows how a man gives an empathy towards other because of a responsibility he holds in his job. b. Overlap Interruption Overlap interruption mostly occurs in this movie since it is easily recognized by its occurrence. All the male characters in this movie performs overlap interruption spontaneously. This interruption appears when both of the speakers speak at the same time in a simultaneous speech. There is no apparent break in continuity. Moreover, the result of this research shows that overlap interruption has the highest rank which appears 15 times out of 39 data. This interruption is categorized as overlap interruption since the interrupted speaker succeed in maintaining his floor although he is being interrupted by interrupter. An example of overlap interruption which is found in this movie is shown in the datum bellow. SIX : Well, it don’t exactly prove anything. It’s just part of the picture. EIGHT : well, you said it provided a motive. 619:46:351 – 19:47:663 The expression in bold is uttered by juror number Eight when he disagrees with juror number Six. They discuss about the woman in the apartment across the hall from the kid’s apartment. She swears that she saw a fight of argument between the boy and his father. Actually, juror number Six hesitates about his utterance which can be indicated by his utterance ‘…I mean, I could be wrong…’. This utterance indicates that the speaker is not sure with his word. Further, juror number Eight asks him about a motive that juror number Six explain previously. Juror number Eight performs interruption which is classified as overlap interruption since he interrupts juror number Six who keeps telling his idea about the fact. It is about the boy run angrily out of the house after fighting with his father. Juror number Eight asks juror number Six to explain it. However, juror number Six prefer to say it is not so important. This interruption that is performed by juror number Eight is used to oppose juror number Six’s argument. The next instance of overlap interruption is described as follows. FOREMAN : You wanna take the chair, just take the chair. That’s all. TEN : did you ever see such a thing? FOREMAN : see if you can keep it running. 1223:41:33 6 – 23:43:880 All the discussion begins with jury’s idea to convince that juror number Eight gets wrong with his option to vote not guilty. They start to give some facts one by one which begins from juror number Two. When the turn comes to juror number Eight, he refuses to give his idea because he is the one who is convinced by all the jury in jury room. Nevertheless, juror number Ten asks the Foreman to give a chance to juror number Eight to explain his ideas. The Foreman prefers to do it in order as previously stated. Juror number Ten thinks that the Foreman become a kid who prefers to do something in order. The interruption happens after juror number Ten walks to the window. The Foreman interrupts him by employing overlap since he cannot handle his anger toward juror number Ten. This interruption happens when both jury speak at the same time. The Foreman keeps telling his idea while juror number Ten interrupts him by cutting his utterance. Even though The Foreman does not reach his last word, juror number Ten speaks at the same time with juror number Ten. Juror number Ten guesses that the problem is not really matter toward the Foreman. He tries not to talk about it, so he changes the topic being discussed by uttering ‘did you ever see such a thing?’. In the result, the datum number 23 also shows that overlap interruption is used to show clarification about the topic actually discuss. EIGHT : It’s not that easy to identify a voice, particularly a shouting voice. FOREMAN : he identified it in court. 2340:08:88 1 – 40:10:641 The dialogue above shows the conversation between juror number Eight and Three discussing about the old man living down stairs from the boy’s apartment. They debate about how clearly the old man could hear the boy’s voice when he yelled to his father. Juror number Eight assumes that the old man only hears indistinct sound. Since an apartment beside an elevate train is very noisy, a shouting voice from the boy with his father is not easy to be identified. The sound of the train which passes the apartment is louder than human’s voice. The Foreman interrupts juror number Eight in order to clarify whether the old man heard the voice and saw the boy run to the door. The Foreman performs overlap interruption when interrupting juror number Eight. It is clear that the interruption occurs when the Foreman suddenly speaks at the same time when juror number Eight utters “It’s not that easy to identify a voice, particularly a shouting voice. ”. This interruption happens in simultaneous speech. In performing this interruption, the Foreman succeeds in taking the floor while juror number Eight is able to finish his utterance. Both jury manages to maintain his floor. One juror, The Foreman, manage to take the floor from juror number Eight while he manages to maintain his turn. The next different description of overlap interruption found in the data is shown as follows. TEN : Sure, when you want them to, they do, or when he wants them to, they do. You know what I mean? FOREMAN : hey... okay. keep the yelling down. 2851:34:51 0 – 51:36:371 Foreman’s interruption in datum above is classified as overlap interruption. The Foreman speaks in a simultaneous speech at the same time when juror number Ten says his idea. Juror number Ten who has his floor interrupted by the Foreman is able to finish his utterance. At the same time, the Foreman succees to interrupt juror number Ten and finishes his interruption by employing the utterance “hey... o kay. Keep the yelling down”. It is used to interrupt juror number Ten who walks with his joy and keeps rising his voice. This interruption occurs after juror number Ten feels excited about what had happened in the jury room. Actually, juror number Ten asks to juror number Eleven about the old man living down stair whether the old man see the boy running out of the house or not. Juror number Eleven gives an answer which is perfectly right with juror number Ten’s expectation. Moreover, this is followed by juror number Five who states that witnesses can make a mistake. It makes juror number Ten keeps yelling in front of others. The Foreman feels annoyed of him and this makes him little frustrated to lead the discussion. In the case of criminal when one man is dead and another man’s life is at a stake, a detail evidence is needed to prove the case. If it is in line with the case, the jury should gather and consider it. What have had done by the jury in this movie represents how the jury need much deliberation to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. From this view, it portrays how a democracy runs in every country in the world especially America where this movie is produced. c. Butting-in Interruption Butting in interruption is a type of interruption in which the interrupter fails to disrupt the interruptee. Subject to the occurrence of this interruption, the interrupter fails in taking the interruptee’s turn and he remains to stop his utterance. This interruption occurs in a simultaneous speech where it seems that both speaker speak at the same time but it is actually not considered as overlap interruption. Based on the findings, there are only 6 data of butting-in interruption and it does not become the dominant types of interruption. There is no floor taking in this interruption and the interrupter’s utterance remain incomplete. According to the findings of this research, a brief description of butting-in interruption is described in the following dialogue. SEVEN : I mea n what’s the point of this whole thing? FIVE : wait. Hold it a second, will you? SEVEN : oh, and the Baltimore rooter is heard from again now and pop-ups are falling for base hits wherever we look. 3053:33:87 4 – 53:35:078 In the datum above, it is noticed that juror number Five fails to interrupt juror number Seven. Juror number Seven ignores juror number Five’s interruption. Since juror number Five cannot take the floor to speak he remain to stop his utterance by lowering his voice. Although the interruption presented by juror number nine is a complete utterance, but it is classified as butting-in interruption since there is no floor taking in the occurrence of this interruption. This interruption also occurs in a simultaneous speech. It has a purpose to clarify juror number Seven utterance who states that the old man ran to the door. It is clearly seen from the utterance “hold it a second”. This utterance means to stop juror number Seven’s speaking and make sure that the old man just walks to his front door. This interruption occurs after the juror number Eight asks to call another vote. In this vote, juror number Eleven changes his vote from guilty to not guilty. When the vote is Eight to four favour for guilty, juror number Three blames juror number Eleven for changing his vote. Meanwhile, juror number Seven points out about the fact that the old man is running to the door. When this utterance arises, juror number Five asks about it curiously. Juror number Five is doubtful about the old man who could run to the door because he is getting a stroke. The old man testify that he takes fifteen second to walk from his bed to the front door. Another example of butting-in interruption appears in the data presented in the dialogue between juror number Ten and Five. TEN : I don’t want any part of them FIVE : Listen mister. Listen. TEN : , I am telling you. 822:35:615 – 22:36:855 In the dialogue above, it is clear that there is an interruption done by juror number Five. The interruption appears when juror number Ten utters “part of them” and there is a simultaneous speech in this utterance. Juror number Five interrupts juror number Ten before he finishes his utterance. It is indicated by the use of comma before the utterance “I am telling you”. This interruption is classified as butting-in interruption since juror number Five fails to take the floor and share his idea upon his interruption. Juror number Five knows that he fails to interrupt juror number Ten and he remains to lower his voices. This interruption appears to show juror number Five’s disagreement toward juror number Ten’s utterance. Juror number Five performs interruption after he heard an argument stated by juror number Ten and Four. They suggest that slum children are really wicked. Juror number Five who actually lives in slum for years, feels annoyed about that argument. He sits next to juror number Four and becomes so sensitive about what is being talked. He tells another jury about how he lives in a slum when he was a child. He begins to interrupt juror number Ten by employing butting-in interruption but he fails to do it. Juror number Five hardly manages his interruption since juror number Ten keeps holding his floor to finish his utterance. Juror number Five interrupts him by repeating his utterance, and juror number Ten begin to stop his talking. The fact that the boy comes from a slum does not make juror number Five performs this interruption but it is because of juror number Ten and Four talking about his slum background. Essentially, other juror does not talk about juror number Five’s life. This phenomenon portrays how people in society manages hisher temper when someone else is talking about hisher life. This movie also reveals that the jury comes from different social class that can be seen from his suit. It also talks about how people from different classes sees the accused based on the colour. Moreover, juror number Four who previously state in his utterance that “slum is breeding ground for criminal” implies that he is more prejudice about lower class society. Furthermore, another description of butting-in interruption found in the movie is presented in the conversation between juror number Five and Ten. FIVE : I ’ve live in a slum all my live. Please, I – TEN : wait a minute FIVE : I played in backyards that were filled with garbage. 922:40:650 – 22:44:154 This conversation is uttered by juror number Ten and Five. It is seen that juror number Ten tries to interrupt juror number Five but he fails. Juror number Five success to maintain his floor and keeps finishing his idea. He repeats his utterance which means that he prefers to keep his talking and does not want to be interrupted by others. Since juror number Five keeps his right to speak, there is no floor taking in this interruption. This interruption which occurs in a simultaneous speech appears to clarify juror number Ten statement. Juror number Ten does not mean to hurt juror number Five about his background. He is just talking about another boy from slum background. The dialogue above arises after juror number Four and Ten give their prejudice about the accused which comes from a slum. They see people from his colour and they think that a slum boy is dangerous. It is clear from the utterance done by juror number Ten “I’ve lived among them all my life. You cannot believe a word they say. You know that. I mean they were born liars” that he sees people from his race. He believes that the defendant and all other people from slum are just born liars. They cannot be trusted in every word they say. d. Silent Interruption The last type of interruption found in the data is silent interruption. Silent interruption is an interruption where there is a silent between utterance. An interruptee gets a silent for a while in his utterance for some purposes. In this short silent, an interrupter cuts the current speaker who actually wants to continue his utterance. Therefore, ongoing speaker’s utterance is incomplete. Meanwhile, the chance to speak is taken by new speaker, the interrupter. Moreover, simultaneous speech is left in this kind of interruption since there is a silent between speakers. Silent interruption constitutes only 1 datum in the data of this research. The datum below is an example of silent interruption found in the data which describes in a brief explanation. FOUR : He went directly to a neighbourhood junk shop where he bought one of those silent FIVE : switch knives. 1526:52:71 0 – 26:54:381 The dialogue above presents after juror number Three asking to discuss about the knife which is founded by the police the night after the killing. The juror number Eight wants to see the knife and asks the Foreman to bring the knife. This interruption is done by juror number Five. He takes his turn when there is a silent in juror number Four’s utterance. Juror number Five, who understands what juror number Four means, takes the floor to finish juror number Four’s utterance. The silent time in this utterance indicates that there is no simultaneous speech in the conversation. It is also supported by an incomplete utterance from juror number Four. This interruption appears to show juror number Five’s understanding of the case. This interruption is performed by juror number Five when juror number Three asks to discuss about the pretty strong evidence, switchblade knives. Juror number Four takes a turn to describe the chronological event when the boy bought switch knives. He describes several facts that happen during the night of the murder. After he gets his second fact, he cannot manage to name the thing used by the boy to kill his father. He interrupts juror number Four to support him. After juror number Five success to interrupt juror number Four, the turn comes back to juror number Four. Then he continues to explain his ideas.

2. Purposes of Interruption

a. Disruptive Disruptive interruption takes place when the interrupter attempts to intrude the interruptee’s speech. Interrupter disturbs the current speaker to gain a chance to speak. Interrupter places his comment on higher priority, so he succeeds to take the floor to deliver his speech when the main speaker intends to continue his speech. This interruption has three purposes, i.e. disagreement, floor taking, and topic change, in which only two of them appears in 12 Angry Men. Each of the purposes is described in the following description. 1 Disagreement This interruption is used to show disagreement of the interrupter. The interrupter expresses his interruption to convince that he disagrees with the current speaker. He feels urged to break the rule of turn taking to express his ideas which differ with the current speaker. This purpose of interruption becomes the most frequent purpose of interruption since it occurs 15 times in the data. This purpose of interruption reaches as the highest rank in all of the purpose of interruption especially in disruptive interruption. An instance of disagreement interruption is shown in datum 10. FOREMAN : There’s nothing personal about this FIVE : No, there was something personal . 1022:49:36 7 – 22:50:859 It is clear in above dialogue that there is an interruption before the Foreman finishes his utterance. This interruption performed by juror number Five is used to show his disagreement toward the Foreman. It is seen from the utterance by juror number Five who states “no, there was something personal.” He clearly states his disagreement by employing an interruption to give a signal that the juror number Four and juror number Ten have hurt him about his past. Juror number Five directly states his disagreement by saying “no” while he stands up and points to juror number Ten. This conversation occurs when juror number Ten give a support to juror number Five about his opinion on slum children. He really agrees that children with slum background are the worst since they are uneducated. He expresses that he did not want to be part of a slum. It is a coincidence that juror number Five feels insulted by juror number Ten’s utterance. Juror number Five believes that the idea of slum children is used to insult him personally. Then juror number Five interrupts juror number Ten to express his disagreement about juror number ten’s idea. The next example of interruption performed to show disagreement is shown in the following dialogue. ELEVEN : The knife was very important to the district attorney. He spent a whole day … TEN : he’s a fifteenth assistant or something. 1730:48:76 3 – 30:50:845 The dialogue above shows that juror number ten employs simple interruption. This interruption is used to show juror number Ten’s disagreement toward the statement uttered by juror number Eleven. This disruptive interruption is clear to distress juror number Eleven which is seen from the utterance ”he’s fifteenth assistant or something”. Juror number Eleven thinks that the knife was very important and it should be noticed seriously. The things that make the knife was very important is because the knife has a rare carved handle and blade. The conversation takes place after the Foreman received the switch knife from the court clerk. After they debated about the knife, juror number Eight shows the same knife. It surprises all the jury in the jury room especially juror number Two. After all the jury get in seat, juror number Ten expresses his urge to go home. Then juror number Eleven reminds juror number Ten that they have a responsibility to complete his job. Then juror number Eleven assumes that it is a strong evidence to be thought by the district attorney. Unfortunately, juror number Ten replies that it is not so important. An example of disagreement interruption is shown in datum number 18. ELEVEN : if the gentlemen wanted to remain secret… THREE : secret? What do you mean secret? 1833:06:86 0 – 33:09:071 The purpose of interruption to show disagreement in the dialogue above is clearly seen from the utterance “secret? What do you mean secret?”. The 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