Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 189 Download : 153

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research aimed to find out the dominant types of interruptions employed by participants and to find out the purposes of interruptions done by the participants of Ellen DeGeneres show. This research employed quantitative descriptive research. The subjects of this research were two of the most viewed videos uploaded from October-November 2020. The interruption employed by the participants and the purposes of interruptions done by the participants were classified using an instrument datasheet following Murata’s theory. The first results of this research show that interruptions types done by the participants of the Ellen DeGeneres show namely cooperative and intrusive, and the dominant types employed in the Ellen DeGeneres show was a cooperative interruption. The second result finding showed all that the purposes of interruptions done by the participants of the Ellen DeGeneres show namely agreement, assistance, clarification, disagreement, floor-taking, and tangentialization.

Keywords

Turn-taking Interruption YouTube Ellen DeGeneres show

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of English Education and Teaching

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
How to Cite
Fatonah, A. A., Sofyan, D., & Zahrida, Z. (2024). Interruptions Employed by the Participants of Ellen DeGeneres Show. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 8(2), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.8.2.468-479
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Cook, G. (1990). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Rouledge.
  3. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative. Quantitative, and mixed
  4. methods.
  5. Huda, A. N. (2017). A conversation analysis of application turn taking
  6. mechanism (Bachelor's thesis, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta: Fakultas Adab dan Humaniora).
  7. Hidayati, K. (2014). A Pragmatic Analisis of Turn-taking Irregularities Reflected in The
  8. Last Song Movie (Thesis Dissertations). Retrieved from Yogyakarta State University.
  9. Imaniah, I. (2015). Conversational analysis of interruptions and Overlaps uttered
  10. by host and the guests in the ellen talk show (Doctoral Dissertation, Uin Sunan Ampel Surabaya).
  11. Ismaliyah, N. (2015). Conversation analysis of turn taking mechanism in piers
  12. morgan tonight talk show.
  13. Jefferson, G. 1983. Two Explorations of the Organization of Overlapping Talk in
  14. Conversation: Notes on Some Orderliness of Overlap Onset and On a Failed Hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as Overlap-vulnerable With an appended glossary of transcript symbols. Tilburg University.
  15. Li, et al. (2005). Interruption and Involvement in Discourse: Can Intercultural
  16. Interlocutors be Trained?, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, December 2005, pp 233-253.
  17. Li, H. Z. (2001). Cooperative and Intrusive Interruptions in Inter- and Inracultural
  18. Dyadic Discourse, Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol. 20 No. 3, September 2001 259-284. Sage Publication.
  19. Mey, Jacob L. (2001) Pragmatics: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers,
  20. xiv+392pp, paperback ISBN 0-631-21132-2, $29.95; hardcover ISBN 0-631-21131-4.
  21. Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or co-operative? A cross-cultural study of
  22. interruption. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(4), 385-400.
  23. Pratiwi, S. L. J., & Sofyan, D. (2018). An Analysis Of The Forms Of Code Mixing On
  24. Facebook Status Used By English Study Program Students At Bengkulu University In Academic Year 2016/2017. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 2(2), 29-34.
  25. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the
  26. organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696-735.
  27. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for
  28. conversation. Language in society, 29(1), 1-63.
  29. Wiemann, J. M., & Knapp, M. L. (1975). Turn-taking in conversations.
  30. Zimmerman, D. H., & West. C. (1975). “Sex roles, interruption, and silence in
  31. conversations.” In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.