Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton October 11, 2018

I’m sorry (to interrupt): The use of explicit apology in turn-taking

  • Innhwa Park EMAIL logo and Margo Duey

Abstract

Contributing to research on workplace interactions and turn-taking practices, this conversation analytic study examines how people take turns during multi-party workplace meetings. In particular, we analyze 12 hours of video-recordings of faculty meetings at a U.S. school district, and show how meeting participants use explicit apology (e.g. I’m sorry; I’m sorry to interrupt) for turn-taking. The apology carries out interactional work in two ways: 1) it acknowledges that a (possible) offense (i.e. interruption) has occurred, and 2) it indicates that the current speaker will self-select to take and keep the turn. The self-selector produces the apology mid-turn after the turn-initial overlap is resolved and before continuing with her turn. We first analyze cases in which the self-selector uses explicit apology after having begun her turn during the current speaker’s ongoing turn. In most of these cases, the self-selected turn is sequentially disjunctive in that it is not directly responsive to the immediately preceding turn. We then show how the self-selector uses explicit apology when she needs to compete with another self-selector to take the turn. The study findings have implications for the turn-taking organization in meeting interactions.

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful for study participants. We would also like to thank the journal editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the previous draft.

Appendix

CA Transcription Conventions

The transcription notation system employed for data extracts is an adaptation of Gail Jefferson’s work (seeAtkinson and Heritage 1984: ix–xvi).

.

A period indicates a falling, or final, intonation contour, not necessarily the end of a sentence.

?

A question mark indicates rising intonation, not necessarily a question.

,

A comma indicates ‘continuing’ intonation, not necessarily a clause boundary.

[

Brackets indicate onset of overlap in talk or conduct.

[
:::

Colons indicate stretching of the preceding sound proportional to the number of colons.

-

A hyphen after a word or part of a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption.

word

Underlining indicates some form of stress or emphasis on the underlined item

hhh/.hhh

H’s indicate audible outbreaths, possibly laughter. The more h’s, the longer the aspiration. Aspirations with periods indicate audible inbreaths (e.g. .hh). H’s within parentheses (e.g. ye(hh)s) mark within-speech aspirations, possibly laughter.

WOrd

Upper case indicates loudness.

° °

Degree signs indicate segments of talk that are markedly quiet or soft.

> <

The combination of ‘more than’ and ‘less than’ symbols indicates that the segments of talk between them are compressed or rushed.

< >

In the reverse order, they indicate that a stretch of talk is markedly slower.

=

An equals sign indicates no break or delay between the words thereby connected.

(.)

A period in parentheses indicates a brief pause.

(1.2)

Numbers in parentheses indicate silence in tenths of a second.

(word)

When all or part of an utterance is in parentheses, this indicates uncertainty on the transcriber’s part.

((action))

Double parentheses enclose descriptions of conduct.

{((action))/(1.2)}

Curly brackets enclose descriptions of conduct that occur during a duration of silence or soft speech

An upward arrow indicates a sharp rise in pitch.

A downward arrow indicates a sharp drop in pitch.

References

Asmuß, Birte. 2015. Multimodal perspective on meeting interaction: Recent trends in conversation analysis. In Joseph A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock & Steven G. Rogelberg (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of meeting science, 277–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107589735.013Search in Google Scholar

Asmuß, Birte & Jan Svennevig. 2009. Meeting talks: An introduction. Journal of Business Communication 46(1). 3–2210.1177/0021943608326761Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, Mick A., E. C. Cuff & J. R. E. Lee. 1978. The recommencement of a meeting as a member’s accomplishment. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 133–153. New York: Academic Press Inc.10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50012-4Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. Maxwell & John Heritage (eds.). 1984. Structures of social action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Elisabeth Reber & Margret Selting (eds.). 2010. Prosody in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.23Search in Google Scholar

Beach, Wayne. 1993. Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19(4). 325–352.10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4Search in Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Boden, Deirdre. 1994. The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Hannah. 2013. Home-based care is not a new thing: legacies of domestic governmentality in Western Kenya. In Ruth J. Prince & Rebecca Marsland (eds.), Making public health in Africa: Ethnographic and historical perspectives, 140–161. Athens: Ohio University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Hannah, Adam Reed & Thomas Yarrow. 2017. Introduction: Towards an ethnography of meeting. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 21(S1). 10–26.10.1111/1467-9655.12591Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar

Chamani, Fariba & Parvane Zareipur. 2010. A cross-cultural study of apologies in British English and Persian. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 36(1).133–153.Search in Google Scholar

Cirillo, Letizia, Isabel Colón de Carvajal & Anna Claudia Ticca. 2016. “I’m sorry + naming the offense”: A format for apologizing. Discourse Processes 53(1–2). 83–96.10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056691Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting (eds.). 1996. Prosody in Conversation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597862Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul, Alexa Hepburn, Piera Margutti & Renata Galatolo. 2016. Introduction to the special issue on apologies in discourse. Discourse Processes 53(1–2). 1–4.10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056689Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. 2008. Women speaking up: Getting and using turns in workplace meetings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230582187Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. & Joshua Raclaw. 2015. Meetings as interactional achievements: A conversation analytic perspective. In Joseph A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock & Steven G. Rogelberg (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of meeting science, 247–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107589735.012Search in Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. & Trini Stickle. 2012. Securing recipiency in workplace meetings: multimodal practices. Discourse Studies 14(1). 11–30.10.1177/1461445611427213Search in Google Scholar

Gluckman, Max. 1940. Analysis of a social situation in modern Zululand. Bantu Studies 14. 1–30.10.1080/02561751.1940.9676107Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction – fun in games & role distance. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4).272–302.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.xSearch in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heath, Christian. 1984. Talk and recipiency: Sequential organization in speech and body movement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 247–265. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.017Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Chase Wesley Raymond. 2016. Are explicit apologies proportional to the offenses they address? Discourse Processes 53(1–2). 5–25.10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056695Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1989. Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 10(2). 194–213.10.1093/applin/10.2.194Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society 19(2). 155–199.10.1017/S0047404500014366Search in Google Scholar

Hutchby, Ian. 1992. Confrontation talk: Aspects of ‘interruption’ in argument sequences on talk radio. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 12(3). 343–371.10.1515/text.1.1992.12.3.343Search in Google Scholar

Hutchby, Ian. 2008. Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research 4(2). 221–241.10.1515/JPLR.2008.011Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric 500. 11–38.Search in Google Scholar

Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action and Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807572Search in Google Scholar

Lazare, Aaron. 2004. On apology. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Local, John & John Kelly. 1986. Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9(2). 185–204.10.1007/BF00148126Search in Google Scholar

Local, John & Gareth Walker. 2005. Methodological imperatives for investigating the phonetic organization and phonological structures of spontaneous speech. Phonetica 62(2–4). 120–130.10.1159/000090093Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. Multimodal resources or turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9(2). 194–225.10.1177/1461445607075346Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics 46. 39–68.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010Search in Google Scholar

Oloff, Florence. 2013. Embodied withdrawal after overlap resolution. Journal of Pragmatics 46(1). 139–156.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.005Search in Google Scholar

Olshtain, Elite & Andrew Cohen. 1990. The learning of complex speech act behaviour. TESL Canada Journal 7(2). 45–65.10.18806/tesl.v7i2.568Search in Google Scholar

Pino, Marco, Loredana Pozzouli, Ilaria Riccioni & Valentine Castellarin. 2016. “Oh” + apology + solution: A practice for managing the concomitant presence of a possible offense and a problem-to-be-solved. Discourse Processes 53 (1–2).47–62.10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056692Search in Google Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita & Paul Denvir. 2007. Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In François Cooren (ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting, 31–51. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Richards, Audrey & Adam Kuper (eds.). 1971. Councils in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Riles, Annelise. 2000. The network inside out. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.15517Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2004. The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(3). 291–330.10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_2Search in Google Scholar

Rossano, Federico. 2012. Gaze in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis, 308–329. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch15Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29(1). 1–63.10.1017/S0047404500001019Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2002. Accounts of conduct in interaction: Interruption, overlap, and turn-taking. In Jonathan H. Turner (ed.), Handbook of sociological theory, 287–321. New York: Springer.10.1007/0-387-36274-6_15Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7: 289–327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289Search in Google Scholar

Schwartzman, Helen B. 1989. The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4899-0885-8Search in Google Scholar

Streeck, Jürgen & Ulrike Hartge. 1992. Previews: Gestures at the transition place. In Peter Auer & Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 135–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.22.10strSearch in Google Scholar

Svennevig, Jan. 2012. Interaction in workplace meeting. Discourse Studies 14(1). 3–10.10.1177/1461445611427203Search in Google Scholar

Ten Have, Paul. 2007. Doing conversation analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781849208895Search in Google Scholar

Trosborg, Anna. 2003. Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics 11(2). 147–167.10.1016/0378-2166(87)90193-7Search in Google Scholar

Volkan, Vamik. 1991. Psychological processes in unofficial diplomacy meetings. In Vamik D. Volkan, Demetrios A. Julius & Joseph V. Montville (eds.), The psychodynamics of international relationships: Unofficial diplomacy at work 2, 207–722. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-10-11
Published in Print: 2020-09-25

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/applirev-2018-0017/html
Scroll to top button