Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Department für Anglistik und Amerikanistik

Wintersemester 2021/22
Conversation and discourse analysis
Dr. Jenny Arendholz

Pragmatics of overlapping talk in CNN panel debates

Minh Quan Chu

11930500
M.Chu@campus.lmu.de
Lehramt für Gymnasien Mathe/Englisch
5. Fachsemester
Table of contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Overlap 3
2.1 Definition of overlap 3
2.2 Types of overlapping talk 3
2.3 Perception and meaning of overlapping talk 6
2.4 Resolving overlapping talk 7

3. Transcribing and analysing CNN panel debates 8

3.1 Transcript 1 8
3.2 Transcript 2 11
3.3 Results 12

4. Conclusion 12

5. References 13

6. Appendix 14

7. Declaration of non-plagiarism 15

2
1. Introduction

Conversation analysis (CA) is the study of talk in everyday interaction. It is the

systematic analysis of talk produced during actual conversations. One way to
approach conversation is by examining what conversation is about. Furthermore,
CA is based on the transcription of audio recordings of naturally occurring
conversations instead of conversations which are scripted or staged (cf. Hutchby
and Wooffitt 2002: 14). Since overlapping talk is also a part of everyday interaction,
the purpose of this paper will be to analyse which kinds of overlap happen and to
find out when and why overlap occurs in CNN panel debates. In order to achieve
the aim of this research, the different types of overlapping talk and overlap onset
will be defined. This paper will then discuss the reasons why overlap occurs and
the methods for resolving such overlap. In the practical part, two video clips of
CNN panel debates will be transcribed and a few extracts will be examined
according to the aspects of overlap.

2. Overlap

2.1 Definition of overlap

‘Overlap’ is defined as “simultaneous talk by two or more conversational
participants, irrespective of its status in participants’ minds as an interruption”
(Glossary of Linguistics Terms, n.d.). “One of the rules of conversation [states] that
the one speaker is to speak at a time and that the other speakers are to wait until the
first speaker finishes [their] turn” (Abbas 2020: 1254), so that conversations have
structure and will not become chaotic (cf. Abbas 2020: 1254). Therefore “waiting
for one’s turn when talking is one of the first things that little children are taught”
(Stolt 2008: 6) to avoid overlapping talk.

2.2 Types of overlapping talk

According to Schegloff there are four possible types of overlapping talk in
conversation. In addition to every type will be a transcribed example, which follows
the transcription conventions according to Gail Jefferson (cf. Appendix).
The first type is ‘terminal overlaps’, in which one participant of a conversation is
shown to start speaking, when they think that the current speaker is done with their

3
turn (cf. Schegloff 2000: 5). “Here the overlap seems to project its almost
immediate self-liquidation, although this result is not inevitable. This feature avoids
the need for special practices for deciding the overlap” (Abbas 2020: 1255).
Example 1
1 BOB: I’m leaving [now]
2 SAM: [BYE]

The second type is ‘continuers’ such as uh huh, mm hm and context fitted

assessment terms. They are used “by […] recipients of another’s talk [to] show that
they understand that the speaker is in the course of an extended turn at talk which
is not yet complete” (Schegloff 2000: 5). Also, continuers do not use special
practices to deal with simultaneous talk (cf. Schegloff 2000: 5).
Example 2
1 SAM: So (.) I think we are do[ne here right?]
2 BOB: [uh huh yes]

The third type is ‘conditional access to the turn’. This occurs when a speaker
might not be done with their turn yet, but backs down due the turn of another or
even welcomes the talk of another in their stead, depending on the possibility to
elaborate on the initial speaker’s point. The most known types of ‘conditional
access of the turn are the ‘word search’ and the ‘collaborative utterance
construction’. In the instance of a ‘word search’, the speaker is unable to find a
word and thus invites the recipient to take part in finding the word. In the case of a
‘collaborative utterance construction’ a participant starts an utterance and gives it
to another to complete it (cf. Schegloff 2000: 5f.). These types are essential for a
smooth interaction.
Example 3
1 BOB: I met Ma- Ma- [Ma- ah y]es MARTHA yesterday.
2 SAM: [Martha?]

The fourth type is referred to as ‘chordal’ or ‘choral’. Forms of talk and

activities are not dealt with as separate acts but, as simultaneous acts. For example,
occurrence of laughter can be interpreted as an invitation for others to laugh at the
same rather than after the incidence. Other such instances are collective greetings,
leave-takings and congratulations upon hearing good news. Those activities involve
multiple people and are done ‘chordally’, nevertheless they are not competitive (cf.
Schegloff 2000: 6).

4
Example 4
1 SAM: [Good morning, how are you d(h)oing?]
2 BOB: [Good morning, how are you? hahaha ]

In the following Jefferson characterises different overlap onset types.

First, there is transitional overlap, which takes place at or close to a possible
transition place, also known as transitional-relevance place (TRP). It is sometimes
caused by a minor mistake of the speaker (cf. Jefferson 1983: 12).
Example 5
1 SAM: Tomorrow should be Thurs[day. Oh] yes, Friday
2 BOB: [Friday.]

Second, recognitional overlap occurs before a transition place, when a

recipient of talk can understand the current speaker’s incomplete ‘utterance’ and
thus begins to take their turn (cf. Jefferson 1983: 12).
Example 6
1 BOB: I’ve been looking for my keys everywhere but I just
2 couldn’t find them. [But then I remembered th]at. YES
3 SAM: [They were in your hands.]

Third, progressional overlap appears towards the end of a turn, when a

problem arises. It comes in form of ‘hitches’ (cf. Jefferson 1983: 12).
Example 7
1 SAM: We gotta go now to the hos- [hos- HOS]PITAL,
2 BOB: [WHERE?]

Overlapping talk is often characterised by hitches and perturbations in the

talk (cf. Schegloff 2000: 11). Hitches “can […] be momentary arrests in the
continuity or “progressivity” […] of the talks production (Schegloff 2000: 11).
Perturbations are “marked departures from the prosodic character of the talk’s
articulation to that point” (Schegloff 2000: 11). Examples for hitches and
perturbations are increase in volume of the talk, higher pitch, faster or slower pace,
cut-off speech or repetition of words. They depend on the place overlapping speech
occurs (Schegloff 2000: 12).
Some of these hitches and perturbations invite understanding, even in
common-sense terms, as forms of strategic maneuver in a competitive or
agonistic under-taking - a fight for the floor, in which talking louder may
aim to "shout the other down," and to win by a show of acoustic force. But
others of these deflections in the production of the talk may appear rather

5
more as casualties of the conflict than as weapons in it. For example, self-
interruptions may appear to be at least mo-mentary surrenders in the face
of competition. Sound stretches may be taken as interferences in the
production of the talk, induced by a kind of processing overload which is
imposed by the simultaneous tasks of speech perception and pro-duction,
with the former somehow interfering with the latter (Schegloff 2000: 12).

Furthermore, overlaps can be cooperative or interruptive. A cooperative

overlap occurs when a listener talks along with a speaker not to interrupt but to
show enthusiasm and interest – like in ‘Example 2’. An interruptive overlap
happens when the listener wants to forcefully take the floor from the current speaker
(cf. Tannen 2013: 346). Interruptive overlap can also be referred to as competitive
overlap.
Example 8
1 SAM: I was go[ing to-]
2 BOB: [DUDE] guess what happened to me yesterday.

2.2 Perception and meaning of overlapping talk

Now that the different types of overlap have been defined, we will have a look at
how overlapping talk is perceived and what it tells us about the speaker. Depending
on the conversational style a speaker or recipient of talk has, overlaps can be
perceived as either cooperative or interruptive. People who tend to avoid overlaps,
wait for their turn to communicate and resist talking about certain topics are using
a ’high-considerateness’ style. Those who use a ‘high-involvement’ conversational
style embrace overlap to show enthusiasm and interest (cf. Tannen 2013: 354 f.).
Both styles can work well among speakers who share assumptions about
conversational overlap. High-involvement speakers enjoy talking over
each other and have no trouble getting or keeping the floor when they want
it and saying what they want to say while someone else talks along. The
same is true for conversations among high-considerateness speakers: they
take turns and get to say what they want (Tannen 2013: 354).

But a problem arises when speakers of the two styles interact with each other and
overlaps occur. There is a possibility that they misunderstand each other’s
intentions.
High-involvement speakers might chime in to show their enthusiasm, but
high-considerateness speakers tend to think that anyone who begins talking
before they are finished is trying to interrupt them. They will probably stop
speaking in order to avoid an unpleasant and unacceptable situation,
yielding the floor but resenting the interruption. High-considerateness
speakers who wait for their turn at talk may find few opportunities to join
the conversation and give the impression that they are not interested
(Tannen 2013: 354).

6
 These were the results in a study conducted by Molly Wieland in 1991,
when French women interacted with American women in Paris. In her study
Wieland tape-recorded four separate dinner parties attended by American women
who had lived in France for at least two years and resident French women.
American women believed that only one person should talk at a time and applied
that to their conversation. Thus, when two American women were overlapping each
other, one of them stopped to let the other finish her turn. French women on the
other hand were frequently overlapping each other and perceived each other’s
overlap as supportive and cooperative. But when an American woman spoke with
French woman and overlap occurred, the American yielded her floor and often
thought that the French woman was being rude for interrupting her. In contrast, the
French women thought that the American women seemed disinterested as they were
just listening to the conversation. That was because they were silently waiting for
their turn (cf. Wieland 1991: 108 ff.). Tannen conducted a similar study, which
showed that not every American uses a ‘high-considerateness’ style. She tape-
recorded a dinner conversation at Thanksgiving, with her, four other Americans and
one British person present. After having analysed the transcripts, she concluded that
cross-cultural misunderstandings happen when speakers with different
conversational styles interact with each other (cf. Tannen 2000: 355)
A speaker who stops talking because another has begun is unlikely to think,
“I guess we have different attitudes toward cooperative overlap.” Instead,
such a speaker will probably think, “You are not interested in hearing what
I have to say,” or even “You are a boor who only wants to hear yourself
talk.” And the cooperative overlapper is probably concluding, “You are
unfriendly and are making me do all the conversational work here” or even
“You are a bore who has nothing to say.” (Tannen 2000: 355)

2.4 Resolving overlapping talk

Whenever overlaps occur, the majority is “resolved after a single beat by the
withdrawal of one or both parties at the first evidence that simultaneous talk is in
progress” (Schegloff 2000: 22). Overlaps that are quickly over “may often reflect a
lack of investment by either party in securing the turn space at issue” (Schegloff
2000: 24). Furthermore, overlaps, in which speakers refuse to give up their turn to
let the other speak, become ‘competitive allocations’ (cf. Abbas 2020: 1256).
Competitive allocation is resolved after one speaker upgrades his talk in the form

7
of hitches, so that the recipient drops out. It is regarded as persistent and shows that
the speaker pursues certain interests (cf. Schegloff 2000: 22 ff.).

3. Transcribing and analysing CNN panel debates

In the following this paper presents transcribed parts of two video clips, in which
CNN panellists debate with each other, in order to analyse and discuss how and
when overlap occurs, how overlap is perceived and how overlap is resolved. The
transcription conventions according to Jefferson will be used. Each transcript will
be divided into extracts, which will be examined by differentiating between
cooperative and competitive overlap. Then four types of overlap will be analysed
and Jefferson’s classification of overlap onset will be used to show the reasons why
overlap occurs. Furthermore, the conversational styles of each speaker will be
identified as well. After determining overlapping talk, it will be shown how
overlapping talk is resolved.

3.1 Transcript 1
In this first transcript the panel is having a heated discussion about race, which was
sparked by Trump’s immigration policy back in July 2018. The panel includes CNN
political commentator Mary Katherine Ham, former Ohio State Senator Nina
Tuner, former Trump campaign strategist David Urban, democratic strategist Joe
Trippi and CNN anchor Jake Trapper (cf. CNN 2018).

Extract 1 [“Panel gets heated over race and Trump’s immigration

rhetoric” 0:49-1:20]
1 TUR: This is a deliberate narrative that the president has used
2 [ it is a deliberate policy] that his administration has put
3 in place to DEHUMANISE black and brown people in this
4 country.
5 URB: [ I- listen-]
6 TUR: And it PLAYS to a certain [segment of this COUNTRY]
7 URB: [Li- li- listen. I think this
8 Presi]dent- this is the same president you are talking
9 about that, that has, that has granted one to have a
10 pathway towards citizenship for two million illegals that
11 President Obama didn’t [offer That President Bush
12 didn’t offer. How is that a racist policy? How is that a
13 racist policy? He offered-]

8
14 TUR: [=I MEAN- you know what-
15 that’s- that’s all well and good but what is he doing- but
16 what is he- what is he doing right- but what is he doing
17 right NOW?]

In the beginning of the extract Turner talks about the unfair policy of the
Trump administration. Line 2 and 5 show a competitive, transitional and
progressional overlap between Turner and Urban. Urban tries to bring himself into
the conversation but fails, which is shown by his cut-off-speech. Turner noticed his
attempt and was unwilling to yield her floor by stressing the word ‘policy’. This
shows how important her point was. In line 6, there is another competitive,
transitional and progressional overlap. To Urban it seemed that Turner was finished
with her turn, but he started his turn before her turn was completed and started off
stuttering. Reason for his overlapping talk was to defend Trump. Yet another
overlap of the same types occurs in line 11, when Urban compares the former
President to his predecessors and questions how the policy was racist. Turner raises
her voice and has to repeat herself multiple times to fight for the floor. Here overlap
is resolved when Turner gets louder and stresses the word ‘now’, forcing Urban to
drop out.

Extract 2 [“Panel gets heated over race and Trump’s immigration

rhetoric” 1:32-2:36]
1 HAM: … I do look forward to the mid-term-pitch that the United
2 States of America specialises in vilifying black and brown
3 people.[ I do not think that works for the
4 Democrats. But take it to the polls. Take it to the polls.
5 The voters will enjoy. yeah =Enjoy]
6 TUR: [>Woaw. =They do=They do. NO= we will
7 take it to the polls< but the history of this country too]
8 How many examples would you like me to give you [about
9 how this country specialises in-]
10 HAM: [ you
11 can give plenty= I’m just saying this is not a- this is not a
12 great pitch for ya]
13 TUR: you know what= next year- next year six- [sixteen-
14 nineteen- next year] nineteen-nineteen it will be four-
15 hundred years since the first Africans were brought to
16 this continent as slaves
17 HAM: [yes…I
18 know… I know]
19 TUR: =So it’s not a pitch =It's a reality in this country and the

9
20 fact that you’re taking such a cavalier attitude about the,
21 the suffering of black and brown people in this country
22 is appalling.
23 URB: =No it’s not[- it’s not (who- who)]
24 TUR: [IT’S ABSOLUTELY [APPALING]. ARE] YOU
25 TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT
26 SPECIALISE IN RACISM AND BIGOTRY?
27 HAM: [No, (who) >I’m taking- I’m taking<]
28 I’m saying that racism exists-[ I’m saying that the United
29 States of America as a country… okay.]
30 TUR: [>EXISTS, but you- but you-
31 but you- but you< but YOU have the luxury] to be cavalier
32 about it but [people my folks don’t HAVE the luxury of
33 being cavalier a[bout it.] No, you don’t understand my.
34 point [because you never lived a day in my shoes or my
35 shoes of my ancestors.]] This is not a [political pitch for
36 America this is reality.]
37 URB: [°I- I think the fact- Listen, I think the fact
38 that you°]
39 MAR: [I understand- I understand your point I
40 mean I mean I’m being cavalier- I’m being cavalier- I’m b-
41 What I- I understand- what I’m being cavalier]
42 TRI: [°I think, it’s a sad, it’s a sad, the sad,°]
43 TRA: [Mary Katharine
44 finish- Mary Kathrine finish] your point and then Joey

In this extract the debate gets heated as overlapping talk occurs more
frequently and increases in length. In line 3 to 7, there is competitive and
progressional overlap, which is shown by repetition from Ham and Turner. Here
Turner disagrees with Ham and raises her voice at the word ‘no’ and gets the floor
for a brief moment until she is interrupted by Ham, starting in line 8. Then in line
13 Turner mentions African slaves that were brought to America in 1619 and Ham
uses continuers to overlap the talk. It seems that she is indirectly saying: “I
understand what you are trying to say but stop, because it makes me
uncomfortable.” In line 23 Urban chimes in to disagree with Turner’s point upon
which a competitive and progressional overlap occurs. Turner raises her voice,
reiterates her point, poses a rhetorical question and puts prominent stress on the
words ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’ to strengthen her argument. Meanwhile Ham tries to
defend herself but drops out due the hitches in Turner’s speech. As Ham gets the
floor in line 28 to express her view, she gets interrupted by Turner and relinquishes
her turn. Here another competitive and progressional overlap happens, which is
shown in the prominent stress of words and in the repetition of speech. In the

10
following lines there is competitive overlapping talk from the other panelists. In
line 32 and 37 Urban tries to chime in with his opinion, but he is ignored and his
talk appears lower in volume than Turner’s talk. Then Ham tries to express her
understanding in line 33 and 39 upon which Turner disagrees and elaborates her
reasoning. The first time Trippi contributes to the conversation, he is ignored by
Turner as she continues to express her concerns. The overlap used by the other
panelists can be identified as progressional overlap, because of the repetition in their
speech. In line 35 and 43 transitional, progressional and competitive overlap occurs
between Trapper and Turner, as he tries to moderate the debate so that only one
person at a time can be heard. After analysing the extracts 1 and 2, it can be said
that each panelist has a ‘high-involvement’ conversational style, even though
cooperative overlap rarely occurs. They tend to overlap each other’s talk
competitively, because they want to express their personal opinions in the debate.
Here overlap is resolved when a speaker drops out, because the other speaker uses
‘hitches’ in their talk. In addition, Turner’s own view on the matter is so
diametrically opposed to Ham’s and Urban’s, so that it invites a clash of opinions,
which leads to progressional overlapping talk.

3.2 Transcript 2
In the second transcript, the panel reacts to an upsetting blackface scandal. The
panel includes former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Representative
Nanette Diaz Barragán, former Congresswoman Utah Mia Love, Nina Turner and
Jake Trapper (cf. CNN 2019).

Extract 3 [“Panelist gives heated response to lawmaker on blackface”

5:28-5:48]
1 LOV: … Actually I’m offended by that,[>I’m offended]. It’s
2 almost like< let me let me fix what’s going on here so I-
3 TUR: [°to her ((inaudible))]
4 CUC: [Yeah]
5 LOV: you know- let me go focus on some[thing] else, so that
6 people can stop focusing on the things that I did when I
7 was 25-=
8 TUR: [yes]
9 CUC: =Well, and, and, and he wants to have his repentance as
10 the Governor of Virginia- Look you [resign] and you go
11 get your own repentance
12 TUR: [Yeah]

11
 In this extract Love states that she is offended by a previous statement. As
she repeats herself, cooperative overlap, in form of continuers, from Turner and
Cuccinelli occurs in line 2 and 3 to show support for the statement. This kind of
overlap occurs in lines 5, 7, 10 and 12 again and is resolved very quickly. Extract 3
presents Love, Cuccinelli and Turner as ‘high-involvement’ speakers who use
overlap to agree and support another.

3.3 Results
It has been noticed that most overlaps in transcript 1 were competitive and
progressional. The speakers made use of them to fight for the floor and present their
views. Another reason why they occurred so frequently is that the panellists were
disagreeing with each other. In contrast, there was a lot of cooperative overlap in
transcript 2 as continuers were used to show support, understanding and agreement
amongst the panel. Ultimately the fact whether panellists agree or disagree with
each other determines which kinds of overlapping talk will occur.

4. Conclusion

It has been shown, that overlapping talk, which is a part of everyday conversation,
comes in various forms and can be interpreted differently depending on the context
of the conversation. Based on the analysis of the two transcripts, it has been noticed
that progressional overlap has been used more frequently, when the members of the
panel had different views and tried to contest each other’s turns. When the panellists
approved of each other’s opinions, continuers occurred more often as a sign of
understanding and support.

12
5. References

Abbas, N. F. 2020. “Pragmatics of overlapping talk in therapy sessions”. Journal

of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1251-1263.

CNN, 2018, “Panel gets heated over race and Trump’s immigration rhetoric”. Jul.
24 <https://youtu.be/r8_eI-stGQc> (accessed March 10, 2022)

CNN, 2019, “Panelist gives heated response to lawmaker on blackface”. Feb. 10

<https://youtu.be/WgZ3t9OYVN4?t=328> (accessed March 16, 2022)

Glossary of Linguistics Terms. n.d. <https://glossary.sil.org/term/overlap>

(accessed March 8, 2022)

Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. 2002. “Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices

and Applications”. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jefferson, G. 1983. “Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset.” Tilburg papers

in language and literature. Tilburg: University of Tilburg. 11-38.

Jefferson, G. 2004. “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction”.

Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Ed. Lerner, G. H.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 13-31.

Schegloff, E. A. 2000. “Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for

Conversation”. Vol. 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-63.

Stolt, M. 2008. “The many Faces of Overlap: Non-Competitive Overlap in

Conversations between Finnish and British Speakers of English”. Jyvaskyla:
University of Jyvaskyla.

Tannen, D. 2013. “Language and Culture”. An Introduction to Language and

Linguistics. Ed. Fasold, Ralph and Conner-Lintion, Jeff. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 343-372.

Wieland, M. 1991. “Turn-taking structure as a source of misunderstanding in

French-American cross-cultural conversation”. Pragmatics and language learning.
Vol.2. Ed. Lawrence, Bouton and Yamuna, Kachru. Urbana-Champaign: Division
of English as an International Language, 101–118.

13
6. Appendix

Transcription conventions (cf. Jefferson 2004)

(.) short, untimed pause

(0.8) timed pause
hh exhalation
.hh inhalation
(word) unclear hearing
((comment)) Transcriber’s comment
w[ord overlapping onset
wor]d overlapping offset
wor- cut-off word
>word< faster speech rate
<word> slower speech rate
¯word markedly lower pitch
­word markedly higher pitch
word= latching, rush into next segment
word prominent stress
WORD higher volume than surrounding talk
°word° lower volume than surrounding talk
w(h)ord laughter in word
£word smile voice
. falling intonation
, level or slight rise intonation
? high rising intonation
¿ mid rising intonation

14
7. Declaration of non-plagiarism
Plagiatserklärung
(bitte ausdrucken und mit Datum und Unterschrift der abzugebenden Arbeit beiheften)

Von Plagiat spricht man, wenn Ideen und Worte anderer als eigene
ausgegeben werden. Dabei spielt es keine Rolle, aus welcher Quelle (Buch,
Zeitschrift, Zeitung, Internet usw.) die fremden Ideen und Worte stammen,
ebenso wenig, ob es sich um größere oder kleinere Übernahmen handelt oder
ob die Entlehnungen wörtlich oder übersetzt oder sinngemäß sind. Folgende
Fälle stellen Plagiate dar:

• Einreichen einer Arbeit, mit deren Erstellung eine andere Person

beauftragt wurde;
• Einreichen einer fremden Arbeit unter eigenem Namen;
• wörtliche Übernahme von Textpassagen aus Werken Anderer, ohne
diese graphisch als Zitat zu markieren und/oder ohne die Quelle an der
entsprechenden Stelle im Text kenntlich zu machen;
• Übernehmen von Ideen, Aussagen oder Argumentationen, ohne die
Quelle eindeutig kenntlich zu machen;
• Übersetzen von Texten oder Textpassagen, ohne die Quelle kenntlich
zu machen.

In solchen Fällen kann keine Leistung der/des Studierenden anerkannt

werden: Das Plagiat bzw. der Täuschungsversuch wird in LSF vermerkt, die
Prüfung gilt als nicht bestanden und es gibt keine ECTS-Punkte für die
Lehrveranstaltung. Weiterreichende (auch strafrechtliche) Konsequenzen
sind möglich.

Ich erkläre hiermit, diesen Text zur Kenntnis genommen und in dieser Arbeit
kein Plagiat im genannten Sinne begangen zu haben.

Datum, Unterschrift

21.03.2022

15