Gendered Interruption Patterns in Political Discourse: A Conversational Analysis of the 2016 Trump–Clinton Debate

Abstract

Conversational analysis of everyday language has long been recognized as a key aspect of language studies with interruptions serving as crucial indicator of power dynamics and social norms that govern different use of language by both male and female gender. This study aims to investigate the interruption pattern in mixed gender communication, where men appear to interrupt more than women in order to dominate the conversation. The Conversation Analysis method (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) is applied to analyze the data from Trump VS Clinton presidential debate 26th September, 2016. The data is collected from Washington Post, USA. The data is analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Classification of data into different types of interruptions and qualitative analysis of interruption patterns. As per the quantitative analysis 40 % interruptions were made by Trump to intervene the talk of Clinton. 32% interruptions were made by Holt (the moderator) while Clinton made only 28% of total interruptions, which were less than 71% of total interruptions made by male participant in the debate. In this way, findings of the study evidently show that men interrupt more than women in conversations to dominate and to hold the stage. Future research can be done on analyzing interruptions in a variety of social settings beyond political debates, such as workplace meetings, classrooms, media interviews, or casual conversations. This would help understand how context (formal vs. informal, hierarchical vs. egalitarian) impacts gendered interruption patterns.