Introduction

The study of turn-taking system is pioneered by Sacks，Schegloff& Jefferson（1974） （1974）. They analyzed turn-taking system in informal conversation which lay foundation for a host of studies about turn-taking system in different institutional settings. Based on turn-taking system informal conversation， turn-taking system in news interview （Greatbatch， 1988）， classroom （Mchoul， 1978； Ingram& Elliott， 2014）， chaired political meeting （Larrue&Trognon， 1993）， workplace meeting （Ford， 2008）， court （Atkinson & Drew， 1979）， counselling （Per?kyl?， 1995）， mediation （Garcia， 1991） and parliamentary debate （Shaw， 2000） have been studied. The main findings for these studies reveal that turn-taking system varies according to different institutional settings. A new form of televised political debate - leaders debate has become popular in the UK in recent years， and its turn-taking system has not been studied yet. This paper aims to fill the gap and investigates how turn-taking system works in leaders debate.

Data

The data for current study comes from five leaders debates， with main political party leaders debating about issues concerning the UK and running up for 2015 general election. They are： The ITV Leaders Debate， BBC Election Debate 2015， The Leaders Debate - Scotland （8 April）， The Leaders Debate - Scotland （3 May）， Welsh party leaders debate （1May）.The data is accessed through online video sources. Each debate video is between 60 and 120 minutes long. The videos are transcribed first， and then turns are analyzed and categorized. Extracts used as examples to demonstrate results of analysisare transcribed in Conversation Analysis （CA） format.

Results

The leaders debates consist of four parts： opening statement， question–answer，controlled leader- leader contest and closing statement.

1.1 Turn-taking for opening statement and closing statement

Turn-taking foropeningstatementand closing statement are the same. The debate assigns every debater one turn to speak and grants the host power to distribute turns； therefore， the distribution of turns is specified in advance. The host is the only person who has right to designates speakership， and when host distributes turn， turn-allocation technique ‘current speaker selects next is employed. Debater who is selected by the host could speak， and any debaters turn without nomination by the host would be regarded as violation of rules.When debater indicates the finishing of current turn， the host self-selects （only the host could self-select） as next speaker to distribute another turn to a different debater. Hence， for every hosts turn， it should be followed by a turn from one debater.For every debaters turn， it should be followed by a turn self-selected by the host. The host - debater sequence cycles until all debaters finish theirturns.No interruption is observed in this part； correspondingly， repair mechanisms to fix problems result from interruption are not required.

1.2Turn-taking system for question - answer

The basic turn sequence for this part is question - answer. Normally， aquestion selects next speaker. In debates， questions are addressed to all debaters， that is，a question does not actually select next speaker.Under that situation， how do debaters know when to take his or her turn？ Generally speaking， in multi-party interaction， if no party is selected as next speaker， every participant could self-selectwhich may lead to overlapping talk. However， overlap results from multi-party self-selection does not happen in current data. The explanation would be that the host and the audience actually work together to form questions. Normally， questions are addressed to all debaters in debates. That is， a questiondoes not select a specific debater as next speaker. However， debaters know exactly when he or she should take turn to answer the question， because the host nominates debater one by one to answer the question. That is， the host actually distributes turns to debaters， making sure that debaters answer the question in order and no overlap happens.

1.3 Turn-taking for controlled leader – leader contest

Leader –leader contest is controlled by the host， that is， the host has right to open floor for contest， distribute turns， and legitimately interrupt contest when necessary.

The floor for leader – leader contest is opened by the host. There are two designs of the hosts turn. First， the question is employed. When the floor is opened in the form of question， the host actually raises an argument that he or she believes worth debating. Apart from that， the question format restrains next debaters freedom of action， which helps answerer to give adequate information. There are two forms that a question can be employed. That is， the host may distribute two turns at the same time while asking a question or designate just one turn.Second， the floor may be opened by open invitation. Open invitation offers debater more freedom to start leader – leader contest. That is， debater could freely attack any argument he or she disagrees with and freely selects next speaker.

Debaters are free to attack one anothers argument during leader – leader contest， and turn-allocation techniques ‘current speaker selects next and self-selection are both employed. What is interesting to note is that the technique self-selection is employed only after the technique ‘current speaker selects next is used at least once. This is due to the fact that the host is responsible for opening floor for contest， and the host may nominate or invite one debater to challenge an argument； therefore， debater whose argument is attacked is supposed to take next turn to respond back， and ‘current speaker selects next is employed first. Normally， self-selection usually takes place when two debaters （debater A and debater B） are contesting each other， and another debater （debater C） disagrees with the argument made by one of them； therefore， debater C self-selects to add extra point and contest the argument.

As mentioned above， the contest is controlled by the host； therefore， apart from employing turn-allocation techniques， turn may be distributed by the host. Turn-distribution by the host usually happenswhen the contest between two debaters lasts for a while and almost indicates finishing， and the host wants to bring more debaters in the contest so that the contest will not stay between two debaters too long and different voicecould be heard.

Interruptions occur regularly during leader – leader contest. Debaters may interrupt current speaker which is violation of rules. This type of interruption happens when other debaters strongly disagree with current speakers statement. When current speaker is interrupted， he or she could choose to either ignorethe interruption and finish current turn or stop current turn and respond to the interruption. If current speaker choose to finish current turn and the interrupter does not stop the interruption， repair mechanisms are required. Speakers who raise the pitch and volume of voice bid turn or the host mediates the interruption by nominating one debaterto take next turn.

The current turn could be interrupted by the audience which islegitimate. The audience may collectively interrupt current debater by clapping hands to show support or shouting oh to show disagreement. The collective interruption is legal as current speaker does not have to give verbal response and the interruption does not have negative influence on debate process. When audience interruption happens， the current speaker stops speaking and continues until interruption finishes naturally. Interruption by the audience happens when the audience strongly agrees or disagrees with what the current speaker says.

Discussion

Turn-taking system for leaders debate share some similarities and differences with turn-taking system in other institutional settings. Question – answer is the basic sequence for question – answer part in leaders debate， which is similar to turn-taking in news interview， court examination and counselling. However， in leadersdebate， two parties work together to form a question （the audience + the host）， which is different from news interview， court examination and counselling， with only one party asking questions， for example， interviewer， examiner and counselor. The host plays an important role in leaders debate， that is， the whole debate is controlled by the host， which issimilar to the chair in meeting， the mediator in mediation and the Speaker in parliamentary debate. For the majority of time，the host， the chair， the mediator and the Speaker distribute turns， and they enjoy power that their institutional identities grant to them， for example， they could legitimately interrupt current turn， or mediate overlapping talk.

Further studies could be done related to turn-taking in leaders debate.One suggested route is how the audience and the host work together as partners to question and evaluate debaters. Another recommendation is how debaters refer to the audience in the studio and the audience at home as a whole and regard them as participants.

References

[1]Atkinson， J. M.， & Drew， P. （1979）.Order in court： The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings.

[2]Chadwick， A. （2011）. Britain?s First Live Televised Party Leaders Debate： From the News Cycle to the Political Information Cycle. Parliamentary Affairs， 64（1）， 24-44.

[3]Coleman， S. （1998）. The Televised Leaders Debate in Britain： From Talking Heads to Headless Chickens. Parliamentary Affairs， 51（2）， 182-197.

[4]Drew， P. （1992）. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination： The case of a trial for rape. Talk at work： Interaction in institutional settings， 470-520.

[5]Ford， C. E. （2008）. Women speaking up： Getting and using turns in workplace meetings. Palgrave Macmillan.

[6]Garcia， A. （1991）. Dispute resolution without disputing： How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review， 818-835.

[7]Greatbatch， D. （1988）. A turn-taking system for British news interviews.Language in society， 17（03）， 401-430.

[8]Ingram， J.， & Elliott， V. （2014）. Turn taking and ‘wait timein classroom interactions. Journal of Pragmatics， 62， 1-12.

[9]Larrue， J.， &Trognon， A. （1993）.Organization of turn-taking and mechanisms for turn-taking repairs in a chaired meeting. Journal of Pragmatics， 19（2）， 177-196.

[10]McHoul， A. （1978）. The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom.Language in society， 7（02）， 183-213.

[11]Pattie， C.， & Johnston， R. （2011）.A Tale of Sound and Fury， Signifying Something？The Impact of the Leaders Debates in the 2010 UK General Election. Journal of Elections， Public Opinion & Parties， 21（2）， 147-177.

[12]Per?kyl?， A. （1995）. AIDS counselling： Institutional interaction and clinical practice （No. 11）. Cambridge University Press.

[13]Radford， J.， Blatchford， P.， & Webster， R. （2011）. Opening up and closing down： How teachers and TAs manage turn-taking， topic and repair in mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction， 21（5）， 625-635.

[14]Sacks， H.， Schegloff， E. A.， & Jefferson， G. （1974）.A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. language， 696-735.

[15]Shaw， S. （2000）. Language， gender and floor apportionment in political debates.Discourse& society， 11（3）， 401-418.

[16]Svennevig， J. （2012）. Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies，14（1）， 3-10.

[17]Wring， D.， & Ward， S. （2010）. The Media and the 2010 Campaign： The Television Election？ Parliamentary Affairs， 63（4）， 802-817.

作者簡介

劉嫻（1991-），女，云南玉溪人，碩士研究生，助教，二語習(xí)得，語篇分析，雙語現(xiàn)象研究。