Abstract

TOPICS, DOMINATION, AND CONTROL: AN ANALYSIS OF TURN-TAKING IN STUDENTS DEBATES

Bulus Wayar

Volume: 5 Issue: 1 2015

Abstract:

Whereas many communicative processes are produced as spontaneous processes, some processes of communicative transmission such as the academic debates are fixed in genres. This means that the composition of a series of communicative elements and the various possibilities of their implementation are pre - patterned. As a discourse community, the transmission of socially relevant knowledge and sharing of socially communicative responsibilities and membership relied on conventionalized patterns, because virtually all members are familiar with the genres. Thus, the knowledge of a communicative process with a specific function occurring in certain social situations has guided the students’ communication actions as well as their interpretations. The increasing percentage of time the current speaker spends in audience/participants directed gazes as the episodes draws to an end indicate that the floor is about to be relinquished, preparing the debate coordinator to announce the taking over of the floor by another speaker from the other team. Similarly, the Sri Lankan culture presents an interesting scenario in which prolonged eye contacts or repeated head nods could be interpreted as a request for the participant to interrupt. On the other hand, speakers stare at their audience than at their interlocutors while talking. One possible reason for this trend of communication is that, by looking away, speakers have improved their concentration on their verbal messages. Status hierarchy is formed and maintained throughout communication process by the means of allocating roles. This form of social dominance is established on who performs certain function within the social order. Thus, first and last speakers of both proposition and opposition teams assume sort domination and control.

Back Download

References

• Bakhtin, M.(1986). The problems of speech genre In: C. Emersion and other late Essays, pp. 60 -102. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• Eheart, B. and Bauman, M.(2009). Creating the everyday magic of language. Gerenation of Hope Development. Corp. 3, 1.
• Fairclough, N.(1994). Language and power. London: Blackwell.
• Herman, U.(1998). Turn management in drama. In J. Culpepper, M. Short and Vendonk, P. Exploring the language of drama: From Text to context. London: Routledge.
• Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational dominance. Journal of pragmatics. 1859 – 1880.
• Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emmanuel, A., Jefferson, Gail (1974). Simplest systematic for the organization of turn – taking. Language, 50, 696 – 735.