Online Catalog | library@petra

The Purposes of interruptions produced by Petra Christian University's males and female students' group interactions

There are lots of stereotypes that men and women talk differently, and sometimes
those stereotypes are required to be proved. The examples of such an instance arise in the
stereotypes of interruptions that most males are interrupters and most females are
cooperative conversationalists. In this study the writer observed the interruptions in the
male and females? group interactions. The writer also observed the purposes and the
frequencies of the interruptions produced in both groups; male and female. The theory of
interruptions and its purposes by Wardhaugh (1985), Kennedy and Camden (1983) and
Tannen (1990) were used as the main theories of this research. To support the main
theory, the writer also used the theories proposed by Holmes (1992-5), Coates (1986),
and Smith Lovin and Brody (1989). In her study the writer used descriptive qualitative
approach to analyze the data. The writer analyzed the interrupted utterances by the males
and females? group interactions to find out the purposes and the frequencies of
interruptions. The result of the analysis showed that the males? group interactions were
responsible for 109 of the kind of completing, 87 of correcting, and 83 of seeking
clarification, 10 times of agreeing, and 3 times of changing the topic of conversations.
The females? group interactions featured 135 kinds of completing, 95 of seeking
clarification, 62 of correcting, 21 of agreeing, and 1 of changing the topic of a
conversation. There was a brief difference between males and females? group
interactions. This study had shown that the purposes of interruptions could be divided
into two, ?supportive interruptions and ?non-supportive interruptions?. In addition, in this
study the females? group interactions applied the ?supportive interruption? more than the
males? group interactions. Whereas, the males? group interactions applied in a higher
scale in of non-supportive interruptions than females?. So, it can be assumed that females
are cooperative conversationalists since they provide more supportive-interruptions.
Moreover, since males? group interactions presented higher number in non-supportive
interruptions, it can be said that males were dominant and competitive conversationalists.