Main Article Content


This research aims to find out  the effects of interruptions on rapport orientations. The data of the research were obtained from two meetings held in an educational institution in Makassar. The data were collected through a video recording of the meetings to identify the interruption use performed by the meeting participants and by giving the meeting participants the questionnaire containing questions concerning the use of the interruptions in the meetings. The data were then transcribed and extracted into several parts to be analysed. The data were also obtained by carrying out a participant observation by which the researcher obtained the meeting participants’ perceptions and their responses on the use of the interruptions during the meetings. This research indicates that the interruptions have a number of effects on the rapport orientations. There are two types of interruptions, i.e. competitive and cooperative interruptions. The interruption effects are primarily regarding to the enhancement and threats to the three interconnected rapport components which are: face, social rights and obligations, and interactional goals. The interruptions occurring also have several roles in the meetings which are closely related to the rapport management like clarifying and supporting main speakers’ points in the meetings, as the way to do relational work and back-channeling of the statement of the main speakers resulting in the type of rapport orientations applied by the meetings’ participants.


competitive Cooperative interruptions rapport orientations

Article Details

How to Cite
Reski, R., & Aswad, M. (2018). The Effect of Interruptions on Rapport Orientation in Formal Meetings. Eduvelop: Journal of English Education and Development , 2(1), 37-47.


  1. Aoki (2010). Rapport Management in Thai and Japanese Social Talk During Group Discussion. Pragmatics 20:3. 289-313.
  2. Brown, Penelope and Steven C. Levinson (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Chen (2012). Interacting in Pidgin Culture: Managing Rapport in Intercultural Communication. Projections No. 1 (2012) 31.
  4. Culpeper (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. New York, Cambrodge University Press.
  5. Isik (2003). An Investigation on Customer Interactional Principles and Face-Threatening Speech Acts Performance in Service Encounters: The Case of Turkish and English. Middle East Technical University.
  6. Locher and Watts (2005). Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research.
  7. Reski, Reski. 2018. “Strategies in Managing Rapport in Classroom Discussion.” EDUVELOP (Journal of English Education and Development) 1 (2): 184–92.
  8. Robinson et al (2015). Saving Face: Managing Rapport in a Problem Based Learning Group. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(1). pp. 11-24.
  9. Spencer-Oatey (2008). Culturally Speaking, Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London, Continuum International Publishing Group.
  10. Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  11. Yang (1996). Interruptions and Intonation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 96.
  12. Yiqi (2011). Gendered Discourse and Rapport Management in Hong Kong Beauty Spas. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong