COOPERATIVE OVERLAP, GENDER, AND IDENTITY IN LATE NIGHT TALK SHOW INTERVIEWS
by
SARAH KRUEGER
Submitted in partial ful illment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Cognitive Linguistics
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
May, 2019 2
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
WE HEREBY APPROVE THE THESIS/DISSERTATION OF
Sarah Krueger
candidate for the degree of Cognitive Linguistics
Committee Chair
Vera Tobin
Committee Member
Todd Oakley
Committee Member
Fey Parrill
Date of Defense
March 28, 2019
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary
material contained therein. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………… 8 2.1 Overlap …………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 2.2 Gender ……………………………………………………………………………………… 12 2.3 The Late Night Talk Show ………………………………………………………….. 13 2.4 Late Night Talk Shows and Women …………………………………………….. 19 3 METHOD …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23 4 FINDINGS …………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 26 5 EXAMPLES ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 6 DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 7 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………….……………………….. 51 8 APPENDIX ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 54 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 55 10 CASE STUDY BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………. 60 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - The Late Show Starring Jimmy Fallon Overlap ………..……………………… 26 TABLE 2 - I Love You, America with Sarah Silverman Overlap …………..…………….. 26 TABLE 3 - Transcription Annotation De initions …………………………………………… 52 5
Cooperative Overlap, Gender, and Identity in Late Night Talk Show Interviews
Abstract
by
SARAH KRUEGER
This thesis observes the intersection of conversational overlap and genderlect in a small corpus in a specialized discourse genre: the two person semi-scripted televised late night talk show interview. To build rapport, speakers use strategies such as conversational overlap and latching to create open lines of communication.
When used cooperatively, these features can promote ef icient communication and create meaningful connections.
Overlapping can be a site of genderlectical variation in that, stereotypically, men and women use overlap differently to accomplish their communicative goals.
Working from selected interviews, this study observes communicative overlap and gendered differences with respect to features where overlap most often occurs. The classical account of gendered overlapping features is complicated by factors including other dimensions of discourse genre and communicative goals.
Communicative overlap is not solely a gendered phenomenon, but is rather in luenced by other outside factors. 6
1 Introduction
To have an engaging and cooperative conversation, communication partners build rapport through a variety of conversational strategies. The focus of the present study is on the use and avoidance of overlap as an element of these strategies. In the past, studies have shown genderlectical differences between male and female speech patterns around rapport. Stereotypically, women generally create a connection and build a relationship to relate to one another. They commonly prefer to build rapport through cooperative overlap and connect through empathy. Men often prefer conversational styles in which some sort of status is implicitly established. This occurs through the use of report talk and discourse patterns organized on the principle that whoever has command of the conversation is the communicative leader (Hidalgo-Tenorio 2016, Tannen 1983, 1990, and 2012). However, in practice, genderlect is just one of many factors affecting when and how speakers use overlap and which kind of rapport style they choose to pursue in a given conversation..
Conversation partners, topics, mood, and atmosphere all play a role in communicative styles. Other aspects of speaker identity also come into play Identity can be de ined through class, race, age, sexual orientation, shared community membership, hierarchical status in a group, and more. This study primarily considers aspects of the conversational environment alongside gender. Overlapping, or the lack thereof, contributes to how interlocutors connect to one another. At times it moves the conversation forward to use high overlapping techniques while other circumstances require considerate listening skills. More serious, in-depth conversations may call for a report talk, or high-considerateness, style. The lighter 7 conversations that involve anecdotes, shared experiences, or jokes turn to rapport talk, or high-involved style.
Variances in conversational styles play different roles. In lighter dialogue, people are drawn in through the fast paced, highly involved aspects of overlap and rapport building. In more serious talks, the use of silence draws people in to listen attentively and therefore build a rapport through mutual respect. In this observational study, cooperative overlap and genderlect are observed through a focused case-study analysis of late night talk show (LNTS) interviews. Guests with a political background or stance are often featured on these shows. This provides the opportunity to have serious as well as lighter conversations, and when we look at how hosts navigate these different kinds of conversations while maintaining their mandate to entertain their audience, we have the opportunity to observe striking changes in conversational delivery throughout one dialogue. LNTS interviews pose the issue of quickly building rapport, or the perception of having rapport, in a very short period of time, in highly structured settings. The participants have to do a lot of work very quickly in order to produce the impression of relaxed, natural conversation in very demanding circumstances, while also often navigating a complex and varied range of talking points the guest hopes to deliver. The hosts therefore often need to make rapid changes to switch between conversational styles in order to align with the guest.
By looking at how these high-intensity performances use overlap and other gendered components of rapport and report talk in service of these goals, we get a window onto the complexity and lexibility of these discourse features. Rapport does 8 not necessarily need to be something that is naturally occurring or from a real connection with a communication partner but can also be the perception of one.
Knowing when to use the best conversational style for any given situation and using it appropriately can create the idea of rapport whether there is any or not. A more speci ic purpose of this study is to highlight the idea that there are marked differences in genderlect between men and women, but LNTS hosts, of both genders, show similar characteristics in terms of communication styles, rapport building, comedy, and leadership.
Before analyzing the interviews, I will irst explore and de ine communicative overlap in terms of cooperative overlap and its features. Then I will provide a brief overview of sociolinguistic research that has de ined communicative styles in terms of gender. Next, the late night talk show genre is discussed in terms of the interview, style, and personas of the hosts. Finally, I will tie in LNTS with gender and the dif iculties women face in thriving as a host in the genre. These areas of study allow me to observe the in luence overlap and gender has on rapport in LNTS interviews.
To study these effects, two interviews are observed in-depth to view the changes in conversation styles individual hosts deploy, and investigate what prompts them.
Two additional interviews are also considered, to mark any notable similarities or differences between the interviews.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Overlap 9
Overlap, or simultaneous talk, occurs when there is more than one person speaking at a time. Overlapping talk can be “intrusive or cooperative…(it) is ambiguous: it can be experienced as a negative move, an interruption, or a positive one, a ‘joining- in’” (Tannen 2012). Overlap can be “reinforcement, a contradiction, or a change in topic” (Tannen 1990). Reinforcement is the listener encouraging and agreeing with the speaker through the use of “continuers” (discussed below). Generally, reinforcement is cooperative. Contradiction and change in topic are typically seen as intrusive. Contradiction is interrupting to point out how the speaker is incorrect and change in topic is interrupting in the middle of a speech turn to discuss a different topic. Cooperative overlapping “shows participation and support” (Tannen 2012) in the conversation while intrusive interruption creates discordant.
Cooperative overlapping contributes to conversation in a few ways.
According to Tannen, there are three types of overlap: cooperative sentence- building, requesting and giving veri ication, and choral repetition. Cooperative sentence-building typically occurs at the end of a sentence and does not indicate turn taking. The overlapping speaker jumps in to show that they understand and give af irmation to what the initial speaker is saying. Requesting and giving veri ication is employed when a speech partner needs clari ication on a point to reinforce understanding or to con irm what the initial speaker is saying. “Ratifying repetition” is often used in this type of overlap. It is when the listener will repeat what the speaker said in order to question something or offer con irmation.
Veri ication alerts the initial speaker that the communication partner is attentive and interested. Any ensuing answer from the verifying overlap is performed in the 10 same quick way before the speaker resumes speech without any interruption in the
low of conversation. The last type of overlap, choral repetition, occurs when communication partners say the same phrase, or nearly the same phrase, at the same time. This overlap shows an alignment in communication and thought in the partners. There has been a successful building of rapport when this happens (1983).
Of course, not all speakers overlap in conversation. Conversation styles are often referred to as either “high-involvement” or “high-considerateness”. High- involvement style uses more cooperative overlap, latching, and collaborative loor to build rapport. High-considerateness has traits of longer pauses between communication turns and the avoidance of any overlap to ensure each speaker’s turn is complete before the speech partner begins their turn (Tannen 1983, 1990,
2012). High-considerate speakers subscribe to the traditional rules of conversation analysis which state that only “one speaker talks at a time, and…when more than one speaker talks at a time it is either a mistake of a violation” (Tannen 2012).
Schegloff recognizes that there are times where overlap can be a contribution to the conversation at hand, though, by using “continuers” or “conditional access to turn”.
He refers to cooperative sentence-building as “continuers” (i.e. uh huh, mhm, yeah, etc.) “by which recipients of another's talk can show precisely that they understand that the speaker is in the course of an extended turn at talk which is not yet complete” (2000). This is not a competitive form of interruption, but rather a friendly prompt to encourage the speaker to continue and alert the speaker that they are attentive. Continuers would fall under Tannen’s irst and second form of overlap, cooperative sentence building and veri ication, depending on the purpose of 11 the continuer. Conditional access to the turn, which Tannen refers to as
“collaborative loors” (Tannen 1990), occurs when the speaker cannot recall a word and the listener assists by offering the sought after word, or when the listener completes the speaker’s thought in a collaborative manner. Neither of these relinquish the speaker’s conversational turn completely, but temporarily hands the turn over in order to further bolster the information being conveyed (Schegloff
2000).
Overlapping talk can be construed as cooperative or intrusive depending on the communication partners and the context of the conversation. Tannen has noted that the more cooperative overlapping in a conversation, the more comfortable the interlocutors are with each other and participate in rapport-talk (1983). The second speaker may be overlapping to encourage or to clarify what the initial speaker is saying or may feel the need to create rapport and feel a part of a community (Tannen
2012). Interjecting words to prompt the initial speaker to continue allows the second speaker to feel part of the dialogue. On the other hand, there are times when the initial speaker needs to be the sole speaker and a good communication partner will acknowledge this. In these cases, rapport can be built just as strongly in high- considerate speech as in high-involvement. Brown and Levinson (1978) introduced the terms positive and negative face in regards to these communication styles.
Positive face is the emotional need to be accepted by others, whereas negative face is the need to be unimposed by peers. Tannen (1983) references positive face as a
“need for community” and negative face as a “need for independence.” These terms correspond with overlap-favoring speakers and speakers of high-considerateness. 12
The overlapping speakers see positive face as participating in communal speech; there is a high instance of latching and overlapping because these show involvement in the conversation. However, high-considerate speakers do not prefer latching and de initely do not participate in overlap because they see it as imposing upon the speaker and, therefore, being disrespectful. Traditionally, these communication features have been observed in the differences within genderlect (Tannen 1990,
2012; Hidalgo-Tenacio 2016).
2.2 Gender
Genderlect is a term coined by Deborah Tannen to explain the conversational variances typically seen in men and women. Stereotypically, men and women speak in different ways, neither way being right or wrong, simply different. Masculine speech follows “report talk”, meaning status may be established between the conversation partners where one partner is in an authoritative position giving information rather than inviting dialogue. Cooperative interruption, or overlap, is not a feature of this speech style but intrusive interruption is. This type of interruption shows status and is a power play to either alert the speaker they are incorrect or to completely change the subject so the interrupter can speak on whatever topic they desire. Questions are also not common in masculine speech because they can show weakness and lack of knowledge while also bolstering the speech partner at the same time. Feminine speech relies on “rapport talk” which focuses on building relationships and connecting through shared feelings and experiences. Cooperative overlap is common in this style as it shows the listener 13 supports or seeks clari ication in order to be more aligned with the speaker (Hidalgo
2016, Tannen 1983, 1990, 2012).
Differing conversational styles use overlap and interruption differently. Tannen claims masculinized speech, typically used by men, sees cooperative overlap of words of support or sympathy as an intrusive interruption because, generally speaking, men prefer report-talk where there is only one speaker at a time. In masculinized speech, overlap is typically used to contradict or force the conversational turn over. Feminized speech, typically used by women, sees this kind of overlap as intrusive. Feminine style speakers prefer to gain camaraderie by connecting with another person while conversing (1990). These overlaps and interruptions may not be intentionally intrusive by either party, but can be seen as being so if the partners do not acknowledge that different communicative styles are being used. When the communicative partners do not accommodate their speech, misunderstandings and dif iculties can arise. However, when interlocutors adopt the same communicative style, rapport and connection can be made.
2.3 The Late Night Talk Show
The traditional format of late night talk shows include a monologue from the host which involves jokes and satire, celebrity interviews, games or skits, and a musical act while newer shows are stripping away all of the frill and simply have a comedic personality presenting news - political, social, or entertainment based - with or without guests. With the surge in popularity of subscription video on demand
(SVOD), in other words, streaming sites, and video sharing platforms such as 14
YouTube, Twitter, and the like, the LNTS is no longer bound to broadcast television networks, creating more variety amongst the shows, allowing the newer format to also thrive. The genre is expanding and evolving with the new distribution outlets.
The shows produced via streaming services are “late night” in the sense of following the genre conventions and marketing position associated with the form, but the distribution model means that viewers may watch them whenever they want. In general, the modern broadcast landscape is increasingly one in which the of icial air time of a program bears only a loose connection to the viewing experience. Even shows aired on traditional broadcast networks may often be watched later, through
DVR or other recording technologies or on SVOD. Some broadcast shows become available on Hulu immediately following the original airing, including The Tonight
Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Seth Meyers, and The Daily Show with
Trevor Noah. All LNTS, whether broadcast or SVOD, also make heavy use of video sharing platforms to share excerpts from the show. With younger audiences and the technology and social media age, viewers want shorter clips and easy access to view them. The hosts need to be able to make memorable interviews in shorter amounts of time. When done successfully these clips often take on a life of their own through social media sharing (Shef ield 2016). “Late night” as a genre continues despite the broader de inition and split segments. Because of the multiple distribution outlets, there is an in lux of late night talk shows, so each host needs to create a distinctive persona as a matter of marketing and appeal in order to distinguish their show from others. 15
Despite the differing formats of LNTS, they still have much in common. When it comes to production, all “late night” talk shows are ilmed in late afternoon to early evening and then aired at night. This is true even for shows on streaming sites, such I Love You, America with Sarah Silverman and Chelsea (which was cancelled in
2017 after two seasons), at which point they are available at any time after the original airing. They are performed in front of a live studio audience and follow a semi-scripted dialogue. Another common trend, as mentioned earlier, is that the host is a comedian or has a comedic writing background. The interview is still associated with LNTS, but that may be changing.
The interview is the most volatile aspect of LNTS at the moment. As mentioned, audiences want short, entertaining clips, so hosts are tasked with making the interview memorable and unique, but too often these interviews are not very interesting and become redundant show after show with the same guests.
Where once interviews were the highlight of the shows because they were the main source of information for entertainment news, social media has eliminated the need for this. Audiences no longer need to watch the interviews because they already have the information.
The late night talk show interview—traditionally the backbone of
those shows—seems to be disappearing, despite the proliferation of
late night comedy. John Oliver and Samantha Bee rarely do interviews,
and never in studio. Trevor Noah still conducts interviews, but
Comedy Central doesn’t bother putting them on YouTube. Even on the
more traditional talk shows—meaning the ive network shows, plus 16
Conan—the interviews are the least crucial part of any episode. Even
when an “interview” does succeed, it’s usually a veteran comedian like
Bill Burr, Kristen Wiig, or Norm Macdonald doing prepared material,
not an actual conversation. For most guests, the interviews themselves
are just iller in between karaoke and “Closer Looks.” When the
interviews do get attention, it’s usually for something bad (Vulture
2017).
So hosts need to stand out to attract viewers to the interviews. Recently, more late night shows are including political satire to the mix and discussing more politics and world events rather than pop culture to attract younger audiences who get entertainment news from social media but may not be reading up on world affairs so rely on LNTS for information. Most hosts will interview one guest at a time, some do not interview guests at all (i.e. Last Week Tonight With John Oliver), Full Frontal with
Samantha Bee does ield reports and interviews, but not in studio celebrity interviews. The Late Late Show with James Corden holds a roundtable style interview which create open dialogue and spontaneous conversation with a few celebrities. I
Love You, America with Sarah Silverman begins with the typical monologue, but then changes course as the viewer follows Silverman around America as she interacts with people outside of her social caste, religion, race, income, etc. and discusses topics that are against her personal beliefs to open a line of communication between differing belief systems. Her show is an open dialogue over the course of several hours edited down, rather than just a few minutes. She does, however, feature a guest at the end of each episode that she interviews, but it does not follow the same 17 pattern as the typical late night talk show. Usually, late night interviews are light and comical and will discuss some funny story about the guest before promoting whatever he or she may be involved in. The interviewee in I Love You, America with
Sarah Silverman delves deeper into social issues and other serious matters. Each one of these shows tries to make a unique interview to attract viewers, but the most successful are the interviews where there is a rapport between the host and the guest. The audience sees a connection and are drawn in by the camaraderie.
Hosts will have a certain style and create a persona for the interviews in order to put the guests at ease, making it easier to build rapport. A common trend in late night is the affable, good guy late night persona, such as Jimmy Fallon, where the host tends to agree with everything the guest says so there is none of the tension that may be seen in some interviews. That “good guy” persona is often seen in LNTS lately, “hosts seem reluctant to put anyone on edge. With so many choices, guests don’t have to sit down with anyone who makes them look bad, and so they never do…nobody wants to risk alienating people. As a result, the playful niceness embodied by Fallon, but also seen in Meyers, Stephen Colbert, and James Corden, is what dominates on these shows. And while this niceness makes them all likable, it makes for boring interviews” (Vulture 2017). Interviews used to be more hard hitting and the hosts were not afraid to ask tough questions and “force” guests to delve into topics they may not have been comfortable in discussing,
And those confrontations often led to memorable interviews that
didn’t follow an obvious script. Whether he was making Paris Hilton
talk about prison or refusing to let Vince Vaughn deny his public 18
relationship with Jennifer Aniston, Letterman’s willingness to make
guests squirm led to funny moments. And while Letterman was
unique, his in luence on the genre was clear. Not so long ago, Jon
Stewart was laying into pundits like Bill O’Reilly and Jim Cramer, Craig
Ferguson was tearing up his index cards, and Colbert was in character
as “Stephen Colbert” trying to “nail” guests on The Colbert Report.
Each of them had their own style, but they all cared less about making
the guest and the audience comfortable than they did about
conducting an entertaining interview (Vulture 2017).
Now, when there even is an interview, the popular trend is to have hosts who do not want confrontation between themselves and the guests; instead wanting to create a friendship. This shift occurred around 2015 when the new generation of hosts came on board. There was major upheaval across the board to get new faces into LNTS and with them came new personalities and ways of conducting interviews and the overall style of the show. With the new interview style, the hosts will nod along and laugh about the innocent anecdotes the guests relay. “Television executives clearly consider this a feature, not a bug. Late-night shows are supposed to be friendly, nonthreatening environments; otherwise, celebrities would simply decline to appear. And, up to a point, a good interviewer is supposed to make his guests feel comfortable, so that they will loosen up and act naturally” (Slate 2015). For example,
“Fallon interviews everyone from Neil Patrick Harris to Michele Bachmann with the same broad grin…He’s generous with his laughter, the type of guy who makes you feel like any story you tell — no matter how banal — is fucking hilarious. If you told 19
Fallon you were having a bad week, he would take you out for a beer and try to make you forget all about it” (Vox 2017). Fallon, and others, are able to make the guest relax and feel welcome and listened to. They may not be getting the interesting gossip that their predecessors were pulling from guests, but they are able to make the guest feel comfortable which allows them to open up more and become more relatable to the audience. But in order to relax the guests and have a more naturally
lowing discourse, rapport needs to be built and this can be done through the use of cooperative overlap.
2.4 Late Night Talk Shows and Women
Men have historically dominated the LNTS genre. At this current moment, there are only two female hosted late night talk shows, Full Frontal with Samantha
Bee on TBS and I Love You, America with Sarah Silverman on Hulu. Recently, two more female hosted LNTS were cancelled despite high viewer and critic ratings for both shows. There may be multiple reasons women do not thrive in LNTS. In a The
Hollywood Reporter roundtable with some of today’s most well known female comedians, the women touched on these issues. According to Lena Dunham it is because “People are so stuck in these old formats that the idea of any form of risk taking becomes terrifying to them” (The Hollywood Reporter 2015 00:25:49). Ellie
Kemper echoes this sentiment saying that “until you demonstrate, until you show, that this formula (women in LNTS) can work as well, people are too scared to take a chance on it” (The Hollywood Reporter 2015 00:27:15). Finally, Tracee Ellis Ross agrees by pointing out how “There is a real slow move to allow new people in, and 20 there’s just a way that we sort of recycle what we know. And there’s a plethora of female talent out there” (The Hollywood Reporter 2015 00:26:41). She even acknowledges the fact that all the female comedians at the roundtable are established, well known personalities yet it has taken this long to get them together to address these issues. Women in comedy are pushed aside for what is already known, even if it is becoming redundant. Dunham pointed out that some of the female comedians have been in the comedy circuit for years and have a voice, yet continue to get passed up for usually older, white men. Having a white man as host has proven to be a success. Hiring a woman as host may cause a dip in ratings or cause backlash. Amy Schumer, on the other hand, has another idea for why women are not prominent in late night: “I think people hate women. I think people hear women talk too long and project their mom yelling at them, or they're afraid that they're going to hate women...My experience has been sort of tricking people into listening and then you get in the door that way. But it's, like, a dance you have to do…
I’m not saying men hate women, people—there’s such an aggression toward women.’” (The Hollywood Reporter 2015 00:27:54). Finally, there is still a mindset that women are just not as funny as men. The women in the roundtable discussed this, which of course can be biased coming from them, but this aggression can even be seen in the article reviewing the roundtable discussion written for GQ by a female writer, Ashley Fetters, “The uncensored roundtable is now online, and their full discussion was, at moments, very funny! And it was also, at moments—as far too many accounts of talented women trying to make it in comedy are—very sad” (2015). It appears this author is actually surprised that the women can be 21 funny, even knowing that they are all established, successful comedians but still judges them on a different level than male comedians. As Ellie Kemper states, she believes the people in casting and production believe there isn’t a difference between what men and women can bring to the table but that a large majority of the population are “stuck in this idea that it’s crazy that women are funny that they can keep talking and still be funny” (The Hollywood Reporter 2015 00:29:15) and the review of the roundtable con irms this. Not only is the presumed disparity of humor between genders pointed out within the roundtable, but psychology professor, Laura
Mickes, from the University of California, San Diego conducted a study in 2015 rating the funniness between men and women and how it is perceived. “She asked 16 men and 16 women to write captions for New Yorker-style cartoons. She then asked 81 men and women to rate which captions were funniest without know the sex of the author” (Khazan 2015). Before revealing the results, Mickes asked the authors if they think men or women are funnier. “89 percent of the women and 94 percent of men responded that men, in general, are funnier” (Khazan 2015). Based on a scale from 1-5, the study determined that men were only .11 degrees funnier than women
(Khazan 2015). Both men and women carry a prejudice that women are just not as funny as men. This makes it dif icult for a woman to break through the male dominated, comedic LNTS and succeed.
Traditionally and stereotypically, leadership roles are characteristically masculine. Even though men and women are equally effective in leadership roles, women are seen as “warm, nurturing, and caring and the corresponding stereotype of men as cold, competitive, and authoritarian” (Kawakami, White and Langer 2001) 22 which leads to misconceptions that men are more competent in leadership positions. Women are discouraged from acting in self interest which hinders advancement in society and the workplace. “Women are still not allowed to exhibit social dominance, which con licts with the prescription to be communal” (Rudman and Glick 2001). This creates a catch-22 as Kawakami et al. explains: if a female wants to advance in her career, she is expected to adopt masculine-coded leadership characteristics which it the position; however, since society sees the reversal of roles as a violation to the prescribed idea of how a woman should act, she must also learn to stay true to gendered stereotypes of being communal so as not to alienate herself (2001). As Tracee Ellis Ross explains it, “I’ve seen the disparity of…a woman standing up for herself as bitch and a man standing up for himself as powerful” (The
Hollywood Reporter 2015 00:40:29). Leadership role expectations are not a re lection on the competence of women, but rather the long history of expectations that women should “properly” be subordinate to men. That relationship is being threatened by agentic women and creates this backlash of dislike towards independent women (Rudman and Glick 2001).
A major issue for agentic women now is that leadership roles continue to be predominantly male-centric but high-status jobs are becoming more “feminized”.
This feminization of leadership roles “would be a positive development for women, allowing them to be seen as a better it...Unfortunately, by writing the prescription for female communality into company policy, ‘feminized’ job descriptions may serve only to legitimize prescriptively based discrimination against competent, agentic women...Because they were also viewed as less nice than identically presented 23 men” (Rudman and Glick 2001). Agentic women are still being passed over for these positions because of the perceived notion that since they are agentic then they lack admirable feminine characteristics, such as niceness and communality. Instead, the positions are still being offered to men who are not discriminated against for adopting feminine roles (Rudman and Glick 2001). This creates a double standard of discriminating against women for adopting masculine gender roles but rewarding men who can take on feminine roles. This tension is on display in the performances sampled in the LNTS interviews used for this study. Even though, according to traditional genderlectical roles, men would see overlap as an intrusive interruption since they engage more commonly in report talk, male hosts can often be seen using more traditionally feminine aligned behavior. In the case study interviews that follow, Jimmy Fallon, for example, can be seen using cooperative overlap in ways that are not traditionally attributed to men. When Fallon uses these strategies, they are successful: he is a popular host and the conversations that result indeed produce a strong impression of rapport. However, the utility of such feminine-gendered conversation strategies for the modern LNTS style does not mean that more women are being hired to perform these roles. As in managerial positions (Rudman and
Glick 2001), competent female comedians that could host in LNTS are being passed over for men (The Hollywood Reporter 2015).
3 Method
When it comes to observing LNTS interviews, it is nearly impossible to equally compare any two interviews because of the different styles of the interview and 24 show, personality of the hosts and the guests, and the topic of the interview. Despite the differences in the shows’ styles, they are similar enough in format under the de inition of the late night talk show genre that they can still be compared for this paper. All of the shows that will be used in this case study irst air at night and are taped in front of a live studio audience in the late afternoon to early evening on the same day they are released. Two interviews will be looked at in-depth. I have chosen to observe The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon with guest Michelle Obama and I
Love You, America with Sarah Silverman with guest DeRay Mckesson. Both Michelle
Obama and DeRay Mckesson have a political platform that they support and ight for.
These two interviews are bene icial to observe together because of their contrasting nature to each other. I Love You, America with Sarah Silverman employs high degrees of highly-considerate speaking styles, whereas The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy
Fallon leans toward a highly-involved stylized speaking patterns. Despite the differences in communication preferences, the hosts switch to accommodate the guests regardless of personal preference in speech.
The differences in the way the interviews are conducted themselves illustrate the degree to which that communication styles, regardless of gender, are dictated by the environment and conversational factors, such as topic and mood. Two supplementary interviews will also be used: one segment Late Night with Seth
Meyers with guest Chris Hayes, and one segment from Chelsea featuring Chelsea
Handler with guest Elizabeth Warren. The primary interviews have been fully transcribed and observed in detail for any overlapping features, while the supplementary interviews serve to provide examples of comparable or contrasting 25 features to the primary interviews. I have chosen to use guests from the world of politics for the range of conversational topics. The mood of this type of interview is typically more dynamic than that of guests with an entertainment background.
These different aspects in luence the style of speech that the interlocutors use.
“Interviewers and interviewees respond to structural factors shaping the social dynamics of the interview...They are shaped, therefore, not only by where but by how and by whom they are conducted” (Manderson, Bennett, Andajani-Sutjahjo,
2006).
This study is qualitative, yet systematic, observing interviews, taken from youtube, originally posted by the individual programs, within the late night talk show genre featuring political guests. The clips were converted to mp4s through a
ClipGrab app before being uploaded into ELAN 5.3 to transcribe the entirety of the interviews and then to mark any overlapping features. Cooperative overlap will be noted in terms of general overlap, when speakers talk over one another in a nonintrusive manner, but rather in shared enthusiasm. Special note is also taken of any examples of cooperative sentence building, requesting and verifying information, and choral repetition. Any latching and backchanneling is also noted.
Instances of the lack of overlap will also be marked alongside any backchannels.
Observing the use, or lack thereof, of overlapping features and noting how genderlect in luence the use of these will help us to understand in more detail when, how, and why the hosts employ different conversational tactics.
Before an overlap can be marked under a speci ic category within cooperative overlap, I irst needed to determine if the overlap is cooperative or 26 intrusive. In cooperative overlap, “The intention of the overlapper is to maintain the
low of the conversation, to coordinate the process and/or content of the ongoing conversation and to offer help to the speaker when needed. The overlap does not abruptly disrupt the speech low of the overlappee” (Truong 2013). After determining if the overlap is cooperative, which all of the overlaps in the four interviews are, the overlaps are categorized within the subcategories of cooperative overlap if applicable. In order to be able to de ine which category each overlap falls under, I looked at each de inition of the cooperative overlap subcategories de ined by Tannen (1983). The cooperative overlap is placed under the subcategory of cooperative sentence building when the communication partner gives utterances of understanding and support, but categorized as requesting and giving veri ication if the utterance is used to gather more information or to con irm information that is being said. Overlap is placed under the subcategory of choral repetition if the interlocutors say the same thing at the same time. Most overlap of these kinds are not met with acknowledgement or response from the initial speaker. The only overlap in these subcategories that is expected to have a response is that of requesting veri ication because the communication partner needs more information in order to follow what the speaker is saying.
4 Findings
The following tables show the indings of overlap in the two video iles used for this study. The irst displays The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon with guest Michelle
Obama with the interview being 9 minutes and 17 seconds long. The second table is 27 from I Love You, America with Sarah Silverman and guest DeRay Mckesson coming in at 7 minutes and 35 seconds long. Both tables show the total amount of overlap performed by each individual before breaking that number down to specify the type of overlaps. Only the initial overlapping speaker is marked for the overlap unless the dialogue is that of a high-involvement, fast-paced style where both communication partners are speaking over one another in a cooperative manner. In these cases, both speakers are marked for the overlap.
All instances of overlap are only counted once, even if they can be put into two subsections. For example, in the following example Michelle’s overlapping statement can be either requesting and giving veri ication or cooperative sentence building:
Michelle: [2
Based on this statement and the context of the dialogue, it was placed in the requesting and giving veri ication category. Each overlap is categorized according to the de initions of cooperative overlap de ined by Tannen (1983) and discussed in both the Overlap section in the literature review and Method section of this paper.
The only instance in which an overlap was marked twice is in the case of ratifying repetition. Requesting and giving veri ication is also marked in this case. So, Jimmy
Fallon used requesting and giving veri ication twice while Michelle Obama used it
ive times. But both instances of Jimmy Fallon’s usage were with ratifying repetition, whereas Michelle Obama had none.
Not all instances of overlap can be categorized into one of these three boxes.
The three subsections in the table apply to small phrases of participation. In these 28 cases the overlap is counted in the overall number, but not in any subsection.
Overlap of laughter is also counted in the total number of overlaps.
The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon Total Overlap 35
Jimmy Fallon Cooperative Sentence Requesting and Giving Choral Repetition Building Veri ication 1 11 3
Ratifying Repetition 2
Total Overlap 25
Michelle Obama Cooperative Sentence Requesting and Giving Choral Repetition Building Veri ication 1 1 5
Ratifying Repetition 1 Table 1
I Love You America, with Sarah Silverman Total Overlap 2
Sarah Silverman Cooperative Sentence Requesting and Giving Choral Repetition Building Veri ication 0 2 0
Ratifying Repetition 0
Total Overlap 2
DeRay Mckesson Cooperative Sentence Requesting and Giving Choral Repetition Building Veri ication 0 0 1
Ratifying Repetition 0 Table 2 29
From these tables we can see that Jimmy and Michelle use overlap at a much higher rate than Sarah and DeRay; however, the former pair’s dialogue includes anecdotes and jokes throughout its entirety. The overall approach is that of a high- involved speaking style, typically associated with, or resulting in, a higher degree of overlap. It is interesting to note that both hosts use a higher amount of cooperative sentence building overlaps while both guests use overlaps more frequently to request and give veri ication. This makes sense since the guest is usually in the position of providing information, while the host’s role is to elicit that information, so the host agrees and gives utterances of understanding in the use of cooperative sentence building. The guests’ use of overlap in requesting and giving veri ication comes in the form of con irming information only, while Jimmy’s two overlaps in this category are both requests.
5 Examples
The following examples show how cooperative overlap and the lack thereof are used the two interviews. Examples (1.1) through (6.1) show the use of high-involvement speech, examples (7.1) and (7.2) is high-considerateness speech, and examples (8.1) through (9.3) display how the supplementary interviews also use, or do not use, cooperative overlap. See appendix on page 52 for transcription annotation legend.
Jimmy Fallon puts high-involved speech style to use often. Within two minutes of the interview, Jimmy Fallon begins to build rapport through the use of a high-involved speech style by joking with Michelle Obama. Before this portion of the 30 interview Jimmy introduced the topic of Michelle’s purpose for being on the show, her book tour. After the initial introduction of where and when her next stop on tour will be and who is going, Jimmy jumps into the joking side of building a connection before turning serious again to discuss her political and social platforms. Example
(1.1) shows the interaction with a high amount of overlap. The dialogue is fast paced and there is a high amount of communicative cooperation. Each communication turn overlaps the preceding one and builds off of each other. Beside building rapport through joking, this also allows the audience to see a relationship between the host and guest. This connection, real or perceived, keeps the audience engaged and also creates a small reprieve between the serious bits to remain entertained throughout the entirety of the interview.
(1.1) Jimmy: (0)
and I feel that, we don’t have to show it, [5 but I just thought
that was thoughtful.
have to do that. You couldn’t leave me out. 5]
Michelle: [5
out. 5] We’ve done so much together.. [6 You’ve been such a
part of my journey..of “becoming.” 6]
Jimmy: @== [6
didn’t even ask. 6] You didn’t get permission. I mean, but I’ll
give it to you now. [7 I mean, because it’s a XX. No problem.
No problem. 7] 31
Michelle: @ [7 I should’ve. I’m sorry. I am sorry about that. 7] But I’m
glad you’re okay with it.
Usually, cooperative overlap occurs without any response from the initial speaker. The second speaker is simply acknowledging points and alerting the original speaker that he or she is engaged in the conversation. If the initial speaker does respond to the overlap, it is in a quick utterance that does not interrupt the
low of conversation.
(2.1) Michelle: Well=,
growing 1] up.
Jimmy: [1 Yeah. 1]
Michelle: And= part of the story is sort of showing how, when you
have a parent with a disability, you kind of feel like you have
to plan a little bit more, because, you know my dad couldn’t
walk without the assistance of- of- of a cane and, eventually,
he was in a walker. So, my brother was always kind of in his
doomsday mindset when he was younger. It’s like, “Wh-
wh- what will happen if I go blind?” So, he would ask me to
blindfold him, and he’d walk around the house to make
sure he could get around [2 if he got blind.
There was a time that he 2]
Jimmy: [2 @== 2]
Michelle: had me tie his right hand behind his back just in case it got
cut off. [3 So that- No, seriously. Um, so that he would be 32
ambidextrous, and he would do that for a week. And so, in
the book I talk 3]
Jimmy: [3 @== wo=w! @@ 3]
Michelle: about how
obsessed about ires and how we’d get out because we
lived on the second loor, and then how we would get dad
out. So= he would make us run ire drills= and make my
father lay on the loor and so he could drag him around the
[4 house. And, you know, and 4]
Jimmy: [4 @== 4]
Michelle: this tells you a little bit about my father, who was a ver=y, [5
you know, 5]
Jimmy: [5 @@@ 5]
Michelle:
6]
Jimmy: [6 Yeah. 6]
Michelle: he humored us because he knew. And I was [7 always his
little- 7]
Jimmy: [7 He’s like Craig’s freak 7]ing out, yeah.
Michelle: (0) I was his sidekick in all this.
In (2.1), Jimmy is overlapping Michelle’s anecdote and Michelle does not skip a beat in telling her story. Jimmy is laughing and participating in the story by showing enthusiasm by engaging in cooperative overlap. In the following excerpt of the 33 dialogue we can see how Michelle does respond to one of Jimmy’s overlaps of laughter. She con irms that all of this is true by stating “No, seriously” before jumping back into the story:
(2.1a) Michelle: had me tie his right hand behind his back just in case it got
cut off. [3 So that- No, seriously. Um, so that he would be
ambidextrous, and he would do that for a week. And so, in
the book I talk 3]
Jimmy: [3 @== wo=w! @@ 3]
Looking at Sarah Silverman’s interview with DeRay Mckesson we can see the same phenomenon of overlap with no response from the initial speaker. This technique is common in cooperative overlap, especially cooperative sentence building when the communication partner is using small utterances of support and understanding. Sarah does not use much cooperative overlap in this interview, but when she does, it is not intended to change the conversation turn over but simply alert the speaker of attentiveness.
(2.2) DeRay: I’m tweeting about, you know, “I need toothpaste,” and, like,
“Trump is wild.” Right?Like, both of those things are true. [1
And 1] that’s what I’d tell my friend if my friend was right
here.
Sarah: [1 I know. 1]
Sarah agrees with DeRay’s comment on twitter and makes that known and DeRay continues to inish his thought. The overlapping speaker does not expect the initial 34 speaker to respond to the comment or to relinquish the turn in this type of communication.
Latching is often seen alongside cooperative overlap. When the two speakers are aligned in the conversation and speaking styles, a fast paced, engaging dialogue is created.
(3.1) Michelle: Oh.
Jimmy: (0) Uh, Craig.
Michelle: (0) Craig, my big brother.
Jimmy: (0) Your big brother.
are you and Craig?
Michelle: He’s like one and a half years.
Jimmy: (0) Yeah.
Michelle: (0) But he’s like 6’6”. He’s my bi=g brother, and [1 it’s hard
1]
Jimmy: [1 Really? 1]
Michelle: to be much taller than me. But I look up to my brother. Yeah,
Jimmy: (0) <@ X Yeah, you do, yeah. X @>
Michelle: (0) I do.
Jimmy: (0) Uh, you’ve got some pretty funny stories in- in here about- X> the ire drill? Michelle: @N (3.2) Sarah: DeRay’s vest is an account on Twitter. I would like to say it’s probably @deraysvest. 35 DeRay: (0) It is. Sarah: Big question here, do you share the same political views as your vest? DeRay: (0) I do, I do. Now, the vest is a little snippy sometimes. I don’t run the vest account. I didn’t start the vest account. I think vest account is funny, but people think that it’s me. So, like, the vest will say snippy things to people, and they’re like, “I can’t believe you insulted me, me,” and it’s like, I didn’t do that, you know?Or like- Sarah: (0) You’re like, “Vest, you have to [1 be nicer!” 1] DeRay: [1 <@ Right @> 1] In examples (3.1) and (3.2) the conversations were fast paced and were familiar topics. The guests could predict what the hosts were going to ask before the question or comment was inished, allowing them to quickly reply, moving the dialogue ahead at a fast pace. The topics were also light and the speech was conducted in a joking manner with all parties smiling or laughing along. The three speci ic types of overlap that Tannen (1983) de ined can be seen within these interviews with political igures: cooperative sentence building, requesting and giving veri ication information - with and without ratifying repetition - and choral repetition. Cooperative sentence building is the most common form of cooperative overlap. Sentence building is when words of af irmation or acknowledgement are uttered, usually, at the end the initial speaker’s sentence. This may occur at the end 36 of a conversation turn or in the middle of it. The following examples show how cooperative sentence building are used within these interviews. These utterances are spoken before the speaker’s conversation turn is complete. (4.1) Michelle: I wanted to give thousands of tickets away, so we had to have a bigger [1 venue. 1] Jimmy: [1 Yeah. 1] Michelle: And it just got bigger and bigger and bigger. (4.2) DeRay: Whoever runs it is hilarious, but sometimes it is, like, a lot. I’m [1 like, 1] “Okay, chill out.” Sarah: [1 Yeah. 1] As with latching, the conversation partner can predict the ending of the initial speaker’s thoughts. The overlap occurs on the last word(s) of the speaker’s sentence. As these examples show, the utterance of con irmation or af irmation is at the end of the sentence. The second type of overlap, requesting and giving veri ication, is more involved than cooperative sentence building. The speech partner is more actively involved in the conversation through either requesting clari ication or giving con irmation. In this type, the overlap does not occur at a speci ic place within the sentence. (5.1) Michelle: He humored us because he knew. And I was [4 always his little- 4] Jimmy: [4 He’s like Craig’s freak4]ing out, yeah. Michelle: (0) I was his sidekick in all this. 37 (5.2) Sarah: (0) You’re like, “Vest, you have to [1 be nicer!” 1] DeRay: [1 <@ Right @> 1] Example (5.1) has Jimmy using this technique to con irm understanding of Michelle’s anecdote and to cooperatively join in on the conversation. The turn isn’t completely turned over; Michelle only pauses to allow Jimmy to inish his thought before jumping back into her story without losing her place. In example (5.2), DeRay is con irming that Sarah understands his thoughts regarding the vest account by using the veri ication overlap. A subgroup within requesting and giving veri ication is ratifying repetition. It has the same purpose and tenets as requesting and giving veri ication, but the speech partner will repeat a word or phrase that the initial speaker said in order to give or ask for clari ication. (5.3) Jimmy: (0) “And Jim- Jimmy Fallon.” thought that was thoughtful, and I feel that, we don’t have to show it- Michelle: [5 out. 5] We’ve done so much together. Jimmy: [5 but I just thought that was thoughtful. have to- FS> you didn’t have to do that. You couldn’t leave me out. 5] (5.4) Sarah: The downfall of that maybe a little bit Sarah: (0) Downfall’s too strong a word, Sarah. 38 Sarah: (0) [1 But one thing about it is that 1] it can get a little ambiguous DeRay: [1 @@@@ 1] Example (5.3) is fast paced and jovial. It shows a traditional form of ratifying repetition. Michelle claims that she couldn’t leave Jimmy out of the dedication of her book and he con irms this information by repeating it back to her to con irm she is correct in this assessment. The next example, (5.4) is quite untraditional. Technically, there is no overlap in this example, however, Sarah is interrupting herself so it would be impossible to overlap. This example is included in this section because if there was an ability to overlap, it would occur. Sarah uses the word “downfall” in her speech, but quickly regrets the use of the word and interrupts herself to question the use of the word. She does so with latching on each side of the “overlap”. Choral repetition is the last type of overlap. This occurs when both interlocutors are so aligned that they say the same or nearly the same word or phrase at the same time. This is the least common type of overlap, but it best shows the amount of rapport between the speakers because are having the same thought processes. (6.1) Jimmy: [10 I think they’re interesting. Oh yeah, that’s what I’m saying. 10] Michelle: [10 They’re interesting, they have things to say. 10] 39 As can be seen in (6.1), Jimmy and Michelle begin saying the same thing at the same time, with Jimmy breaking off to actually comment on how they are aligned in their thoughts which coincidentally aligns their speech. The following examples, (7.1) through (7.2) show high considerateness in the interviews. (7.1) Jimmy: But people really connect to you. And you say in in the book it’s about uh liking yourself. Michelle: Yeah, uh huh. Jimmy: (0) That makes you connect. Explain that a little. Michelle: Well, inauthenticity, you know? And if you’re not comfortable in your own skin, that comes across. You know, that’s one of the challenges I think that politicians have because politicians aren’t always “people” people. And you have to really enjoy people because folks will they will sense that. So, for me, I am Michelle Obama behind the scene in the Blue Room, when we’re acting up, when I’m in the White House as First Lady, when I’m here, I’m always the same person, and it’s easy to keep up with that. I don’t have to make up a a a story of who people think I should be, and in that way, it allows me to be comfortable and enjoy every minute of my time with the people that I meet. 40 (7.2) Sarah: I would love to know how you would approach..uh=, communicating with unlike-minded people in a way where we can really hear each other. DeRay: … (.64) I think some of it is making sure that you’re asking more questions than you’re doing talking, [1 FS>so that you understand, like, the <@ point of view @> 1] Sarah: [1 [Nods head in understanding and motions locking her mouth shut with a key] 1] DeRay: that the other person is bringing. And the other is making sure that they’re doing the cognitive work, right? So people ask me, like, police of icers will say to me, “Well, under what circumstances should the police be able to kill somebody,” right? And I’ll say to them, like, “When can the police kill your child?” And then they’re like, “I don’t know.” It’s, like, “Well, I don’t know either,” right? And I’m trying to get them to work through this, too. I’m trying to hear them process because we just don’t approach the problem at the same way. And because I think I’m right about some of these issues, I don’t need to preach at them. I need [2 to understand where they’re coming from. 2] Sarah: [2 [Shakes head in negated agreement then nods head in agreement] 2] 41 DeRay: And that can only happen when they’re actually doing more of the processing work. Sarah: … (.33) Wow, yeah, that’s communication. As can be seen in both examples, (7.1) and (7.2), the guest has a long conversation turn where the host does not make any sort of overlapping utterance. Both hosts sit and listen quietly while the guests speak. Backchanneling is dif icult to mark within the interviews since the camera focuses on the guest during long, earnest monologues, so the host is not typically seen. During Michelle’s speech in (7.1), Jimmy is not shown at all, but we are able to see Sarah during DeRay’s monologue in (7.2) and how she participates in the conversation by nodding in agreement with what he says. As well as the backchanneling being present in (7.2), there is also a higher instance of high-considerate speech through the use of pauses before conversation turns. Both DeRay and Sarah pause for an extended period of time before accepting the conversation turn to ensure the former is inished speaking. There are times within the conversations when overlapping almost occurs but not quite. When this happens, the speech partner ends up latching in between the initial speakers utterances. The conversation turn is not truly turned over in these instances. Even though overlap is not present, these latchings have the same features as overlap and are just as meaningful. Alignment in thought and building of rapport is still being achieved. Since Sarah has such a highly considerate stylized speech pattern in her interviews, overlap does not often occur. Cooperative sentence building is only seen a couple times within the entirety of the nearly 8 minute interview. 42 (8.1) DeRay: Whoever runs it is hilarious, but sometimes it is, like, a lot. I’m [1 like, 1] “Okay, chill out.” Sarah: [1 Yeah 1] Example (8.1) shows a cooperative sentence building overlap. Typically, this occurs at the end of a sentence, but here it is seen in the middle of the following sentence. It was meant to be at the end of the irst sentence, but by the time it was uttered, the speaker had already moved on to another sentence. Since Sarah is highly considerate, she very well could have assumed DeRay’s conversation turn was inished, so by the time she said the words of af irmation, she ultimately overlapped his next sentence without meaning to. The requesting and giving veri ication overlap can be seen through latching. In the following two examples (8.2) and (8.3), Sarah and DeRay are practicing high considerateness rather than high involvement, the con irmation is lagging behind or latched onto the preceding thought. The interlocutors are so careful not to interrupt that they will pause between their turns in order for the other to respond. This is atypical in cooperative overlap since it is more common not to respond or react when the communication partner overlaps. (8.2) Sarah: There’s also your vest, which also has its own account. DeRay: It does. Sarah: …(.32) DeRay’s vest is an account on Twitter. (8.3) Sarah: I would like to say it’s probably @deraysvest. DeRay: (0) It is. Sarah: (0) Big question here… 43 (8.4) Michelle: I have young ladies. Jimmy: (0) Young ladies. (8.4) is an example of ratifying repetition in the latching form rather than overlap. Comparing a couple of supplementary interviews to the primary interviews, examples (9.1, 9.2, and 9.3) show a high-involved style of speech. Before and after all of the exchanges that follow, the interview is in a high-considerate style manner. The switch to the more fast-paced rapport building style lightens the mood of the interview and creates a more relaxed, joking environment. The following examples feature LNTS hosts Seth Meyers and Chelsea Handler. Example (9.1) documents a high-involved style of speaking where the interlocutors switch to a joking manner. Seth begins to have a serious conversation when Chris overlaps to further discuss a point Seth was going to skip over. The conversation breaks down into a series of jokes where the two build off of the other’s previous statement while cooperatively overlapping to create a comedic and highly-involved segment. (9.1) Seth: Uh, Melania Trump also went down there. To her credit, to go down. With that said, [1 Donald Trump, he went to Duluth, Minnesota. 1] Chris : [1 N@@. Oh, you’re just gonna move right past the jacket. 1] [2 @== 2] Seth: [2 I mean, I don’t even know what to make of the jacket. 2] not?” I mean, I feel like it’s something, you know… 44 Chris: (0) She’s going to get a face tattoo that says “I hate all of you.” Seth: (0) Yeah. Chris: (0) And everyone’s gonna be like, “Oh, what does it mean? I don’t [3 know.” 3] Seth: She’s like a Magic 8-Ball that doesn’t have a die in it. This joking goes on for a few more sentences and then easily moves back into the exact same line of thought about Trump traveling to Duluth. Seth and Chris appear to have a strong connection in their alignment of speech and thought that they can just as easily perform rapport through high involvement, friendly joking and camaraderie as they can through a respectively attentive, serious discussion. Their accommodation to each other’s speech through the use of appropriate conversational styles is witness to this. Similar to Sarah Silverman’s interview style, Chelsea Handler in Chelsea shows high considerateness by avoiding overlaps in the majority of her interview with Elizabeth Warren. The interview is designed to be more formal so a highly involved communication act would be seen as intrusive. However, unlike Sarah Silverman, and more in line with Jimmy Fallon, Chelsea uses latching to show enthusiasm and support in what Elizabeth is saying. (9.2) Elizabeth: I am running for the senate in 2018. I’m in that ight all the way. Chelsea: (0) Oh, I’ll be there. Elizabeth: (0) Oh, good, thank you. 45 Despite the lack of cooperative overlapping from Chelsea, Elizabeth does use these techniques in the form of cooperative sentence building to show agreement or requesting and giving veri ication to con irm what Chelsea is saying. (9.3) shows Elizabeth using cooperative sentence building to support Chelsea’s statements. (9.3) Chelsea: It feels like things are going to go backwards unless women [1 stand 1] Elizabeth: [1 Yeah. 1] Chelsea: up and scream and ight, and so do men. And for men have to stand [2 up 2] Elizabeth: [2 Yep. 2] Chelsea: for us to. 6 Discussion The average LNTS interview is around 5 minutes long so the host needs to quickly build rapport in order to establish a connection that the audience can be drawn into. Interviews with political guests tend to range a bit longer than this, though, at 10 minutes long. The reason for this is so the guest can still have the fun anecdotal bits of the interview while still touching on the platform that they support. The interviews are semi-scripted so both parties of the interview know what topics will be brought up, that way the interview may not low quite the same as naturally lowing dialogue but will hit all necessary topics. Even though the dialogue is mostly scripted, the communicative overlaps are spontaneous, or are designed to look spontaneous, which builds rapport. We can see how the host and guest interact with 46 one another on a supposed natural level despite the script through the use of overlapping and latching techniques. The building of rapport, even if deceptive, draws the audience in and makes them believe that there is a strong bond between the interlocutors which makes for a good interview. Successful interviews are able to aptly translate rapport through overlapping techniques regardless of how the interlocutors feel toward one another. High involvement can build rapport quickly and make a conversation engaging, but it is not appropriate to use in all speech circumstances. Typically, high considerateness styles are considered more appropriate in more serious settings, and for more serious topics. This style avoids the use of latching and overlap so as to be respectful to the speaker and ensure the speech act is complete before being turned over. Instead of overlap and latching, backchanneling is used more in the case of high-considerateness speaking style since the speaking partner allows the initial speaker to speak uninterrupted. Backchannels, such as nodding along or smiling during the monologue alerts the speaker that the listener is involved, attentive and willing to participate in the conversation in a nonintrusive manner. High considerateness is found in the interviews in this study when a serious topic is at hand. This can be seen when the guests with a political platform or background are discussing issues they are invested in. The host switches from the joking, overlapping style, to quiet, attentive listening. Jimmy Fallon is well known for his highly involved, energetic, overlapping interview style, but when he is asking questions about impactful topics, such as social issues or political platforms, his whole demeanor and conversation style changes. This can be witnessed in his 47 highly-involved speech seen in (1.1) and then switching to a highly-considerate style in (7.1). His speech slows, his voice becomes deeper and his conversation style switches from energetic and highly involved to serious and attentive. Sarah Silverman’s interview style in I love you, America with Sarah Silverman is typically always conducted in the style of high-considerateness. (7.2) is a good example of the conversational style throughout the majority of her interview. She only slips into high-involvement style when the conversation turns a bit lighter, as seen in (2.2) and (3.2). In the interview observed, this is rare and occurs for only a short amount of time before going back to the issues that are important to the guest. The examples above illustrate the many factors that come into play in guiding the selection of these strategies in practice. In the right circumstances, highly considerate speakers can demonstrate rapport just as easily as highly involved speakers. The interlocutors need to be aware of the topic and mood of the conversation in order to aptly use the best communication techniques to ful ill their communicative goals. The interviewers in these samples pick up on conversational cues to easily switch between rapport speech and report speech to best move the conversation forward and remain in good standing with the guests. This happens regardless of the gender of either communication partner. Looking at two other interviews in LNTS with guests of similar political stature are additional illustrations of the same kinds of choices that emerge around performing different styles of rapport. In Late Night with Seth Meyers, Seth Meyers and Chris Hayes show high considerateness when discussing US Mexico border issues, but then switch to high involvement when making jokes, shown in (9.1). The 48 majority of the interview has Chris Hayes giving monologues of the political issues about immigrants while Seth listens. Seth uses very minimal overlapping when Chris is speaking about the issues. Even the highly involved portion of the interview was initiated by Chris in the middle of Seth asking a question. Seth lawlessly switches into the fast-paced back and forth joking when Chris interrupts before moving back into the high-considerate report style once again for the remainder of the interview. Chelsea Handler and her guest, Elizabeth Warren, also show the same kind of conscientious switch between the two styles of communication in an interview on Chelsea. In the beginning of the interview, Chelsea has wrong information which leads to a short but de initely highly involved rapport style of speech between the two before moving into the highly considerate portion of the interview where there are no overlapping features performed by Chelsea. As in all of the previous examples, Elizabeth Warren, the guest, has long bouts of monologue where she discusses what is important to her and talks about different issues while Chelsea listens and performs backchanneling. There is a high amount of backchanneling from Chelsea showing her interest by nodding along to Elizabeth’s monologue. This taped interview is the best within the data set to see the amount of backchanneling in report talk and the host showing high considerateness. Chelsea does employ a couple latchings, though, when she is in high agreement with what Elizabeth says, as in (9.2). Highly-considerate speech and highly-involved speech are both important for building rapport conducting a successful interview. Hidalgo-Tenorio (2016) uses the terms cooperative and competitive when it comes to rapport vs report talk. He 49 generalizes that these two speech features are genderlectical by de inition, but recognizes their use is not merely or solely a matter of gender. He states that it is a more apt description that “the cooperative style is useful for the low of communication,” whereas “the competitive style is helpful, especially, to look for information.” In the examples discussed here, interviewers use rapport, or cooperative, speaking styles when joking and telling anecdotes. The mood of the conversation is lighter. “Overlap is one feature of a style whose cumulative effect is a feeling of intensity and rapid pace” (Tannen 1983). In this mode of conversation, silence represents the lack of rapport (Tannen 1983). Latching and overlap can stave this unwanted aspect from the interviews in order to keep them lively and engaging. The listener interjects and overlaps to show their enthusiasm in what the speaker is saying. Overlapping does not necessarily necessitate a response from the initial speaker. Overlapping shows friendliness and engagement. The use of overlap in these speci ic LNTS interviews keeps the audience entertained and shows interest between the interviewer and interviewee (Tannen 1983). Genderlectical variation is not merely a matter of prescriptions that men and women must follow differentially. The two main interviews both have interlocutors of the opposite gender which could in luence the style of speech used. However, the supplementary interviews both feature same gendered interlocutors. Theoretically, if genderlect only concerned an individual speaker’s gender, the supplementary interviews would be conducted in a very different way than the main interviews. We do not see this though. Both male and female interviewers show high-involvement and high-considerateness at the same rate. If anything, the male interviewers use a 50 higher rate of rapport style speech which is stereotypically a feminized feature of talk. This could be from females positioning themselves against the stereotypical feminized characteristics of genderlect. They resist against the canonically feminine discourse to avoid backlash of being an intrusive overlapping communication partner. Fewer overlapping features are being used. This pushback may not be a conscious decision. Communication styles are more complex than an individual’s gender. There are no innate, set guidelines for communication. Instead of depending on an individual’s gender, it can be said that different environments of conversation are gendered. The more jovial, high intensity conversation is marked as feminized whereas the more serious - only one speaker at a time - is masculinized. All of these interviewers, from both the primary and supplementary interviews, utilize high-involved and high-considerateness speech dependent on the conversational need, but each host has their own personal style of rapport building. They all recognize the need to accommodate their speech to match that of the guest or the situation, but create a unique conversational dynamic. Jimmy Fallon prefers the highly-involved, fast paced communicative style of rapport building but recognizes when he needs to respect the report-style speech of guests. Sarah Silverman leans toward the highly-considerate interview style. Both of these styles build rapport but in different ways. The highly considerate style of Sarah builds rapport through mutual respect and attentive listening while the highly involved style of Jimmy’s interviews build rapport through a communal speech building technique with a high degree of overlap. Interestingly, these hosts’ established interview styles both play in opposition to the canonical or stereotypical 51 conversation styles we might expect on the basis of each host’s gender identity, in the classic genderlect account of these discourse features. 7 Conclusion As we saw in these case studies, aligning conversation styles builds rapport between communication partners. Both high involvement and high considerateness show cooperation and understanding for the fellow communication partner. The former creates a more lively and fast-paced conversation that moves quickly, where the latter slows the conversation down and allows the interlocutors to truly listen and understand each point their partner is making, or at least appear to do so. Both communication styles are bene icial in their own ways and are reliant on the context and environment of the conversation, not the individual speakers, which can be witnessed in the case study examples. The primary factor guiding hosts’ choice of style in these conversations seems to be the speci ic themes and tones of the topic at hand at a given time. Even though the majority of these interviews are more serious in nature and the interlocutors are highly considerate, there are times when the interviews switch to an easy-going, lively conversation. During these segments, a natural discourse, perceived or otherwise, takes over and the interlocutors begin to have a lighter conversation, joking back and forth with each other. In all of the interviews examined here, high-involvement speech patterns emerge during these times. The interviewers and interviewees all use latching, high-involvement, and high-considerateness style within the same conversation. 52 While these discourse features are indeed gendered, we see in these examples that this does not mean that speaker gender is the primary factor predicting when the features will appear in this discourse setting.Situations, environments, and conversations can all be de ined through genderlectical terms. These factors can all play larger roles in “feminized” or “masculinized” speaking styles than an individual’s own gender identity. Some situations call for masculinized speech while others need feminized speech styles. Generally, the LNTS discourse setting has features that present as a feminized environment, calling for rapport and an emotional connection. This quality of the LNTS setting and style is in itself noteworthy, in light of the degree to which LNTS as a media segment is dominated by male presenters and hosts. But it is also important to note that a masculine-coded, highly-considerate style emerges when conversation turns political or social issues. Both rapport and report, or high-involved or high- considerateness, styles intersect and are used depending on the conversation at hand. There may very well be a generalized preference to an individual’s communication style, but based on empirical evidence in these interviews, communication style can be more dependent on the topic and mood of conversation than on the individual communication partners’ personal style. Aligning speaking patterns seems to be more bene icial to establishing or maintaining rapport than the genderlectical norms or individual preference of style. This preliminary observational study can open discussion and further research into rapport building within LNTS interviews and other social interactions and create guidelines or direction for people looking to enhance rapport building 53 techniques within conversation, especially with conversation partners who do not have good rapport or are on good terms with one another. The act of having and building rapport can be bene icial in social, business, and personal situations, whether or not that rapport is real. This study can also contribute to the advancement of women in historically male-dominated positions by showing that there are more similarities than differences between the communication styles between the genders and both are successful and rapport building. Further studies can go a step further and look into laughter as an overlap feature and how this can contribute to the perceived societal view of how men and women are seen as being funny, especially since LNTS interviews are semi-scripted and the laughs may be cued to bolster either interlocutor. 54 Appendix Transcription Annotation Legend FS> laugh syllable @ extended laughter @== nasal laugh @N laughing while speaking <@ words @> speech overlap [n words n] latching (0) indecipherable syllable X uncertain hearing = truncated (uncompleted) Table 3 55 Bibliography Bamman, D., Eisenstein, J., Schnoebelen, T. (2014). Gender Identity and Lexical Variation in Social Media. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2). https://doi.org/ 10.1111/josl.12080 Brennan, S. E., Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual Pacts and Lexical Choice in Conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(6), 1482-1493. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8921603 Du Bois, J. W. (2010). Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 Du Bois, J. W., Giora, R. (2014). From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3). Retrieved from DOI: 10.1515/ cog-2014-0023 Ferreira, V. S., Bock, K. (2007). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7-8). Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01690960600824609 Fetters, A. (2015, August 17). Amy Schumer Explains Why There Are No Women Hosting Late-Night Shows. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from https:// www.gq.com/story/amy-schumer-late-night-roundtable Garrod, S., Pickering, M. J. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-226. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056 56 Hidalgo-Tenorio, E. (2016). Genderlect. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss389 Kawakami, C., White, J. B., Langer, E. J. (2001). Mindful and Masculine: Freeing Women Leaders From the Constraints of Gender Roles. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 49-63. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1111/0022-4537.00151 Khazan, O. (2015, November 19). Plight of the Funny Female: Why people tend to appreciate men’s humor so much more than women’s. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/11/plight-of-the- funny-female/416559/ Manderson, L., Bennett, E., Andajani-Sutjahjo, S. (2006). The Social Dynamics of the Interview: Age, Class, and Gender. Qualitative Health Research, 16(10). DOI: 10.1177/1049732306294512 Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R. (2003). Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. Retrieved from https://www.uky.edu ~gmswan3/544/9_ways_to_reduce_CL.pdf Menenti, L., Pickering, M. J., Garrod, S. C. (2012). Toward a Neural Basis of Interactive Alignment in Conversation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(185). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00185 NYCgo Staff (2017). TV Show Tapings. NYC The Of icial Guide. Retrieved from https://www.nycgo.com/articles/tv-show-tapings Oben, B., Brone, G. (2016). Explaining interactive alignment: A multimodal and 57 multifactorial account. Journal of Pragmatics, 104(2016), 32-51. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.002 Peabody, R. L., Hammond, S. W., Torcom, J., Brown, L. P., Thompson, C., Kolodny, R., (1990). Interviewing Political Elites. PS: Political Science and Politics, 23(3), 451-455. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/419807 Reitter, D., Moore, J. D. (2006). Priming of Syntactic Rules in Task-Oriented Dialogue and Spontaneous Conversation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28(28). Retrieved from https:// cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt1r79b4hm/ qt1r79b4hm.pdf Rudman, L. A., Glick, P. (2001). Perspective Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239 Salon (2015, March 24). James Corden’s nice-guy schtick: His “Late Late Show” feels an awful lot like “CBS does Jimmy Fallon”. Retrieved from https:// www.salon.com/2015/03/24/ james_corden’s_nice_guy_schtick_his_“late_late_show”_feels_an_awful_lot_like _cbs_does_jimmy_fallon/ Shef ield, R. (2016). How Late-Night TV’s New MVPs Are Reinventing the Talk Show. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/ how-late-night-tvs-new-mvps-are-reinventing-the-talk-show-54616/ Schegloff, E. A., (2000). Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for 58 Conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-63. Retrieved from https:// www.jstor.org/stable/4168983 Slate (2015, December 8). Stephen Colbert Used to Be the Toughest Interviewer in Late-Night: What Happened. Retrieved from https://slate.com/culture/ 2015/12/the-late-show-ruined-stephen-colbert-s-interviewing-style.html Tannen, Deborah (1983). When is an Overlap Not an Interruption? One Component of Conversational Style. The First Delaware Symposium on Language Studies, ed. by Robert J. Di Pietro, William Frawley, and Alfred Wedel, 119-129. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1983. Tannen, Deborah (1990). You Just Don’t Understand. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Tannen, Deborah (2012). Turn-Taking and Intercultural Discourse and Communication. The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication, ed. by Christina Bratt Paulston, Scott F. Kiesling, and Elizabeth S. Rangel, 135-157. Oxford, England: Blackwell, 2012. The Hollywood Reporter (2015, August 17). Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Gina Rodriguez and More Actresses on THR's Roundtables | Emmys 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKNKbi3KhY&feature=youtu.be Truong, K. P. (2013). Classi ication of cooperative and competitive overlaps in speech using cues from the context, overlapper, and overlappee. Proceedings of Interspeech. Retrieved from https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/ classi ication-of-cooperative-and-competitive-overlaps-in-speech- 59 Vox (2017, March 28). Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers are the faces of a growing divide in late-night TV: Two NBC late night hosts, two opposite approaches to joking under president trump. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/culture/ 2017/3/28/14985226/jimmy-fallon-seth-meyers-trump-tonight-show-late- night Vulture (2017, July 18). The Lost Art of the Unscripted Late Night Interview. Retrieved from https://www.vulture.com/2017/07/the-lost-art-of-the-unscripted- late-night-interview.html Welch, A (n.d.). Late-night ratings. TV by the Numbers. Retrieved from https:// tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly-ratings/ 60 CASE STUDY BIBLIOGRAPHY Chelsea (2017, May 24). Senator Elizabeth Warren Addresses 2020 Election Rumors, Mitch McConnell & More | Chelsea | Net lix [Video ile]. Retrieved from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ECADHWzWKI I Love You America with Sarah Silverman (2017, October 19). Sarah Silverman Interviews DeRay Mckesson [Video ile]. Retrieved from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPSgUCH-vg Late Night with Seth Meyers (2018, June 26). Chris Hayes Dissects What Really Drives Anti-Immigration Politics [Video ile]. Retrieved from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C25mXa6s5Y The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon (2018, December 19). Michelle Obama on Childhood Fire Drills and Taming Barack Obama's Tardiness [Video ile]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MSYzyQQiEU