Turn-Taking Strategies Employed in the Senate Hearing of Salilig Hazing Death Case

Proponents:

Comprado, Renjie S.

Hosana, Kaila Rose F.

Ilano, Emmanuel V.

Monedero, Mariel C.

Morata, Trixia Kate S.

Ocampo, Ana E.

Orpilla, Jhanel Irish Faye E.

Rocero, Jenny O.

Salando, Cleofe S.
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

Any verbal and intellectual interaction between two or more people is referred to as a
conversation. A conversation may occur in a number of circumstances including in-person, over
the phone, or online. A conversation is considered successful when both speaker and listeners
have good communication skills and has ability to engage and maintain the flow of dialogue.
Furthermore, there are a lot of factors that contributes to a successful conversation, such as
humor, feedback, listening and speaking skills, and also turn-taking. A dialogue's foundation is
turn-taking, it happens when one person listens while the other speaks in a conversation. The
roles of listener and speaker are shifted back and forth as a discussion progresses, establishing a
circle of discourse (Bearis et al., 2022).

Skantze (2021), claims that humans consider the "turn-taking" technique in the majority
of human social interactions, particularly in spoken communication. Speaking and hearing at the
same time is challenging, so participants in a conversation must decide who will do which: speak
or listen, or vice versa. The speaker and listener roles shift as soon as there is a constant flow of
information exchange. Frequent changes of roles that are being played are visible when a speaker
makes a statement or asks a question to which the audience responds or when the audience is
given the chance to express their thoughts. Consequently, the speaker's use of turn taking
strategies has a significant impact on whether their goals and purpose are achieved. As noted by
Thainaphriao et al. (2022), Turn-taking is a crucial component of discussion in order to achieve a
seamless exchange of ideas. Turn-taking makes the entire idea of conversing understandable and
allows for efficacy and productivity. The fundamental notion is that individuals ought to be
aware of when to speak. Nevertheless, a conversation does not always proceed smoothly since
other participants regularly flout the discussion and enter before their turn to speak. In
conclusion, as discussed above, turn taking is the changing role of the speaker and the listener. If
there is no cooperation between the speaker and the listener, it cannot be defined as turn taking.

Turn taking is a particular element of discourse, as stated by Sinaga et al. (2021), turn-

taking is an indication that when two or more people participate in a symbolic commitment, and

this role is significant in a discourse. This element of discourse is present in any type of

conversation and is observed through conversation analysis. A method used for analyzing talk-in-

interaction is known as conversation analysis (CA). It is a method of qualitative study that

focuses on certain aspects of how individuals interact with one another through language.

Researchers from CA examine how conversations are structured, how people take turns

speaking, and how they utilize non-verbal clues. Conversational Analysis is a model proposed by

Schegloff, Sacks, and Jefferson in 1974 which was developed to apply to the

ethnomethodological study of talk-in interaction (Bearis et al., 2022).

The focus of this research will be turn-taking under conversational analysis, primarily

invested in formal group discourse. In a formal discussion, the power dynamics between the

participants make the conversation different from a regular verbal encounter. In contrast, the

principle of senators and subordinates balances the authority disparity in the institutional setting.

In a Senate hearing, there is a semblance of a debate throughout the conversation. In these

circumstances, speakers frequently break the rules out of a desire to compete or voice an

opposing opinion, especially when topics are touched on with strong emotions. Indeed, because

last March 7, 2023, the Senate held a heated discussion over the death of the hazing victim from

Adamson University in the Philippines. The hearing of the controversial topic leads to a

discussion where the discourse participants are triggered by strong emotions. The issue started
when John Matthew Salilig, a student, went missing on February 28, 2023, after attending Tau

Gamma Phi's initiation rites in Bian, Laguna. According to “inquirer.net” (2023), Sgt. Jessie

Villanueva, the case investigator for the Imus police department, reported on Tuesday that John

Matthew Salilig, 24, was found dead close to Barangay Malagasang in Imus, Cavite. Since then,

the incident has been the subject of multiple investigations, and the senate hearing has generated

a lot of controversy due to the suspects being interrogated by the Senators.

As researchers, this study will be sought to determine the turn taking strategies employed

in the Senate hearing of Salilig hazing death case including the process of how turns occurred,

what strategies are observed, and what initiates it in a discourse.

1.2 Synthesis and Research Gap

In this section, the researchers were required to discuss the similarities and differences

between the published studies and the current study. And notice any gaps observe between them.

Most of the studies in turn-taking focuses on a two people debate or one-on-one talk with

each other. A study by Yanti (2018), aims to analyze the turn taking strategies in the presidential

debate between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton as well as to determine what is the dominant

type of turn taking strategy used, this is a study where the researcher analyzes the turn taking

between a two people debate. Another study by Jufadri (2018), also focuses on two people’s

conversation. The objective of the research is to examine turn-taking strategies that are

utilized by David Beckman and the talk show host on Google. It seeks to demonstrate the turn-

taking strategies employed by both the talk show participants. Then, a study of Bearis et al.

(2022) aims to determine the turn taking features in Toni talks through the use of conversation

analysis. The researchers chose three episodes of Toni talks to be analyzed: (1) Episode of Baron
Geisler, (2) Episode of Joy Mendoza, and (3) Episode of Ferdinand Marcos Jr., these are all a

one-on-one talk between host and respective participants.

Moreover, despite the fact that senate hearings are necessary for investigating and

interrogating suspects to discover the truth behind tragic incidents such as the one with Salilig

hazing, there is a limited academic attention given to the dynamics of turn taking in these

specific setting. Most of the related literature found covers legal courts such as the supreme

court, but not the senate setting. A study by Chairunnisa (2019), aims to analyze the turn taking

in Supreme court civil case in United States, Sveen v. Merlin. Another is by Mudrunio (n.d.), that

aims to investigate the questioning process in Philippine courtrooms. These studies are supported

by Stenstrom (1994) theory of turn-taking strategies.

A lot of studies in turn taking are supported by either the Stenstrom theory of turn taking

or by Jacob L. Mey’s theory of turn taking strategy such as the study of Yanti (2018), that aims to

analyze the turn taking strategies in the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hilary

Clinton and the study of Agustiano et al. (n.d.), that focuses on analyzing the turn taking

strategies in Jimmy Fallon‘s The Tonight Show interviews. Both studies are based on Stenstrom

(1994) theory of turn taking strategy. Also, the studu of Aisyah (2021), entitled Conversation

Analysis Of Turn Taking Mechanism In Ever After Movie, the study aims to find out what kind of

turn taking mechanism occurred in Ever After movie through the aid of Jacob L. Mey’s theory

(2021) of turn taking strategy. The aforementioned studies were analyzed based on three

categories of turn taking (1) Taking the floor, (2) Yielding the floor, and (3) Holding the floor,

and its corresponding sub-categories. Stenstrom and Jacob L. Mey’s theory is similar in terms of

categories of turn taking but differs on sub-categories.

 In the field of conversation analysis and discourse, scholars and researchers are making

contributions. A synthesis of these contributions shows that there are studies that focuses on

various types of formal and legal settings, such as the supreme court, courtrooms, talk shows,

and debates, but not senate hearings. Moreover, synthesis revealed that the majority of research

had either been one-on-one interviews or conversations between two people, rather than

conversations involving three or more individuals. As a result, the literature shows that turn-

taking in formal settings involving two or more people, such as in senate hearings, is not fully

explored.

Addressing this research gaps can provide necessary insights into the nuances of turn-

taking within the unique context of Senate hearings, specifically focusing on hazing death cases.

1.3 Research Objectives

This study addresses the following research question:

1. What turn-taking strategies are utilized in the Senate hearing of the Salilig hazing death

case based on the Mustikaningtyas et al. theory of turn taking features?

1.4 Assumptions

The following assumptions were considered when conducting this research. The following

assumptions were made:

1. The Jeffersonian transcription method will be used to examine and analyze the turn-

taking strategies in the senate hearing of Salilig hazing death case.

1.5 Theoretical Framework

 This study investigates the turn taking strategies used in the senate hearing of Salilig

hazing death case. In order to do so, researchers used the Mustikaningtyas et al. (2019) theory of

turn taking strategies. Mustikaningtyas et al. created their own turn taking features in their study

that discussed about the features of turn taking which are presented in a YouTube channel.

However, the meaning of the features in their study was not clearly expounded, therefore the

researchers will modify the meaning of each strategy according to how it was used in this study

in reference to the study by Bearis et al. (2022).

These features are: (1) mention, where a speaker mentions the listener’s name directly,

(2) back channel or the occurrence where a sound or a gesture is produced to give continuity to

a conversation, (3) yielding the floor, when a discussant gives up his turn to speak or allows the

other discussant to speak, (4) interrupting refers to the attempt to assume the speaking role

before it has been relinquished by the current speaker (5) overlap occurs when the participants in

a conversation speaks simultaneously thus competing for their turns to speak, (6) taking the

floor/starting up is a feature defined by question-answer adjacency pairs, prompting, and self-

initiation for one’s floor and that motivates the turns in a conversation, and (7) holding the floor,

a turn taking feature where a speaker maintains their turn to speak despite instances of overlap or

interruption.

1.6 Conceptual Framework

 Power Dynamics

Interruptive Interactions Utilization of turns

and turn taking
strategies in the
Rules and Procedures
senate hearing of
Salilig hazing death
case.
Agenda

Witness and Suspect

Testimonies