NEGOTIATING MEANING THROUGH OVERLAPPING TALK: A CORPUS-BASED CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE CHOMSKY–FOUCAULT DEBATE

Abstract

This study examines overlapping talk in the 1971 Chomsky–Foucault debate using a corpus-based Conversation Analysis (CA) framework. Overlapping talk, simultaneous speech by two or more speakers, is typically treated as incidental in everyday conversation, but its strategic function in high-stakes intellectual debate remains underexplored. Using the UAM Corpus Tool, the debate transcript was segmented, annotated, and analyzed to identify accidental, intentional, recycling, competitive, and resolving overlaps, alongside their interactional functions. Quantitative analysis revealed that accidental overlaps were equally produced by both speakers, whereas Foucault employed the majority of intentional and competitive overlaps, reflecting assertive floor-taking strategies, while Chomsky more frequently used resolving overlaps, emphasizing cooperative turn management. Qualitative analysis showed that overlaps were interactionally meaningful: they enabled argument reframing, epistemic positioning, and negotiation of authority, while recycling and resolving overlaps maintained continuity and minimized conflict. Critically, these findings indicate that overlapping talk in formal intellectual exchanges functions not as disruption but as a rhetorical and interactional resource, balancing competition and cooperation. By integrating corpus-based annotation with CA, this study highlights the nuanced role of simultaneous speech in negotiating meaning, asserting authority, and managing discourse flow in adversarial academic dialogue.