The Realization of Adjacency Pairs and The Violation of Leech’s Modesty Maxim in Trump’s Interview with Julie Pace

The occurrence of adjacency pairs is due to the fact that the utterance of one speaker requires a response of a particular kind. These two pairs are called adjacency pairs where the first part of them can make a choice between two responses. A request is one type of adjacency pairs that may have two answers; either preferred (acceptance) or dispreferred (refusal). Adjacency pairs refer to or stand for conversational sequences in which the utterance by one speaker determines the utterance produced by another speaker. Adjacency pairs can be manifested in different types which are: offer, accusation, blame, question and assessment. Delaying the second part of the adjacency pairs forms a problem in many conversations. This delay is sometimes due to the logical reasons and can be achieved by inserting another adjacency pair to clarify or pave the way to the appearance of the second part of the original adjacency pair. The violation of Leech's modesty maxim is tackled in Trump‘s interview with the correspondent Julie Pace where Trump turns the items of this maxim up down. He maximizes praise of self and minimizes dispraise of self. This study aims at presenting types of adjacency pairs presented by Cook and Leech's politeness maxims focusing on Modesty maxim in Trump‘s interview. It hypothesizes that the pairs of question and answer occupy the first rank in this genre followed by accusation pair. It also hypothesizes that preferred answer appears more than the dispreferred one. At the end of the study, conclusion and suggestions for further studies are mentioned


INTRODUCTION
(cited in Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 327) affirm that conversation is very highly structured. They mention that there are definite principles regulating the taking of turns in conversation. Several types of adjacency pairs or ordered sequences of two elements in a conversation that are related to each other and mutually presupposing, such as greetings, invitations or questionanswer sequences form the skeleton of any conversation.
A conversation is defined by Sacks (ibid) as a string which has at least two turns. Some turns are more closely related than others. He isolates a class of sequences of turns called adjacency pairs. The first part of a pair predicts the occurrence of the second: ‗Given a question, regularly enough an answer will follow' (Couthard, 1985, p. 69). Many decencies and rules distinguish a political interview from other activities. These decencies and rules should be followed giving a political interview its own structure. This study aims at determining the types of adjacency pairs involved in Trump's interview with the correspondent Jolie Pace. Investigating and describing such adjacency pairs is the second aim. The researchers try to investigate the pragmatic aspects of such adjacency pairs as used in Political interviews. He also clarifies the violation of Leech's modesty maxim in this genre of communication.
The study hypothesizes that the remarkable types of adjacency pairs which occur in a political interview in question are questions, accusations and blames, but with superiority given to question and accusation. There are also discoverable pragmatic aspects in the use of such adjacency Pairs such as the violation of Leech's politeness maxim.

Adjacency Pairs
Yule (1996, p. 77) argues that adjacency pairs are automatic patterns or sequences which are used in the structure of conversation. He describes English conversation as an activity where, the most part, two or more people take turns as speaking. Typically, only one person speaks at a time and there tends to be an avoidance of silence between turns. If more than one participant tries to talk at the same time, one of them usually stops. Speakers can make their turns as complete in a number of ways by asking a question, for example, or by pausing at the end of a completed syntactic structure like a phrase or a sentence.
Other participants can indicate that they want to take the speaking turn, also in a number of ways. They can start to make short sounds, usually repeated, while the speaker is talking and often use body shifts or facial expressions to signal that they have something to say (ibid).
The term of 'adjacency pairs' is rejected by Renkema (1993, p. 113). She says that the designation of APs is not totally correct. She adds that the parts of a pair are often not adjacent. She mentions the following example as a sample which proves her opinion (2) A: Can you tell me how to get to the mall? B: Do you see that big sign? A: Yes B: You have to make a left turn there. In this example: the opening question and its answer are separated by another question-and-answer pair. It seems, as if, that Renkema is not aware of the use of the term 'insertion pair '. Besides, Renkema (Ibid) uses the term 'adjacency pair' afterwards saying that the term APs is an important building block in conversation. Crystal (1998, p. 118) emphasizes the importance of three-part exchanges where a response is followed by an element of feedback (F). He also adds that such reactions are especially found in teaching situations. He mentions the following example: (3) Teacher: where were the arrows kept? (I) Pupil: In a special kind of box.(R) Teacher: Yes, that's right, in a box. (F) There are some Linguists who suggest the substitution of the term APs by the term conditional relevance. Levinson (1983, p.306) and Schegloff (1972, p. 363-4) advocate this idea. They say that what binds the parts of APs together is not a formation rule of the sort that would specify that a question must receive an answer if it is to count as a well-formed discourse, but the setting up of specific expectations which have to be attended to. Levinson (Ibid) draws attention to another type of problem which arises with the notion of an AP. He points out that unless, for any given first part, there is a small or at least delimited set of seconds, the concept will cease. Levinson treats language as if it were an accomplished product and not a developing process. Besides, he afterwards emphasizes the importance of the notion of 'adjacency pairs' saying: "However the importance of the notion is revived by the concept of preference organization" (Ibid: 307). Cook (1989, p. 52) states that the answer of adjacency pairs is often a choice of two likely responses. A request is most likely to be followed by either an acceptance or a refusal. In such cases, one of the responses is preferred because it occurs most frequently and the other dispreferred because it is less common. He draws this figure to show the types of APs as follows:

Types OF Adjacency Pairs
Justification (preferred) Cook (1989, p. 52) Most speakers initiate dispreferred responses by a slight pause or by a preface like 'well' or 'you see', or by an explanation and justification of the response. In this regard, Coulthard (1985, p. 69) points out that there is a class of first pair parts which includes Questions, Greetings, Challenges, Offers, Requests, Complaints, Invitations; and that for some first pair parts the second pair part is reciprocal (Greeting-Greeting), for some there is only one appropriate second (Question-Answer), and for some more than one (Complaint-Apology/ Justification). This means that some first parts of APs accept either a) only one possible second part, or b) more than one possible second part. APs that accept only one possible second part are of two types: 1) reciprocal 2) nonreciprocal. In addition to greeting-greeting, reciprocal pair parts may also include:
Types of APs that accept more than one possible second may be of the sort: complaintapology/ denial/ justification; accusation-confession/ justification; assessments-

Question
Expected Answer (preferred) Unexpected Answer (dispreferred) agreements/ disagreements, etc. the following figure illustrates the types of adjacency pairs as discussed above: Reciprocal e.g.
One possible second part Greeting-Greeting Adjacency Pairs non-reciprocal e.g.

Question -Answer
More than one possible second part

Figure (2) Types of APs According to Second Parts
Looking at APs from the point of view of structure, such pairs may either be classified as simple or complex; simple in the sense that they are constructed of short simple utterances, and complex in the sense that they are constructed of long utterances including more than one act and combination of types. Cook (1989, p. 53) states that the second part of AP can be delayed by another question and answer which are related to that of the first and second part. This kind is known as an insertion sequence. But the speakers sometimes switch from one topic to another unrelated one, and then back again. This kind is known as a side sequence. Insertion and side sequences draw attention to the fact that conversation is a discourse mutually constructed and negotiated.

Insertion Sequence
Insertion sequences or side sequences are defined by Schegloff (1968, p. 293) as a piece of conversational activity with its own structure but a piece completely unrelated to the ongoing conversation and inserted within it. The word 'inserted' is used because the original conversation tends to be resumed where it broke off, sometimes without indication that anything at all has happened. According to Yule (1996, p. 78), an insertion sequence, is one AP within another. Yule (Ibid) mentions an example of a pair which consists of making a request-accepting. The request consists of (Q1-A1) with an insertion sequence of a question-answer pair (Q2-A2) which seems to function as a condition on the acceptance of the request The delay in acceptance in the above example, created by the insertion sequence, is an indication that not all first parts necessarily receive the kind of second parts the speaker might anticipate: Delay is always interpreted as meaningful. It also represents the distance between what is expected and what is provided. The following example is provided by Merritt (1976, p. 333) in which we can see that there is a pair which is embedded within another one and shows the effect of the insertion sequences on the ongoing of the conversation.
(7) A: May I have a bottle of Mich? (Q1) B: Are you twenty one? (Q2) Coulthard, 1985, p.73) justifies the use of insertion sequences by saying that a next speaker producers not a second pair part but another first pair part, sometimes, either because he does not understand, or because he does not want to commit himself until he knows more, or because he is simply stalling.
According to Mey (1993, p.223), the use of insertion sequences is very important in some cases. He says that even though the requirement of immediate neighboring or adjacency holds for two utterances belonging to the same exchange, there are cases where such immediacy is not maintained and that the resulting overlapping, however, does not damage conversational coherence. Jefferson (1972), as cited in coulthard (1985, p. 75), proposes an embedded sequence different from Schegloff's insertion sequence and labeled it 'side sequence '. Jefferson (Ibid) says that the general drift of a conversation is sometimes halted at an unpredictable point by request for clarification and then the conversation restarts again where it is left off .Jefferson suggests that the 'misapprehension sequence' has a threepart structure, consisting of 'a statement of sorts, a misapprehension of sorts , and a clarification of sorts ' . Jefferson (Ibid: 76) says that the term 'insertion sequence' can be changed by 'repair' which means corrections of some kind of trouble that arises during the course of conversation. Wooten (1975) (cited in Wardhaugh, 1986, p. 292) mentions the following example to explain what is meant by insertion sequence: (9) Patient: I'm a nurse, but my husband won't let me work Therapist: how old are you? Patient: thirty-one this December Therapist: what do you mean, he won't let you work?
The therapist's question about the patient's age, as can be seen, is directed towards clarifying the patient's claim that her husband will not let her work. Here, the therapist considers that at 31 years of age the patient should realize that she can exercise more control over her life than she seems prepared to exercise. The conflict about naming this type of sequences has no end but most linguists adopt the term of -insertion sequence‖ to cover all that is inserted or embedded within APs (Wardhaugh, 1986, p. 292).

Pre-Sequences
Yule (1996, p. 67) points out that the concept of face saving may be helpful in understanding how participants in an interaction understand more than what is said. The basic assumption, from the perspective of politeness is that face is typically at risk when the self needs to accomplish something involving other. The greatest risk seems to be when the other is put in a difficult position. One way of avoiding risk is to provide an opportunity for the other to halt the potentially risky act. For example in making a request, speakers will often first produce what can be described as a 'pre-request'. In short, the speaker sometimes should make a preface to convince the addressee accepts what is required (Ibid). Pre-sequences are conversation structures that invite collaboration in an upcoming turn sequence. By inviting collaboration, the presequence ensures that the following turns will proceed without face-threatening such as refusals or disagreements. Pre-sequences are, thus, involved to minimize the occurrence of dispreferred actions (e.g., refusal and disagreement) and to maximize the occurrence of preferred actions in the upcoming turns (Levinson, 1983, p. 89). Heritage (1985, p. 4) states that pre-sequence objects are considered groundclearing devices directed at establishing the appropriateness or relevance of projectedly subsequent actions such as making 'news' announcement, requesting, inviting and the like. In each of these cases, the face-threatening rejection of some activity proposed by the speaker is avoided by the recipients' indication, in advance of the proposed activity, that the activity is not appropriate, relevant, possible, desired or whatever (ibid). (1996b, p.127) argues that it is necessary to distinguish between the linguistic meaning and the intended one which a speaker wishes to convey. The latter is interesting and effective, as it involves aspects of meaning which are not solely derived from the meaning of linguistic forms, but rather from certain aspects of meaning that are attributed to the manipulation of these linguistic forms by a speaker with the presence of felicity conditions. The first one deals with the meaning of linguistic form only. Yule (ibid: 3) also states that the social distance between interlocutors has a significant impact on the nature of their interaction. He states that, on the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speakers determine how much needs to be said. Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance."

Yule
According to Blakemore (1987, p.11), semantics and pragmatics deal with the question of meaning apparently but differ in the manner or way they consider such a type of meaning. Semantics attaches with the truth -condition of an utterance in the abstraction from the context in which this utterance occurs while pragmatics studies those aspects of meaning attributable to a user of language.

Research Methodology
The researchers tackle two problems which are the rate of adjacency pairs and the violation of Leech's modesty maxim in a political interview whose participants are Trump and Julie Pace; therefore, the types of adjacency pairs presented by Cook (1989) are discussed in details. Leech's politeness maxims will be clarified but the focus is on the modesty maxim which is the core of this study. Political interview is chosen because it presents a raw material in which the problem of the study can be manifested in high rates. The interviewee is Trump who has special style on social media. The types of adjacency pairs and Leech's politeness maxims cannot be tackled in this research, without talking about the structure of conversation in general. The nature of the study is inherent with pragmatics; therefore, the definition of pragmatics is also dealt with.

Leech's Model
According to Cruse (2000, p. 361), the cooperative principle (CP) can go some way towards explaining the generation of implicatures. However, one class of implicatures, which receives no account under this heading, concerns implicatures of politeness. This reason motivates Leech to propose an independent pragmatic principle, to function alongside with the CP, which he calls the politeness principle (PP). Besides, in studying politeness, Leech believes, one is automatically studying social interaction and appropriacy of special modes of behaviour in accordance with socio-cultural conversations. Leech (1983, p. 132) divides PP into a number of maxims which go in pairs as follows:

Data Analysis
Types of adjacency pairs will be counted to have an idea about which type is highly used in this genre of communication. Besides, the violation of Leech's modesty maxim is clarified because it is highly used in political interviews. This use is due to the fact that the interviewer does his best to make the listeners satisfy about what he says. The priority is given to the type of question followed by accusation type where the interviewer tries to get desired answers from the interviewee. One sample of each type of adjacency pairs will be analyzed to absorb its real type. According to the intended meaning of the turns involved in this interview, the frequencies of adjacency pairs can be shown in Table one Table (

Violation OF Leech's Modesty Maxim
Most of interviewers violate this maxim spending most part of interview talking about their deeds and achievements. This violation is justified because the speaker aims at convincing the audience that he has specific qualifications that enable him to solve any problem in the future. Trump exaggerates in violation of this maxim depending on his success that he has achieved especially in financial field. The paragraphs that involve this violation will be extracted below.
We (

Conclusion
The results of the analysis have come out the following conclusions: 1. The most common types of APs which are present in the data are questions, accusations, blames and assessments with superiority given to questions. This validates hypothesis number (1).

Preferred seconds outweigh dispreferred ones which validate hypothesis number
(2). This clearly shows that the interviewee has a special power and high rank which enable him to speak frankly. 3. Nearly all politeness maxims have exploited the Modesty, the Agreement, the Approbation and the Tact maxim respectively. This shows that the interviewee sometimes behaves impolitely in the following ways:

Recommendations
It is recommended that