A little bit of conversation analysis

Yesterday was the opening of the 48th Australian Parliament. And, of course, some interesting conversational things happened. The following sequence stood out to me (screen captured from the longer video here at around 3 hour and 13 minutes). This is not a commentary on whether this was “good” or “bad”, it is a descriptive analysis on how people navigate turn taking and rights to the floor in the Australian House of Representatives.

Two things struck me - how the Manager for Opposition Business stood up before the Speaker called on him and the “yeah no” at the start of his turn. So, of course, I transcribed it using mostly Jeffersonian transcription conventions with a little bit of Mondadian to capture the embodied conduct. The clip starts with the end of the speech from the Member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines (HH).

1   HH:   and i wish him the very very

2           best (0.3) from all of us in

3         this chamber but most especially

4          (0.4) from the crossbench.

5   MPs: +hear hear hear               +

    AH:   +stands up and walks to table+

6          (2.0)

7   MD:   ah give the call to: thee (0.4)

8         >manager of opposition business.<

9   AH:   yeah no thank you speaker.=i

10        knew that you would give me the

11        call indeed to give this speech¿=i

12       ah (.) i had a hin- instinct that

13        you might.

Following HH’s turn, the Members of Parliament (MPs) on the floor demonstrate their agreement for what she has said with “hear hear” which is not produced in unison, so there are more than two “hears” in the transcript. The camera is changed to show the Speaker of the house, with the backs of Opposition in the foreground and the Government across the other side of the table. The Manager for Opposition Business, Alex Hawke (AH), stands during this and then waits.

AH waits because it is not his turn to speak; the Speaker of the House, Milton Dick (MD), allocates the next turn. Once he is allocated as next speaker, AH could have started with his scripted speech, but he chooses not to. Instead, AH produces an account for what can be considered a potential breach of expected conduct - that is, that he might typically be expected to wait to be called upon by the Speaker prior to standing to talk. AH self-selected as having the next turn at talk instead of waiting for that allocation to occur. This account includes rush-throughs, which work to hold the floor for a longer turn at talk, possibly indicating his orientation to the impromptu nature of this sequence as opposed to the forthcoming planned speech. AH also directly comments on his self-selection as “instinct” that he would be next one called upon to produce a speech.

The “yeah no” also stood out to me. When we analyse, we can ask “why that now?” - what is occurring in the turn before and the rest of the turn that might explain why AH produced this. The Speaker did not ask AH a yes/no question, so it is not an answer to a question. It occurs in a responsive position where AH has been allocated the floor. When allocated as next to speak, what might typically come as the response is embodied only (perhaps with a “thank you”), with an MP standing. The MP would then produce their speech as a new sequence rather than in response to the Speaker’s turn. As AH is already standing, his response to being allocated the floor can’t be standing up. Instead, he produces a verbal response. As such, the “yeah no” can be considered a turn-initial particle produced in second position, prefacing his “thank you” and the following account. AH responds to the allocation of the floor with a “yeah no”, possibly indicating his orientation to the sequential departure of his standing before allocation as well as foreshadowing forthcoming account, which is also a departure as he had been called upon to produce a prepared speech rather than produce other talk.

Institutional interactions often involve a modification of the “norms” of conversation. For interaction on the floor of the Australian Parliament, this can be seen in how turn taking is typically managed by participants, with turn allocation by the Speaker. It is also seen through AH’s account for his potential breach of this expected norm for turn taking.

All this to say isn't it cool how we manage conversation!