This paper is meant to supply a conversation analysis ( CA ) of interaction in institutional scenes taking a political intelligence interview of Amr Mousa, the Secretary General of the Arab League as an illustration. The treatment is in 6 parts. Part 1 is an lineation of the relationship between CA and political intelligence interviews. Separate 2 is methodological analysis. Separate 3 is a description of informations. Separate 4 is a conversation analysis. Separate 5 is decision. Separate 6 is a selected bibliography.

CA & A ; Political intelligence interviews

CA is one of the cardinal methodological attacks to the survey of discourse. It was foremost developed by Harvey Sacks in the early sixtiess in California ( Wooffitt, 2005 ; 10s Have, 1999 ) . Sacks was working for a suicide bar Centre where he used to have calls from people trying self-destruction. The thought of CA came into his head when he realized that some companies were non willing to uncover their names feigning that they can non hear good. He and his co-worker Schegloff were concerned with supplying options to the established signifiers of sociological discourse through entering phone calls and listening to them one time and once more ( Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998 ) . In so making, Sacks could depict the organisation of action that underpins societal life through the probe of elaborate insouciant conversation ( Lerner, 2004 ) . Now CA is best understood as an attack to depict the methodicalness, construction and consecutive forms of interaction in both insouciant or ordinary conversation and institutional scenes ( Wooffitt, 2005 ; Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998 ) .

Although CA was originally developed with the focal point on ordinary conversation where it achieved a great success, now it is widely applied in institutional puting excessively ( Heritage, 1998 ; Drew and Heritage, 1992 ) . This survey is non concerned with insouciant or mundane conversation ( e.g. conversation among friends, talk at household repasts, telephone or cyberspace confabs ) . It is merely concerned with conversation in institutional scenes. The literature suggests that there are many illustrations of CA applications to informations derived from educational ( Gibson, 2009 ; Watson, 1992 ) , judicial ( Atkinson and Drew, 1979 ) , clinical ( Heritage and Maynard, 2006 ; Haakana, 2001 ; Byrne and Long, 1984 ) , and media ( Ekstrm, 2007 ; Nielsen and Wagner, 2007 ) scenes.

This survey is concerned with the media scene and more specifically political intelligence interview. This is a typical genre of broadcast talk ( Clayman and Heritage, 2002 ) . The outstanding topographic point the political intelligence interview occupies in political communicating today from one side and the increasing Numberss of universe political struggles on the other have drawn the attending of Cadmium analysts to the political intelligence interview as a rich beginning for CA applications and probes.

Method & A ; Tools

Here I analyze an extract of a political intelligence interview in footings of interaction in institutional scene. The method of analysis this survey adopts is within the general model of CA. The principle of following CA is that “ The intelligence interview is, foremost and first, a class of interaction to which the participants contribute on a turn-by bend footing, for the most portion by inquiring and replying inquiries ” ( Clayman and Heritage, 2002: 13 ) . Likewise, a cardinal premise of CA is that conversation is a socially organized interaction procedure between its participants. It is non merely a affair of vocalizations. CA is basically concerned with both the manner vocalizations are produced and the context that surrounds the conversation. In this it pays particular attending to all discourse elements such as repeat, bend pickings, laughter, vacillation, and nodding.

Consequently, it was necessary to develop a manner by which all the elements and inside informations of the interaction are represented. In this, legion written text systems have been developed for capturing all facets of address production ( Bucholtz, 2007 ) . However, Jefferson ‘s ( 2004 ; 1985 ) written text system for Conversation Analytic research is the internationally recognized ‘gold criterion ‘ for transcribing the interactionally relevant characteristics of talk-in-interaction ” ( Lerner, 2004: 3 )


In CA, it is required that the informations must be existent talk derived from the real-world and existent contexts ( Liddicoat, 2007 ) . Based on this premise, this survey takes a intelligence interview of Amr Mousa, the Secretary- General of the Arab League as a information for this survey. The interview is concerned with some recent intelligence events such as the Iraq crisis, Arab-Israeli struggle, and buccaneering in the Red Sea. The information therefore is based on the picture recording of this interview which was downloaded from hypertext transfer protocol: // The advantage about picture recording is that it is better than any other mean such as audio recording, note-taking, or remember in capturing all facets of interaction between the participants in the conversation. The ground of choosing this interview in peculiar is that it exhibits many of the characteristics which make it an first-class context for survey and probe. Furthermore, it touches many of the hot issues many people are familiar with. The followers is a transcript of an extract of the interview.


Both the IR and IE are cognizant of the fact that interaction in institutional scenes has specific aims that need to be met. Furthermore, they both consider the interview etiquette good. This is discussed in the points below

The Role of the IR in the interaction procedure

From the really beginning, the IR is cognizant of the significance of the interactive dimension. He knows rather good that his success in obtaining information from his guest depends in the first topographic point on his ability to maintain the sequence of the interview in consequence. This is achieved by agencies of maintaining a friendly ( or non hostile ) atmosphere that can be promoting for the invitee to experience easy, non disrupting or rectifying him, and showing understanding with his invitee. This is more illustrated in the undermentioned points.

The IR first produces an drawn-out soliloquy in which he introduces his invitee to the audience with regard and high regard. The usage of soliloquies at the beginning of intelligence interviews, nevertheless, is a tradition and it reflects the grade of formality the interview is shaped by. However, he did non raise any controversial issue about Amr Mousa in this soliloquy as an indicant that the interview ambiance is non meant to be hostile.

The IR uses a polite and regardful manner and his intervention of controversial issues is non hostile. After he gives his monologic gap, the IR welcomes his invitee with no rubrics in a manner that reflects his desire to look near to him: “ Welcome Amr Mousa ” .

The IR starts his series of inquiries with an open-ended inquiry. This may reflect his purpose to give his addressee the chance to show himself good at the beginning of the interview.

He attempts to look as impersonal and non taking the side of any party. He says “ one may state that the consequences have, well, non truly run into the outlooks ” as if the inquiry is non his but generated by others.

Bend pickings is good observed. This is achieved through a typical question-answer method although there is an overlapping talk at the terminal of inquiries. Each of the inquiries the interviewer asks maps as a “ move ” within the interview game at a peculiar point in its province of drama. Furthermore, the IR does non mean to disrupt his invitee. Even when Amr Mousa is reiterating words or hesitating for a piece to set up his ideas, the IR does non mean to mend or rectify that.

The Role of the IE in the interaction procedure

In his replies to the IR ‘s inquiry, Amr Mousa produces a axiom of concerted with his IR. He attempts to do his replies relevant to the inquiries of his IR. Furthermore, he keeps the axiom of measure as giving sufficient illustrations to back up his statement. Most significantly, it seems that Amr Mousa wanted to do usage of the event ( the interview ) to support himself and the organisation he is heading against the accusals they have been late having. So he is cognizant excessively, merely like the IR, to accomplish some interactive ends through this interview. The manner he does this is summarized in the undermentioned points.

From the really beginning, Amr Mousa asserts that he has the same feeling other ordinary people and observers may hold. In his reply to the first inquiry “ one may state that the consequences have, well, non truly run into the outlooks of the many people in the Arab universe itself ” , he interrupts the IR to show his understanding with his interviewer stating “ Indeed, Indeed ” . The consequence the convergence gives in this context is of strong understanding.

The manner Amr Mousa replies to the inquiry is that he is cognizant of the inquiries and issues which are raised by his IR. He could expect the subjects which came up during the interview. This is rather obvious in his speedy responses to the inquiries of his IR. At the very terminal of each of the IR ‘s inquiries, there is a really overlapping talk Amr Mousa produces. The one refering the function of the Arab League in deciding struggles was meant to show understanding, the overlapping talk refering the terrorist act issue “ This accusal ” was a strong look of dissension. However, the overlapping talk is elementary. The IR already finished his talk and Amr took the chance to get down his talk. Deserving observing, Amr Mousa is non stating your accusal. He is merely stating the accusal. So it is non a personal dissension. When he expressed understanding refering the League function, he replied: “ You are right and I accept that ” . This makes a contrast between looks of understanding and dissension.

In Lines 35 and 67, Amr Mousa speeds up his bringing as he approaches a passage relevancy, therefore hotfooting through the topographic point where bend induction might be attempted. This besides reflects the IE ‘s consciousness that the message and interaction should be delivered and completed within a fixed clip bound.

Amr Mousa uses fixs to construct statements. In lines 28-31, he initiates a fix sequence. This induction is non repaired by either participant and it is followed by a silence after which Amr Mousa provides more illustrations for asseverating his statement.

Based on the points above, it can be claimed that

The infusion is a typical illustration of intelligence interviews. It is intelligence oriented, features a politician who is besides a public figure and newsworthy invitee, and mostly maintains the question-answer format ( Clayman and Heritage, 2002 ) . Both the IR and IE act under the protections of impersonal institutional functions in malice of the no hostile ambiance.

The scene of the interview is extremely formal. The participants ( the IR and IE ) focal point on peculiar undertakings, the order of engagement is reasonably stiff ; and the figure of bends is really limited. ( Wooffitt, 2005 )

The kind of interaction is impersonal. This determination can be generated to the premise that interaction in institutional scene, unlike insouciant conversations, is formal and impersonal.

CA is an effectual attack in the survey of interaction in institutional scenes as it involves the direct observation of of course happening interaction between participants as captured on sound and picture recordings.