AUSTRALIAN AGENDA – INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD IN NEWS AUSTRALIA CHANNEL: A CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

A THESIS

By

EKA YANUALIFA TELOMENSI SITEPU 187052005/MBE

ENGLISH POSTGRADUATE STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF CULTURAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2020 AUSTRALIAN AGENDA – INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD IN AUSTRALIA CHANNEL: A CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

A THESIS

Submitted as the Partial Fulfillment of Requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts (M.A.) in English Postgraduate Study Program, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, University of Sumatera Utara

By

EKA YANUALIFA TELOMENSI SITEPU 187052005/MBE

FACULTY OF CULTURAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2020

DECLARATION

AUSTRALIAN AGENDA – INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD IN CHANNEL: A CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

I certify that the thesis I wrote as one of the requirements to obtain the degree of Master of Arts from English Postgraduate Study Program, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, University of Sumatera Utara, is exactly my own work. I certify that I clearly mentioned the reference of the citations I used in some specific parts of this thesis based on norm, rule, and etiquette of the technique of a scientific writing. I certify, in the future, that I am willing to accept the sanction of the renovation of my academic degree which I receive and other sanction in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations, provided some parts or all parts of this thesis are invented not to be my own work or to commit plagiarism.

Medan, 26th August 2020 The writer

Eka Yanualifa Telomensi Sitepu

AUSTRALIAN AGENDA – INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD IN SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA CHANNEL: A CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

The research aims to find out the aspects of conversational interactions in the conversation, to analyze how and why those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in the conversation. In conducting this research, the researcher uses documentation method in collecting the data and applied qualitative content analysis in analyzing the aspects of conversational interactions. The data of this research are the utterances, while the source of data is a video of the interview between the interviewer (Peter Vanillin) and interviewees (Paul Kelly and Julia Gillard) which downloaded from Youtube website with the duration 29:44 minutes. The data are analyzed based on the theory of Conversation Analysis that proposed by Paltridge. The results of this research are, the interviewer (Peter Vanillin) employed the aspects of conversational interactions in giving and responding the questions to interviewees. The aspects of conversational interactions such as Opening Conversation, Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking and Closing Conversation are used. While, Feedback and Repair are not used by interviewer throughout the conversation. On the other hand, the interviewees use Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking, Feedback and Repair. But Opening and Closing Conversation does not use by interviewees throughout the conversation. So, five of seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation are applied. Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in the conversation with different realization. Feedback and Repair are not used by the interviewer, while Opening and Closing Conversation are not used by the interviewees. Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in this conversation because it is the standard in conversation and the interviewer and interviewees applied the aspects of conversational interactions in order to seek the information from the interviewees, to give the clarification of the issues and to make a good communication in that conversation.

Key Words: Conversation Analysis, Aspects of Conversational Interactions, Utterances, Interview, Sky News Australia Channel

AUSTRALIAN AGENDA – INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD IN SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA CHANNEL: A CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui aspek interaksi percakapan dalam pembicaraan, untuk menganalisis bagaimana dan mengapa aspek interaksi percakapan diwujudkan dalam percakapan. Dalam melakukan penelitian ini, peneliti menggunakan metode dokumentasi dalam mengumpulkan data dan menerapkan analisis konten kualitatif dalam menganalisis aspek interaksi percakapan yang digunakan oleh pewawancara dan yang diwawancarai dalam percakapan. Data dari penelitian ini adalah ucapan, sementara sumber data adalah video dari wawancara antara pewawancara (Peter Vanillin) dan narasumber (Paul Kelly and Julia Gillard) yang didownload dari situs Youtube dengan durasi 29:44 menit. Data dianalisis berdasarkan teori analisis percakapan yang diusulkan oleh Paltridge. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah, pewawancara (Peter vanillin) menggunakan aspek interaksi percakapan dalam memberikan dan menanggapi pertanyaan kepada narasumber. Aspek interaksi percakapan seperti Opening Conversation, Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking dan Closing Conversation. Sementara, Feedback dan Repair tidak digunakan oleh pewawancara sepanjang percakapan. Di sisi lain, yang diwawancarai menerapkan Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking, Feedback dan Repair. Tetapi, Opening dan Closing Conversation tidak digunakan oleh narasumber pada sepanjang percakapan. Jadi, lima dari tujuh aspek interaksi percakapan digunakan. Aspek interaksi percakapan tersebut dalam percakapan dengan realisasi yang berbeda. Feedback dan Repair tidak digunakan oleh pewawancara, sementara Opening dan Closing Conversation tidak digunakan oleh narasumber. Aspek interaksi percakapan ini diwujudkan dalam percakapan ini karena itu adalah standar dalam percakapan dan pewawancara serta narasumber menerapkan aspek- aspek interaksi percakapan untuk mengumpulkan informasi dari narasumber, memberikan klarifikasi pada masalah dan untuk membuat komunikasi yang baik dalam percakapan.

Kata Kunci: Analisis Percakapan, Aspek Interaksi Percakapan, Ucapan, Wawancara, Sky News Australia Channel

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, the writer would like to express thanks to Allah SWT, who has given love and compassion, so that she could finish the study. Secondly, she would like to express thanks to our prophet Muhammad SAW, who has brought humans being from the darkness into the brightness era. In writing this study entitled “Australian Agenda – Interview With Prime Minister Julia Gillard In Sky

News Australia Channel: A Conversation Analysis”, there were many difficulties and problems faced by her and without much help from the following people, it might be impossible for her to finish it. Therefore, she would like to thanks to the people mentioned below:

1. Prof. Dr. Runtung Sitepu, S.H., M.Hum, the Rector of University of Sumatera

Utara.

2. Dr. Budi Agustono, M.S., the Dean of Faculty of Cultural Sciences who has

given the recommendation to carry out this research.

3. Dr. Ridwan Hanafiah, S.H., M.A, the Head of English Post Graduate Study

Program, and Dr. Umar Mono, M.Hum as the Secretary of English Post

Graduate Study Program for their encouragement to the researcher during the

process in writing this study.

4. Dr. Ridwan Hanafiah, S.H., M.A and Dr. T. Thyrhaya Zein, M.A., as her

supervisors who have given their suggestions, ideas, comments, and

guidances in finishing this study.

5. All Lecturers especially those of English Post Graduate Study Program for

their guidances, advices, suggestions, and encouragement during her

academic year. And to Mam Adry as the staff of English Department for her

contribution in accomplishing the administration.

6. Her parents, M. Fauji Sitepu, S.Pd and Julida Sembiring, AMd.Kes who have

given their sincere prayers, love and supports in moral and material during

her academic year in completing this study.

7. Her beloved sister and brother, Ety Liani Putri, AMd.Ds and Muhammad

Ridho Akbar Sitepu and also all the families who have given their supports,

prayers and helps to finish this study.

8. Her classmate in English Postgraduate batch 2018 for the memories that we

have struggled together, especially Melda Mahniza, Nuraini, Atika, Lilis,

Sarah and Nova who kept support each other to finish our study.

The writer hopes that this study will be useful for the reader, especially for the other researcher who want to do the same research and may God bless all of us.

Medan, 26th August 2020 The writer

Eka Yanualifa Telomensi Sitepu 187052005

CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Data

Name : Eka Yanualifa Telomensi Sitepu

Registered Numbered : 187052005

Place, Date of Birth : Medan, January 17th 1996

Gender : Female

Religion : Muslim

Nationality : Indonesia

Fathers’ Name : M. Fauji Sitepu, S.Pd

Mothers’ Name : Julida Sembiring, AMd.Kes

Address : Jl. Bunga Pancur IX Gg Flamboyan No 11 Medan

Phone Number : 082165180231

E-mail : [email protected]

Academic Background:

2002-2007 : SDN 064023 Medan

2007-2010 : SMP Negeri 31 Medan

2010-2013 : SMK Negeri 8 Medan

2013-2017 : University of Muhammadiyah North Sumatera (UMSU)

2018-2020 : University of Sumatera Utara (USU)

Sincerely

Eka Yanualifa Telomensi Sitepu TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

ABSTRACT ...... i

ABSTRAK ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

CURRICULUM VITAE ...... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES...... ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1

1.2 Problems of the Study ...... 8

1.3 Objectives of the Study ...... 9

1.4 Scope of the Study ...... 9

1.5 Significances of the Study ...... 10

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Preview of Literature...... 11

2.2 Conversation Analysis ...... 11

2.3 Aspects of Conversational Interactions ...... 14

2.3.1 Opening Conversation ...... 14

2.3.2 Turn Taking ...... 17

2.3.3 Adjacency Pairs ...... 21 2.3.4 Preference Organization ...... 23

2.3.5 Feedback ...... 26

2.3.6 Repair ...... 27

2.3.7 Closing Conversation ...... 29

2.4 Sky News Australia ...... 30

2.5 Relevant Studies ...... 32

2.6 Conceptual Framework ...... 34

CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH

3.1 Research Design ...... 35

3.2 Data and Source of Data ...... 35

3.2.1 Data ...... 35

3.2.2 Source of Data ...... 36

3.3 Techniques of Data Collection ...... 36

3.4 Techniques of Data Analysis ...... 37

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Findings ...... 39

4.2 Analysis ...... 41

4.3 Discussions ...... 74

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions ...... 78

5.2 Suggestions ...... 79

REFERENCES

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Pages

Table 2.1 Common Adjacency Pairs and Typical Preferred and Dispreferred ...... 24

Table 4.1 Elements of Conversation Analysis ...... 40

Table 4.2 Percentage of Adjacency Pairs ...... 41

Table 4.3 Percentage of Turn Taking ...... 62

Table 4.4 Preference Organization ...... 65

Table 4.5 Preferred and Dispreffered Response ...... 66

LIST OF APPENDICES

No. Title Pages

Appendix 1 Transcription of News Interview ...... 84

Appendix 2 Transcription Conventions ...... 95

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AP : Adjacency Pairs

TT : Turn Taking

PO : Preference Organization

F : Feedback

R : Repair

OC : Opening Conversation

CC : Closing Conversation

R-AG : Requesting-Agreement

A-AG : Assessment-Agreement

Q-A : Question-Answer

B-D : Blame-Denial

SR : Self Repair

Re : Request

Ass : Assessment

Pr : Preferred

DPr : Dispreferred

IR : Interviewer

IE : Interviewee

Code Participants:

PV : Peter Vanillin

PK : Paul Kelly

JG : Julia Gillard CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Conversation informs people how to understand well about the main topic or the aims of the conversation. Paltridge (2010:106) stated in the society, conversation is the representation of social interaction. In doing conversation, there are conversation strategies that must be being attentions. The strategy appears in the conversation to find out the different kinds of conversation interaction. For example, when people try to start the conversation, they use greeting and opening in the conversation. Then, when people having conversation, they give feedback to reply each other questions or comments.

Paltridge (2006:119) stated another aspect that must be being attention by conversation analysis is feedback. Feedback is the way in which listeners show they are attending to what is being said. It means that the listener will give the respond or feedback to the speaker. The conversation will be found in every media.

Media is one of the techniques which can be used to analyze the conversation. There are many media in doing a conversation, such as in the hospital, school, news program in television, and many more. In this research, the news interview program in television is used as the media to analyze the conversation.

1

Interview is a conversation in which one person (the interviewer) elicits information from another person (the interviewee). In doing the interview, the interviewer must prepare the questions to find out the main point of the topic and needs to demonstrate the skill to asking simple questions. While, the interviewee is the subject of the questions to be answered.

Myers (2000) stated the significant characteristic of media interviews as a generic from lies in the way that they work as talk for an overhearing audience.

Interviewers and interviewees know that what they say will be appraised not just by their immediate interlocutor but by who-knows-how-many beyond. This is not merely a matter of pressure towards increased circumspection in one‟s choice of words, though that must undoubtely exist. It is also a matter of the public performance of talk-of talking adequately for the public purposes of the encounter and of acquitting oneself well in public. Conversly, interviewees have in some way or other earned their role, their “communicative entitlement”.

There are many ways to analyze the conversation, such as in Talk show,

News, Interview, and many more. In this research, the researcher analyzed the conversation in Sky News Australia Channel. Agenda is the name given to a series of Australian television news and commentary programs, broadcast on Sky

News Australia throughout the week. The Agenda series of bulletins serve as the channel's flagship program. The series focuses on mainly political topics, and in each episode the host usually interviews a guest, and is then usually joined by either Sky News contributors or politicians from opposing sides of politics debating the issues of the day. Australian Agenda debuted on 4 July 2010, the title

2 had previously been used for a weekly interview program. It is one of the programs in Sky News Australia Channel.

However, the research only scrutinizes Australian Agenda: Interview with

Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia Channel. The major reason is that, as the prime minister of the Australia in 2012, Julia Gillard has a significant position for appearing in public. As the head of the Australia government, she must be responsible for all the decisions that she made. She can make a clarification about her policy trough that program.

The other consideration is that Australian Agenda: Interview with Prime

Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia Channel discusses topics which attract Australia citizens. It covers about Labour Party Policy, Nauru, New Policy,

High Court, Funding Side of Mechanism, and Corporate Taxes. In addition, the issue brings debates because it influences other regulations in that country. All of the topics in that video are found in this research. The video was published in

August 20th 2012 on Youtube that has the duration 29 minutes 44 seconds. The video is the News Interview in Sky News Australia channel with the title of the program is “Australian Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard”. In this video it has three people, include the host as the interviewer and two guests as the interviewees. The host is Peter Vanillin, the first guest is Paul Kelly as the

Editor-At-Large , and the second guest is Julia Gillard as the Prime

Minister of Australia. Based on the video, the interviewees are more frequently done the communication than the interviewer.

3

In this research, the subjects are all of the participants, those are three participants in the conversation. However, in the process of conducting the research, the researcher found problems in listening the utterances of the participants. Despite of the things happened, the researcher then activated the subtitle of the video to help the researcher to get the utterances of the participants clearly.

Due to journalism, Scanlan (2013) stated that interviews are one of the most important methods used to collect information and present views to readers, listeners, or viewers. It means that the interviewer must be able to collect the information from the interviewee. However, it shows that the host rarely ask the questions to the guests. It is frequently done by the first guest to the second guest.

The second guest is more frequently ask the questions to the second guest than the host. It means that the host does not follow the rules of the conversation that he must be obeyed. One of the basic factor of the problem is the way the interviewer ask the questions to the guests in doing the conversation by the host. It effects in unusual conversation. Thus, in this video the interviewee could be as an interviewer.

Based on the problems above, the interviewer should be able to use an interesting way to ask the questions and to collect the information from the interviewees or the guests. However, the researcher would like to analyze the aspects of conversational interactions used in Australian Agenda – Interview with

Prime Minister Julia Gillard that has been broadcast through Sky News Australia

4

Channel. Conversation Analysis is one of the tools to analyze every sentence in ways to find out the aspects of conversational interactions are used.

Conversation analysis can interpret each other. In doing conversation, the person get the information and do the communication. Seedhouse (2005:166) stated Conversation Analysis in conversation can interpret each other, action and develop shared understanding of the progress of the interaction. It means that the ways in doing conversation is can interpret each other. Conversation analysis is as a study of talk in interaction. It takes place with any individual in any setting. The scope of conversation analysis study included organization and orderliness of social interaction (Liddicoat, 2007:6). Besides, Mazeland declared that framework of Conversation Analysis is used to concern talk in conversation to research of other types of talk such as medical and clinical interaction, lessons, or news interview. It means that Conversation analysis is a systematic analysis of talk that is produced as a result of the interactions.

Conversation analysis has aspects of conversational interactions in conversation. Paltridge (2012: 93) stated a particular interest of conversation analysis is the sequence and structure of spoken discourse. Aspects of conversational interactions that have been examined from this perspective include conversational openings and closings, turn taking, sequences of related utterances

(„adjacency pairs‟), preferences for particular combinations of utterances

(„preference organization‟), feedback and conversational „repair‟. Based on the theory, the researcher would like to analyze those aspects of conversational

5 interactions in Australian Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister in Sky News

Australia Channel.

Based on the video, it found that there are many aspects of conversational interactions of conversation are used in News Interview of the Sky News

Australia. It found that the interviewer and interviewees often used the aspects of conversation in asking and responding the questions or the statements. For examples:

Excerpt 17-18;

PK : I am asking you. JG : Yeah, and I’m gonna answer your question Paul. People will obviously do comparisons between aspects of this policy and aspects of the policy of the former government.

In this excerpt, PK used the expression of requesting expression to JG. It indicated by the utterance I am asking you and then JG responded it with the agreement expression I’m gonna answer your question Paul. Therefore,

Requesting - Agreement expression is used by the interviewees, which is one of the types of Adjacency pair.

Excerpt 54;

JG : Well, at every step of the way, this has been a government that‟s been prepared to step up and provide additional resources to States for important that national outcomes. Look at health. I mean health single biggest thing on the state government budget. Single biggest pressure on them, health costs rising far quick and far more quickly than revenue Rises or Normal CPI rises in those circumstances.

From the excerpt above, it can be seen that JG expresses or make a statement by using Self Repair. It indicated by the words I Mean. It means that JG

6 realized that the words was still unclear, thus JG repaired the words by herself.

Therefore, Self-Repair is used by the JG as the interviewee.

There are some previous researches which related to this research. The first research is conducted by Olutayo and Omolara Grace (2014) that focused on determinants of turn-taking patterns in Nigerian Television talk show. They analyzed four episodes with varieties of subject matters were selected from each show and they were numbered accordingly. Recorded episodes were played several times to identify the determinants. The topics are; the studio audience, the duration of the programme, discourse topic, gender, culture. This research used the theory of Ervin Gofman. The second is Kong Rui, SU Ting (2013) focused on structure and organization of human oral conversation. The research attemps to apply conversation analysis theory to analyze conversation structure features of

Ellen Show from two aspects: global structure and local structure. This research used the theory of Schegloff.

Contrast to the researchers mentioned above, using the theory of conversation analysis proposed by Paltridge (2012), this research focused on the aspects of conversational interactions used in Australia Agenda – Interview with

Prime Minister in the Sky News Australia Channel. All of those aspects are analyzed in this research. While, the previous researchers used another experts of conversation analysis and did not analyze all of those aspects of conversational interactions. Applying a qualitative method study by selecting the utterances from the script of Australia Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister in the Sky News

Australia Channel, the goals of the research are to find out what aspects of

7 conversational interactions of conversation, to analyze how those aspects of conversational interactions are realized, and to explain why those aspects of conversational interactions in the conversation are realized in Australian Agenda –

Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia Channel.

1.2 Problems of the Study

The problems of the study were formulated as follows:

1. What aspects of conversational interactions are used in Australian Agenda –

Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia Channel?

2. How are those aspects of conversational interactions realized in Australian

Agenda –Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia

Channel?

3. Why are those aspects of conversational interactions realized in Australian

Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia

Channel in the way they are?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study could be stated as follows:

1. To find out what aspects of conversational interactions are used in Australian

Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia

Channel.

2. To analyze how those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in

Australian Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News

8

Australia Channel.

3. To explain why those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in

Australian Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News

Australia Channel in the way they are.

1.4 Scope of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the research is limited on analyzing the aspects of conversational interactions used in Australian Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard by analyze the utterances used by the host and two guests which occured in conversation by analyzing transcription in Sky News

Australia Channel which uploded on August 20th 2012 on Youtube. Thus, this research was focused on aspects of conversational interactions in Australian

Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia

Channel.

1.5 Significances of the Study

The researcher expects that this research will give some contributions as follows:

1. Theoretically, the result of this research is expected to give the contribution

for knowledge especially in Conversation Analysis.

2. Practically, the finding of this research are also expected to be useful for:

9 a. Learners

To enrich and develop the learner‟s knowledge of aspects of

conversational interactions in conversation. b. Readers or other researcher

To give information in the same field as a basic knowledge for their

research and it is very useful for those who are interested in doing related

to this study by using aspects of conversational interactions in

conversation. c. University of Sumatera Utara

It is expected that this research would be part of literature in the

institution of University of Sumatera Utara and helps other students in

understanding aspects of conversational interactions in conversation.

d. News Viewers

It is expected that audience better understand about the aspects of

conversational interactions are found in news channel. So the audience

can be more aware of conversation interaction.

10

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Preview of Literature

This chapter contains the review of related literature, which describes aspects of conversational interactions in conversation. In this chapter the researcher elaborates some theories of conversation as a basic of this research.

Those are conversational openings and closings, turn taking, sequences of related utterances („adjacency pairs‟), preferences for particular combinations of utterances („preference organization‟), feedback and conversational „repair‟.

2.2 Conversation Analysis

Paltridge (2012: 90) stated conversation analysis is an approach to the analysis of spoken discourse that looks at the way in which people manage their everyday conversational interactions. It examines how spoken discourse is organized and develops as speakers carry out these interactions. Conversation analysis has examined aspects of spoken discourse such as sequences of related utterances (adjacency pairs), preferences for particular combinations of utterances

(preference organization), turn taking, feedback, repair, conversational openings and closings.

A key issue in conversation analysis is the view of ordinary conversation as the most basic form of talk. For conversation analysts, conversation is the main way in which people come together, exchange information, negotiate and

11 maintain social relations. All other forms of talk-in-interaction are thus derived from this basic form of talk. It is not the case that other forms of talks are the same as ordinary conversation. They do, however, exploit the same kinds of resources as „ordinary conversation‟ to achieve their social and interactional goals.

A further key feature of conversation analysis is the primacy of the data as the source of information. Analyses, thus, do not incorporate speakers‟ reflections on their interactions, field notes or interviews as ways of gathering information about the discourse. In the view of conversation analysts, the use of this kind of data represents idealizations about how spoken discourse works and is, thus, not valid data for analysis. Conversation analysis, thus, focuses on the analysis of the text for its argumentation and explanation, rather than consideration of psychological or other factors that might be involved in the production and interpretation of the discourse.

One of the aims of conversation analysis is to avoid starting with assumptions about analytical categories in the analysis of conversational data.

Conversation analysts, rather, look for phenomena which regularly occur in the data and then make that the point of further investigation. Interest is, in particular, in fine-tuned analysis of the sequence, structure and coherence of conversations.

Paltridge (2012: 91).

Conversation analysis works with recordings of spoken data and carries out careful and fine-grained analyses of this data. Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction, embracing both verbal and non- verbal conduct, in situations of everyday life. Conversation analysis originated as

12 a sociological method, but has since spread to other fields, Atkinson (1984).

Conversation analysis began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings, and the mass media. As a consequence, the term

'conversation analysis' has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of sociolinguistic interactions. Conversation analysis research began in American sociology by the lectures of Harvey Sacks and his co-workers Gail Jefferson and

Emanuel Schegloff in 1906s (Liddicoat, 2007: 4). Sacks, Jefferson and Schegloff worked for the development of an approach to the study of social action which investigates social matters, emerging through practices of everyday talk. Liddicoat interpreted conversation analysis as a study of talk in interaction. He added that the scope of conversation analysis study included organization and orderliness of social interaction (2007: 6). Besides, Mazeland declared that framework of CA used to concern in talk in conversation to research of other types of talk such as medical and clinical interaction, lessons, or news interview.

Conversation and interaction analysis is a qualitative method of analysis, which focuses on detailed exploration of the conversation and interaction between two or more people. Authentic real-life conversations are the focus of conversation and interaction analysis. The method aims to explore how the conversations are structured and what kinds of mechanisms, rules and negotiations are included in conversations. Conversation and interaction analysis

13 is close to other methods of analysis, which focus on language use and production of meanings (Antaki: 2002).

Liddicoat (2007) states conversation analysis as a study of talk interaction.

In Conversation Analysis, particular attention is given to spoken interaction such as an interview. The data of conversation analysis consist of tape recordings and transcripts of naturally occurring conversations. It means that talk interaction or conversation is the thing that can be analyzed by use conversation analysis.

2.3 Aspects of Conversational Interactions

Paltridge (2012: 93) stated a particular interest of conversation analysis is the sequence and structure of spoken discourse. Aspects of conversational interactions that have been examined from this perspective include conversational opening, turn taking, sequences of related utterances („adjacency pairs‟), preferences for particular combinations of utterances („preference organization‟), feedback, conversational „repair‟ and closing conversation. The aspects of conversational interactions are explained below:

2.3.1 Opening Conversation

The opening conversation delivers for starting the conversation between two or more people in chatting. In opening of the conversation there are greeting, such as “hello, hai, good morning, good afternoon, etc”. In the opening, participants adress and allign themselves with respect to four basic actions, there is four sequence types, which typically occur in the following order: a) summons

14 answer, b) identification-recognations, c) greeting, and d) how are you (Schegloff

1986).

Bellow is the typical example of the opening of the telephone call in

Chinese. The double brackets surrounding the ring of the telephone indicate a sound that is not transcribed. The example is taken from Yang (1997:25).

((ring)) summons

Recipient: wei? [hello] answer Caller : junghong [junghong] identification Recipient: Ei. [yes] recognition

Openings and closings are the words people used to initiate or end a conversation. They vary in terms of different speech community.

One area where conversational openings have been examined in detail is in the area of telephone conversations. Schegloff analysed a large data set of telephone openings to come up with the following „canonical opening‟ for

American private telephone conversations:

((ring)) summons/ answer sequence

Recipient : Hello Caller : Hi Ida? identification/recognition sequence Recipient : Yeah Caller : Hi, this is Carla greeting sequence Recipient : Hi Carla. Caller : How are you. how are you sequence Recipient : Okay:. Caller : Good.= Recipient : =How about you. Caller : Fine. Don‟t wants to know .. reason for call sequence

(Schegloff , 1986:115)

15

In a study of telephone openings in Mandarin Chinese, Yang (1997) found the speakers in her study also began their calls with summons/answer and identification/recognition sequences. The greeting and „how are you‟ sequences found in American and Australian phone calls, however, were less common or even absent in her data. The majority of the telephone openings she examined went straight from the identification/recognition sequence to the first topic of the conversation. Below is a typical example of the opening of telephone calls in

Chinese. The double brackets surrounding the ring of the telephone indicates a sound that is not transcribed:

((ring)) summons

Recipient : Wei? (Hello) answer Caller : Jinghong (Jinghong) identification Recipient : Ei (Yes) recognition (Yang, 1997:25)

The following example from a radio call-in program illustrates a further way of opening a conversation:

Announcer : For husband Bruce of twenty-six years Carol has this dedication (.) So how are things going. Caller : Absolutely wonderful. Announcer : That‟s great to hear you‟re still happy. Caller : Oh yes (0.5) very much so. Announcer : And what‟s your dedication all about for Bruce. Caller : Well:: we‟re going away tomorrow to the Whitsundays (.) and (0.5) umm:: I‟m looking forward to it very much and I know he is too:: for a break.

In this conversation the announcer opens the conversation by saying who is on the line and what the conversation will be about. That is, his utterance introduces the caller to the listening audience and readies the speaker for being

16 on-air and for discussing the topic of the call. The middle stage of the conversation is devoted to the topic of the call, finding the dedication that the caller will make. The conversation ends when the caller has provided the dedication and all the information that was asked for, completed a syntactic unit and employs falling intonation as a signal that she has completed her turn. The announcer does not take the opportunity to take another turn but instead plays the music dedicated to the caller‟s husband as his way of closing the conversation.

He, thus, constrains what the caller can say, excluding the possibility of her bringing up other things that would cause a delay in moving on with the program

(Thornborrow: 2001).

2.3.2 Turn Taking

Conversation analysis has also examined how people take and manage turns in spoken interactions. The basic rule in English conversation is that one person speaks at a time, after which they may nominate another speaker, or another speaker may take up the turn without being nominated (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974, Sacks 2004). There are a number of ways in which can signal that have come to the end of a turn. This may be through the completion of a syntactic unit, or it may be through the use of falling intonation, then pausing. The speaker may also end a unit with a signal such as „mmm‟ or „anyway‟, etc. which signals the end of the turn. The end of a turn may also be signaled through eye contact, body position and movement and voice pitch.

17

By contrast, we may hold on to a turn by not pausing too long at the end of an utterance and starting straight away with saying something else. We may also hold on to a turn by pausing during an utterance rather than at the end of it. We may increase the volume of what we are saying by extending a syllable or a vowel, or we may speak over someone else‟s attempt to take our turn.

The previous examples of conversational openings show how speakers give up turns by the completion of syntactic units and falling intonation. The final utterance in the telephone call-in extract shows how the speaker holds on to her final turn, until she has said everything she wants to. She lengthens the syllable in

„well‟ and „umm‟, pauses during her utterance and lengthens the vowel in „too‟.

She then indicates she is ready to end her turn.

When speakers pause at the end of a turn, it is not always the case, however, that the next speaker will necessarily take it up. In this case, the pause and the length of the pause become significant (in English, at least). In the following example of a university tutorial discussion, the nominated speaker,

Wong Young, does not respond so after a one second pause the lecturer asks again. Wong Young pauses again before he actually takes the turn, during and at the end of the turn. He then extends the syllable in „uh‟ and the vowel in „so‟, when the lecturer overlaps with „comments?‟ as her way of insisting he provide a response to her question. Here the square brackets indicate the point of overlap in the utterances. The normal brackets indicate barely audible speech, and the symbol „o‟ indicates speech that is noticeably quieter than the surrounding talk:

18

Lecturer : Okay, let‟s on, =Tadashi: and (.) Wong Young can you, (1.0) Lecturer : The last, (.) Eleven, (0.6) Wong Young : What is a profession. (0.3) What distinguishes profession from trade, (0.2) What does it mean to be a professional? (0.4) Does being a pro-professional affect the way you dress (0.2) speak behave towards others at work? (0.7) Wong Young : Uh: o [ (so:) ] o Lecturer : [Comm]ents? (Nakane 2007 : 132)

Speaker may also use overlap as a strategy for taking a turn, as well as to prevent someone else from taking the turn. The following example, from the same data set, shows this. Here the lecturer has asked Tadashi a question but another student, Kylie, wants to take the turn and constantly uses overlap to do this.

Turn taking, then, varies according to particular situations. In a classroom, for example, it is often the teacher who nominates who can take a turn. A student may, or may not respond, or students may compete to take the turn (as in the example above). Students may also put up their hand to ask permission to take a turn. Turn taking may also depend on factors such as the topic of the conversation, whether the interaction is relatively cooperative, how well the speakers know each other and the relationship between, and relative status of, the speakers (Burns and

Joyce, 1997 ). A turn constructional unit, further, can be made up of a single word such as in the above example where the lecturer simply says „Comments?‟, or it may be an extended multi-unit turn. The unit may, simply be a sound such as „uh‟ or it may be made up of a word, a phrase, a clause or a sentence with change between speakers occurring at the end of any of these units or during them if another speaker succeeds in taking the floor (Gardner, 2004).

19

There are two possible phenomena in turn-taking, namely gaps (silence) and overlaps: a. Gaps (Silence)

A lengthened transition space results in a silence in the talk. Silences work in different ways in different contexts and have different interpretations in these contexts. When a silence occurs at the end of a completed action in the talk, such as after the answer to a question, the silence is not attributable to any particular speaker.

Example: A: Is this seat taken? (2 seconds) A: Excuse me, is this seat taken? B: Oh, no. (grab her bag) You may sit here.

Silence is sometimes interpreted as distance, or the absence of familiarity.

Some others may interpret it as ignorance. b. Overlaps

Overlap happens when two speakers speaking at the same time. In the transcription symbol, overlap is represented by // = beginning of overlap (both speakers attempt to initiate talk). The point of overlap is treated as an interruption and the first speaker actually has to make a comment about procedure, i.e. appeals to an unstated rule of conversation structure. For many (younger) speakers overlapped talk appears to function like an expression of solidarity or closeness in expressing similar opinions

Deb : Did you see him in the video? Wendy : Yeah - the part on the beach Deb : Oh my God // he was so sexy Wendy : // he was just being so cool Deb : And all the waves // crashing around him! Wendy : // yeah that was really wild.

20

2.3.3 Adjacency Pairs

Paltridge (2012:97) states adjacency pairs are a fundamental unit of conversational organization and a key way in which meanings are communicated and interpreted in conversations. Adjacency pairs are utterances produced by two successive speakers in a way that the second utterance is identified as related to the first one as an expected follow-up to that utterance.

Levinson (1983:303) states adjacency pair is a basic feature of conversation analysis that is very important for conversation openings and closings as they are used in both of them. They can be characterized as paired utterances that are divided into a first pair part and a second pair part.

The following example, from a radio call-in programme, illustrates speakers using adjacency pairs in a typical and expected way. In each of the pairs of utterances in this interaction the first speaker stops and allows the second speaker to produce the expected second part to the pair of utterances:

Announcer : Sharon Stone‟s on the phone. (.) how are yo:::u. Caller : very good. Announcer : I bet you get hassled about your surname. Caller : yes I do : : Announcer : and what do you want to tell Patrick. Caller: umm that I love him very much (0.5) and I (0.5) and I wish him a very happy birthday for today. (Paltridge, 2012:98)

There are other kinds of adjacency pairs according to Paltridge (2000: 91-99):

1. Requesting – Agreement

Requesting is asking someone to do something which can be responded with acceptance or refusal.

21

Example: A: Would you mind to give me a cup of coffee, please. B: Of course.

2. Assessment – Agreement

Assessment can be formed into opinion seer or comment, which is asking another‟s opinion or agreement. It is responded with an agreement or called opinion to provide.

Example: A: What do you think about this bicycle? B: It is good.

3. Question – Answer

A question can be formed into information seek, clarification seek, etc. It is about asking for someone. It is responded with information provide, clarification provides, etc.

Example: A: Where is Mr. George.? B: He is in that room.

4. Compliment – Acceptance

A compliment is a way of praising another person about something she or he has. It has responded with acceptance.

Example: A: What a beautiful dress. B: Thanks.

5. Greeting – Greeting

Greeting is the way of saying hello and salutation.

Example: A: Good morning. B: Good morning.

6. Leave – taking Adjacency Pair

The utterances which have the purpose to end the conversation

Example: A: Goodbye.

22

B: Goodbye.

7. Complaint – Apology

A complaint is utterances which indicate feeling unsatisfied about something. However, an apology is the way to respond to the complaint, which express regretfulness.

Example: A: This cake is too sweet. B: I am sorry, sir. I will give you another one. 8. Warning – Acknowledgement

A warning is utterances to warn someone about something. While acknowledgement is the statement that showed the warning is already acceptable.

Example: A: Don‟t go there, that place is danger. B: okay, thank you.

9. Blame – Denial

Blame is utterances that express that someone is responsible for the mistake, while denial is a statement to express something that is not true.

Example: A: You went there, didn‟t you? B: No, I didn‟t.

10. Offer – Acceptance

Offer is utterances that giving something to someone while acceptance is response indicates that the offer is accepted.

Example: A: Here it is. B: Thank you.

2.3.4 Preference Organization

Preference organization is a pair that gives freedom in responding to some first pair part, whether it is preferred or dispreferred one (Paltridge, 2000:90). The

23 basic rule for adjacency pairs, then, is that when a speaker produces a first pair part they should stop talking and allow the other speaker to produce a second pair part. There is, however, a certain amount of freedom in responding to some first pair parts. For example a compliment can be followed by an „accept‟ or a „reject‟.

Thus, some second pair parts may be preferred and others may be dispreferred.

For example a question may be followed by an expected answer (the preferred second pair part) or an „unexpected or non-answer‟ (the dispreferred second pair part). When this happens, the dispreferred second pair part is often preceded by a

„delay‟, a „preface‟ and/or an „account‟. The following example illustrates this:

A : Are you going out with anyone at the moment? (Question) B : Uhhh . . . (Delay) Well, kind of . . . (Preface) There is someone I met a while back . . . (Account) Actually, I‟m getting married at the end of the year (Unexpected answer)

Table 2.1 Common adjacency pairs and typical preferred and dispreferred second pair parts (Levinson 1983)

Second Pair Parts First Pair Parts Preferred Dispreferred Request Acceptance Refusal Offer/Invite Acceptance Refusal Asessment Agreement Disagreement Unexpected Answer or Question Expected Answer Non-Answer Blame Denial Blame Admission

24

Levinson (1983: 71) states dispreferred second parts are distinguished by incorporating a substantial number of the following features:

1. Delays: (i) by a pause before delivery; (ii) by the use of preface; (iii) by displacement over several turns via the use of repair initiators or insertion sequences.

2. Prefaces: (i) the use of markers or announcers of dispreferred like Uh,Well; (ii) the production of token agreements before disagreement; (iii) the use of appreciations if relevant (for offers, invitations, suggestions, advices); (iv) the use of apologies if relevant (for request, invitations, etc); (v) the use of qualifiers; (vi) hesitation in various forms, including self-editing.

3. Accounts: carefully formulated explanations for why the dispreferred act is being done.

4. Declination component: a form suited to the nature of the first part of the pair but characteristically indirect or mitigated.

There are some ways to provide dispreferred second parts: delay/hesitate pause; er; em; ah preface well; oh express doubt I'm not sure; I don't know token acceptance that's great; I'd love to apology I'm sorry; what a pity mention obligation I must do X; I'm expected in Y appeal for understanding you see; you know make it non-personal everybody else; out there

25 give an account too much work; no time left use mitigators really; mostly; sort of; kinda hedge the negative I guess not; not possible

2.3.5 Feedback

Another aspect of spoken interactions that has been examined by conversation analysts is the ways speakers provide each other with feedback; that is, the ways in which listeners show they are attending to what is being said. This can be done, for example, by the use of „response tokens‟ such as „mmm‟ and

„yeah‟, by paraphrasing what the other person has just said or through body position and the use of eye contact. In the following example from the tutorial discussion, the students, Tadashi and Kylie, provide feedback to each other by use of the token „yeah‟, the repetition of key words, falling intonation and latched utterances:

Lecturer : And the middle one (.) i:s: Tadashi : Co[mm u nity ?] comm u nity. Kylie : [comm u nity] ? Kylie : Community, I think it is? Tadashi : o Yeah o.= Kylie : =Yeah,= Tadashi : = o Oh yeah , o (0.4) Kylie : Communi–self community. [yeah].= Tadashi : o [yeah]. o = = Community French community (Nakane, 2007 : 183)

It is not always the case, however, that an item such as „yeah‟ or „mm‟ performs an acknowledging function in a conversation. Gardner (2001), for example, shows that the item „mmm‟ can perform many other functions as well.

Where it does provide an acknowledging function, it may also serve to prompt a

26 topic change, a recycling of a topic or it may solve a dispreferred action, for example. The function response items such as „mmm‟, „yeah‟ and „OK‟ perform are also influenced by the intonation, place and timing of the utterance.

2.3.6 Repair

An important strategy speakers use in spoken discourse is what is termed repair; that is, the way speakers correct things they or someone else has said, and check what they have understood in a conversation. Repair is often done through self-repair and other repair (Paltrdige: 2012: 101).

Repair organization describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding. Repair segments are classified by who initiates repair (self or other), by who resolves the problem (self or other), and by how it unfolds within a turn or a sequence of turns. The organization of repair is also a self-righting mechanism in social interaction (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Participants in conversation seek to correct the trouble source by initiating and preferring self repair, the speaker of the trouble source, over other repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). Self repair initiations can be placed in three locations in relation to the trouble source, in a first turn, a transition space or in a third turn (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks). The term repair is relevant to all levels of talk from turn-taking system to sequence organization and preference.

According to Liddicoat, repair refers to the processes available to speakers through which they can deal with the problems which arise in talk. He added that repair is a set of practices designed for dealing with difficulties which appear in

27 talk (2007: 171). According to Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, repair mechanisms are designed to deal with turn-taking errors and violations (1997: 723).

Levinson suggested the phenomena under the notion of repair. They are word recovery problems, self-editing where error occurs no discernible and correction problem (1994: 226). Mey added that repair is a device for correcting oneself, gaining time to think, or preventing somebody else from jumping into the conversation at an upcoming transition relevance places (TRP). Furthermore, he explained that repair sequence is initiated by some reasons including a request for information and an apology (1994: 226-227). An example of repair initiated by the force of an apology seen as follow:

A: So, I was trying to pick up this chick when… B: Excuse me, did I hear that right? A: Awfully sorry, I mean, woman… A: Pick up? B: Awfully sorry, I mean, meet..

The dialogue above shows there no discernible error in the first utterance of the first speaker. However, the diction used in the utterance is considered as rude or impolite by the second speaker. Therefore, the second speaker initiates a repair by means of requesting an apology from the first speaker regarding his words. On the next turn of the first speaker, an apology is uttered. Besides, repair which has no discernible errors occur are frequently done by the speaker of the repaired utterances himself.

Repair is the way speakers correct things they or someone else has said, and check what they have understood in a conversation. There are two types of repair:

28 a) self-repair

Charlotte: I saw her with a man yesterday. I mean, I saw her with a middleaged man who looks like her uncle. b) other-repair

Miranda : But you have to introspect yourself! Cintya : Excuse me? Shouldn‟t it be you?

2.3.7 Closing Conversation

Schegloff and Sacks (1973) have also looked at conversational closings.

This work has since been continued by Button (1987) who in his discussion of telephone closings points out that telephone closings usually go over four turns of talk, made up of pre-closing and closing moves. The pre-closing is often made up of two turn units consisting of items such as „OK‟ and „all right‟ with falling intonation. The closing is made up of two further units, such as „bye bye‟ and

„goodbye.‟ Button (1987: 102) calls this an archetype closing. In this closing both speakers mutually negotiate the end of the conversation. Other material, however, in the form of an insertion sequence can be introduced between the two units which make up these turns, before the closing finally takes place.

The closing may also be preceded by a number of pre-sequences, such as the making of an arrangement, referring back to something previously said in the conversation, the initiation of a new topic (which may not be responded to), good wishes (such as „give my love to Jane‟), a restatement of the reason for calling and thanks for calling. Sometimes, however, the closing may be foreshortened when the archetype closing is skipped over and a foreshortened closing takes place.

29

Equally the closing may be extended by continued repetition of pre-closing and closing items (such as „bye‟, „bye‟, „love you‟, „love you‟, „sleep well‟, „you too‟, etc.). Closings are, thus, complex interactional units which are sensitive to the speaker‟s orientation to continuing, closing (or not wanting to close) the conversation (Button 1987, Thornborrow 2001).

2.4 Sky News Australia

Sky News Australia (branded on air as Sky News.co.au, and until 18

January 2015 as Sky News National) is an Australian 24-hour cable and satellite news channel available on the and subscription platforms. It is also available in New Zealand on Sky Television and .

Sky News Australia launched at 5pm on 19 February 1996, as the first

Australian-produced television news channel. The channel aired its 50,000th unique newscast on 23 April 1996 at 11am. Sky News was added to on 1

April 2000. In 2004, Sky News began broadcasting Sky News Active, its on- demand interactive TV news service. In 2008, Sky News launched the Sky News

Business Channel, and on 20 January 2009, Sky News launched Australian Public

Affairs Channel (A-PAC). It began widescreen broadcasting on 17 May

2009. Sky News Australia began broadcasting in high definition on 1 December

2015. A fourth spin-off channel, Sky News Election Channel, was launched on 1

May 2016. In July 2017, Sky News became provider of News with a mix of presenters and reporters from both organisations combining for 20 hours of

30 live content per day on channel 500; sports updates on Sky News programs are introduced as "Fox Sports News Updates".

In May 2018, Sky News Live moved to channel 600 and added a simulcast on channel 103, while its multiview service closed and moved some of its overflow channels to an online portal. The flagship British Sky News channel also launched on Foxtel as Sky News UK, and A-PAC rebranded as .

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News_Australia).

Agenda is the name given to a series of Australian television news and commentary programs, broadcast on Sky News Australia throughout the week.

The Agenda series of bulletins serve as the channel's flagship program. The series focuses on mainly political topics, and in each episode the host usually interviews a guest, and is then usually joined by either Sky News contributors or politicians from opposing sides of politics debating the issues of the day. With the exception of Sunday Agenda and the Thursday episode of PM Agenda, the program is broadcast live from the Sky News studio at Parliament

House in Canberra. The other programs are broadcast from the main Sky News centre in the Sydney suburb of Macquarie Park.

Lunchtime Agenda was ended on 29 May 2015, when it was replaced by To The Point co-hosted by Peter van Onslen and . Saturday

Agenda ended in 2015, when its presenter David Lipson defected to the ABC and the format was eventually replaced by Pyne & Marles.

While the contemporary Australian Agenda debuted on 4 July 2010, the title had previously been used for a weekly interview program presented by John

31

Gatfield in at least 2001. The edition rebranded as Sunday Agenda on 9 July 2016.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_(Australian_TV_program)).

2.5 Relevant Studies

There are some previous researches which related to this research. The first research is conducted by Kong Rui, SU Ting (2014) that focused on structure and organization of human oral conversation. The research attemps to apply conversation analysis theory to analyze conversation structure features of Ellen

Show from two aspects: global structure and local structure. This research used the theory of Schegloff.

The second research is analyzed by Nguyen (2016) focused on analyzed the attempt to review in major strenghts and weaknesses. The researcher analyzed the interlocutors frequently flout conversational maxims may cause trouble for analysts to examine cross-culture talks which are now arising in the times of global communication . This research used the theory of Grice.

The third research is analyzed by Olutayo and Omolara Grace (2013) discussed on investigate the determinants of turn-taking patterns in Nigerian

Television talk show. It analyzed four episodes with varieties of subject matters were selected from each show and they were numbered accordingly. Recorded episodes were played several times to identify the determinants. The topics are; the studio audience, the duration of the programme, discourse topic, gender, culture. This research used the theory of Ervin Gofman.

32

The fourth research is analyzed by Nur Akmaliyah entitled Classroom

Related Talks: Conversation Analysis of Asian EFL Learners. The research focuses on analyzed the several aspects of conversation analysis; turn-taking, topic change, preference organization, listing, use of figurative language, face saving, breakdowns and repairs, and dysfluency.

The fifth research is analyzed by Sami (2016) analyzed the proposes training learners while introduced to interactional skills through its as a learning talk analysis to teach naturally occuring talk and enchance EFL learner‟s oral profiency. This research used the theory of Young.

Contrast to the researchers mentioned above, using the theory of conversation analysis proposed by Paltridge (2012), this research was focused on the aspects of conversational interactions used in Australia Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister in the Sky News Australia Channel. Applying a qualitative descriptive method and content analysis to analyzed the data, the researcher analyzed all of seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation.

Whereas, the previous researchers did not analyze all of the aspects of conversational interactions in conversation. Thus, the goals of this research are to find out what aspects of conversational interactions are used, to analyze how those aspects of conversational interactions are realized, and to explain why those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in Australian Agenda –

Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky News Australia Channel in the way they are.

33

2.6 Conceptual Framework

Utterances in Interview in Sky News Australia Channel

Conversation Analysis

Aspects of Conversational Interactions (Paltridge, 2012)

Opening Turn Adjacency Preference Feedback Repair Closing

Conversation Taking Pairs Organization Conversation

1. Requesting – 1. Request- 1. Self-Repair

1. Turn changed by Agreement Acceptance/Refusal 2. Assessment – 2. Offer - 2. Other Repair giving nomination 2. Turn changed Agreement Acceptance/Refusal 3. Question – Answer 3. Assessment – without nomination 4. Compliment – Agreement/Disagreement Acceptance 4. Question – 5. Greeting – Greeting Expected/Unexpected 6. Leave–Taking Answer Adjacency Pairs 5. Blame-Denial/Blame 7. Complaint – Apology Admission 8. Warning – Acknowledgement 9. Blame – Denial 10. Offer - Acceptance

Analysis and Findings

Conclusion Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework

34

CHAPTER III

METHOD OF RESEARCH

3.1 Research Design

Qualitative descriptive method was applied in this research. Marying

(2000:468) stated the object of (qualitative) content analysis can be basically be any kind of recorded communication, i.e. transcripts of interviews or discourses, protocol of observation, videos tapes, written documents in general, etc.

This research would like to find out the aspects of conversational interactions in the conversation. The utterances of the interviewees during the conversation with the interviewer are transcribed and analyzed in order to classify the utterances as their functions.

3.2 Data and Source of Data

3.2.1 Data

Begdan and Biklen (1992:29) stated one of the characteristics of qualitative research is that research has the natural setting as the direct source of data and the researcher is the key instrument. Based on the statement above, the data of this research are the utterances of the interview between the interviewer and interviewees. The host (Peter Vanillin) as the interviewer, the first guest is the

Editor-At-Large The Australian (Paul Kelly) as the interviewee, and the second guest as a special guest is the Prime Minister of Australia (Julia Gillard) as the interviewee. The utterances transcribed into written text.

35

3.2.2 Source of Data

The source of the data was a video which downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N456VbijM4c with English subtitle which is published on August 20th 2012, and the duration was 29:44 minutes.

3.3 Techniques of Data Collection

Documentation method was used to collect the data. Documentation method is legally documented data on the Sky News Australia Channel made as evidence of this research. Thus, the instruments to collect the data used as follows:

1. Downloading the data of Australia Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister in

the Sky News Australia Channel from Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N456VbijM4c .

2. Listening and transcribing the data interview into a written form.

3. Reading the utterances of the conversation carefully.

4. Select them which based on the conversation aspects of conversational

interactions.

5. Finding the conversation aspects of conversational interactions of the utterances.

3.4 Techniques of Data Analysis

To answer the research questions, the researcher used qualitative content analysis proposed by Patton (2002). In this content analysis, the researcher

36 prepared the data, defined the unit of analysis, coded all texts and drew a conclusion. All these activities were involved in the process of this research.

The conversation in Australia Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister in

Sky News Australia Channel was analyzed according to these steps of qualitative content analysis (Patton, 2002:112):

1. Preparing the data

Qualitative content analysis can be used to analyze various types of data, but

generally the data need to be transformed into written text before analysis can

start. So the video of Sky News Australia Channel‟s conversation was

transformed into written text (interview transcription).

2. Defining the unit of analysis

In this case, the utterances of the interviewer and interviewees which contains

aspects of conversational interactions are identified based on the theory of

Conversation Analysis that proposed by Paltridge which consist of Opening

Conversation, Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking,

Feedback, Repair and Closing Conversation.

3. Developing Categories and coding scheme

The utterances which have been identified then coded into specified

classification of aspects of conversational interactions. For instance; Opening

Conversation was coded OP, Adjacency Pairs was coded AP, Preference

Organization was coded PO, Turn Taking was coded TT, Feedback was coded

F, Repair was coded R, and Closing Conversation was coded CC.

37

4. Coding all texts

All the aspects of conversational interactions in the conversation were coded.

The data are numbered, written in Italic, the data are given the difference

between the interviewer and interviewee by giving the IR and IE codes, data

and descriptive quotations are displayed in the conversation.

5. Drawing conclusion from the coded data

After coding all the texts, the conclusions were drawn to answer the research

questions. To answer the research problems, the researcher combined the

answers in the form of paragraphs.

38

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Findings

Based on the research questions, the results of this research are the interviewer (Peter Vanillin) employed the aspects of conversational interactions in giving and responding the questions to interviewees. Opening Conversation,

Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking and Closing Conversation are used. While, Feedback and Repair are not used by interviewer throughout the conversation. Then, interviewees (Paul Kelly) and (Julia Gillard) used Adjacency

Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking, Feedback and Repair. While,

Opening and Closing Conversation are not used by interviewees throughout the conversation. Therefore, five of seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation are used.

Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized with different realization. Feedback and Repair are not used by the interviewer, while Opening and Closing Conversation were not used by the interviewees. Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in this conversation because that is the standard in conversation and the interviewer and interviewees applied the aspects of conversational interactions in order to seek the information from the interviewees, to give the clarification of the issues and to make a good communication in that conversation.

39

In this conversation, it found that this conversation is unusual. It indicated by the result of one of the aspects of conversational interactions. The result of turn taking of the interviewer was less than the interviewees. It means that the interviewer did not frequently do the communication to the interviewees in order to seek the information. It dominantly did by the interviewee between interviewee.

Those aspects of conversational interactions are found in this conversation, those are: Opening Conversation occurred 1, Adjacency Pairs occurred 18,

Preference Organization occurred 20, Turn Taking occurred 78, Feedback occurred 5, Repair occurred 3, and Closing Conversation occurred 1. The most widely available in this research is turn-taking, and the least is the opening and closing conversation. This occurred because the study was conducted on three people who are doing conversations so that there are contains a lot of turn-taking.

The data was labeling with table below:

Table 4.1 Elements of Conversation Analysis

No Aspects of conversational interactions ∑ 1. TT 78 2. PO 20 3. AP 18 4. F 5 5. R 3 6. OC 1 7. CC 1

40

According to the table above researcher wanted to describe the aspects of conversational interactions of conversation analysis into several parts, which be the main object in this study.

4.2 Analysis

4.2.1 Adjacency Pairs

This part discussed about the adjacency pairs found in the data. The researcher analyzed the data by using the theory of adjacency pairs according to

Paltridge to categorize the data as generally.

Table 4.2 Percentage of Adjacency Pairs

No. Kinds of Adjacency Pair ∑ % 1. R – Ag 4 22.2 2. Ass - Ag 2 11.1 3. Q – A 10 55.5 4. B – D 2 11.1 Total 18 100

From the table 4.2 above, it could be seen that there were pairs of conversation occurred in the data. It result that combinations of Requesting –

Agreement 22.2%, Assessment – Agreement 11.1%, Question – Answer 55.5 %, and Blame – Denial 11.1% from all pairs.

4.2.1.1 Requesting - Agreement

Requesting is asking someone to do something which can be responded with acceptance or refusal.

41

Excerpt 17-18;

PK : I am asking you. JG : Yeah, and I’m gonna answer your question Paul. People will obviously do comparisons between aspects of this policy and aspects of the policy of the former government.

In this excerpt, PK used requesting expression to JG. It indicated by the utterance I am asking you and then JG responded it with the agreement expression I’m gonna answer your question Paul. Therefore, Requesting -

Agreement expression is used by the interviewees, which is one of the types of

Adjacency pair.

PK used the Requesting expression because of the unclear response and information of JG of his question. Before PK asked the request, he asked a question to JG directly by saying Is it fair to say that your policy is now a tougher policy than ’s previous Pacific Solution?, then JG responded it

People will do all of this. It means that PK would like to know the response of JG clearly about JG‟s policy but her responds still unclear. Thus, PK gave the response by saying I am asking you, then JG responded it by agreement expression that indicated by the words I’m gonna answer your question Paul. It means that JG agreed to answer his question and she knew that her answer of the previous question was still unclear.

The utterance that PK expressed is indicated by Requesting expression because of the utterance I am asking you it means that PK would like to ask JG to answer it based on her thought as the Prime Minister, then JG used the agreement expression that indicated by the utterance I’m gonna answer your question Paul

42 it means that JG would like to answer PK‟s question clearer. Therefore,

Requesting - Agreement is realized by the interviewees in this conversation.

Excerpt 27-28;

PK : Well, Can I just ask Prime Minister, What do you do if Nauru and PNG don‟t work? I mean you must be concerned that the boats arrivals are still coming at a very high rate, so is there a next step, what do you do if the boats continue to come?

JG : Well, Paul. Let’s be clear about this and let’s take it a step at a time.

From that statement above, it could be seen that PK requests JG by saying

Can I just ask Prime Minister. It means that he would like to get the permission if

PV can ask a question or not. Then, JG agreed to let PV to ask the question that indicated by the respond Well, Paul. Let’s be clear about this and let’s take it a step at a time. It means that JG also would like to make the topic clearer. The words Let’s be clear indicated by agreement expression. Therefore, Requesting -

Agreement expression is used by the interviewees.

PK expressed the Requesting expression because he would like to seek the information about Nauru and PNG from JG as the Prime Minister. The previous question is asked by the interviewer PV as the host of the Agenda with the topic of the question is about the issue of Howard John Key and the cartoonist. Then JG responded it by saying saving lives at sea is the most important. After JG responded it with that statement, PK as the Editor At-Large The Australian asked by saying Well, Can I just ask Prime Minister, Thus, PK‟s question refers to JG as the Prime Minister. In this question, PK would like to get the information about

43

Nauru and PNG especially what the Prime Minister do if the boats continue to come. Then JG responds it by saying Well, Paul. Let’s be clear about this and let’s take it a step at a time. Based on the utterances above, it means that JG agreed to give clearer information about Nauru and PNG that asked by the interviewee PK.

The utterance of PK as the interviewee indicated by the Requesting expression because of the utterance of Can I just ask Prime Minister. It is clear that PK used that expression that means PK would like to ask the question refers to the Prime Minister JG. Then JG responded it by saying the Agreement expresion that indicated by the utterance Well, Paul. Let’s be clear about this and let’s take it a step at a time. It means that JG would like to explain more about the question which asked by PK. Therefore, Requesting – Agreement is realized in this conversation.

Excerpt 31-32;

PK : Okay. What can I just ask given your good relations with the firm. Would you like to see them, make some statement to clarify this matter?

JG : Up, hmm… What Slater and Gordon says is a matter for Slater and Gordon. But Paul, my essential point here is, there‟s delving into matters seventeen years ago for what purposes if you‟ve got an allegation. I did something wrong, put it. If you can‟t put it, why are we talking about this?

In the excerpt above, PK asked to JG to clarify the issue by saying Would you like to see them, make some statement to clarify this matter? And then JG responded it with the agreement expression Up, hmm… What Slater and Gordon

44 says is a matter for Slater and Gordon. Although she does not say yes or no, but based on the statement it is shown that she clarified the statement from PK. It means that she responded it with the agreement expression.

In this excerpt, PK would like to get the clarification about the article in yesterday’s Australian that said JG had to resign as a partner from a Slater and

Gordon as a result of their investigation into misappropriation of funds around the legal entity that JG had established. Then, JG responded the question by saying that JG is not dignifying all of this scurrilous campaigning by going through these things point by point. Then, JG continued her answer by saying, that it is the matters 17 years ago and she did not nothing wrong.

However, PK was not satisfied with JG statement that caused with the next question asked by PK by asking JG to give the statement to clarify this matter.

Then JG responded it by saying the agreement that JG would like to answer it even though it was not an expected answer. JG said that what Slater and Gordon says is a matter for Slater and Gordon. It means that the matter is just for the

Slater and Gordon, it is not the matter for JG. Then, JG continued her statement by saying that she did not something wrong. So, in this case, PK asked JG to clarify the issue because PK was not satisfied with the previous respond which given by JG.

The utterance of PK as the interviewee indicated by Requesting type because PK expressed Would you like to see them, make some statement to clarify this matter?, it refered to the word Would. It means that PK would like to ask JG to give the clarification about the matter. While, JG as the interviewee expressed

45 the utterance Up, hmm… What Slater and Gordon says is a matter for Slater and

Gordon. In this responds, JG agreed to explain more, even though JG did not clarify it clearly. Therefore, Requesting – Agreement is realized in this excerpt.

Excerpt 73-74:

PV : One final question, If I can Prime Minister, before we let you go Corporate taxes, this is something we‟ve seen hit the headlines again this week. Businesses came for a company tax cuts, there‟s been some discussion that there may need to be sort of, you know, reductions in other areas in terms of reclaiming for tax. What, what‟s your view of this, Do you see room not just in the next year but in the next couple of years to be able to revisit this idea of a corporate tax cut which after all was originally going to happen, but you know for various reasons hasn‟t.

JG : Well, the corporate tax cut didn‟t happen because Mr. Abbott and his opposition didn‟t want to give businesses a tax break, that‟s why it didn‟t happen.

In the extract above, PV asked the permission to JG if he could ask more question or not. He expressed One final question, If I can Prime Minister. He realized that many questions have been asked, so he tried to get the permission to before asking the question. Then, JG responded it with the agreement expression by saying Well. Although the word Well is one of the preface expression, but in this conversation, she would like to express that PV may ask the last question to her. That word did not mean to dispreferred the statement but it means to agree or allow someone to do it.

When PV expressed the utterance with the Requesting type of Adjacency

Pair, PV as the interviewer would like to get the last information about company tax cuts. PV expressed it because he has seen the duration of its program is

46 limited, but there is the last question must be asked by him as the host or interviewer of that program. Previously, the question is asked by PK as the Editor-

At-Large The Australian, the question refered to JG as the Prime Minister while the topic was about the alter of the floor price. Then, PV changed the topic with the last topic of its program, it talked about the point of view of JG as the Prime

Minister about the corporate tax cut which after all was originally going to happen. Then, JG responded it with the clear answer that the corporate tax cut didn‟t happen because Mr. Abbott and his opposition didn‟t want to give business a tax break, that‟s why it didn‟t happen.

Based on this conversation, Requesting – Agreement is realized by the interviewer and interviewee. It happened because the duration of the Agenda or program and the interviewer would like to give the last question to the interviewee. It means that the interviewer realized that many questions have been asked to the Prime Minister JG, thus requesting type is used by the interviewer, while agreement type is used by the interviewee.

The utterance of PV as the interviewer indicated by Requesting type because of the utterance One final question, If I can Prime Minister, it refered to the word If I can. It means that PV would like to ask JG to give the last question before the program ends. While, JG as the interviewee expressed the utterance

Well. In this responds, JG agreed to explain it more about the corporate tax cut.

Therefore, Requesting – Agreement is realized in this excerpt.

47

4.2.1.2 Assessment – Agreement

The speaker expressed his feeling, judgment or evaluation about certain events, people or objects. Moreover, the response to this combination was an agreement, stating that the addressee agreed to what the speaker‟s opinion.

Excerpt 7-8;

PV : About a decade ago, you made an observation in the parliament slightly sarcastically about whether Nauru would still be up and functioning by now and for another decade from now. Is it humiliating to have to be in a situation now, where you’re embracing a report that recommends the reopening of Nauru?

JG : Peter, if your point is has the government compromised have I compromised, Yes I have and I’ve done that in the nation’s interest people smuggling is a resilient trade.

From the conversation above, PV expressed his thought about JG‟s observation in the parliament and PV would like to ensure about his thought by asking Is it humiliating to have to be in a situation now, where you’re embracing a report that recommends the reopening of Nauru?. While JG responded it with agreement statement by saying if your point is has the government compromised have I compromised, Yes I have and I’ve done that in the nation’s interest people smuggling is a resilient trade. It means that JG agreed with the statement and question from PV. Therefore, Assessment – Agreement expression is used by the interviewer and interviewee.

In this excerpt, PV as the host and also as the interviewer of the Australian

Agenda, PV started to give an assessment to the interviewee JG. He started with the issue about JG‟s observation in the parliament slightly sarcastically about

48 whether Nauru would be still up and functioning by now and for another decade from now. The he continued to give an assessment to ensure about that issue, he said Is it humiliating to have to be in a situation now, where you’re embracing a report that recommends the reopening of Nauru?. Based on the utterance above, it means that PV would like to ask JG‟s responds of that issue of reopening of

Nauru. Then, JG responded it by saying If your point is has the government compromised, Yes I have compromised, then, JG gave a stress of her statement by saying Yes, I have and I have done that in the nation’s interest people smuggling is a resilient trade. It means that JG agreed with PV‟s assessment about that issue if the point of the assessment is the compromised of the government. Thus,

Assessment – Agreement type is used in this conversation.

The utterance of PV as the interviewer indicated by Assessment type because PV said Is it humiliating to have to be in a situation now, where you’re embracing a report that recommends the reopening of Nauru?, it referred to the words Is it humiliating to have to be in a situation now. Before PV asking the assessment, PV told the issue about JG‟s observation about Nauru in about a decade ago. It means that PV would like to ensure JG‟s observation by asking it to her. While, JG as the interviewee expressed the utterance if your point is has the government compromised have I compromised, Yes I have and I’ve done that in the nation’s interest people smuggling is a resilient trade. In this responds, JG agreed to the assessment of PV that the government has compromised of it. Then

JG gave a stress of her statement by saying Yes. It means that JG agreed and

49 accepts that assessment. Therefore, Assessment – Agreement is realized in this excerpt.

Excerpt 63-64;

PK : Will these be substantial savings?

JG : Oh, well. Of course we will be working through to support our further expenditure.

Based on the conversation above, PK would like to ensure about his thought by asking Will these be substantial savings?. Then, JG responded it with agreement statement by saying Of course. It means that JG agreed with PK. In this excerpt, PK as the interviewee gave an assessment to the interviewee JG. PK would like to ensure about the substantial savings. Previously, PK and JG talked about the final arrangement for the deferred the Disability Insurance Scheme. It is asked by PK to JG. Thus, in this assessment, PK would like to ensure about that issue then JG responds it with the Agreement by saying Oh, well. Of course we will be working through to support our further expenditure. It means that JG agreed of the assessment asked by PK.

PK as the interviewee indicated by Assessment type because PK said Will these be substantial savings?, That utterance means that PK would like to ensure about the substantial savings that it is one of JG‟s policy. Before PK asking the assessment, PK asked JG if she will make more savings or not, Then, JG responded it by saying Yes. There is nothing new in that draw. It means that JG will make it. After JG responded it by express that statement, then PK asked the

50 question relates to the JG‟s statement. The researcher found that PK would like to ensure about the savings because PK asks that question again by saying Will these be substantial savings?. While, JG expressed the utterance Oh, well. Of course we will be working through to support our further expenditure. In this responds, JG agreed to the assessment of PK that the JG will be working on it. The utterance Of course indicated by the type of Agreement. Therefore, Assessment – Agreement is realized in this excerpt.

4.2.1.3 Question - Answer

A question can be formed into information seek, clarification seek, etc.

It is about asking for someone. It is responded with information provide, clarification provides, etc.

Excerpt 1-2;

PV : Let me start by welcome to the program as I do each week editor-at-large at the Australian Paul Kelly, thanks for coming. All boats have been the big issue of the week. Where are we on this issue?

PK : This week we saw a dramatic change in Labour Party Policy on the boats. Prime Minister Julia Gillard moved from a policy of onshore processing to a tough regime of offshore processing based on Nauru and Papio New Guinea and this followed the deal between Tony Abbott and the Prime Minister off the back of the report commissioned by former Defence Force chief Angus Heston.

Before delivering the question to PK, PV as the host and also the interviewer opened the Agenda by greeting and introducing the guests and then went to the question. PV started the Agenda by asking the first question about the

51 issue of the week to PK as the Editor-At-Large at the Australian. In this utterance,

PV as the interviewer would like to know about the issue of the week, then PK gave the responds by saying This week we saw a dramatic change in Labour

Party Policy on the boats. Then, PK added his answer relates to Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister. In addition, the topic of the interview has the relationship with the Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

PV as the interviewer indicated by Question type because PV expressed

Where are we on this issue?, The word Where means someone would like to get information of something. That utterance means that PV would like to get the information about the issue of the week from PK. In addition, the characteristics of Question form has the words of what, who, where, when, why and How

(5W+1H). In that sentence the word where is used by the interviewer PV. Thus,

Question type is used by the interviewer. Then, PK responded it by saying This week we saw a dramatic change in Labour Party Policy on the boats. It means that PV‟s question is answered by PK. The utterance indicated by the type of

Answer. In this conversation, PK answered the question directly. It means that PK answered it with the expected answer. Therefore, Question – Answer is realized in this excerpt.

Excerpt 3-4;

PV : And what about the opposition. How did you think Tony Abbott played this issue during the way?

PK : Tony Abbott claimed a political victory and the gloating from the coalition benches was conspicuous, but Tony Abbott unlike Julia Gillard did not endorse the Hewson report in full and the reason he didn’t was

52

because the coalition disagrees with the new regional framework at the heart of this report for stopping the boats.

PV as the interviewer gave the second question to PK. It is the continuity of the first question and the statement of PK. In the first question, PK answered it with the analysis of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott. It is found that there was a dramatic change in Labour Party Policy on the boats Prime Minister

Julia Gillard moved from a policy of onshore processing to a tough regime of offshore processing. Based on the PK‟s analysis, PV gave the responds by giving a question that referred to the opposition of Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott. In this question, PV would like to know the analysis of PK as the Editor-At-Large at

Australian to give the analysis of Tony Abbott played this issue. Then, PK analyzed it by saying Tony Abbott claimed a political victory and the gloating from the coalition benches was conspicuous, but Tony Abbott unlike Julia Gillard did not endorse the Hewson report in full and the reason he didn’t was because the coalition disagrees with the new regional framework at the heart of this report for stopping the boats. It means that, JG and Tony Abbot had different policy perspective. PK said that Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot were not resolved and the policy disputes between them on this front remains significant poor. Based on

PK statement, PV as the interviewer said thanks to PK on his analysis by saying

Thank you very much for that analysis. It means that PV was satisfied with PK‟s answer.

In this conversation, PV‟s utterance is indicated by the question type because it referred to How did you think Tony Abbott played this issue during the

53 way?. The word How needs a responds by saying or describe something. In this case, PV as the interviewer expressed Question type. While, the utterance of PK is indicated by the Answer type because after the question occurred, PK as the interviewee answered the question directly. Therefore, Question – Answer is realized in this conversation.

Excerpt 11-12;

PK : Prime Minister, what’s the practical effect of your new policy in particular, does this mean protracted or even indefinite detention on the rule and Papua New Guinea?

JG : It certainly means that people could be on Nauru or PNG. In PNG for an extended period of time, what the Houston report is saying to us and we have certainly embraced this, is that you need to equalize the waiting times that people have weather or not they move.

From the excerpt above, it shows that PK as the interviewee asks the question about JG‟s new policy of PNG. He asked the practical effect of JG‟s new policy in particular, does this mean protracted or even indefinite detention on the rule and Papua New Guinea. Previously, the question is asked by the interviewer

PV, they talked about the mandate as a government in 2007 to unwind the Pacific

Solution. Then, after JG responded that question, PK responded it by asking the question about JG‟s practical effect of her new policy. Then, she responded it by saying It certainly means that people could be on Nauru or PNG. In addition,

Question-Answer is realized in this conversation which one of the type of

Adjacency Pairs.

54

In this conversation, PK‟s utterance is indicated by the question type because it referred to what’s the practical effect of your new policy in particular, does this mean protracted or even indefinite detention on the rule and Papua New

Guinea?. The words What and Does are one of the Question form. In this case,

PK as the interviewee expressed the Question type. While, the utterance of JG is indicated by the Answer type because after the question occured, JG as the interviewee answered the question directly. Then, JG used the Pronoun to answer

PK‟s question. The word It referred to the word the practical effect. Thus, JG answeree it clearly and directly. Therefore, Question – Answer type is expressed.

Excerpt 15-16;

PK : I understand that trade-off but when you look at this, is it fair to say that your policy is now a tougher policy than John Howard’s previous Pacific Solution?

JG : People will do all of this.

In this conversation, PK as the interviewee asked a question about JG‟s policy and compared it with John Howard. The aim of the question was PK would like to know the respond and the thought of JG as the Prime Minister. He asked that question because JG has explained about Nauru or PNG previously. She said that this is a tough policy and she needs to do the consultations including with

UNHCR to ascertain what that time frame is and there is a balance with the

Houston report. It means that Julia Gillard could not give the explanation about it at that time. After JG gave the explanation, PK responded it by saying that he understood and he would like to compare JG‟s policy with John Howard‟s as a

55 previous Pacific Solution. Then, JG answered it by saying People will do all of this. Based on her answer, it means that all of the people will compare her policy with the previous policy.

PK‟s utterance is categorized by Question type because it referred to the phrase is it fair to say that your policy is now a tougher policy than John

Howard’s previous Pacific Solution?. In this utterance, PK as an interviewer asked the question to the interviewee, automatically he needed a respond or an answer of his question. Then, JG as the interviewee used the Answer type, it is indicated by her utterance People will do all of this. Although she did not answer it directly, but it was the responds of PK‟s question. Thus, Question – Answer is realized by the interviewee.

Excerpt 19-20;

PK : Well, what’s your response to the criticism particularly from your own Human Rights Commission which says that under your new law the High Court is not able to look and make a judgement about the Human Rights aspect of processing offshore? JG : We have a proper processing regime offshore to assess who is a refugee, the mechanics of all of that regime will be at work through but yes there‟ll be a proper assessment of who‟s a refugee and a proper assessment of who isn‟t and who what. The question occurred when PK gave the respond of JG statement about the comparison between aspects of her policy and the policy of the former government. She thought this is a package and they have endorsed the package in principle. After JG expressed that statement, then, PK responded it by giving the question about JG‟s responds to the criticism particularly from her own Human

Rights Commission. It referred to her new law of the High Court was not able to

56 look and make a judgement about the Human Right aspect of processing offshore.

In this aspect, PK as the interviewee asked the question with the aim to make it clearer and all of the citizens will be more understand about the new law of the

High Court made by Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister. Then, JG answered it by saying We have a proper processing regime offshore to assess who is a refugee. It means that in her policy, she had a great regime to solve the problems. In other word, JG has answered PK‟s question directly.

PK‟s utterance is indicated by Question form type because PK used the word what, that it is one of the question form. In addition, the word what referred to the JG‟s opinion especially of her criticism particularly of her new law regulations. While, JG as the interviewee used the Answer type because JG answered PK‟s question directly with the explanation that she had a great regime.

Therefore, the interviewees realized Question – Answer type.

Excerpt 21-22;

PK : But what about circumscribing the authority of the High Court when it comes to scrutinizing this. I mean that‟s the accusation, the accusation from the human rights lawyers is that this legislation is too tough and that it limits the capacity of the High Court to judge this in human rights terms. What’s your response to that particular point? JG : My response to that particular point is we needed in this legislation to make arrangements, so we could process offshore as a result of a High Court decision about the arrangement with Malaysia, we could not. We‟ve taken a very rigorous legal approach to that, given circumstances in the High Court before and we stand by it, there will be proper assessments of wheater or not people are refugees.

In this conversation, PK would like to ask the question to JG about her thought of the circumscribing the authority of the High Court by asking What’s

57 your response to that particular point?. Then, JG answered his question by saying

My response to that particular point is we needed in this legislation to make arrangements. In this conversation, JG answered the question completely.

Therefore, Question – Answer is realized by the interviewees.

Excerpt 51-52;

PK : And what about the financial commitment and whether the states come to the party?

JG : Well, of course states need to be working to, to improve the outcomes in state schools. The work of David Gonski and his governments and my concern as Prime Minister is for every child in every school.

In this statement, PK would like to ask the question by saying what about the financial commitment and whether the states come to the party? To continue the previous question. It means PK wants to make sure about the answer. Then JG answers it by saying of course states need to be working to, to improve the outcomes in state schools. Then JG describes it more with the complete answers.

Excerpt 57-58;

PK : But, just on the question of disability, when would you announce the final arrangement for the deferred the Disability Insurance Scheme and what will it cost?

JG : Well, the costings have been that the all upper envelope has been dealt with that CO AG and it’s in the order of seven point eight billion dollars is my recollection. Now, we have said that we get the Launch sites up and running, we will learn from the Launch sites and learning from Launch sites.

58

From that table above, it can be seen that PK would like to ask the disability question to JG by saying when would you announce the final arrangement for the deferred the Disability Insurance Scheme and what will it cost?. Then, JG answers it with the costings have been that the all upper envelope has been dealt with that CO AG and it’s in the order of seven point eight billion dollars is my recollection. It means they used the Question – Answer to do the conversation.

Excerpt 59-60;

PK : But, Can I just clarify. Will the policy be finalized before the election, and will the cost of the policy therefore the in the government’s forward estimates in that period before the election?

JG : Well, we will be working in the government’s budget arrangements on National Disability Insurance Scheme and on other issues including the further work we’ve got to do in improving school funding.

It showed that PK would like to clarify about the policy to JG by saying

Will the policy be finalized before the election, and will the cost of the policy therefore the in the government’s forward estimates in that period before the election?. Then, JG answered it with we will be working in the government’s budget arrangements on National Disability Insurance Scheme and on other issues including the further work we’ve got to do in improving school funding. It means that they used the Question – Answer to do the conversation. Thus, this type used by the interviewees because the interviewees would like to seek the information.

59

Excerpt 75-76;

PK : But there‟s always a bit of a leap of faith when you cut company tax because the argument from business is that it‟ll drive investment and therefore that will naturally bring in more tax receipts but there is a leap of faith when you model doing it. Are you prepared to take that leap of faith cut it and see weather or not that’s right?

JG : We don’t take leaps of faith in the government’s budget. We get too hard, hard-headed analysis numbers and that‟s what you see come into the government‟s budget.

From that table above, it can be seen that PK would like to ask about a leap of faith to JG by saying Are you prepared to take that leap of faith cut it and see weather or not that’s right?. Then, JG answered it with We don’t take leaps of faith in the government’s budget. It means that JG argued his statement about a leap of faith. Therefore, in doing this conversation, Question – Answer is used.

4.2.1.4 Blame - Denial

Blame is utterances that express that someone is responsible for the mistake, while denial is a statement to express something that is not true.

Excerpt 29-30;

PK : OK. Just changing the subject. I want to refer to the article in yesterday’s Australian, is it correct that in 1995 you had to resign as a partner from a Slater and Gordon as a result of their investigation into misappropriation of funds around the legal entity that you had established?

JG : I am NOT dignifying all of this scurrilous campaigning by going through these things point by point. Paul, we are talking about matters 17 years ago which have been dealt on the public record for most of that time as long as 15 years ago, these matters were dealt with on the public record.

60

From the conversation above, it can be seen that PK would like to ask JG by saying I want to refer to the article in yesterday’s Australian, is it correct that in 1995 you had to resign as a partner from a Slater and Gordon as a result of their investigation into misappropriation of funds around the legal entity that you had established? Then JG responded it with I am NOT dignifying all of this scurrilous campaigning by going through these things point by point. In this conversation, PK seems like blame JG about the statement of that article then JG argued his statement by saying I am NOT. It is one of the expressions of denial.

Therefore, Blame – Denial is used by the interviewees.

Excerpt 41-42;

JG : Well, well. And this is the issue, isn’t it? Because I understand you‟re being asked to ask questions today.

PK : There’s no one asking me to the questions. Sorry Prime, I’m sorry Prime Minister I asked my own Christians tells me what questions to ask.

From the conversation above, it can be seen that JG would like to ensure the issue to PK by saying And this is the issue, isn’t it? Then PK argued it with

There’s no one asking me to the questions. Sorry Prime, I’m sorry Prime Minister.

In this conversation, JG blamed PK about the issue then PK argued his statement and said sorry to her. Therefore, Blame – Denial is expressed.

4.2.2 Turn Taking

In conversation, there is a situation when a speaker takes the chance to speak that is turn. Turn-taking gives a chance for speakers to do conversation

61 smoothly, so there will not be a dominant speaker in the conversation. First speaker utters something which is then followed by another speaker. It may make a simultaneous conversation.

In this part, the researcher would discuss about the turn taking occurred in the conversation. The result of the analysis is provided in the table below:

Table 4.3 Percentage of Turn Taking

No. Speakers Turn Taking % 1. PV 14 17.9 2. PK 27 34.6 3. JG 37 47.4 Total 78 100

From table 4.3 above, it can be seen that the turn appeared most often is

JG had 37 turns (47.4%), PK had 27 turns (34.6 %) and the last is PV had 14 turns

(17.9%). The total turns in the conversation were 78 turns.

From the table above, it can be seen that PV as the interviewer and PK and

JG as the interviewees. But in the middle of the conversation, PK was acted like as the interviewer because he always asks the questions to JG. Most of the JG‟s turns were initiation to PV and PK‟s turns. Turn Taking could be defined into 2 ways, those are:

62

4.2.2.1 Turn taking system

A. The turns changed by giving nomination

The turn change when the first speaker finished giving a question or opinion to other speakers giving a clues or direction then wishes that other speaker would like to answer or giving response to the first speaker and the other speaker took his turn by providing answers the first speaker‟s or interviewer question or opinion. In excerpt below, is the example of how the turn changed from one speaker or interviewee (PK) to the other speaker or the interviewee (JG);

Excerpt 37-38;

PK : Okay. I understand your point, you‟re saying it‟s all nonsense. Can I just ask you then this direct question. The simple was the central point was that the partner alleged that you had to resign because of this issue. Is that correct or not?

JG : Look, Paul. I did resign from Slater and Gordon that‟s a matter of public record true I made the decision to do that, all the rest of this, is just, you know sort of not getting into specifics about issues seventeen years ago, when you are not able to put to me any contention about why this is relevant to my conduct as Prime Minister today. I meant join, join the dots for me Paul, what matters about this today for Australia and me being Prime Minister? It just articulated.

From the excerpt above, PK ended his turn by asking with saying, “Is that correct or not?” PK hoped that JG would like to give the response about PK‟s question.

So JG started her turn by answering PK‟s question. In this excerpt, PK used the turn changed by giving nomination that indicated by giving the question to JG.

Therefore, turns by giving nomination is used by the interviewer Peter Vanillin.

63

B. The turns changed without nomination

The turn change when the first speaker finished giving a statement to other speaker without giving a clue or direction to answer the question or opinion and the other speaker took her turn by providing opinion to first statement. In the excerpt below, is the example of how the turn changed from one speaker (PV) to the other speaker (JG);

Turn 23-24;

PV : The Prime Minister, a best-case scenario here if this does work is that we’re going to have at least a few hundred people locked up indefinitely possibly for years in row costing taxpayers an awful lot of money and seventy to ninety percent of those people judging on estimates over the last decade are going to be genuine refugees but they’re going to be sort of held in detention despite all the psychological issues and all the mental health issues that whole range of labour politicians talked about during the how it is, that is going to be a best-case scenario a worst-case scenario is the boats keep coming and people keep drowning.

JG : Well, Peter. I’m going to disagree with you on aspects of that sentence, the Houston Panel is not saying that, that people should be on the room of PNG indefinitely no one is saying that, they’re saying look to the times for resettlement if people hadn’t moved. Second, when you use the terminology “locked up” we are obviously working particularly with Naru for arrangements where people will have some freedom of movement, so that they can move around. Yes, this is though policy and I understand for many people, that it‟s hard for them that it‟s emotionally hard for them. I‟ve seen that written on the faces of some of my labour colleagues and let‟s be fair. There are some parts of the Liberal Party too that were anxious in the days of John Howard‟s policy and I suspect have some a heaviness of heart about aspects of the Huston report. But our aim here is to stop people risking their lives at sea and too often losing that bet when they get on a boat and actually drowning at sea but some of them we know about some of them we don‟t even know when boats have gone down.

From the excerpt above, PV ended his turn by giving his statement without giving another clues or direct answer to JG. Afterward JG started her turn by

64 giving response and makes an opinion to PV‟s statement. It means that PV would like to give a turn to JG to give the respond of his statement. Therefore, the turns changed without nomination type is used by the interviewer Peter Vanillin.

4.2.3 Preference Organization

Preference organization is a pair which gives freedom in responding the first pair part, whether it is preferred or dispreferred. Preference organization not only become one of the important things when the speaker wants to agree or disagree what are the speaker opinions, but also makes both of the speakers can organize what they have said if accept or refusal a question.

The researcher found 20 preference organizations in the conversation. The result of the preference organization is presented in the excerpt below:

Table 4.4 Preference Organization

No. Preference ∑ 1. Preferred Response 18 2. Dispreferred Response 2 Total 20

According to the table above, it can be seen that there are preferred and dispreferred response in Preference Organization. Preferred response which explain how interviewee give a positive reaction or direct answer to the interviewer. While, dispreferred is the opposite of preferred definition. In this response, the interviewee gives the negative reaction, it can be disagree or refuse

65 the statement or question. On the other hand, the interviewee also had an option to answer the question, statement, or assessment that interviewer gave. That was analyzing with description below:

Table 4.5 Preferred and Dispreferred Response

No. First Part Second Part ∑ 1. Request Acceptance 4 Agreement 2 2. Assessment Disagreement 1 Expected Answer 10 3. Unexpected Question Answer or Non- 1 Answer 4. Blame Denial 2 Total 20

From the data above the researcher would like to describe first part and second part groups into some data examples below:

4.2.3.1 Request – Acceptance

Requesting is asking someone to do something which can be responded with acceptance or refusal.

Excerpt 27-28;

PK : Well, Can I just ask Prime Minister, What do you do if Nauru and PNG don‟t work? I mean you must be concerned that the boats arrivals are still coming at a very high rate, so is there a next step, what do you do if the boats continue to come?

JG : Well, Paul. Let’s be clear about this and let’s take it a step at a time. We have got through legislation which will enable us to do the things that Angus Houston and his review, review team referred to as the circuit breaker and we are

66 getting about doing those things quickly. I am not at all surprised that the people smuggles are running around, saying to people move now, get in quick circumstances of charge changing, that is to be expected and I think we‟re seeing some of that evidence in boat arrivals now. We will get in place the circuit breaker but we have also committed in principle to the rest of the Houston report, that is about increasing refugee places to change the incentives about whether or not people move. It‟s also about building on the arrangement with Malaysia, so we will get on with all of that work as the Houston reporters recommended.

From the excerpt above, it can be seen that PK as an interviewee expressed the request by saying “Can I just ask Prime Minister?”, then JG responded it by saying “Well, Paul. Let’s be clear about this and let’s take it a step at a time”. JG used preferred response by accepting the request. It means that Request –

Acceptance is realized by the interviewees.

4.2.3.2 Assessment – Disagreement

Assessment can be formed into opinion seer or comment which is asking another‟s opinion and it can be response by agreement or disagreement expression.

Excerpt 23-24;

PV : The Prime Minister, a best-case scenario here if this does work is that we’re going to have at least a few hundred people locked up indefinitely possibly for years in row costing taxpayers an awful lot of money and seventy to ninety percent of those people judging on estimates over the last decade are going to be genuine refugees but they’re going to be sort of held in detention despite all the psychological issues and all the mental health issues that whole range of labour politicians talked about during the how it is, that is going to be a best-case scenario a worst-case scenario is the boats keep coming and people keep drowning.

JG : Well, Peter. I’m going to disagree with you on aspects of that sentence, the Houston Panel is not saying that, that people should be on the room of PNG indefinitely no one is saying that, they‟re saying look to the times for resettlement if people hadn‟t moved. Second, when you use the

67

terminology “locked up” we are obviously working particularly with Naru for arrangements where people will have some freedom of movement, so that they can move around. Yes, this is though policy and I understand for many people, that it‟s hard for them that it‟s emotionally hard for them. I‟ve seen that written on the faces of some of my labour colleagues and let‟s be fair. There are some parts of the Liberal Party too that were anxious in the days of John Howard‟s policy and I suspect have some a heaviness of heart about aspects of the Huston report. But our aim here is to stop people risking their lives at sea and too often losing that bet when they get on a boat and actually drowning at sea but some of them we know about some of them we don‟t even know when boats have gone down.

From the excerpt above, it can be seen that PV as an interviewer gave an assessment “The Prime Minister, a best-case scenario here if this does work is that we’re going to have at least a few hundred people locked up indefinitely possibly for years in row costing taxpayers an awful lot of money and seventy to ninety percent of those people judging on estimates over the last decade are going to be genuine refugees”, while JG responded it with disagreement expression by saying “Well, Peter. I’m going to disagree with you on aspects of that sentence”.

JG used dispreferred response by disagreeing the assessment. Therefore,

Assessment – Disagreement is realized in this excerpt.

4.2.3.3 Question - Answer

Question can be formed into information seek, clarification seek and the response can be expected or unexpected answer.

Excerpt 9-10;

PV : Do you agree with Kevin rudd that you had a mandate as a government in 2007 to unwind the Pasific Solution?

68

JG : All we certainly stood in the 2007 election on a policy of not having offshore processing, but we face a circumstance now where we‟re seeing (a…) large numbers of people lose their lives at sea because they are enticed by people smugglers who say pay your money and get to Australia, which is why the underlying reasoning of the Houston report I think is so compelling that we‟ve got to be very very clear with asylum seekers that you will get no advantage by having paid a people smuggler and having risked your life.

From the excerpt above, it can be seen that PV as an interviewee asked

The question “Do you agree with Kevin rudd that you had a mandate as a government in 2007 to unwind the Pasific Solution?, then JG answered it by saying “All we certainly stood in the 2007 election on a policy of not having offshore processing”. In this conversation, JG responded it with the unexpected answer. She did not respond it with yes or no. JG used dispreferred response by answering the question according to what was asked by the interviewer.

Therefore, Question-Answer is used by the interviewer and interviewee.

4.2.4 Feedback

Feedback is the ways of the speakers provide each other with feedback; that is, the ways in which listeners show they are attending to what is being said.

This can be done, for example, by the use of „response tokens‟ such as „mmm‟ and

„yeah‟ and „OK‟, by paraphrasing what the other person has just said or through body position and the use of eye contact.

Excerpt 18;

JG : Yeah, and I‟m gonna answer your question Paul. People will obviously do comparisons between aspects of this policy and aspects of the policy of the former government. I actually don‟t think it‟s the comparison of aspects that‟s compelling, compelling. I think you‟ve got to look at this

69

as an integrated package the way that Angus Houston and his team are to do, people will say some elements are tougher, people will say that there are some new elements that are humanitarian like the more refugee places. This is a package and we have endorsed the package in principle.

Excerpt 29;

PK : OK. Just changing the subject. I want to refer to the article in yesterday‟s Australian, is it correct that in 1995 you had to resign as a partner from a Slater and Gordon as a result of their investigation into misappropriation of funds around the legal entity that you had established?

Excerpt 31; 32; 5; 6

PK : Okay. What can I just ask given your good relations with the firm. Would you like to see them, make some statement to clarify this matter?

JG : Up, hmm… What Slater and Gordon says is a matter for Slater and Gordon. But Paul, my essential point here is, there‟s delving into matters seventeen years ago for what purposes if you‟ve got an allegation. I did something wrong, put it. If you can‟t put it, why are we talking about this?

PK : Okay. I understand your point, you‟re saying it‟s all nonsense. Can I just ask you then this direct question. The simple was the central point was that the partner alleged that you had to resign because of this issue. Is that correct or not?

PK : Okay. So you‟ll male more savings?

From the excerpt above, it can be seen that JG and PK expressed or responded the question and statement by using Feedback expression. It indicated by the words Yeah, Okay, Hmm. It means that there are three expressions that

70 they used. The words Yeah and Hmm expressed by JG, while Okay and OK are expressed by PK.

4.2.5 Repair

Repair organization describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding. Repair segments are classified by who initiates repair (self or other), by who resolves the problem (self or other), and by how it unfolds within a turn or a sequence of turns.

4.2.5.1 Self-Repair

Self-repair is the way of the speaker correct things she or he has said, and check what she or he has understood in a conversation.

Excerpt 21; 38; 54

PK : But what about circumscribing the authority of the High Court when it comes to scrutinizing this. I mean that‟s the accusation, the accusation from the human rights lawyers is that this legislation is too tough and that it limits the capacity of the High Court to judge this in human rights terms. What‟s your response to that particular point?

JG : Look, Paul. I did resign from Slater and Gordon that‟s a matter of public record true I made the decision to do that, all the rest of this, is just, you know sort of not getting into specifics about issues seventeen years ago, when you are not able to put to me any contention about why this is relevant to my conduct as Prime Minister today. I meant join, join the dots for me Paul, what matters about this today for Australia and me being Prime Minister? It just articulate.

JG : Well, at every step of the way, this has been a government that‟s been prepared to step up and provide additional resources to States for important that national outcomes. Look at health. I mean health single biggest thing on the state government budget. Single biggest pressure on

71

them, health costs rising far quick and far more quickly than revenue Rises or Normal CPI rises in those circumstances.

From the excerpts above, it can be seen that JG and PK expressed or make a statement by using Repair especially Self Repair expression. It indicated by the words I Mean. It means that the interviewees realized that the words was still incorrect, thus the interviewees repaired the words by themselves. Therefore, Self-

Repair is used by the interviewees.

4.2.6 Opening and Closing Conversation

The opening conversation delivers for starting the conversation between two or more people in chatting. In opening of the conversation there are greeting, such as “hello, hai, good morning, good afternoon, etc”. While, closing conversation is both speakers mutually negotiate the end of the conversation. In this conversation, it was only one person used the expression of opening and closing conversation named Peter Vanillin (PV) as the host of the conversation.

Here is the excerpt and the explanation:

A. Opening Conversation

Excerpt 1;

PV : Hello and welcome to Australian Agenda. I‟m Peter Vanillin, thanks very much for your company the Prime Minister there speaking on the agreement of sorts in terms of dealing with offshore processing that was reached. In the first week of Parliament returning after the winter recess. Our special guest today is the Prime Minister Julia Gillard joining us live in the studio and a little bit later in the program, we‟ll be speaking to the

72

manager of position business joining us out of Adelaide. Let me start by welcome to the program as I do each week editor-at-large at the Australian Paul Kelly, thanks for coming. All boats has been the big issue of the week. Where are we on this issue?

From the excerpt above, it can be seen that PV opened the program by using Opening Conversation expression. It indicated by the word “Hello and welcome to Australian Agenda”. “Hello” is one of the expressions of opening conversation. Therefore, opening conversation is used by the speaker.

B. Closing Conversation

Excerpt 77;

PV : Prime Ministry, Julia Gillard, you’ve been very generous with your time. We appreciate your joining us on Australia Agenda. Thank you.

From the excerpt above, it can be seen that PV closed the program by using Closing Conversation expression. It indicated by the utterances “you’ve been very generous with your time. We appreciate your joining us on

Australia Agenda. Thank you”. It means that Peter Vanillin would like to end the conversation. Therefore, closing conversation is used by the interviewer.

73

4.3 Discussions

Every people do the communication, because they have to do the social interaction with others. Thus, the analyst of the conversation must be able to analyze the aspects of conversation used by the speakers. Based on the analysis of the research, it is found that the conversation of the interview is unusual conversation, which means the interviewees more frequently do the communication than the interviewer. Other than that, the application of the aspects of conversational interactions especially in turn taking type of the interviewer was less than the interviewees. The results of the previous research conducted by Olutayo and Omolara Grace (2013) discussed on investigate the determinants of turn-taking patterns in Nigerian Television talk show. It analyzed four episodes with varieties of subject matters were selected from each show and they were numbered accordingly. Recorded episodes were played several times to identify the determinants. The topics are; the studio audience, the duration of the programme, discourse topic, gender, culture.

Comparing to the research conducted by the researcher, the aspects of conversational interactions are found in conversation, where in this case the researcher used the video of Australian Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister

Julia Gillard as the subject and analyzed the aspects of conversational interactions used by the participants and the results are those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in this conversation, while Olutayo and Omolara Grace used Nigerian Television Talk Show as the subject and analyzed the turn-taking patterns and the results is seven main determinants of patterns and features of

74 turn-taking are revealed the nature of the show and participation, floor occupation, shared understanding, turn quantification and emotiveness.

In this research, in expressing the utterances, IR (Peter Vanillin) employed the aspects of conversational interactions in giving and responding the question to

IEs. There are seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation according to Paltridge (2012), however, Peter Vanillin used five aspects of conversation. Firstly, he used Opening Conversation to welcome the guest as the interviewee. It means that Peter Vanillin used this aspect of conversational interactions once throughout the conversation. Secondly, Peter Vanillin employed

Adjacency Pairs in giving and responding the questions to the interviewees including Requesting, Question and Blame. It occurred four times Peter Vanillin used those types in the conversation. It used by the interviewer because he would like to seek the information and ask the current issues to the interviewees. Thirdly,

Turn Taking, Peter Vanillin had fourteen turns throughout the conversation. The interviewer used Turn Taking aspect in giving opinion and asking the questions to the interviewees. Turn Taking defined into 2 ways: the turns changed by giving nomination and the turns changed without nomination. Fourthly, Peter Vanillin employed Preference Organization in giving and responding the interviewees.

However, it occurred two times in the conversation. Fifthly, in closing the interview or the conversation, Peter Vanillin used once of Closing Conversation aspect. The interviewer used this aspect because he would like to end the conversation. However, Feedback and Repair are not used by Peter Vanillin throughout the conversation. Those aspects are not used by the interviewer

75 because there were not the utterances asked by the interviewees to the interviewer to use those aspects. Therefore, Peter Vanillin used five of seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation.

IE (Paul Kelly) used five aspects in conversation. Firstly, Paul Kelly used

Adjacency Pairs in giving and responding the questions including Requesting,

Question and Blame. It occurred sixteen times Paul Kelly used those types in the conversation. Secondly, Turn Taking, Paul Kelly had twenty seven turns throughout the conversation. Thirdly, Paul Kelly employed Preference

Organization in giving and responding the interviewer and interviewee. However, it occurred once in the conversation. Fourthly, Feedback is used and it occurred four times. It indicated by the word hmm or yeah. Fifthly, Repair occurred once throughout the conversation. Specifically, it is Self-Repair type. It means that Paul

Kelly realized to change the sentence into the correct word by himself. However,

Opening and Closing Conversation are not used by him throughout the conversation. Those aspects did not use by the Paul Kelly because those aspects only used by the host of the program to open and close the conversation.

Therefore, Paul Kelly used five of seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation.

Similar with Paul Kelly, IE (Julia Gillard) used five aspects in conversation. Firstly, Julia Gillard used Adjacency Pairs in giving and responding the questions to the interviewer and interviewee including Requesting, Question and Blame. It occurred sixteen times Julia Gillard used those types in the conversation. Secondly, Turn Taking, Julia Gillard had thirty seven turns

76 throughout the conversation. Thirdly, Julia Gillard employed Preference

Organization in giving and responding the interviewer and interviewee. However, it occurred three times in the conversation. Fourthly, Feedback is used and it occurred twice. It indicated by the word hmm or yeah. Fifthly, There was twice

Repair is used throughout the conversation. Specifically, it is Self-Repair type. It means that Julia Gillard realized to change the sentence into the correct word by herself. Therefore, five of seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation are used.

Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in the conversation with different realization. Feedback and Repair are not used by the interviewer, while Opening and Closing Conversation were not used by the interviewees. Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in this conversation because that is the standard in conversation and the interviewer and interviewees applied the aspects of conversational interactions in order to seek the information from the interviewees, to give the clarification of the issues and to make a good communication in that conversation. It could be concluded that aspects of conversational interactions are realized by the interviewer and interviewees.

77

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on findings of aspects of conversational interactions in conversation used in Australia Agenda – Interview with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Sky

News Australia Channel, there are three conclusions that can be drawn. The interviewer (Peter Vanillin) employed the aspects of conversational interactions in giving and responding the questions to interviewees. Opening Conversation,

Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking and Closing Conversation are used. However, Feedback and Repair are not used by interviewer throughout the conversation. While, interviewees (Paul Kelly) and (Julia Gillard) used

Adjacency Pairs, Preference Organization, Turn Taking, Feedback and Repair.

However, Opening and Closing Conversation are not used by interviewees throughout the conversation. Therefore, five of seven aspects of conversational interactions in conversation are used.

Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in the conversation with different characteristics. Feedback and Repair are not used by the interviewer, while Opening and Closing Conversation are not used by the interviewees. It did not used by the interviewer because there was not the utterances asked by the interviewees to the interviewer to express those aspects, while it did not used by the interviewees because those aspects are used by the host of the program in order to open and close the program.

78

Those aspects of conversational interactions are realized in this conversation because that is the standard in conversation and the interviewer and interviewees applied those aspects of conversational interactions in order to seek the information from the interviewees, to give the clarification of the issues and to make a good communication in that conversation. It could be concluded that aspects of conversational interactions are realized by the interviewer and interviewees.

5.2 Suggestions

After drawing the conclusions, the researcher proposes some suggestions as follows:

1. To readers, it will be nice if they understand language they are using not only as

spoken or written language but also its occurrences. After reading this research,

they are expected to acknowledge what aspects of conversational interactions

are used, how and why the aspects of conversational interactions are realized

by the interviewer and interviewees. Hopefully, they comprehend the functions

and the effect of each aspects of conversational interactions realizations. As a

result, they can conduct effective news interview.

2. To those who want to conduct the similar research, they should read and

understand the conversational aspects of conversational interactions and its

applications. So that it will be easier to analyze the data especially in news

interview. The researcher suggests that the other researchers explore language

phenomenon in broadcasts program especially news interview. They can

79

employ conversation analysis as the main approach in investigating news

interview. Moreover, there are still many possibilities to conduct research in

conversation analysis by selecting news interview as the sources of data.

3. To Faculty of Cultural Sciences of University of Sumatera Utara, it will be

easier for the language students if there are plenty of references for the thesis

writing about Conversation Analysis.

80

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. M and H, John (eds) .1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Antaki, C, 2002. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. Loughborough University.

Clayman, S. & Heritage, J. 2002a. The news interview: journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.

Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. 2010. Talk in action: interactions, identities and institutions. Malaysia: WilleyBlackwell.

Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. 2011. Conversation analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.

Kong, R. 2014. An Analysis of Conversation Structure in Ellen Show. Studies in Literature and Language. Vol. 9 (2), p.37-42. ISSN 1923-1555.

Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liddicoat, A. J. 2007. Introduction to Conversation Analysis. New York: Continuum, pp. 79.

Liddicoat, A. J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Athanaeum Press Ltd.

Liddicoat, A. 2011. An introduction to conversation analysis. 2nd ed. Norfolk,: Continuum.

Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. 1994. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Montgomery, M. 2008. The Discourse of the Broadcast News Interview. Journalism Studies. Vol. 9, No. 2. ISSN 1461-670X print/1469-9699 online/08/020260-18.

Myers, G. 2000. Entitlement and Sincerity in Broadcast Interviews About Princess Diana. Media, Culter and Society 22. pp. 233-59.

81

Nguyen, V. 2016. Some Considerations on Conversation Analysis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Studies. Vol. 3 (3), p.185-190.

Olutayo & Omolara, G. 2013. Determinants of Turn-Taking in Nigerian Television Talk Show. World Journal of English Language. Vol. 3, No. 3.

Paltridge, B. 2010. Researching Discourse. NewYork, N. Y: continuum.

Paltridge, B. 2006. Discourse Analysis an Introduction. London: continuum.

Paltridge, B. 2012. Discourse Analysis an Introduction 2nd Edition. London: continuum.

Paltridge, & Hylan, Ken. 2011. The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: continuum

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. London : Sage

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

Sami, A, N. 2016. Conversational Analysis Model for Promoting Practices of Interactional Competence in the EFL Context. International Journal of English Linguistics. Vol. 6 (6).

Schegloff, E, A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. 1977. The Preference for Self- correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53 (361382). Print.

Waiyaraphutra, K and Abhakom, M. 2017. Conversation Analysis of Interviewer’s Cooperative Talks During News Interviews. Phranakon Rajabhat Research Journal (Humanities and Social Sciences). Vol. 12 (2), p.143-156.

Wootton, A. 1989. Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. In Roger, D. and Bull, P. (eds.) Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 238–258.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

82 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N456VbijM4c Accessed on October 17th 2019. https://www.skynews.com.au/ Accessed on January 6th 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News_Australia Accessed on February 14th 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_(Australian_TV_program) Accessed on February 14th 2020. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2013/how-journalists-can-become- better-interviewers/ Accessed on February 14th 2020.

83

APPENDIX 1

TRANSCRIPTION OF AUSTRALIAN AGENDA

INTERVIEW WITH PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD

Peter Vanillin (PV) : The Host

Paul Kelly (PK) : Guest 1

Julia Gillard (JG) : Guest 2

PV : Hello and welcome to Australian Agenda . I‟m Peter Vanillin, thanks very much for your company the Prime Minister there speaking on the agreement of sorts in terms of dealing with offshore processing that was reached. In the first week of Parliament returning after the winter recess. Our special guest today is the Prime Minister Julia Gillard joining us live in the studio and a little bit later in the program, we‟ll be speaking to the manager of position business Christopher Pyne joining us out of Adelaide. Let me start by welcome to the program as I do each week editor-at-large at the Australian Paul Kelly, thanks for coming. All boats has been the big issue of the week. Where are we on this issue?

PK : This week we saw a dramatic change in Labour Party Policy on the boats Prime Minister Julia Gillard moved from a policy of onshore processing to a tough regime of offshore processing based on Nauru and Papio New Guinea and this followed the deal between Tony Abbott and the Prime Minister off the back of the report commissioned by former Defence Force chief Angus Heston. I think that Julia Gillard has now embraced Tony Abbott‟s Nauro policy, this is a Classic retreat by labour. It‟s a clear admission that the softer policy introduced by the Rudd Government was not sustainable the test for Julia Gillard now is weather the new though policy can actually stop the boats early stem the flow of boats to this country that won‟t be easy since the policy was announced last week. We‟ve seen 450 boats arrivals that‟s more than a hindred a day and a testifies to a sheer momentum of this industry Julia Gillard, however needs to get result with this new policy the risk for labour the risk might be that it‟s done too little too late.

PV : And what about the opposition. How did you think Tony Abbott played this issue during the way?

84

PK : Tony Abbott claimed a political victory and the gloating from the coalition benches was conspicuous, but Tony Abbott unlike Julia Gillard did not endorse the Hewson report in full and the reason he didn‟t was because the coalition disagrees with the new regional framework at the heart of this report for stopping the boats. Tony Abbott argued that only a coalition government will have the guts to introduce tough policies needed to stop the boats, he made it clear that he is prepared to turn boats around on the water and send them back to Indonesia, the Hewson committee while it doesn‟t rule this out as an option makes it clear that it doesn‟t alike it and the current circumstances are such that this policy can‟t work the bottom line today is the politics of this issue are not settled. They are not resolved and the policy disputes between Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard on this front remains significant poor.

PV : Kelly, thank you very much for that analysis and we‟re joined now by the Prime Minister Julia Gillard Prime Minister, thanks very much for your company.

JG : Good morning Peter.

PV : About a decade ago, you made an observation in the parliament slightly sarcastically about whether Nauru would still be up and functioning by now and for another decade from now. Is it humiliating to have to be in a situation now, where you‟re embracing a report that recommends the reopening of Nauru?

JG : Peter, if your point is has the government compromised have I compromised, Yes I have and I‟ve done that in the nation‟s interest people smuggling is a resilient trade. It‟s a trade that mutates that learn from experience and we have people smugglers out there enticing people to risk their lives that see and we‟ve seen to many deaths and too many tragedies. So in those circumstances, we needed to act we‟ve been prepared to compromise for some time that has been met with no compromise from the opposition. I‟m very glad that through Angus Houston and the report that he and his fellow panel members delived we‟ve been able to put in place what they described as a circuit breaker and now we need to put in place the rest of the measures recommended by the Houston report over.

PV : Do you agree with Kevin rudd that you had a mandate as a government in 2007 to unwind the Pasific Solution?

JG : All we certainly stood in the 2007 election on a policy of not having offshore processing, but we face a circumstance now where we‟re seeing (a…) large numbers of people lose their lives at sea because they are enticed by people smugglers who say pay your money and get to Australia, which is why the underlying reasoning of the Houston report I think is so compelling that we‟ve got to be very very clear with asylum seekers that you will get no advantage by having paid a people smuggler and having risked your life.

85

PK : Prime Minister, what‟s the practical effect of your new policy in particular, does this mean protracted or even indefinite detention on the rule and Papua New Guinea?

JG : It certainly means that people could be on Nauru or PNG. In PNG for an extended period of time, what the Houston report is saying to us and we have certainly embraced this, is that you need to equalize the waiting times that people have weather or not they move, so you look in the region where people are processed by UNHCR and you ask yourself the question how long would they wait if they stayed where they were and waited for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and their officers to process their claims a communicator or a settlement opportunity we have them wait the same amount of time on neural and PNG.

PK : Well, it could be a very long period of time and we surely were talking here about many years.

JG : Well, Yes, this is a tautology, Paul. This is a tough policy, I can‟t give you what the time frame is today we need to do some consultations including with UNHCR to ascertain what that time frame is, but let‟s not forget there is a balance here in the Houston report. He says equalize the amount of time that people wait so that there is no incentive, no advantage from having risked your life at sea and giving a people smuggler your money. He says also that we need to make a veil more refugee places, so the message to people is if you stay, if you don‟t get on that boat, then more places will be made available for you if you do get on that boat then you get any advantage.

PK : I understand that trade-off but when you look at this, is it fair to say that your policy is now a tougher policy than John Howard‟s previous Pacific Solution?

JG : People will do all of this.

PK : I am asking you.

JG : Yeah, and I‟m gonna answer your question Paul. People will obviously do comparisons between aspects of this policy and aspects of the policy of the former government. I actually don‟t think it‟s the comparison of aspects that‟s compelling, compelling. I think you‟ve got to look at this as an integrated package the way that Angus Houston and his team are stuff to do, people will say some elements are tougher, people will say that there are some new elements that are humanitarian like the more refugee places. This is a package and we have endorsed the package in principle.

PK : Well, what‟s your response to the criticism particularly from your own Human Rights Commission which says that under your new law the High Court is

86 not able to look and make a judgement about the Human Rights aspect of processing offshore?

JG : We have a proper processing regime offshore to assess who is a refugee, the mechanics of all of that regime will be at work through but yes there‟ll be a proper assessment of who‟s a refugee and a proper assessment of who isn‟t and who what.

PK : But what about circumscribing the authority of the High Court when it comes to scrutinizing this. I mean that‟s the accusation, the accusation from the human rights lawyers is that this legislation is too tough and that it limits the capacity of the High Court to judge this in human rights terms. What‟s your response to that particular point?

JG : My response to that particular point is we needed in this legislation to make arrangements, so we could process offshore as a result of a High Court decision about the arrangement with Malaysia, we could not. We‟ve taken a very rigorous legal approach to that, given circumstances in the High Court before and we stand by it, there will be proper assessments of wheater or not people are refugees.

PV : The Prime Minister, a best-case scenario here if this does work is that we‟re going to have at least a few hundred people locked up indefinitely possibly for years in row costing taxpayers an awful lot of money and seventy to ninety percent of those people judging on estimates over the last decade are going to be genuine refugees but they‟re going to be sort of held in detention despite all the psychological issues and all the mental health issues that whole range of labour politicians talked about during the how it is, that is going to be a best-case scenario a worst-case scenario is the boats keep coming and people keep drowning.

JG : Well, Peter. I‟m going to disagree with you on aspects of that sentence, the Houston Panel is not saying that, that people should be on the room of PNG indefinitely no one is saying that, they‟re saying look to the times for resettlement if people hadn‟t moved. Second, when you use the terminology “locked up” we are obviously working particularly with Naru for arrangements where people will have some freedom of movement, so that they can move around. Yes, this is though policy and I understand for many people, that it‟s hard for them that it‟s emotionally hard for them. I‟ve seen that written on the faces of some of my labour colleagues and let‟s be fair. There are some parts of the Liberal Party too that were anxious in the days of John Howard‟s policy and I suspect have some a heaviness of heart about aspects of the Huston report. But our aim here is to stop people risking their lives at sea and too often losing that bet when they get on a boat and actually drowning at sea but some of them we know about some of them we don‟t even know when boats have gone down.

87

PV : Well, Paul Kelly before and likened the policy or asked you just sort of compare it to join Howard John Key Delk and the cartoonist. One of the cartoonists at the Australian has a card to it, I‟ve just put up on the screen now, where he has you morphing into John Howard. Now, you know it‟s making light of a serious issue but it must work at least your labor colleagues certainly on the left you were of course affectionately in the label left before becoming Prime Minister. It must have hurt them to sort of be compared to John Howard whether it‟s tougher or slightly less tough. It‟s so far removed from where the labour party was during its use in opposition.

JG : Well, with respect the feelings of me or any labour member are a second order issue indeed a hundredth order issue compared with saving lives at sea.

PK : Well, Can I just ask Prime Minister, What do you do if Nauru and PNG don‟t work? I mean you must be concerned that the boats arrivals are still coming at a very high rate, so is there a next step, what do you do if the boats continue to come?

JG : Well, Paul. Let‟s be clear about this and let‟s take it a step at a time. We have got through legislation which will enable us to do the things that Angus Houston and his review, review team referred to as the circuit breaker and we are getting about doing those things quickly. I am not at all surprised that the people smuggles are running around, saying to people move now, get in quick circumstances of charge changing, that is to be expected and I think we‟re seeing some of that evidence in boat arrivals now. We will get in place the circuit breaker but we have also committed in principle to the rest of the Houston report, that is about increasing refugee places to change the incentives about whether or not people move. It‟s also about building on the arrangement with Malaysia, so we will get on with all of that work as the Houston reporters recommended.

PK : OK. Just changing the subject. I want to refer to the article in yesterday‟s Australian, is it correct that in 1995 you had to resign as a partner from a Slater and Gordon as a result of their investigation into misappropriation of funds around the legal entity that you had established?

JG : I am NOT dignifying all of this scurrilous campaigning by going through these things point by point. Paul, we are talking about matters 17 years ago which have been dealt on the public record for most of that time as long as 15 years ago, these matters were dealt with on the public record. I did nothing wrong if you‟ve got an allegation that I did something wrong then put it if you don‟t have an allegation. I did something wrong then let‟s ask a question that matters to the nation today on Slater and Gordon. You‟re talking about firm with which I‟ve got continuing good relationship and as recently as the last few weeks. I was giving a speech in their building and greeting staff at their Sydney office.

88

PK : Okay. What can I just ask given your good relations with the firm. Would you like to see them, make some statement to clarify this matter?

JG : Up, mmm… What Slater and Gordon says is a matter for Slater and Gordon. But Paul, my essential point here is, there‟s delving into matters seventeen years ago for what purposes if you‟ve got an allegation. I did something wrong, put it. If you can‟t put it, why are we talking about this?

PK : No… no… I‟ve got no allegation but the point is ….

JG : Well, if you‟ve got no allegation and I‟ve not seen in yesterday‟s Australian or anywhere else an allegation put about my conduct. If there is no allegation to deal with, then why are we dealing with the decision? When we could be dealing with the Australian economy schools to do with those issues?

PK : Prime Minister, but there were a series of allegations made in yesterday‟s Australian bio former senior partner which questioned your integrity surely you need to respond to those allegations.

JG : Well, I am NOT going to get into a circumstance where we‟ve got people blogging malicious nonsense and we‟re having some of this penetrate into the media. I‟m not going to get my self into a circumstance where I spend my time dealing with these events seventeen years ago. When the people who are asking me questions about them are unable to even articulate what it is that they say. I did wrong, this is, this is just nonsense and a distraction from the important work. I‟ve got to do as Prime Minister and the important issues for this nations future. I‟ve just said to you Paul, I continue to have very good relationships with Slater and Gordon. You know going and greeting the staff and all of that kind of stuff, it‟s not the first time I‟ve done that. It won‟t be the last time I do that.

PK : Okay. I understand your point, you‟re saying it‟s all nonsense. Can I just ask you then this direct question. The simple was the central point was that the partner alleged that you had to resign because of this issue. Is that correct or not?

JG : Look, Paul. I did resign from Slater and Gordon that‟s a matter of public record true I made the decision to do that, all the rest of this, is just, you know sort of not getting into specifics about issues seventeen years ago, when you are not able to put to me any contention about why this is relevant to my conduct as Prime Minister today. I meant join join the dots for me Paul, what matters about this today for Australia and me being Prime Minister? It just articulate.

PK : The point is that a partner in your former firm has made a series of allegations which …..

JG : Prime Minister today, Paul?

89

PK : Well, Well. I think when when accusations are made about the integrity of a prime minister going to the professional position that she had before she came into politics surely that is relevant?

JG : And Paul, I did nothing wrong. Are you challenging that?

PK : No, I‟m just asking Christians.

JG : Well, well. And this is the issue, isn‟t it? Because I understand you‟re being asked to ask questions today.

PK : There‟s no one asking me to the questions. Sorry Prime, I‟m sorry Prime Minister I asked my own Christians tells me what questions to ask.

JG : And I‟ll give you an answer to them. I did nothing wrong, Paul. Have you got an allegation to put to me, if you do not why are we discussing this?

PV : Can I just ask one question on this and then we‟ll move on last question. Why not just put it all out there? I believe you nothing wrong. I have I made a comment on Friday on my show, the contrarian said I thought that this is all the beat up and that we should move on to the major issues, but why not just address it straight down the barrel. So that we can move on and all the scuffle but that goes on online which Frankly. I‟m sick of people emailing me about this. We can just move on from it.

JG : Well, peter. Let we welcome, but also question your grand naivety. The people who are dealing with this online in their malicious and motivated way would not stop, no matter what explanation I gave. You know that, I know that and that is why is that no point in flogging through all of the details of this, because the people who are pursuing. This malicious campaign will continue to do it are not at all interested in the truth. The truth is I did nothing wrong. No one has put any direct assertion to me. You haven‟t done it today, it hasn‟t been done in the newspaper that I did anything wrong in those circumstances. Why are we seventeen years later when these matters have been dealt with on the public record for the best part of a decade and a half still talking about this.

PK : Well, if we can go to the question of Gonski to move on at a fundamental policy issue. How soon before we get the common wealth‟s response to the Gonski report? Can you meet the commitment of five billion which was mentioned in that report? And do you anticipate that states will come to the party and be part of the package?

JG : Well, Paul. I think for our viewers, we‟ve got a decode what we‟re talking about. Inside the beltway people are wandering around talking about Gonski outside the Beltway people are raising their eyebrows, going what on earth does all of that mean. To me, it means improving Australian schools. That‟s

90 what doing work on school funding is about. We will be responding to the work of David Gonski and his review team and that won‟t be too far away from here. It‟ll be in a number of weeks time but I want to make this point very clearly. If we‟re talking about money for Australian Schools and David Gonski work is seen surely on the funding. We‟ve got to be talking about what is that money for. That money in my view, any money we give to schools needs to be about driving better outcomes for kids higher quality and better standards. I am worried as Prime Minister that whilst our school reform work is gathering results, because our schools were neglected for too long under the former government. We are now slipping behind the education race in our region and in . That‟s ultimately bad news for the lifetime opportunities of our children and it is that question of how we improve schools that‟s got to be front and center of everything we talk about in this area.

PK : And what about the financial commitment and whether the states come to the party?

JG : Well, of course states need to be working to, to improve the outcomes in state schools. The work of David Gonski and his governments and my concern as Prime Minister is for every child in every school. It‟s not about school systems or school sectors, it‟s about that child and their opportunity in life and the standard of education the get. So we will certainly be looking to work with our state and territory colleagues with the independent schools and with the catholic school system. And our mission will be How can we improve each and every school for each and every child within it. Because it‟s not satisfactory for our nation to be slipping behind the standards of the world. And it‟s not satisfactory for some kids to be left at the back of the class and slipping behind the standards of the other children.

PV : Prime Minister, Can I ask you. How do you do that in, in relation to the funding side of the mechanism whether it‟s schools or the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There‟s a lot of talk about you know state versus commonwealth share of funding arrangements and Do you acknowledge, I guess that state governments whatever you sort of think of them at the end of the day, they‟ve got far greater funding pressures than the commonwealth just by virtue of it. Nothing else for vertical fiscal imbalance that exists and regressive nature of the kind of taxation take today you have open to them?

JG : Well, at every step of the way, this has been a government that‟s been prepared to step up and provide additional resources to States for important that national outcomes. Look at health. I mean health single biggest thing on the state government budget. Single biggest pressure on them, health costs rising far quick and far more quickly than revenue Rises or Normal CPI rises in those circumstances. We said will step up and be an equal partner in growth, so we have alleviated in a big way. What was going to actually bust state budget apart, if we didn‟t change arrangements in education. We‟ve more than doubled the funding.

91

Every step of the way, it‟s come with reform agenda better quality teachers in front of the classrooms more empowered school leadership to get on with the job. More information for school communities, for parents than they‟ve ever had before. As we work on the next stage of improving schools and on the nect stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we‟ll take the same approach of working with states understanding their revenue challenges but also being prudent on the federal government.

PV : Paradesh yet they still don‟t believe that there is that understanding about their, their revenue structure. They still believe that as things stand now they‟re under enormous pressure much less with the kind of extra funding that you‟re talking about.

JG : Well, let me a little bit clear about some of the things that get said in the public domain. Some of the things that get said privately, of course I understand that state premiers and Chief Ministers will be out there on behalf of their Jurisdictions always arguing for more federal money. So is the way of the world until the end of time, when I sit around the coag‟s table and people raises issues with me and I say, would you prefer to have the liberal view of the health funding the way it used to happen or what this government has done for you. I don‟t get too many hands up for the past and there‟s a reason for that. We‟ve been more generous and more prepared to tackle issues of national concern like health funding like education, where we‟ve got more to do and like disability where we‟ve got a lot or to do for people in our nation who currently get left on the sidelines.

PK : But, just on the question of disability, when would you announce the final arrangement for the deferred the Disability Insurance Scheme and what will it cost?

JG : Well, the costings have been that the all upper envelope has been dealt with that CO AG and it‟s in the order of seven point eight billion dollars is my recollection. Now, we have said that we get the Launch sites up and running, we will learn from the Launch sites and learning from Launch sites. We will work towards rolling out the full scheme. So Paul, we‟ve got some more decisions and more work to do in disability but we‟re taking the approach that the Producting Commission recommended which is get the Launch sites happening first. So we can learn about the model.

PK : But, Can I just clarify. Will the policy be finalized before the election, and will the cost of the policy therefore the in the government‟s forward estimates in that period before the election?

JG : Well, we will be working in the government‟s budget arrangements on National Disability Insurance Scheme and on other issues including the further work we‟ve got to do in improving school funding. Your next point is going to be

92 well now will the government make provision for this. We will do it the way we have always done it, that is we will work hard to ensure that we are dealing with savings, we‟re dealing with priorities in the government budget. So that, the budget is in surplus as promised and we‟ve got a very good track record of doing that.

PK : Okay. So you‟ll male more savings?

JG : Paul. Yes. There‟s nothing new in that draw. This is a government that has been offsetting spending, new spending with savings as a routine part of our approach. English, we live in, you know, limited fiscal at times and so you‟ve got to be prudent with every dollar and we are.

PK : Will these be substantial savings?

JG : Oh, well. Of course we will be working through to support our further expenditure. You know, we‟ve shown the ability to save tens in tens of billions of dollars in the federal government‟s budget to make available resources for the things that we believe really matter to the Australian Community and will continue to take that approach.

PK : And as you‟ve indicated that the surplus is non-negotiable?

JG : Correct!

PV : It‟s at the same with the carbon price. There‟s not going to be reduction in that going forward or indeed a lowering of the floor price once it floats?

JG : We‟ve been consulting on floor price arrangements as is well known and we‟ll continue with those consultations and when we‟re in a position to say something about that we will fall carbon pricing at all of the money arrangements for the commonwealth‟s budget are there for to see.

PK : But presumably, if you‟re having these consultations, you do intend to change the policy?

JG : We said a long time ago, we would be consulting about the floor price and we have been consulting about the floor.

PK : What‟s your thinking about this. Do you, do you think that it‟s desirable probably to alter the floor price or to alter the arrangement are concerning permits?

JG : Paul, when we‟re in a position to deal with these issues we will and we‟ve been in a period of consultation.

93

PV : One final question, If I can Prime Minister, before we let you go Corporate taxes, this is something we‟ve seen hit the headlines again this week. Businesses came for a company tax cuts, there‟s been some discussion that there may need to be sort of, you know, reductions in other areas in terms of reclaiming for tax. What, what‟s your view of this, Do you see room not just in the next year but in the next couple of years to be able to revisit this idea of a corporate tax cut which after all was originally going to happen, but you know for various reasons hasn‟t.

JG : Well, the corporate tax cut didn‟t happen because Mr. Abbott and his opposition didn‟t want to give businesses a tax break, that‟s why it didn‟t happen. We then said in those circumstances, we were prepared to work with the business community for a revenue neutral change, to look at the whole area of business taxation and say how can we make it more streamlined, more efficient in a way that enables us to reduce the company tax rate. Now that‟s hard work and you know, we should seeing I think in the public dialog as some of the symptoms about how that work is. But we are still saying to the business community. Keep working, keep discussing, keep trying to come to a consensus about the nature of the changes.

PV : But there‟s always a bit of a leap of faith when you cut company tax because the argument from business is that it‟ll drive investment and therefore that will naturally bring in more tax receipts but there is a leap of faith when you model doing it. Are you prepared to take that leap of faith cut it and see weather or not that‟s right?

JG : We don‟t take leaps of faith in the government‟s budget. We get too hard, hard-headed analysis numbers and that‟s what you see come into the government‟s budget. They work here between the business community needs to keep continuing, yes, you know people are going to see the world through their own eyes which sector of economy that they‟re in and the like but we‟ve said this is something that business wants to see. So we expect the business community, overall to try and work through a consensus for change here.

PV : Prime Ministry, Julia Gillard, you‟ve been very generous with your time. We appreciate your joining us on Australia Agenda. Thank you.

JG : Thank you. (29:44)

PV : Don‟t go away. When we come back the Manager of Opposition business Christopher Pyne will join us out of that light. Back in a moment…

94

APPENDIX 2

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

↑ Shift into specially high pitch

NOW Especially loud sounds relative to the surrounding talk

:: Prolongation of the immediately prior sound

(.) A brief interval (about a tenth of a second) within or

between utterances

(0.5) The time elapsed (by tenths of seconds) between the end of

the utterance or sound and the start of the next utterance

sound now Stress

= Latched utterances – no break or gap between stretches of

talk

? Rising intonation

. Falling intonation

, Unfinished intonational contour

(Paltridge, 2012: 92)

95