For this week’s blog assignment, please consider what you’ve read in chapter five of Bonvillain (pages 105–116) regarding conversation analysis. Then apply what you have learned to this week’s episode of the McLaughlin Group.
This show has been on forever—or at least as long as I can remember. John McLaughlin is an impeccable journalist most known for his fiery style, quotability, and ability to moderate contrasting views (such as those of Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift).
The discussion begins a few minutes in, with things getting lively from the fifth to sixth minute. As a social linguist, what do you “see” going on in this minute of discourse? Who’s in charge? Who has the floor? Is there challenge to leadership? Is the floor negotiated, dictated, or donated? Is there “gender” going on here? Use the terms and concepts learned in the text, fueled by remembrances of today’s class discussion, to inform your response.
Hint: There is a transcript of the show here which might help with your analysis.
It is fascinating to see how simple these type of conversations look at first glance, when the fact is there is a lot going on. First off, everyone was using turn-entry devices but Mr. Mclaughlin was clearly in charge. He would signal who was to talk next, and he would do it in such an unobtrusive way that I didn't even catch it until I read the transcript. It was usually just one word like the next speakers first name or "OK." The current speaker would hear this word and know they needed to wrap up.
ReplyDeleteI noticed a little gender difference but not what I expected, the women appeared to me to be acting more dominate or more "male" then the men. They would continue longer than the men would after hearing the turn entry device. I think they believe they have to do that in order to get floor time.
I also noticed there was only one instance of an audible backchannel cue. Most of the time active listenership was expressed through eye contact.
I'm assuming we were just supposed to comment on the discussion between the 5 and 6 minute mark. If were supposed to comment on more then that let me know.
Fantastic, Nathan! Isn't it amazing how much more you can see going on once you've developed an "eye" for it? Just think: You may never look at a conversation the same way again!
DeleteYes. The first five minutes are pretty much just McLaughlin's presentation of the news.
And your observation that once the women gained the floor they were reluctant to give it up is very astute.
DeleteSomething I realized while watching the program was that it didn't matter as much what the speaker had to say as to how forcefully they said it. In other words, as long as the speaker confidently expressed their view and did not allow what they had to say to be interrupted, their opinion came off as a stronger, more logical argument. It didn't matter if there was any real logic backing up their sentiment, and therefore one must listen carefully to dissect the conversation to find out who knows what they're talking about. A valuable skill to hone in life as a lot of people are good at using smoke screens and flawed logic to "win" arguments.
ReplyDeleteI agree; the men seemed to dominate the conversation not because they had better points or talked for longer, but because they were louder and used more emphasis on the points that they believed were important.
ReplyDeleteThe conversation sort of bounce back and forth between whoever Mclaughlin wanted to talk and who felt that their own opinion on a subject was being challenged. Mclaughlin did his best to organize who spoke at which point in the conversation and when he wanted someone to speak they were allowed to speak for at least a little bit without interruptions. When Mclaughlin didn't make sure a specific person was speaking, though whoever had a counter argument to whatever was being discussed immediately and forcefully expressed their point as soon as the topic came up, making whoever could talk the loudest the person whose opinion was heard. This made it kind of hard to follow the conversation though typically after a brief shouting making to determine whose opinion is heard, everyone else would quiet down to allow that person's opinion to be heard.
ReplyDeleteDuring this discussion McLaughlin tried to keep control of the conversation by calling a person’s name or by looking directly at them once he finished talking. This gave the person permission from McLaughlin to talk about the subject. Once a subject was initiated at times everyone would jump in and the fight for the floor continued until the person with the loudest voice overruled the others. The original speaker would just raise their voice and keep talking. It seems that the women have to fight just a little more than the men. At one point one of the women, Susan Ferrechio actually tries to gain the floor by saying Sir over the other men talking, yet she did not get the floor.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that it seemed when a person talked, most of the time, they would continue eye contact with McLaughlin or looked away briefly but they would go back to him. During this time some backchannel cues can be heard from the others and they can be seen looking at the speaker.
I definitely agree that McLaughlin was in control of the conversation, but around 7 minutes he loses control of the conversation. He has to tell some to stop and let another get their point out, or raise his voice almost to an agitated level to take over the conversation. Something that really bothers me about this show or maybe just about McLaughlin himself is that he kind of suggests what view or what the others should say, and he really dramatizes the conversation. .. also around 9:43 he tries to cut off Elanor, and she seems to get irritated with him, shouts at him, and then he stops and she finishes. I think he doesn't have as much control over everyone else that he thinks he does, or that he wants to. It seems like during the conversation everyone agrees less, and less and seems to validate his points a little less. I think the purpose is to have some debate but in the end it's supposed to come full circle. When McLaughlin wants to change topics, move to another speaker or and move to video clips the others sense when he is trying to move on, when he has ended their turn then tend to speed up their speech, and rush through their point.
ReplyDeleteI did not notice as much gender difference as I thought I would. The men certainly spoke more, but I believe that is because there were more men than women. Eleanor Clift seemed perfectly able to hold her own when she spoke -- she was just as loud (maybe even louder) than the men and she was usually able to finish her point without interruption. One thing I noticed regarding gender differences is that Eleanor did not try to talk over anyone while they were already speaking, but the men often interrupted others and would try to argue their opinion before someone was done discussing theirs.
ReplyDeleteThe show seemed much more structured than I thought it would be. McLaughlin retained a firm control over the conversation just long enough for everyone to get their 30 seconds in and just let the rest of the panel loose for the remainder of each issue. Once they were free to talk, it was very hard for McLaughlin to regain control. Each issue had to be cut at the time limit because the conversation was still heated for all but the last issue, where the panel was outright switched to a closing topic. Turns were taken in the first issue, then that system seemed to degrade as the show progressed to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Repair mechanisms are non-existent in the discussion, since people just cruise over any mistakes someone may make by taking their turn. People interjected each other as they fought for the floor, and the person with the loudest voice tended to have it for a few seconds of peace. McLaughlin's voice was the only one that seemed to quiet the rest of the floor for more than that amount of time...it is his show after all, he has the power to do that there. The one exception to that was when Elanor was talking about the mental illness review in Issue 1. That was the only quiet sentence she had to speak in that question's discussion, and she didn't let it go without a fight. The issues quickly escalated into raised voices...I wouldn't have been able to follow at some points without the transcript (and not even the transcript writer could even follow at some points).
ReplyDeleteMcLaughlin uses adjacency pairs to smoothly transition from one of his views to that of another member of the group. Depending upon who he directs the question to, non verbally most of the time, that person take the floor for a turn. When McLaughlin verbally gives 'permission' for someone in the group to speak its just that, a solid imperative masked under the polite guise of directive. McLaughlin is the authority figure over the conversation so other speakers defer to him, unless they get really excited first. I think that everyone referring to the group mates on a first name basis creates a sense of friendliness where they can each express their views, even though one of them is clearly in power. I wonder if McLaughlin has to think about sticking tag questions or creating adjacent pairs when he leads a conversation. For myself when I am at work use a question asking the person to do something rather than ordering it. McLaughlin would do the same from the looks of the video.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting....I never realized how much was going on behind a simple discussion. As the comments above me have stated, there is definitely a gender switch here.The woman is acting forceful and aggressive, and it is actually a nice change. (I know this is a HUGE generalization, but) women seem to be flighty and think their words are important compared to a man's. Even though this was a discussion, there wasn't natural turn-taking, it was directed and structured. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteThis just reminds me of something that happened just the other day. I was having a conversation with a couple of my friends. We started into a topic that started a small debate. However, the debate was in ASL, so it worked a little bit differently. In English, if someone wants to interrupt you, they can and one person will be louder or more aggressive than the other, and win the floor. However, in ASL, if you talk over someone, you need to get everyone's attention first, then state what you need to. If people don't give you the attention you need to interrupt, then you don't officially have the floor. Just an interesting concept I thought I would contribute.
It is interesting to me that I now can "watch" a different debate when a debate is happening. There is almost 2 debates happening simultaneously: one about the topic, and one for the floor. Thanks for introducing me to that.
The episode was very structured compared to most talk shows I’ve seen before (where the speakers would start on one topic and flow from there), but it was a nice kind of structure where they stuck to the point and that was all they seemed to have talked about (there were no tangents). Obviously McLaughlin was in charge of the conversation, but whenever the others would talk I noticed that they started to take turns talking (no one dominated at first) and then slowly all started to talk at once. Also, what was clearly noticeable was when the women had the floor, they dominated and tried to never let it go. Even the guys would back down slightly whenever one of the women started talking any showed no intentions of giving into letting a man take the floor (one instance was when both a man and woman were talking at the same time. The woman was constantly talking but the guy tried to put his input in and was shut out each time).
ReplyDeleteI did also notice that even though the women spoke softer than the men, they tended to have more important points (while the men had some points, but what they lacked in key points they made up for it in volume). Men had the tendency to project their voice while the women only slightly raised their voices when competing for the floor.
This is a very interesting series. I have never heard of The Mclaughlin Group before. First off, I would like to compliment John Mclaughlin in his moderating skills. I was also impressed with the women acting more dominate and even aggressive in stealing floor time. I also noticed how there were a lot of "yeah"s and "Well"s that were commonly used turn entry devices. And like Nathan and the others said, you could tell people were watching and listening intensely to what was being said by hearing the background cues.
ReplyDeleteThis show was very interesting and allowed me to see many problems and controversies in today's society. While viewing this, I noticed that the most aggressive person usually took charge of the debate. The soft spoken were overpowered in the argument. Gender played a big role in the debate as well. Just about every time one of the women spoke, one of the men tried to talk over them.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of discourse, I thought it was pretty typical for a political conversation. Everyone wanted to speak their opinion, but no one seemed interested in listening to what the others had to say. They were all fighting for the floor. I would've liked to see more collaboration like a think tank rather than bickering and speaking over one another. The conversation was just as dysfunctional as the government.
ReplyDeleteI noticed the men were more reluctant to let the woman speak, but I also noticed every time she tried to speak, she had awful timing and interrupted someone. I wonder if she had stayed quiet, if one of the men would turn to her and ask her what she thought on the subject or if she'd remain silent the entire time.