The Closing of Illegal Interventions: A Conversation Analysis Study

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to examine the termination of illegal interventions using conversation analysis (CA henceforth). The findings indicate that the closure of interactions occurs unilaterally without negotiation by the participants, leading to an absence of interaction termination. The chairperson of the parliament consistently initiates the closure by utilizing various elements within the closing implicative environment, such as announcing the closure, expressing appreciation, issuing demands to comply with internal regulations of the parliament, and warning of potential suspension of parliamentary sessions. The participation framework plays a significant role in the process of closing illegal interventions. The rights and roles of participants differ significantly from ordinary conversations. This discrepancy has a notable impact on the manner in which closings are conducted, particularly when the CP is involved. As a result, the closing of interactions in this study is characterized as unilateral and brief due to the influence of the participation framework.