Analysing Parliamentary Debate with Computer Assistance

The analysis of parliamentary debates is at the confluence of a number of developments in political science. What light can automated and semi-automated techniques throw on such analysis? In this paper we compare two such approaches, one semi-automated (Hamlet) and the other fully automated (Alceste). We use both approaches to identify the prominent themes in debate and to assess how far speakers who favour different positions adopt a distinct pattern of discourse. We seek to assess how far the two approaches yield convergent or divergent analyses. Selecting a second reading debate from the UK House of Commons on a private member's bill on abortion in July 1966, we are able to show similarities of analysis despite the detailed differences between the two approaches. In particular, the analysis in Hamlet al.lows identification of the extent to which individual speakers employ one type of vocabulary rather than another. Alceste is able to provide a statistical basis for the different classes of vocabulary that occur in the debate. However, the two programs rest upon quite different assumptions about the relationship between syntax and meaning, with implications for the practice of political science.

[1]  Q. Skinner.  III. Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action , 1974 .

[2]  J. Dryzek,et al.  Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy , 2001 .

[3]  J. Outshoorn,et al.  The new politics of abortion , 1986 .

[4]  Philip Cowley,et al.  Conscience and Parliament , 1998 .

[5]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Why deliberative democracy , 2004 .

[6]  M. Steenbergen,et al.  Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse , 2005 .

[7]  J. O. Urmson,et al.  How to do Things with Words, coll. « Oxford Paperbacks, 367 » , 1977 .

[8]  J. Austin.  How to do things with words , 1962 .

[9]  J. Bessette,et al.  The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. , 1995 .

[10]  Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey.  Measuring Ideas More Effectively: An Analysis of Bush and Kerry's National Security Speeches , 2005, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[11]  I. Budge,et al.  Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998 , 2001 .

[12]  Edward L. Lascher,et al.  Assessing Legislative Deliberation: A Preface to Empirical Analysis , 1996 .

[13]  I. McLean.  The Dimensionality of Party Ideologies , 2004 .

[14]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1996 .

[15]  M. Laver,et al.  Estimating policy positions from political texts , 2000 .

[16]  F. Guerin-pace.  Textual statistics: an exploratory tool for the social sciences. , 1998, Population. English selection.

[17]  John Uhr,et al.  Deliberative democracy in Australia , 1998 .

[18]  Judith Bara.  Tracking estimates of public opinion and party policy intentions in Britain and the USA , 2001 .

[19]  N. Fairclough,et al.  New Labour, New Language? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  John R. Searle,et al.  Minds, Brains and Science: The 1984 Reith Lectures , 1984 .

[21]  M. Laver,et al.  Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[22]  Kenneth Benoit,et al.  Party Policy in Modern Democracies , 2006 .

[23]  Mathieu Brugidou.  Argumentation And Values: An Analysis of Ordinary Political Competence via an Open-Ended Question , 2003 .

[24]  Frank I. Michelman,et al.  Between Facts and Norms , 1992 .

[25]  Lewis Namier,et al.  The structure of politics at the accession of George III , 1930 .

[26]  I. McLean.  Rational choice and British politics , 2001 .

[27]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .

[28]  Hans-Dieter Klingemann,et al.  Mapping policy preferences II : estimates for parties, electors, and governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990-2003 , 2006 .