tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/speech-analysis-38539/articlesSpeech analysis – The Conversation2021-05-28T15:38:13Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1617362021-05-28T15:38:13Z2021-05-28T15:38:13ZFriends: making audiences laugh by embracing the unexpected in conversation<p>The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57120599">Friends reunion</a> has undoubtedly been one of the biggest TV events of the year so far.</p>
<p>Over its ten series, the sitcom about a group of 20- and 30-somethings in New York had a massive cultural impact. It attracted plenty of <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-25429-2">scholarly</a> analysis, including critiques of its <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418779624">gender</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418778420">race</a> politics. Its scripts inspired <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10350330802217071">my own research</a> as a professor of social interaction.</p>
<p>Love it or loathe it (and I loved it), one of the striking things about Friends was that much of the humour depended on clever conversational devices, not just set-piece jokes or one-liners. Instead, the scriptwriters seemed to embrace the unexpected in conversation.</p>
<p>Think about the conversational rules for a successful invitation. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A: What are you up to this evening? </p>
<p>B: Nothing much. </p>
<p>A: Want to go to the cinema? </p>
<p>B: Okay, great. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The design of an invitation – and any other action in conversation – depends on who we’re asking, what kind of relationship we have, what’s at stake and how important an acceptance (or rejection) is. These sorts of contingencies shape everything we say. </p>
<p>In the example above, B responds positively to A – doing what conversation analysts call a “preferred turn”. Although it might seem obvious that the “preferred” response to an invitation is acceptance, it’s not so obvious what the preferred response to a compliment is. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HRXVQ77ehRQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>If an invitation’s “preferred” response is acceptance, the best ways to ensure a positive outcome is to lead up to it, using a “pre” question like, “What are you up to this evening?” This lays the groundwork for a possible invitation, depending on B’s answer. We design what we say to help those we’re talking to avoid having to give negative responses.</p>
<p>Breaching these rules is one way that the Friends’ scriptwriters got audiences laughing from the very beginning.</p>
<h2>Generating the big laughs</h2>
<p>In one scene, Joey asks Phoebe if she’d like to help build furniture.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Joey: Hey Pheebs, you wanna help?</p>
<p>Phoebe: Ohhh!! I wish I could, but I don’t want to.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the audience erupts in laughter. </p>
<p>Saying “yes” would mean giving the “preferred” response. It would most likely be done immediately, without elaboration, and it probably would not be funny. We can tell that Phoebe is going to say “no” when she says “Ohhh!! I wish I could”. This looks like it will be the start of a regular kind of rejection, showing an appreciation of the invitation and giving an excuse before turning it down.</p>
<p>But she follows this with: “I don’t want to.” Although this does provide an explanation for saying “no”, it’s not the sort of reason generally found in rejections. The usual way to say “no” is to say that you cannot accept the invitation, not that you don’t want to accept it. In ordinary conversation, such a turn might start an argument.</p>
<h2>The one with the invitation</h2>
<p>Earlier in the same scene, Ross asks Rachel if she wants to come to help him assemble the furniture. </p>
<p>But just before his invitation, Ross asks, “So Rachel what’re you, uh, what’re you up to tonight?” We can recognise this as leading up to something – it’s a “pre-invitation”. If Rachel is busy, Ross can avoid rejection by not issuing the invitation in the first place. </p>
<p>She replies: “Well, I was kinda supposed to be headed for Aruba on my honeymoon. So nothing!” Rachel could block any forthcoming invitation. But she gives Ross the conversational “go-ahead”.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ross: If you don’t feel like being alone tonight, uh Joey an’ Chandler are comin’ over to help me put together my, my new furniture.</p>
<p>Rachel: Well actually thanks, but I think I’m just gonna hang out here tonight. It’s been a long day.</p>
<p>Ross: Oh sure, okay. Sure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Invitations can, of course, be accepted or declined. But these aren’t equally valued alternatives. Rachel turns down the invitation — it’s a “dispreferred” response. Such responses are <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-13301-000">more intricate</a> than saying “yes”. Just look at how many words it takes Rachel to say “no”.</p>
<p>Dispreferred responses often occur after a delay. They may start with words like “well”, as Rachel’s does. They may contain an appreciation – as Rachel’s does (“actually thanks”). They may also contain explanations or excuses for why the speaker cannot produce the preferred response – as Rachel’s does (“it’s been a long day”). </p>
<p>But because it contains all these features, Rachel has said “no” in the regular way. There’s no breach. It’s not funny. The audience doesn’t laugh.</p>
<p>Pre-questions and “preference” were a regular device for the scriptwriters. For example, in another episode, a new scene starts with Monica asking Phoebe a question.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Monica: Hey Pheebs. You know what I’m thinking?</p>
<p>Phoebe: Oh!! Okay. It’s been so long since you’ve had sex you’re wondering if they’ve changed it?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the audience laughs. </p>
<p>Rather than treat Monica’s question as a pre-question leading to some kind of announcement — and requiring a go-ahead (like,“what?”) — Phoebe responds to the form not the function of Monica’s question, treating it literally as an invitation to guess what she is thinking.</p>
<p>The Friends scriptwriters’ methods for generating laughter make the usually hidden <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/657275">conventions of language-use</a> visible. Creating humour this way, as well as through misunderstandings and non-sequiturs, was even used by <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-shakespeares-language/dynamics-of-shakespearean-dialogue/4B6FF13EBDB78539ADBDBFD9475DAFE0">Shakespeare</a>. Whether the humour of Friends will appeal to audiences in another decade or century we cannot say, but leveraging the rules of social interaction is likely to keep us laughing for some time to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161736/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Stokoe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Friends has made audiences laugh by breaching what we expect to happen when people speak.Elizabeth Stokoe, Professor of Social Interaction, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/790702017-07-19T06:44:08Z2017-07-19T06:44:08ZProtecting your smartphone from voice impersonators<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177937/original/file-20170712-19675-910rmn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is this an impostor trying to break into your phone with his voice?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-recording-voice-message-smartphone-541649137">Georgejmclittle/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s a lot easier to talk to a smartphone than to try to type instructions on its keyboard. This is particularly true when a person is trying to log in to a device or a system: Few people would choose to type a long, complex secure password if the alternative were to just say a few words and <a href="https://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/03/25/wechat-on-ios-now-lets-you-log-in-using-just-your-voice/">be authenticated with their voice</a>. But voices can be recorded, simulated or even imitated, making voice authentication vulnerable to attack.</p>
<p>The most common methods for securing voice-based authentication involve only ensuring that analysis of a spoken passphrase is not tampered with; they securely store the passphrase and the <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428970/securing-your-voice/">authorized user’s voiceprint in an encrypted database</a>. But securing a voice authentication system has to start with the sound itself.</p>
<p>The easiest attack on voice authentication is impersonation: Find someone who sounds enough like the real person and get them to respond to the login prompts. Fortunately, there are automatic speaker verification systems that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4879257">can detect</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2014.2300071">human imitation</a>. However, those systems <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2014.10.005">can’t detect more advanced machine-based attacks</a>, in which an attacker uses a computer and a speaker to simulate or play back recordings of a person’s voice.</p>
<p>If someone records your voice, he can use that recording to create a computer model that can generate any words in your voice. The consequences, from impersonating you with your friends to dipping into your bank account, are terrifying. The research my colleagues and I are doing uses <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6be6/00d60f4d3210d20567c0ab8f3d78324ab5d4.pdf">fundamental properties of audio speakers, and smartphones’ own sensors</a>, to defeat these computer-assisted attacks.</p>
<h2>How speakers work</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175656/original/file-20170626-29070-1tmcqg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175656/original/file-20170626-29070-1tmcqg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175656/original/file-20170626-29070-1tmcqg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175656/original/file-20170626-29070-1tmcqg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175656/original/file-20170626-29070-1tmcqg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175656/original/file-20170626-29070-1tmcqg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175656/original/file-20170626-29070-1tmcqg1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The architecture of conventional loudspeaker showing the magnet, coil and cone used for loudspeaker operations.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Conventional speakers contain magnets, which vibrate back and forth according to <a href="http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=54">fluctuations of electrical or digital signals</a>, converting them into sound waves in the air. Putting a speaker up against the microphone of a smartphone, for example, means moving a magnet very close to the smartphone. And most smartphones contain a magnetometer, an electronic chip that can detect magnetic fields. (It comes in handy when using a compass or navigation app, for example.)</p>
<p>If the smartphone detects a magnet nearby during the process of voice authentication, that can be an indicator that a real human might not be doing the talking.</p>
<h2>Making sure it’s a person talking</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178145/original/file-20170713-18558-rh6r8z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An outline of how our process works.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6be6/00d60f4d3210d20567c0ab8f3d78324ab5d4.pdf">The Conversation (via Lucidchart), after Kui Ren et al.</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s just one part of our system. If someone uses a smaller speaker, like a set of headphones, the magnetometer might not detect its smaller magnets. So we use machine learning and advanced mathematics to examine physical properties of the sound as it arrives at the microphone.</p>
<p>Our system requires a user to hold the smartphone in front of his or her face and move it from side to side in a half-circle while speaking. We combine the sound captured by the microphone with movement data from gyroscopes and accelerometers inside the smartphone – the same sensors apps use to know when you’re walking or running, or changing direction. </p>
<p>Using that data, we can calculate how far away from the microphone the sound is being generated – which lets us identify the possibility of someone using speakers at a distance so its magnets wouldn’t be detected. And we can compare the phone’s movement to the changes in the sound to discover whether it is created by a sound source roughly the size of a human mouth near the phone.</p>
<p>All of this, of course, could be defeated by a skilled impersonator – an actual human who mimics a user’s voice. But recall that existing speaker verification methods can catch impersonators, using machine learning techniques that identify <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4879257">whether a speaker is modifying or disguising</a> his or her normal voice. We include that capability in our system as well. </p>
<h2>Does detection work?</h2>
<p>When we put our system to the test, we found that when the sound source is 6 centimeters (2 inches) from the microphone, we can always distinguish between a human and a computer-controlled speaker. At that distance, the magnet in a normal loudspeaker is strong enough to clearly interfere with the phone’s magnetometer. And if an attacker is using earphone speakers, the microphone is close enough to the sound source to detect it.</p>
<p>When the sound source is farther from the microphone, it’s harder to detect magnetic interference from a speaker. It’s also more difficult to analyze the movement of the sound source in relation to the phone when the distances are greater. But by using multiple lines of defense, we can defeat the vast majority of speaker- and human-based attacks and significantly improve the security of voice-based mobile apps. </p>
<p>At the moment, our system is a stand-alone app, but in the future we’ll be able to integrate it into other voice authentication systems.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79070/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kui Ren receives funding from US National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>You can log in to your smartphone by talking to it. Current security systems don’t protect enough against imitators. The best way to ensure voice authentication is secure is to start with the sound.Kui Ren, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, University at BuffaloLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/772402017-05-09T10:21:21Z2017-05-09T10:21:21ZTreasurer Scott Morrison’s 2017-18 budget speech, annotated by experts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168559/original/file-20170509-11008-152yrsc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What was between the lines of Scott Morrison's budget speech?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>In his speech to the House of Representatives tonight, Treasurer Scott Morrison claimed the 2017-18 budget was a “fair and responsible path back to a balanced budget”.</em></p>
<p><em>The Conversation asked three experts – political speech expert Tom Clark, linguist Annabelle Lukin, and economist Danielle Wood – to closely watch the treasurer’s budget speech, which you can <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/speech/html/speech.htm">read in full here</a>. We’ve collected their live tweets of the speech in Storify below, and a selection of their best tweets and annotations is to come.</em></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>I know this has put real pressure on Australians and on their families. Terribly, this has meant some families have even broken apart. – Treasurer Scott Morrison</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861877728248709120"}"></div></p>
<p>This paragraph is the treasurer’s signal to his base: they should regard the 2017 contribution as a “family values” budget.</p>
<p>In giving an <a href="http://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/speech/013-2016/">address to the Australian Christian Lobby 2016 National Conference</a>, just over a week before his 2016 budget speech, Morrison reminded people that his core constituency is among conservative protestants in the newer congregations and mega-churches. His compact with them is that he will always put family interests at the heart of his policy outlook.</p>
<p>He does not often express it in overtly religious terms, but he always makes it the dramatic (or melodramatic) core of his policy narratives. – <strong>Tom Clark, Victoria University</strong></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>We cannot agree with those who say there is nothing that the government can do. And we must choose to ensure the government lives within its means. – Treasurer Scott Morrison</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861879541068832768"}"></div></p>
<p>This is where the treasurer tries to communicate his government’s change of direction without losing the confidence of conservative supporters.</p>
<p>This government has very often in the recent past agreed with people who say it can and should do less. It has very stridently insisted that spending less money on programs is preferable to raising more for them.</p>
<p>Now the government needs to relent on that logic, so the 2017 budget speech needs to balance competing political agendas. </p>
<p>On the one hand, moderates and centrists need to know that Morrison “buries the ghosts of 2014” (which was a hardline budget that deeply shook this government’s credibility). On the other, conservatives need to know the Liberal Party will still tax and spend less than Labor would. – <strong>Tom Clark, Victoria University</strong></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>I can confirm tonight that the budget is projected to return to balance in 2020–21 and remain in surplus over the medium term. – Treasurer Scott Morrison</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861884507196084225"}"></div></p>
<p>The budget position is forecast to improve from a deficit of A$37.6 billion this year to a surplus of $7.4 billion in 2021. This is <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-biased-budget-forecasts-make-poor-politics-76945">now the eight budget</a> is which the government has claimed that we will back to surplus (or close to it) over the four-year forward estimates. </p>
<p>In reality, the deficit has sat stubbornly at around 2% of GDP. Underpinning these hopes is strong projected growth in income tax collections as wages are forecast to rise from 2.1% to 3.75% in 2021, which looks very optimistic. – <strong>Danielle Wood, Grattan Institute</strong></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>To respect future taxpayers, this everyday spending should be funded from the first dollar we receive in taxes, not debt. – Treasurer Scott Morrison</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861886251267276801"}"></div></p>
<p>This is a big-taxing, big-spending budget. Almost all the budget repair “work” in this budget comes from higher revenues. Revenues are forecast to increase from 23.2% to 25.4% GDP between 2017 and 2021. </p>
<p>Spending is forecast to fall marginally from 25.2% to 25% GDP. And most of the revenue increases are from personal income tax – because of the increase in the Medicare levy and bracket creep from strong forecast wage growth. – <strong>Danielle Wood, Grattan Institute</strong></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>The Snowy Mountains Scheme is the benchmark for nation-building infrastructure. – Treasurer Scott Morrison</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861884667753971714"}"></div></p>
<p>Government will be equity holder in these projects. These equity injections don’t factor into the budget balance numbers. This is the same treatment as the National Broadband Network. This has allowed the government to announce a sizeable program of infrastructure spending (western Sydney airport, Snowy Hydro, inland rail) without finding the money to pay for it. </p>
<p>Unless these projects generate a commercial return they will cost taxpayers down the track. – <strong>Danielle Wood, Grattan Institute</strong></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Mr Speaker, in this budget we have chosen to place downward pressure on rising costs of living. – Treasurer Scott Morrison</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861883197847592960"}"></div></p>
<p>This marks the beginning of a long tail of the speech. I have tweeted it is the “we are listening” section. </p>
<p>The government is relenting on its resistance to banking reform, on its apparent indifference to Australia’s brewing crisis of energy supply, and on its insistence that remedies to rising house prices are worse than the problem they seek to fix.</p>
<p>Here are some of the biggest ideological about-turns from this government, so perhaps it is no surprise that Morrison comes to these details near the end of his speech. Along with many other elements, it points to a speech more carefully planned and drafted than <a href="http://budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/speech/html/speech.htm">his 2016 effort</a>. – <strong>Tom Clark, Victoria University</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861882827649859584"}"></div></p>
<p>The treasurer’s speech had much more topical diversity in 2017 than it did in 2016. We can see this first of all in the big reduction of the top-ranking word. </p>
<p>In 2016, the word “tax” was used 69 times. The top five most frequently used words constituted nearly 7% of the text (excluding the very-high-frequency words, such as “the” and “of”). This year, the highest frequency word is “new”, but it has only 25 mentions. </p>
<p>The top five words from this year take up less than 4% of the text. So, there’s less repetition of the top lexical items – opening up more space for other topics. </p>
<p>A further measure of this great topical diversity is the “type” (how many different words are in a text) to “token” (total words in text) ratio. The overall length of the speech in 2017 is down (from 4,548 words in 2016 to 4,336 in 2017). The overall number of different words is up (from 1,157 in 2016, to 1, 287 in 2017). – <strong>Annabelle Lukin, Macquarie University</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861883384703746048"}"></div></p>
<p>The greater topical diversity also shows up when we explore some of the key word choices across Morrison’s two budget speeches. </p>
<p>In the table below, I report on seven key words and their changing prominence in the 2017 speech. Mentions of tax, jobs and superannuation were all down this year. Housing, health, education and infrastructure were all up. – <strong>Annabelle Lukin, Macquarie University</strong></p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/N1Hns/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Significantly, we will invest an additional $115 million in mental health, including funding for rural telehealth psychological services, mental health research and to prevent suicide. – Treasurer Scott Morrison</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"861880983980605440"}"></div></p>
<p>“Mental health” has been mentioned only in six previous budget speeches (since 1981, which is as far back as my corpus goes). </p>
<p>The graph below shows the years it turns up, and the number of mentions. The previous treasurers to mention mental health are Ralph Willis, Peter Costello, and Wayne Swan. </p>
<p>It did not feature in last year’s speech. But this year, Morrison gave “mental health” a big focus, with three mentions in the speech, as well as a reference to “mental illness”). And, for the first time in a budget speech since 1981, he referred specifically to “schizophrenia” and “post-natal depression”. This is the first time since that “post-natal” anything has turned up in the budget speech. – <strong>Annabelle Lukin, Macquarie University</strong></p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/j9Tkb/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<hr>
<h2>The speech in tweets</h2>
<div class="storify">
<iframe src="https://storify.com/mtcourts/scott-morrison-s-2017-18-budget-speech-in-tweets/embed?border=false" width="100%" height="750" frameborder="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
</div><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77240/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Clark is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Annabelle Lukin is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p>The Conversation’s experts annotate Treasurer Scott Morrison’s 2017-18 budget speech.Tom Clark, Associate Professor, College of Arts, Victoria UniversityAnnabelle Lukin, Associate Professor in Linguistics, Macquarie UniversityDanielle Wood, Fellow, Australian Perspectives, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.