You are on page 1of 22

This article was downloaded by: [University of Wollongong

]
On: 1 May 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907698330]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language Awareness
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297825

The erasure of linguistic difference in media representations of encounters
with others on British television
Julie E. Nortona; Simon Gievea
a
School of Education, University of Leicester, Upper New Walk, Leicester, UK

Online publication date: 13 December 2010

To cite this Article Norton, Julie E. and Gieve, Simon(2010) 'The erasure of linguistic difference in media representations
of encounters with others on British television', Language Awareness, 19: 3, 205 — 225
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.505290
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.505290

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Language Awareness
Vol. 19, No. 3, August 2010, 205–225

The erasure of linguistic difference in media representations
of encounters with others on British television
Julie E. Norton∗ and Simon Gieve

School of Education, University of Leicester, Upper New Walk, Leicester, UK
(Received 31 July 2008; final version received 15 June 2010)

This paper explores how ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speaker identities are created in
the discourse of television lifestyle, travel, and documentary genres where an English
‘native speaker’ audience is assumed. It presents a coding system for analysing the rep-
resentation of actors in television programmes and examines to what extent ‘non-native’
speakers are allowed to ‘speak’ and to what extent their contributions are mediated in
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011

the editorial process. Critical language awareness and critical discourse analysis are
drawn upon to uncover constructions of Otherness in the examples of broadcast talk and
to examine how power relations are manifest. Short descriptions of relevant scenes and
brief transcripts from the programmes in our small corpus are discussed. It is argued
that the way ‘foreigners’ are represented on British television does ideological work,
potentially reinforcing the notion that it is not important to learn foreign languages
because everyone speaks English these days.
Keywords: media representation of identity; constructions of Otherness; critical
language awareness

Introduction
Critical language awareness (CLA) deals with language as discourse, viewing verbal in-
teraction as a form of social practice (Svalberg, 2007, p. 296). As this definition suggests,
CLA is closely related to critical discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 1999, p. 72) and can
be used to show how certain languages, such as English, achieve a dominant status and how
speakers of less privileged language varieties are constructed and represented. CLA offers
language users the potential to develop greater ‘consciousness and control over the way
they use language and the way they are positioned by other people’s use of language’ (Clark
& Ivanič, 1999, p. 64). This is particularly important in media representation of foreign
language (FL) speakers who may for a variety of reasons (see Gieve and Norton, 2007) find
their identity options reduced and their participation rights limited when they appear on
British television. In this paper, we draw upon CLA and CDA to uncover constructions of
Otherness in a small corpus of broadcast talk, focusing upon social relationships, identities,
and power relations.
Lifestyle and travel programmes which see ‘Brits’ setting up home abroad and opting for
a new life in the sun or portray celebrity presenters, such as Michael Palin, on globetrotting
expeditions have become increasingly common on British television. One thing that these
programmes share is a reluctance to allow the ‘foreigners’ who feature to ‘speak’ in their
own voices. Programme makers depict a world where it appears possible to get everything


Corresponding author. Email: jen7@le.ac.uk
ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 online
C 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.505290
http://www.informaworld.com

or are they represented through the voices of others? (3) How ‘distant’ are the voices of NNSs made through the use of different representational strategies? How are their contributions evaluated? (4) How are the contributions of NNSs transformed in the editorial process from speakers- in-interaction to speakers-observed-by-overhearing-audience (cf. it seems. handle linguistic difference in slightly different ways. Fairclough. & Liebhart. Reisigl. adopting a variety of strategies to deal with encounters across linguistic difference. Gieve done in English to the extent that linguistic difference and communication difficulties are portrayed as irrelevant and unimportant when chasing one’s dream lifestyle abroad or travelling around the world. 1997. Chouliaraki & Fairclough. subtitles. 2007. building upon our previous work and drawing upon the same corpus of broadcast talk (see the ‘Research methodology’ section for further details). Wallace. The expectation. Duff & Uchida. 2001. Norton. and interpreters. Kubota. and everyday. There is still. unproblematic. Norton and S. 1995b. post-structuralist perspectives on language and identity (Duff. 2001. Kilborn. for example. a reluctance to expose the British viewing public to talk in a foreign language for extended periods and a tendency to minimise any kind of communicative stress both for the participants in the programmes and for the audience at home. ‘flattening’ or even erasing linguistic difference. we present a fine- grained analysis of the dynamics of the interaction represented in two of the programmes in our corpus. 1997. Burger. We introduce a coding system which allows us to explore identity construction in greater depth and address the following research questions: (1) How are the identities of non-native speakers (NNSs) of English created in the discourse of television documentary and lifestyle genres? (2) Are NNSs given their own voices. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 travel. 1999). however. 1999. de Cillia. Svalberg. The strategies we identified in- cluded avoiding encounters where linguistic difference exists by preferring. 1993). such as voice-over summary. constructing NNSs of English as linguistically deficient (but not English speakers who are unable to speak other languages). and documentary programmes (see Appendix 1). 1999. Fairclough. ‘issues-based’ documentaries. to include only ‘foreigners’ who can speak English or expatriates in the programmes or using mediation strategies to make communication appear smooth. This study focused upon the triangular relationship between protagonists. 1999). and audience and identified strategies adopted in dealing with linguistic difference in a corpus of lifestyle. 1999. 2004). Other genres of televised programmes. is that everyone will speak English these days. and . failing to provide models of English speakers attempting strategies to bridge linguistic difference. 2002)? It is argued that the way ‘foreigners’ are represented on British television does ideologi- cal work. FL speakers. 2002. In this paper. 1999. Wodak. we presented a framework for analysing television pro- grammes which include examples of communication across linguistic difference. 2009. Theoretical perspectives The theoretical orientation of this paper draws upon CLA (Clark & Ivanič. 2000. 1995a. CDA (Barker & Galasiński.E. and reinforcing the notion that it is not important to learn foreign languages (Coleman. In Gieve and Norton (2007). Pavlenko & Blackledge. Pennycook. such as serious. 206 J. This study illustrated the numerous ways that processes of marginalisation can potentially occur as a result of specific production and editorial practices.

impacts upon the representation of all actors (their ability to participate on their own terms and in their own voices). 39). Although editorial intervention. In the case of ‘suppression’. 1999. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 leading to the Othering. Through these broad frameworks. 2000. Pavlenko & Blackledge. Talbot. One example taken from our data is the hegemonic assumption that everyone speaks English. In the case of broadcast media. 1989. marginalisation. Language Awareness 207 research on the representation of social actors in media discourse (Machin. or not represented even though they may be present influences the relationship which develops between audience and actor. van Dijk. CDA provides a tool to uncover ‘strategies of discriminatory inclusion and exclusion in language use’ (Wodak et al. contradictory. ix. Machin & van Leeuwen. 1996. representations include or exclude social actors to further specific interests and achieve political agendas in relation to the intended audience. 2007. 1996. Discourse is viewed as the means by which participants construct their social realities and maintain and reproduce discriminatory and hegemonic social practices. p. 2007. He also distinguishes between two types of exclusion: ‘suppression’ and ‘backgrounding’ (van Leeuwen. therefore. 18). Thus. the possibilities for negotiation of identities is controlled and constrained by decisions taken by programme makers in the production process (Fairclough. and may not be wholly aware of the programme makers’ priorities and objectives. 1996. p. 127). cf. are placed in a weaker position than the NS actors who are allowed greater opportunities to address the audience directly (Gieve and Norton. Machin (2007) and Machin and van Leeuwen (2007) have also shown that the way social actors are represented in particular categories. 79). 2004) and must be understood with reference to wider social processes and power relations. 1997. van Leeuwen. as individuals and in groups. 2007. 1999. p. 2001). we attempt to reveal the ideological framings that are apparent within the discursive constructions of the actors in our study in conjunction with the mediation strategies adopted by the programme makers. or exclusion of less powerful social groups and individuals. Talbot. According to van Leeuwen (1996). Identities are viewed as multiple. which are ideological in the sense that they may be used to maintain the status quo and unequal relations of power (Fairclough. 1996). He discusses exclusions which leave no traces in the representation and involve the exclusion of the social actor and their activities. 2007. It is relevant to our study because it aims to make visible the relationship between power struggles and discourses which are prevalent in public life and are propagated and appropriated by broadcast media. p. 1998. CDA ‘aims to provide a framework for systematically linking properties of discoursal interactions and texts with features of their social and cultural circumstances’ (Fairclough. He notes that ambiguity often arises because it is unclear if the suppressed actor is supposed to be retrievable by the audience or not and that this strategy is sometimes exploited to allow particular social practices to remain uncontested. sometimes drawing the viewers closer to specific people and distancing them from others. and shifting across time and space (Norton. 8). van Dijk. Identity is defined as a discursive construction and a site of struggle (Norton. 39). . Discourses are the site at which identity is apparent: ‘The primary medium within which identities are created and have currency is not just linguistic but textual: persons are largely ascribed their identities according to the manner of their embedding within a discourse – in their own or in the discourse of others’ (Shotter & Gergen. a common theme of CDA has been to explore how discourse constructs common-sense opinions. p. 2007). reference to the social actor is removed from the text.. 1995b. cited in Ivanič. 1996). whilst ‘backgrounding’ allows the social actor to be mentioned and their identity to be inferred ‘with reasonable (though never total) certainty’ (van Leeuwen. NNSs who have to negotiate their identity positions across linguistic difference. p. p.

termed ‘broadcast sociability’ (Talbot. depends. If something is explicitly present in a text. 2007. Issues of representation and language ideology are pervasive in media discourse (Fairclough. The theoretical perspectives outlined above have also informed the development of the coding categories which are explained later (see the ‘Research methodology’ section). p. pp. 106) discusses ‘different degrees of presence’ in a text: We might think in terms of a scale of presence. p. upon shared cultural understandings. The interpersonal function of language allows broadcasters to construct particular social identities and establish relationships with other actors and their audience. Fairclough (1995b. their linguistic and discursive practice. p. as Talbot (2007. we noted that a number of possibilities exist for the mediation of linguistic difference. it may be informationally backgrounded or informationally foregrounded. Woolard (1998) suggests that textual realisations of language ideology are evident in terms of what people actu- ally do with language. for example. their meta-linguistic Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 awareness in terms of the views they explicitly express about language. In Gieve and Norton (2007). that is. drawing them into the ‘worldview’ upheld in the programme. Defining key terms Linguistic difference is manifest when two or more ‘actors’ who are potentially able to participate in the interaction in a ‘scene’ do not share the same L1 or L1 variety. and their use of language knowledge to produce and interpret language acts. however. Fairclough (1995b. 2007). 1995b. p. 107–108) claims that presuppositions position the viewers and ascribe common-sense assumptions to them regarding the culture and participants depicted. everyday interactional practice through the choice of editorial techniques such as subtitling. implicit or otherwise’. It can be backgrounded.E. The imperative in media discourse for audience engagement. Our interest in language ideol- ogy here relates to the way cultural groups are constituted. it is in a sense present in the text. the production team has to decide upon the type of mediation that will be adopted to overcome potential communication difficulties. A scene is defined as a given location with the given participants appearing in a single continuous period of real time (which may have been edited into non-continuous parts). the way cultural difference is constructed in media texts. we offer a definition of the key terminology we have used. Johnson & Ensslin. 1992. 91) warns. intelligible. It can. If something is presupposed. running from ‘absent’ to ‘fore-grounded’: absent – presupposed – backgrounded – foregrounded. Norton and S. 334). shareable’ (Scannell. it depends on shared cultural background. 208 J. foregrounded. 1995a. or ‘thematised’ as the procedure of talk between speakers of different languages becomes the topic or content of the interaction itself. recognizable. This representation may involve a discourse of inclusion for some but. and the social consequences of this with reference to the repre- sentation of interaction across cultural and linguistic difference. be mediated through erasure. indeed must. Gieve Similarly. a representation of the world which is ‘familiar. or it can be represented as an ordinary. The programmes in our corpus contain scenes where one would expect to find interaction . In cases where linguistic and cultural difference exists between actors in televised broadcasts. 87). but as part of its implicit meaning. may result in the marginalisation or exclusion of others: ‘Sociabiliy needs to. erase difference. In the final part of this section. that is. The choices which are made during various stages of the production process and their implications for the discursive construction of identity and social relationships are explored further in the analysis of our data.

but it allows us to include as unseen actors the translators and interpreters who would have had to have been present for a scene to have been shot in the way it finally appeared. and a refugee camp and which is being contested by rival militias of the Hemma and Lendu peoples. A full list of the programmes we analysed is presented in Appendix 1. ‘local’. usually the ‘local’ inhabitants of these places. passers-by or onlookers are considered actors as much as speakers are. Language Awareness 209 between NSs of British English (in the case of lifestyle and travel genres because they have moved abroad or are on holiday or in the case of documentary genres because they are presenters or reporters) and NNSs of English. p. which was broadcast on Channel 4 on 28 August 2003. Similarly. ‘Actors’ are defined not in the sense of dramatic actors but in the linguistic sense of participants appearing in a scene. rural environment as olive farmers and proprietors of a bed and breakfast. after Said. which traces the escapades of celebrity chef John Burton-Race who has set out to reacquaint himself and the British viewing public with the delights of French cuisine. working in an idyllic. homogeneous groupings but merely indicates the way speakers whose L1 is not English are represented in the programmes in our corpus. Rampton. his wife. inferior to L1 speakers of English and as entailing stereotypical and essentialist representations of the ‘Other’. were broadcast on British television between 2003 and 2005. Research methodology The data A broad range of travel-based programmes feature in our corpus. ‘living-abroad’ lifestyle documentaries. ‘issues-based’ documentaries. This is of course a potentially wide and subjective category. Kiley visits the town of Bunya. Sarah. our use of the terms ‘Other’. This paper focuses on one episode of the living-abroad. we follow the fortunes of the Turnbull family from Otley. broadcast on Channel 4. 1999) and are used here only as convenient markers of linguistic difference. with the exception of Around the World in 80 Days which was released in 1993. 42. Additionally we include ‘assumed actors’ who are not actually represented on Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 screen but are present at the time of filming in order for the programme to have been made. the Congolese Army. a one-off documentary. themed fly-on-the-wall documentary series. The corpus also includes one-off documentaries. and serious. lifestyle series No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany (NGB). which deals with the issue of female circumcision in the Sudan. and their young son. a Jimmy Saville impersonator and DJ. an airfield. reporter Sam Kiley visits the Congo and reports on the activities of the local militias. such as The Day I Will Never Forget. 1992. Davies. 1991. All the programmes were filmed on locations outside the UK and. In NGB. In the other programme. and the UN peacekeeping forces. which has a UN headquarters. leave behind their former life to buy into the Tuscan dream. and on one issues-based documentary Congo’s Killing Fields (CKF). by implication. that is. and ‘foreign language speakers’ (FL speakers) is not intended to patronise or suggest essentialised. ‘celebrity travelogues’. . Richard Turnbull. including the following: lifestyle shows. The terms ‘native speaker’ (NS) and ‘non-native speaker’ (NNS) are problematic (Christophersen & McArthur. The pro- grammes were sampled opportunistically and range from individual programmes taken from a series such as A Dream Home Abroad. Gregory. West Yorkshire. shown on Channel 5 about British buyers of property overseas. in the UK. 1978) defines ‘Othering’ as positioning FL speakers as different from and. Susser (1998. broadcast on Channel 4 on 17 August 2003. to whole series such as French Leave. CKF.

Robert Maku in CKF speaks in French directly to the camera and subtitling is used. For example. shop assistants. Category 1: unseen/unheard and not reported This category refers to people who are necessary for the action to proceed (e. estate agents). For example. van Leeuwen. the plumber. Category 4: seen/heard with mediation This category refers to people whose voices are mediated through summary (voice-over). Alfonso. translation. (5) seen/heard in English (self-mediated?). Category 3: seen/unheard This category refers to people who are not given a voice. and his actions are explained by voice-over narration or summary by Richard Turnbull. (2) unseen/unheard but reported. but we see them either in the foreground or in the background of the camera shot. Gieve Data analysis: the coding categories A set of categories were developed to show how the participation of actors who cannot automatically be assumed to be users of English as their preferred language of interaction is presented on television. which will be discussed in greater detail below. van Leeuwen. Kiley’s arranged visit to see the militia leader Lubanga will have involved the behind-the-scenes work of interpreters and local informants. . This category is subjective to some extent. car drivers. whilst the final three categories (4–6) generally show greater access to the speaking voice of the actor.E. but they do not appear in a scene. 210 J. interpreters. in NGB never speaks directly to the camera. (3) seen/unheard. Kiley tells us about crowds of refugees on the banks of Lake Albert in CKF. Category 2: unseen/unheard but reported This category refers to people who are not given a voice but are reported (cf. Category 1 illustrates the least access to the speaking voice of the actor. and their speech is not reported. For example. The categories are ordered from top to bottom according to the criterion of how directly Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 the audience have access to the speaking voice of the Other. 1996). For example. 1996). albeit with varying degrees of mediation. and subtitling. (4) seen/heard mediated. and (6) seen/heard unmediated (speaking in an FL). The categories are grounded in the data and mark the degree of mediation we have observed in the representation of these actors. as we are only able to include people we can reasonably assume to have been involved (cf. The core categories that were identified are as follows: (1) unseen/unheard and not reported. Norton and S.g. but we see him interacting with the Turnbull family.

Max. translation. not on the speaker. recorded how the reporting was done (summary. is their preferred language or L1. we adhere to the above sequencing of categories in the belief that speakers who are allowed to speak in their own preferred language experience less direct editorial intervention and greater opportunities for expressing their own meanings. we assume. Linguistic difference is least erased in Category 6 (seen/heard unmediated). Category 6: seen/heard unmediated This category refers to people speaking in a foreign language which. shows a property to a British family and interacts with them in English. Somebody who does not speak English is not an inadequate Other. In making the Other knowable through mediation strategies. For example. Some of the strategies we observed were decided pre-filming. although heard. Summary narrations were some- times provided by one of the participants in the scene or sometimes by an external narrator. not erased. In addition. and difference is preserved. be viewed as a form of self-mediation on the part of the FL speaker for the benefit of both English-speaking actors and English-speaking audience. In addition. Whilst the six main coding categories are explained above and examples of each cat- egory are presented in Table 1. we noted if the actors appeared in the foreground or background of the camera shot during a scene. television erases their linguistic difference and a bias intrudes. as the audience has to struggle with linguistic difference just as the actors in the scene who speak only English would have had to as speakers-in-interaction. Language Awareness 211 Category 5: seen/heard in English This category refers to people who are included in the action because they can ‘self- mediate’. however. speakers who are not given the opportunity to use their own language to communicate may face a threat to their self-image as competent social beings. that is. For example. and the non-English speaker is left out of sight or not given a voice. voice-over). in cases where it was reported. numerous subtly defined layers of mediation were also coded to fine-tune our analysis of the visual and aural representation of the actors. are to an extent still reduced. taking our share of responsibility for dealing with linguistic difference. p. The sequencing of Categories 5 and 6 could be contested1 on the grounds that Category 5 (speaking in English) should be treated separately from the mediated/unmediated distinc- tion. Nevertheless. 641) observes: ‘any attempt to control the ways in which we use our native tongue can therefore be viewed as an attack upon our personal or national identity’. It could. It could be argued that a speaker’s identity is less visible or accessible to the audiences if they cannot understand the speaker: those who we do not linguistically understand remain in the darkness – alien and unknowable. then. for example refugees who are shown speaking in an African language on the banks of Lake Albert in CKF. such that the more known person is the English speaker. becomes real in the sense that ‘other’ people are different from ‘us’ and have the right to speak in their own preferred language. the Italian estate agent in NGB. We also recorded whether the content of the FL speakers’ contri- butions was or was not reported and. as Kilborn (1993. and in doing so the audience realises that linguistic difference is problematic and something that has to be engaged with and struggled with. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 the voices of FL speakers who are shown speaking in their own language (Category 6) but do not address the main protagonists or the camera directly. Otherness. The problem of understanding is thrown back on the hearer. speak English to the camera. but we as audience become equally inadequate. such as selecting English .

2. 7. 43. 2. 41. voice-over. 4(×2). 28(×2). 50 reported Total: 1 (3%) Total: 8 (8%) (3) Seen/unheard People who appear 2. 40. 49(×2) subtitling. 6. 29. 25(×2). voice-over translation. for example an intermit- tent report. 39(×2). 8. 40. such as narration. Coding categories. through 30(×2). 22. 27(×2). 42. 41 18(×2). but reported given a voice but 43. 7. 47(×2). Table 1 includes a brief description of each category and lists the scenes where the particular category occurs. 41. 8. 24(×2). 19. 45(×2). 7. 17. Gieve Table 1. 16(×2). 37. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 38(×2). 17. 42. 32. 29. 15. mediation and are heard 23(×4). or narration included by one of the NS actors in the scene (Cate- gory 4). 17(×2). 34. 32. 9. For the purposes of this paper. unmediated FL 48. 25 3. and a list of scenes for each programme is presented in Appendices 3 and 4 to . but without a voice 22. 11(×3). 16. 26(×2). and narration Total: 2 (6%) Total: 29 (29%) (5) Seen/heard in FL speakers 1. 31. 46. 32. 1. 40. 50 Total: 24 (73%) Total: 49 (49%) (4) Seen/heard with People who appear 21. the very de- tailed analysis described above has been condensed into the basic categories presented in Table 1. 11. 49 Total: 0 Total: 8 (8%) speakers as informants (Category 5) or avoiding interaction with FL speakers (Categories 1 and 2). 31. 13. 32. 35. 5(×2). 33. 25. whilst others would have been adopted during filming. 39. 14. Norton and S. Each scene is numbered. 31. 48(×2). 3. 12 and not reported the action but not actually shown Total: 1 (3%) Total: 2 (2%) (2) Unseen/unheard Unseen people not 23 12. 30. 39(×4). summary. 31. 36(×3). 12(×3). were also used on occasions (Category 4). 37 English interacting in English Total: 5 (15%) Total: 4 (4%) (6) Seen/heard People speaking in an 22. 5. 39. Post-filming strategies. translation. 39. 20. 8. 212 J.E. 34(×2). 42. 29. 43. 32 6. 49. and subtitling. Degrees of mediation in media representation of Others Examples of scenes where the category occurs Category Description No Going Back Congo’s Killing Fields (1) Unseen/unheard People implicated in 27 10. 36. 6(×3). Some of these scenes are discussed in greater detail in the ‘Data analysis’ and ‘Discussions’ sections of the paper to illustrate particular categories further and develop our analysis of identity construction in the respective programmes.

Data analysis The coding categories reveal tendencies in the data which will be analysed in greater detail with reference to particular scenes from the respective television programmes in this Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 section. it is relatively more common to engage FL speakers who are proficient in English (Category 5: 15%) than in the documentary genre (4%). Sam Kiley. when Sarah Turnbull reports on a telephone conversation she had with her Italian gynaecologist (scene 23). and there are eight examples (8%) of this in CKF. In the lifestyle programme NGB. 2003b. There are 49 examples of this category in CKF (49%) and 24 examples in NGB (73%). during analysis each appearance of a category was given the same weight no matter how long it remained on screen. but sometimes this strategy is used to create ‘local colour’ or a ‘linguascape’ (Jaworski. There is only one example (3%) of this category in NGB. Ylänne-McEwen. For example. it is immediately clear that there are no examples of FL speakers speaking unmediated (Category 6) in their L1 in the lifestyle series NGB. and more use is made of the external narrator of the series to move the action forward. Some scenes had multiple examples of different categories. they are unspecified people in the UN or from the army or militias or are local people who have given Kiley information – ‘anonymous sources’ who do not exist as people at all in this programme. and the Turnbulls’ expatriate friend. Thurlow. Language Awareness 213 allow an overview of the content of the respective programmes. 1995b). Tony. In CFK. and some had none. At this exploratory stage of our analysis we do not attempt a rigorous quantitative analysis of the occurrences of particular categories in our data but suggest tendencies which reveal the general approach that the respective genres of television programmes appear to favour. They do not participate in the action. are not cast so obviously in the role of fly-on-the-wall reporters. We see them and may hear them speaking under Kiley’s narration. The main actors in NGB. the camera pans across the refugee camp . explains the findings of the inspection (scene 39). we can hear crowds on the banks of Lake Albert speaking unmediated in an African language (scene 39). which prioritises entertainment. Examples of this category are rare in our corpus overall. Richard and Sarah Turnbull. Fairclough. there are a large number of ‘local’ people who are backgrounded visually and aurally (cf. It is striking that Category 3 (seen/unheard) features in the largest number of scenes in both programmes. This confirms our initial subjective impressions that FL speakers are often seen but not allowed to speak. Usually. Richard reports on the farm inspection which was carried out by an Italian agronomist (scene 39). This strategy is more common in the documentary genres in our corpus. but we do not know who they are or what they are saying. There are also three examples of participant summary: Richard Turnbull reports on fixing the car with Alfonso. We also aim through qualitative analysis to uncover and describe the representational strategies adopted by programme makers to depict and create NNS identities. the plumber (scene 6). For simplicity. they are not given a voice. in a short scene at the beginning of the documentary. and it is never made clear how Kiley communicated with them. One obvious explanation for this is that the main actor of CKF. From Table 1. Transcription conventions are presented in Appendix 2. 145) and provide a backdrop for the action. some contained only one category type. For example. and whilst they may be referred to. & Lawson . Another notable feature of the representation of Others in CKF is the number of unseen and unheard actors who are reported (Category 2: 8%). often stands in front of large groups of people and informs the audience of their plight. when no-one whom we could assume to be an NNS of English appeared. the journalist/presenter of the programme. p.

There are a relatively large number of scenes (16%) in which people appear to have been foregrounded. The shots of unknown people on the streets certainly contribute to a particular represen- tation of the Congo and reinforce Kiley’s themes of lawlessness. around a townhouse (scene 21) and one example of a voice-over summary provided by the external narrator of a conversation between the Turnbulls and an Italian hospital consultant who speaks no English (scene 25). We can speculate that this may be due to fear of attack. There are three examples of narrator summary.E. three examples of the use of visible interpreters. In the latter context. one might ask why not. a wider range of mediation strategies are adopted to deal with linguistic difference (Category 4). and if he does have one. and Höijer (2004) have discussed such scenes through the lens of ‘distant suffering’. Another possibility may be linguistic problems: he cannot speak to them because he does not speak their languages and apparently has no interpreter. Similarly. they could be the men armed with machetes. The actual speech of FL speakers is mediated on only two occasions (6%) in NGB but on 29 occasions (29%) in CKF (Category 4). two examples of translation in a voice-over. Subtitles are never used in NGB. they could be ‘local colour’ – evidence that what we are seeing is ‘authentic’ (for further discussion of modality in visual imagery. unpredictable militias. and sudden death. This particular representation of Others described above and noted in numerous other scenes in our data resulted in a coding problem for us. and it is not to be denied that much of the force of the documentary is permeated with the moral questions raised by presenting such scenes of suffering. 2007. Boltanski (1999). We do not know what they think or what they have to say for themselves. There is one example of translation as a form of mediation in this episode of NGB when Richard Turnbull provides a limited consecutive translation for an Italian estate agent who is showing an English family. however. programme makers are also able to justify the need for a UN presence in this environment (cf. and 11 examples of the use of subtitling. Chouliaraki (2006). Our contribution here is simply to note that the moral impact is mediated in part by a distancing achieved by the actors being deprived of a speaking voice: they are brought close to us but safely close. on the one hand. Gieve at Bunya (scene 1) and shows us women cooking pots of rice and children who are scarred. 2007. totally harmless men on their way to a local store. . as it was sometimes unclear if the people shown in CKF were participating in the action of the programme or were only part of the passing scene and were of no particular relevance to viewers/programme makers. one might ask why the interpreter has been hidden. through the use of lingering close-ups. anarchy. They do not speak and may or may not be referred to. In CKF. or it may not be possible to physically approach them. Machin & van Leeuwen. 10 examples of participant summary. p. on the other hand. The camera lingers over particular individuals as Kiley explains how they fled Uganda in dugout canoes. Kiley is shown wandering around amongst refugees on the banks of Lake Albert. Some refugees are weak and hurt and are lying down. who are committing the atrocities that are reported. It is unclear why Kiley does not attempt to speak to any of these people on our behalf. see Johnson. but only visually. Norton and S. 99). Machin. The individuals who Kiley discusses are seen but are given no speaking voice during these scenes. they could simply be passing by. 30 minutes later in the programme. 214 J. If Kiley does not have an interpreter. 2007). Kiley comments that ‘these children have seen little fun in their short lives’. though the camera can focus on them. the Lowes. The ambiguity about whether these actors are part of the action may be Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 deliberate: in some scenes. we can watch them but do not need to respond to them as a speaking presence. Through this representation. random brutal violence. and they may thus contribute to the sense of threat created in the programme. in scene 39.

Language Awareness 215 Table 2. and the similar overall high percentage for these combined categories in NGB reinforces our point that FL speakers are frequently represented as having no speaking voice of their own in the respective programmes. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 Identity construction in No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany The main actors in this series are the Turnbull family. and Max. The frame then switches to Alfonso and Richard working on Richard’s car outside the farmhouse (scene 6). represented as an Italy almost devoid of Italians. Richard offers Alfonso a lift down the hill to his car. Max is sought out for his proficiency in English to help a British family. In this episode of the series. the estate agent. and this fact is highlighted particularly as the British paying guests at the farmhouse are given speaking roles and the expertise of British expatriates is called upon on numerous occasions throughout the series. and in the next scene Alfonso and Richard are shown driving down the hill from the farmhouse to the main road (scene 7). unless they are proficient in English. No Going Back Congo’s Killing Fields (3) Seen/unheard 73 49 (4) Seen/heard with mediation 6 29 Total 79 78 It is noteworthy that 79% of all scenes in NGB and 78% of all scenes in CKF fall within coding Categories 3 and 4 (see Table 2): Categories 3 and 4 are the largest in CKF. only two Italian males feature in the main action: Alfonso. relationships. Alfonso . therefore. It is nonetheless striking that very few Italians appear in the series and that those who do are rarely given linguistic participant roles. which is inaudible. who have relocated to Tuscany and are struggling to restore their dilapidated farmhouse before paying guests arrive. find a Tuscan property of their own. and Richard asks Alfonso for help. and identities are discursively constructed. guests at the Turnbulls’ farmhouse. and we would claim that the different representations are related to the respective linguistic capabilities of the two men. although there is clearly some interaction with Richard. In the final part of this section. In this respect. In the first scene. Throughout the four short scenes. we examine how the use of the strategies outlined in this section contributes to the construction of FL speakers’ identities in the two programmes. Alfonso is shown playing momentarily with the Turnbulls’ young son. The representation of two Italian males Alfonso features in four short scenes in this episode of the series. and the audience is allowed access to intimate conversations in which respective family roles. the car wheel rolls away when they are halfway down the hill. and Alfonso and Richard are shown fixing the car once again (scene 8). Percentages of scenes in Categories 3 and 4. Gregory (scene 5). it is hardly surprising that their voices dominate the narrative of the series. the plumber. In return. The vehicle needs some repair. The representation of Max contrasts starkly with the representation of Alfonso. This idyllic location is. Alfonso is given no audible speaking voice. the Lowes. Alfonso speaks little English but is employed by the Turnbulls to help renovate the farmhouse. In the final scene. Richard has bought an off-road vehicle to ferry guests and luggage via a dirt track between the main road and the farmhouse.

Indeed. because of. but Max is allowed to speak directly to the camera and to the audience at home (scenes 31 and 32). lingering on his expensive Gucci shoes and Rolex watch. including his job. categorised in terms of his occupation only and deprived of full ‘participation status’ (Goffman. Lawson. but he is also represented as a caricatured Italian male who is interested in the external trappings of designer fashion. reminiscent of a 1960s rom-com movie. He participates more fully in the episode through his interactions with the English-speaking actors. Max is identified not only by what he does but also by who he is. and by comedy music. explaining its traditional features to them in En- glish. his English language proficiency Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 which legitimises him. and the viewing public are left in doubt about the extent Richard is able to communicate with him. but we are given very little direct access to his interactions in Italian. friendly relationship with the Turnbull family. Like Alfonso. his physical appearance. unlike Alfonso. the Italian estate agent who speaks English. Max shows the Lowe family around the property. suggesting either his lack of status or his informal. his language proficiency. whilst Alfonso is ‘functionalised’. and Ylänne-McEwen (2003a) that presenters of British television holiday programmes often deny FL speakers . Thurlow. the representation of communication across linguistic difference seems systematic: Richard and Sarah’s linguistic encounters with Italian speakers are rarely foregrounded. He is presented as fashionable and ‘cool’ and is foregrounded in the camera shots and the action. though it is frequently clear that they do have major linguistic difficulties. Inspection of the series as a whole suggests that Richard knows limited Italian. tongue-in-cheek manner: he is ‘the saviour’ of the Lowe family who enlist his help to find their dream home abroad. he can claim a linguistic participant role and an identity as a speaker.E. 216 J. he is introduced by first name only. Norton and S.0) he speaks ENGLISH’. Richard does not reveal what Alfonso thinks about the situation with the broken-down car. This resonates with the observation of Jaworski. wearing designer clothing.0) he speaks ENGLISH/ he has a property they’ll adore/ at a price they simply cannot refuse/ it’s a traditional Tuscan farmhouse/ with three bedrooms/ three acres of olive trees/ and/ a small outhouse for conversion/ on the market/ for a mere/ £125. and his identity is constructed far more fully than Alfonso’s through these conversations and the narrator’s commentary. and his thoughts on the property. Max also appears in four short scenes (scenes 29–32). Max is represented as a ‘larger-than-life’ character. It suggests that programme makers are aware that language is a problem but that their solution is to avoid this problem by supplying an English speaker. we suggest. 224). Although the programme is about the fortunes of the Turnbull family and not about Alfonso. is given a speaking voice of his own. pp. or possibly both. in contrast. 1974. Gieve does not speak directly to the audience and is referred to by his first name only. In van Leeuwen’s (1996. Max. (scene 29) The narrator focuses upon many aspects of Max’s identity. which is played in the background with the following voice-over commentary: Sample 1 Narrator: Enter Max/ estate agent extraordinaire/ from his Guccis to his Rolex/ he’s chic/ he’s suave/ AND (2. Max is represented in a rather light-hearted. p.000 / surely/ only a crazy person would walk away. that is. but his introduction to the audience is foregrounded dramatically by the camera which focuses exclusively on him and pans the length of his body. as a ‘valid’ participant. 54–55) terms. Max’s English lan- guage proficiency is emphasised by the narrator’s dramatic pause for effect before he reveals this significant piece of information and by the stress he places upon certain words: ‘AND (2.

127) identification of a ‘masculinist discourse’ in current-affairs broadcasting. Identity construction in Congo’s Killing Fields It is of interest in this study to examine how genre impacts upon the erasure of linguistic Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 difference in media representations of Others. this is a rather dark programme with the hint of danger and threat present throughout. This is clearly reflected in the coding of this programme: Category 3 (seen/unheard) is the largest category (73%) in NGB. As such he is kept in the background. a man who has witnessed a terrible atrocity which he recounts to Kiley (scene 3). Kiley’s representation as a male action hero. The interview with Robert Maku is an extended scene of several minutes’ duration which is not intercut with footage from outside the interview. in the scenes in which Kiley is shown openly interviewing informants. but the mediation strategies adopted to represent their speaking voices differ markedly and impact upon the identity construction of the two men. dominates the documentary and allows him to construct his identity as a journalist who is risking his own life to report on the atrocities that are being committed by the local militia groups he encounters. This is a sympathetic interview with a man who has . as we have previously noted. Alfonso must be assumed not to constitute ‘good television’ in that his interactions with Richard would have been problematic for programme makers whose ideal audience might be impatient with cross-linguistic struggle. for the two men. seen to be speaking but not heard. Language Awareness 217 participation rights and objectify their presence by ignoring their capacity to hear and talk. respectively. and references to anonymous sources and the undercover nature of his reporting not only underline the dangers and tensions inherent in this situation but also remove all traces of the struggle to negotiate meaning across linguistic difference. the leader of the Hemma militia group (scene 13). hear their voices in the background. and Category 5 (seen/heard in English) is the second largest category (15%). one with Robert Maku. along with a parallel sense of respect for Kiley who dares to be there on our behalf. but encounter them fully as people only if they speak English. The voice of the main actor. This is discussed below in relation to the representation of two African males who are both allowed to speak unmediated in an FL directly to the camera but who receive very different editorial treatment which contributes to the construction of more positive and less favourable identities. his presence in the programme diminished almost to that of a bystander. Sam Kiley. when the Turnbulls buy sheep. As the title suggests. and so on: we feel the presence of Italian actors. Similar strategies are observed when Sarah prepares for the birth of her new baby. However. therefore. to the analysis of iden- tity construction in the serious. The representation of two African males Two set-piece interviews are presented in CKF. issues-based documentary CKF to uncover the mediation strategies adopted by the programme makers in this case. Kiley’s interactions with his informants are often hidden. fits with Talbot’s (2007. We turn. and one with Thomas Lubanga. reporting from a war-torn zone. It is the very absence of communication that heightens the sense of danger and threat that we are encouraged to feel. when they buy their off-road vehicle. p. Both these FL speakers speak French. The camera focuses upon Kiley and Robert Maku who are sitting in close proximity on a doorstep outside a simple house and appear deep in conversation. the issue of communication across linguistic difference is foregrounded and reveals how the identity construction of FL speakers is managed by programme makers and the editorial team.

The camera focuses upon Lubanga’s talking head in a darkened room. We are shown people wandering around in the streets and heavily armed soldiers (scene 14) who contribute to this sense of threat. In the other set-piece interview with Lubanga. and the scene is constantly intercut with shots of menacing armed guards outside. Kiley does not appear in the same shot as Lubanga. Discussion Jaworski (2007. In this way. Initially. In this case the way Lubanga’s voice is presented serves to distance Kiley from his subject and further disaffiliate the audience.E. A voice-over technique is adopted. and we cannot check the reliability of the translation. and suffering is evoked through his calm narration of unspeakable events. This is a more distancing method of mediation than subtitling because we miss most paralinguistic features. as Maku responds to a question we never hear being asked and produces a packet of photographs of the massacre to show Kiley. and there are no reaction shots of Kiley and no subtitles. the leader of the Hemma militia group (scene 13). 83). p. 1995b. 277) comments that two key themes evident in much of broadcast media are authenticity and Othering. however. Kiley appears to speak some French. and the English version sometimes precedes what we can hear Lubanga faintly saying in French. whereby the audience hears Lubanga’s voice for a few seconds initially (to authenticate the speech as his own). tension is created as Kiley is shown waiting in a deserted bar (scene 11) before being taken on a car journey to Lubanga’s camp (scene 12). It is apparent that an attempt is being made to build the audience’s sympathy with Maku in the way the camera shows close-ups of his face and Kiley’s emotional response to the tragic story. in the same way that at one time the illegitimacy of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)2 was signalled by the removal of the authentic speaking voice of its leadership in broadcast interviews. loss. 218 J. which resonates with the analysis we have presented here. but this is quickly faded and replaced by a translated version which has been scripted and added later. 90) has termed ‘pseudo-intimacy’. Kiley is visibly nervous about this arranged meeting and the obvious possibility of ambush by the militia group. adds to the sense of his moral dubiousness. programme makers construct Maku’s identity as a victim in this hostile environment. Maku’s participant role is legitimised through subtitling Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 and the appearance of intimate interaction with the presenter. Gieve witnessed an appalling massacre. Robert Maku is allowed to speak his own words in French which are subtitled in English. Mediation strategies are used as a deliberate tool to construct his identity as a perpetrator rather than a victim. as the interview progresses. A deep sense of his sadness. This suggests that some moments of negotiation of meaning and communication struggle have been erased from the programme in the editorial process. In particular. there appears to be the minimum of mediation during this interview. but it is not clear how proficient he is. This constitutes one of 11 scenes where subtitling is used and participants are given their own voice (Category 4). p. which O’Keefe (2006. Swahili. p. The audience must assume that interpreters are present but hidden. Norton and S. We now return to our original research questions. The sound of the unmediated voice of the Other. there is evidence of editorial intervention in the interaction. or other African languages. Lubanga’s participation rights are de-legitimised through the use of voice-over and speaking without an interlocutor. as during the course of the programme the audience sees Kiley asking questions in English but receiving replies in French. he notes that ‘de-legitimising individual language users’ results in Othering. suggesting ‘the subtle management of audience interpretation’ (Fairclough. as the background French is barely audible. This is confirmed by Kiley’s commentary which explains the potential danger. listed in the Introduction: . partially obscured.

because it is made in Swahili with added subtitles and English narration. In NGB. given her attitude towards the Italian estate agents she encounters who do not speak English: Sample 2 Mrs Lowe: Well/ you know/ it’s FINE/ finding immobiliers/ like the estate agents over here/ but (2. particularly in the lifestyle series NGB. it is startling that in a programme about the adventures of a British family struggling to realise their dream life abroad so little foreign language interaction and negotiation of meaning is included as actors attempt to communicate with one another. Indeed. an English- speaking expatriate. In this sense. few Italians appear. The two programmes considered here were broadcast at peak viewing times and are potentially able to command and influence large audiences. This may be one possible motivation for hiding linguistic difference. for example The Day I Will Never Forget. This contrasts with some other programmes in our corpus. 101) observation that television travel coverage focuses more upon ‘visual consumption of the place’ than upon interaction with the locals.3 Questions 3 and 4 The dominant voices represented in the programmes we discuss are those of the producers and presenters rather than the ‘local’ people. is able to bring us significantly closer to the lives of its subjects. This fits with Dunn’s (2005. the programme presents a textbook example of immi- grants socialising with co-ethnics abroad. a documentary on female circumcision which.0) you GO in the window/ there’s all cards/ and it’s just/ all in Italian/ so there we were/ we’re/ getting our dictionaries out/ trying to translate everything/ then/ you keep coming up with new words/ you have to go back/ and when you go in ><if they haven’t got anything in the window ><‘cos they haven’t got obviously EVERYTHING in the window/ you go in/ and talk to them (1. The general ethos of this programme is English as a global language or. in the sense that it makes it possible for viewers who might consider emigrating to perceive the Turnbulls as role models whose Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 lead they could easily follow.0) ↑they don’t speak English! (scene 27) The Italian estate agents’ inability to speak English completely flouts the expectations of the Lowe family who clearly uphold the view propagated on British television: ‘you can remain British even outside of Britain. 2007). the extent to which Others are allowed to speak in their own voices and construct their own identities is called into question in both of the programmes discussed here. they are taught how to drive a tractor by Liberty Mallard. However.4 once again reinforcing the view that linguistic difference is unimportant when chasing one’s dream lifestyle abroad and portraying an ideological representation of the world which suggests that ‘language is not a dimension of difference between people’ (Gieve and Norton. The Turnbulls buy their off-road vehicle from a speaker of American English. Language Awareness 219 Questions 1 and 2 Although the two genres of programme that we discuss in this paper appear to deal with linguistic difference in slightly different ways. such examples are significantly rare in our corpus. possibly in Mrs Lowe’s case. English as an imperial language. p. with subtitling being adopted only in the serious documentary. finding “home away from home” ’ (Jaworski . This strategy also adds to the identification potential of the show. owing to a concern to maximise entertainment value and attract high viewing figures.

23). In his role as presenter/reporter. without acknowledging her own linguistic deficiency when it comes to Italian. there are various languages of the Niger-Congo group of African languages. whilst the lifestyle. 25. but we wish simply to highlight the way that Kiley and his sources are presented as communicating with each other.E. 2003a. Svalberg (2007. further research is necessary to explore a wider range of programmes to investigate the effects of genre upon the representational strategies used to depict FL speakers in television broadcasting in a more systematic manner. for example. clearly has ideological roots (cf. sitting at a table outside the Turnbulls’ farmhouse. This seems an apt way to characterise the situation represented in this series. p. Her considerable lack of self-awareness. p. Conclusion Whilst we have noted specific genre effects in the two programmes considered here.. 220 J. The coding categories we have developed so far reflect particular tendencies in media representations of encounters with others. In the case of CKF. 2003a. travel documentary programmes use a range of strategies to avoid placing any communica- tive stress upon the audience or even showing others being subjected to communicative stress to give media talk the appearance of seamlessness to which we have become accus- tomed (Scannell. Gieve et al. p.. Kiley knows some French and no African languages and has no obvious interpreters. if he has spoken to the groups of people who occupy the same scene as him. It would also be interesting to develop cross- cultural studies to investigate how linguistic difference is handled in travel programmes and documentary genres shown on television in other countries around the world. van Dijk. plus French. and he sometimes makes comments as asides. Kiley frequently stands in front of groups of people and tells us about Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 them. she takes centre stage to pronounce judgement on the linguistic capabilities of the Italian estate agents she meets during her stay in Italy. 1998. for example. We usually do not know how he has obtained the information he reports. we do not wish to dispute the truth values of the documentary. and English. demonstrated by the comment ‘they don’t speak English!’ (as opposed to ‘we don’t speak Italian’5 ). . and we do not know who his contacts and sources are. Swahili. The representation of FL speakers in the travel programmes in our corpus and in other similar types of data of holiday programmes on British television (Jaworski et al. 2003b) does little to promote engagement with FL learning or to suggest that it is a legitimate and useful activity. 7). 1991). We do not know. 1998. except once or twice when he is out in the field and interviews child soldiers with the help of local militiamen. sometimes in a low voice which creates an impression of external threat. 302) suggests that engagement with language is an important concept for language awareness and that work on cross-cultural language awareness has been particularly concerned with the engagement of minority and dominant groups with each other’s languages and cultures. Woolard. That is to say. In the set-piece interviews with Maku and Lubanga the potential of linguistic difference for signalling moral values is manipulated by editorial intervention. In the Congo. adopt different types of mediation for particular purposes. The more ‘serious’ documentary programmes. and it is interesting to note that Mrs Lowe is allowed to deliver the above speech directly to the camera. Acknowledgements The support of the University of Leicester is gratefully acknowledged for granting study leave to allow the completion of the paper. Norton and S. p.

271–280). (1998). N. Fairclough. (2006). B. 2(2). R. Language Awareness. 8(2). Clevedon. Fairclough. T. the post-tourist and British television. Chouliaraki. D. M. 1–20. Why the British do not learn languages: Myths and motivation in the United Kingdom. N. (1974). NY: Harper and Row. N. and interaction across linguistic difference. Language in the media: Authenticity and othering. & MacArthur. L. Discourse. communication and tourism (pp. (1995b). Language Awareness. PA: John Benjamins. Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. The native speaker in applied linguistics. Pritchard (Eds. UK. UK: Edinburgh University Press. 23(3). 37(1). Chouliaraki. (1995a). The IRA was a paramilitary organisation which sought to remove Northern Ireland from the UK. His main research interests are in classroom language learning. A. C. Clark. intercultural pragmatics. Language and power (2nd ed. Ensslin (Eds. P. 2006).. 98–120). The discourse of global compassion: The audience and media reporting of human suffering. UK: Channel View. 289–322. (2005). Edinburgh. University of Leicester. the tourist. P. In A. (1991). She teaches on MA courses in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and supervises doctoral students in these areas. (1999). References Barker. University of Leicester.. Applied Linguistics. Media discourse. Burger. The discursive co-construction of knowledge. 5. UK: Edinburgh University Press. & Fairclough. and New Delhi: Sage. 26(4). (2009). New York. Edinburgh. Goffman. Christophersen. NY: Continuum. Distant suffering. language teacher Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 education. A. (2002). Davies. Critical discourse analysis. R. E. identity. Höijer. and Philadelphia. He has previously co-edited a book with Ines Miller on Understanding the Language Classroom (Palgrave Macmillan. 4. & Ivanič. Language Learning Journal. Venice observed: The traveller. Studies in Communication Sciences. Boltanski.. London: Longman. London. J. (1992).) London: Longman. R. (2002). Y. UK. Jaworski. Its armed campaign formally ended in 2005. P. (2004). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. (1999). In S. Oxford: Oxford University Press.). CA. Identities at stake in social interaction: The case of media interviews. (1999). Ivanič. L. N. (1999). 111–127. Language Awareness 221 Notes 1.). Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on language and identity. Thousand Oaks. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us. (2007). Johnson & A. Simon Gieve is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics and TESOL in the School of Education. Critical language awareness [Special issue]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaworski & A. Writing and identity. Fairclough. Amsterdam. 451–486. TESOL Quarterly. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. (2001). discourse analysis. (2001). Her research interests and publications include: linguistic identity. The Netherlands. and difference: An ethnography of communication in high school mainstream. 31(3). London: Edward Arnold. 72–83. The spectatorship of suffering. & Uchida. L. & Galasiński. Culture & Society. oral testing and materials development for language teaching. Dunn. Media. Coleman. Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. London and New York. 513–531. 2. We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.. We acknowledge an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.. London: Sage. Duff. D. Duff. Notes on contributors Julie Norton is a lecturer in Education in the School of Education. 8(2). Native speaker. . (1997). Language in the media (pp. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this point. Fairclough. 3. N.

(1999). NY: Oxford University Press. Susser. UK: Edinburgh University Press. Discourse.A. affiliation and inheritance. Richards. (1999). Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. M. . 40. 409–430. Ylänne-McEwen.).) (2007). T. Pavlenko. JALT Journal. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry.). Approaches to media discourse (pp. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 Norton. Ten Have.. (1998). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. K. Oxford: Blackwell. E. A.J. TESOL Quarterly. UK: Multilingual Matters. Wodak. Van Dijk. In A. 49–82. (1999). R. 21–63). & Ensslin. K. Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed. In P. UK: Edinburgh University Press. (1995).. S.R. & Blackledge. (2000). & van Leeuwen.. Edinburgh. 287– 308. P. & Liebhart. A. New York. Sparks (Eds.) (1989). Gieve Jaworski. Bell & P. & C. G. D. Schieffelin. Coulthard (Eds. & Seedhouse. Introduction to multimodal analysis. Broadcast talk. Johnson. (2003a). S. S. W. D. In C. Global media discourse. 20. Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. Newbury Park. Reisigl. UK: Routledge. ‘Speak my language’: Current attitudes to television subtitling and dubbing. (2004)... Kilborn. C. (2007). C. Coulthard (Eds. NY: Continuum. Critical language awareness: Key principles for a course in critical reading. & Gergen. The study of talk-in-interaction. 7(2).. Caldas-Coulthard & M. & P. Scannell. (1996). (1978). Schlesinger. Garrett (Eds. London: Sage. NY: Continuum. T. Norton and S. 44(2). R. P. R. S. UK: Pearson Education. Psathas. K. T. London: Hodder Education. Talbot. Rampton. London: Sage. (2007). (Eds. London and New York. 84–104). NY: Routledge. Media discourse. In B. Identity and language learning. Thurlow. 317–48).. (1991). Van Leeuwen. B. Kubota. Scannell. The representation of social actors. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Said. 97–101. In C. Language.). 35. Applying conversation analysis. 3–47).. Edinburgh. R. (2007). C..R. J. P. identity. TESOL Quarterly. Conversation analysis. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 222 J. Jaworski.. 9–35. Culture and power: A media. (2001). Journal of Sociolinguistics. V. Ensslin (Eds. Johnson.. (2007). The discursive construction of national identity. A. Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and English language teaching. Scannell.. Abingdon. M. T. (2007). & Ylänne-McEwen. Kroskrity (Eds. (2006). B. representation and interaction. ELT Journal. Orientalism. (2003b).). Media. 5–29. P. P (2007). 135–163. Clevedon. Abingdon. B. de Cillia. Shotter.. CA: Sage.E. (1992). (Eds. London: Sage. The uses and representations of local languages in tourist destinations: A view from British TV holiday programmes. 8(2). 33. A. Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Wallace.). Woolard. O’Keefe. Texts of identity. K. B. London and New York. (1999). Opinions and ideologies in the press. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Machin. Thousand Oaks. Language in the media. 641–660. Culture & Society. Language Awareness.) (2007). (1997). The iconography of orthography: Representing German spelling reform in the news magazine Der Spiegel.. Lawson. Mahwah. Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise. Social roles and negotiation of status in host–tourist interaction: A view from British television holiday programmes. London and New York.A. Machin. (1998). Investigating media discourse. (1996). London and New York. A. power and access. 32–70). Language in the media (pp. Pennycook. Svalberg. Thurlow. M-L. (1998). Language awareness and language learning. In S.). CA: Sage. Public service broadcasting and modern life. & Lawson. Woolard. V. EFL’s othering of Japan. 15. culture and society reader (pp. and the ownership of English. Johnson & A. 31. 91–110). Norton. A. Language Awareness. UK: Routledge.). Qualitative Research Methods Series No. 98–110. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. NY: Routledge. Harlow. New York. Van Dijk. K. (Eds. A. 12(1). (1993). A. Language Teacher.

2007): / = short pause (3. No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany [Television series]. (2005. DIY SOS France Special [Television broadcast]. (2005). BBC 2. Dispatches: Congo’s Killing Fields [Television broadcast]. BBC 4. Jamie’s Great Escape [Television series]. BBC 1. Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror [Television broadcast]. (2003. French Exchange [Television series]. The Lost Boys of Sudan [Television broadcast]. 1995. Ten Have. BBC 2. (2004. Chaos at the Chateau [Television series]. The Dark Heart of Italy [Television broadcast]. (2005. (2003). Tales from Italy [Television series]. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 I Want That House [Television series]. Channel 4. Channel 4. Channel 4. (2003). Tale of Two Ali’s. [Television series]. Channel 4. 2007. (2003). (2003). Airport. (1993). (2005). The Reign in Spain [Television broadcast. Carlton. (2003). (2003. (2005). (2005). March). (2005). Channel 4. BBC. Channel 4. BBC Enterprises Ltd. BBC 2. Channel 4. Headmasters and Headscarves [Television broadcast]. documentary on David and Victoria Beckham’s life in Spain]. June 8). Channel 4. (2003). (2003. via pitch and/or amplitude ! = animated or emphatic tone . Channel 4.0) = 3-second pause ><><= quicker than surrounding talk WORD = upper case indicates especially loud sounds relative to the surrounding talk ↑↓ =Arrows indicate marked shifts into higher or lower pitch in the utterance part immediately following the arrow word = underlining indicates some form of stress. Richards & Seedhouse. (2003. The Deal [Panorama documentary series]. Around the World in 80 Treasures [Television series]. Around the World in 80 Days [Television series]. October). (2003). Appendix 2 Key to transcription symbols (based on Psathas. March 29). November). The Day I Will Never Forget [Television broadcast]. [‘Cutting Edge’ documentary series]. Channel 4. October 4). BBC 4. Channel 5. (2005. August 17). (2003). BBC 1. French Leave [Television series]. Channel 4. August 18). Language Awareness 223 Appendix 1 Titles of items in the corpus: A Place in the Sun [Television series]. Dream Home Abroad [Television series].

13 Guests sitting outside Chestnut House. 14 Farmhouse guests arriving (the Lowe family). discussing new guests. 39 Richard talks to the camera and discusses the inspection. 21 In the townhouse with the Italian estate agent. 4 Richard fixes the car outside the house. List of scenes in No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany. 29 Max standing outside. 44 Sarah moans to the camera about Richard cutting the trees. 27 The Low family outside the farmhouse. 38 The agronomist inspects the farm. 41 Discussion around the table with drinks. 224 J. 37 The agronomist and Tony talking outside. 30 Max meets the Lowe family outside. 20 The Lowe family in the farmhouse. 15 Sarah and Richard in the new accommodation. Scene Description 1 Inside the car salesroom. 32 Max and the Lowe family outside the property. 9 Guests arrive at Chestnut House (small guest house annexe set apart from the main farmhouse). Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 11 Preparing the farmhouse. 8 Richard and Alfonso fix the car at the bottom of the hill. 35 Richard talking about the farm. following the inspection. 18 Gregory and Anna outside. 5 In the farmhouse (Alfonso and Gregory). 12 Hanging the curtains in the farmhouse. broadcast on Channel 4 on 28 August 2003. 7 Richard and Alfonso drive down the hill. 24 Outside the hospital in Florence. 16 The Lowe family in the farmhouse.E. 25 Inside the hospital. 26 Outside the hospital. Norton and S. 6 Richard and Alfonso fix the car outside the farmhouse. 34 Richard talking about work. 42 Richard talks to the camera. 46 Preview of next week’s episode.1. direct to the camera. 28 Richard reading the expat newspaper. 17 Eating ice cream. 36 The agronomist and the translator Tony Leonardo arrive. 19 Richard and Sarah in the farmhouse. . 31 Max showing the property to the Lowe family. 40 Sarah talks to the camera. 33 The Lowe family at the table outside the farmhouse. 3 Chestnut House. Gieve Appendix 3 Table A3. 43 Sarah and Richard work on the land. 45 Sarah confronts Richard. 2 Outside the car salesroom. 22 Outside the townhouse. 23 Sarah on the phone. 10 Sarah to the camera.

10 Kiley in the car prior to the meeting with Lubanga. 25 Bunya: the next morning. 47 On UN patrol on the outskirts of Bunya. List of scenes in Congo’s Killing Fields. 45 The informant about Rwandan arms supplies. 43 Lubanga summoned to the UN headquarters. 41 Outside the clinic (a woman is sitting alone in the dust). 6 Meeting the French colonel Daniel Vollot. 21 A house attacked by the militia. 34 Fleubert Umjabu’s headquarters.1. Uganda. 28 Interview with Augustin Katho. 39 On the banks of Lake Albert. 26 In the UN camp. 5 Videotape from the priest. 37 Interview with Floribert Njabu. 9 People on the streets. 3 Robert Maku talking to Kiley. 36 Interview with the second boy soldier (perhaps aged 10 years). 29 Journey to the airstrip. broadcast on Channel 4 on 17 August 2003. 32 Lendu headquarters (Pendruma): meeting with Floribert Njabu and Fleubert Umjabu. 17 Lubanga makes a speech to a crowd gathered outside in the village. 11 Kiley waiting in the deserted bar. 50 The driver takes Kiley back to town. Front for National Integration. Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011 13 The interview with Lubanga. Scene Description 1 Kiley and the children in the Bunya refugee camp. 12 Kiley travels to the meeting with Lubanga. 22 Videotape of the aftermath of an attack. 19 At the airfield: French special forces arrive. 2 Streets of Bunya. 8 The airstrip. 24 At the airport. 4 People on the streets/UN soldiers in Bunya. 49 Kiley on a bridge after the UN troops have left. and Kiley leaves. 44 Driving to see the informant. 18 Marching to villages. 15 In the car: Kiley is taken on a tour by Lubanga to see his subjects in the local village. 30 At the airport. 46 Back at the UN headquarters’ car park. 14 At Lubanga’s camp/boy soldier. 20 Kiley takes a trip to the edge of Bunya in a car. 27 Outside a local clinic. 38 In the aeroplane. 33 In the car with Fleubert Umjabu. 48 The UN troops encounter Lendu militia. 31 Flying to the Lendu base. Lolo. 40 At a clinic on the outskirts of a town in Uganda. 23 Interview with the daughter. 35 Interview with the first boy soldier (aged 14 years). 42 Demonstrations against the Congolese police in Bunya. 7 Tour of the town in the car. 16 At Lubanga’s village. Language Awareness 225 Appendix 4 Table A4. .