My fxxxing personality- swearing as slips and gaffes in live television broadcasts.pdf

7/29/2019 My fxxxing personality- swearing as slips and gaffes in live television broadcasts.pdf

1/28

My f***ing personality: swearing as slipsand gaffes in live television broadcasts*

CARLY W. BUTLER and RICHARD FITZGERALD

Abstract

This paper examines instances of swearing in live television broadcasts. While

some cable television shows routinely involve swearing without censorship

and recorded shows may include swearing bleeped out, our interest is in

instances of swearing in contexts where swearing is prohibited. We look at live

interviews and panel debates where swearing is clearly noticed and reacted to

stronglyand in all cases retracted or apologized for in some way. The ex-

amples we examine thus involve a participant visibly moving outside the

normative limits of the interaction, and as such reveal the boundaries that

serve as organizational structures for the interactions. Drawing on Goffmans

work on gaffes and slips and ethnomethodological conversation analysis, the

paper explores how swearing is treated by the participants as a practical con-

cern, and how swearing and its management implicates the identities and rela-

tionships of the participants and the specic context of the interaction. We

discuss how swearing in live broadcasts reveals the limits of authenticity within

informal, conversational interviews and debates.

Keywords: news interviews; live broadcast; expletives; ethnomethodology;

conversation analysis; Goffman.

1. Introduction

Swearingisoneofthestrongesttaboosonprimetimetelevisionandissubject

tostrictregulationsandharshpenalties(Chidester2004).Whileswearingcan

beeasilyavoidedorcensoredinpre-recordedshows,intheanythingcanhap-

pencontextoflivebroadcasts(Marriott2007)participantscandolittlemore

thanattendtotheirlanguageuseandremainmindfulofthecontextinwhichtheyspeak.Profanitiesandobscenitiesthatdoslipoutduringlivebroadcasts


2/28

526 Carly W. Butler and Richard Fitzgerald

aredescribedaseeting expletivesandcanleadtoheftynes.Inapressstate-

mentfollowinga recentFederationCommunicationsCommitteeruling,Fox

Newsstatedthatwhilewewillcontinuetostrivetoeliminateexpletivesfrom

livebroadcasts,theinherentchallengesbroadcastersfacewithlivetelevision,coupledwiththehumanelementrequiredformonitoring,mustallowforthe

unfortunate isolated instances where inappropriate language slips through

(Wyatt2010).

Theclaim,then,isthateetingexpletivesareslipsaccidentalandisolated

casesthatoccurthroughamomentarylackofself-monitoring.Thenotionthat

somewordsoractionsslipoutisaddressedbyGoffman,wholookedspe-

cicallyatsuchmomentsinhisworkonradiobroadcasttalkinForms of Talk

(1981).WithinadiscussionofblundersandbloopersmadebyDJsinliveradio

broadcasts,Goffmandistinguishedbetweenslips andgaffes. Slips,asGoffman

(1981)describesthem,areknows betterfaults,whichinclude

...breachesofthecanonsofpropergrammar,pronunciation,andwordusagethatthe

speakerhimself[sic]wouldordinarilyavoidautomatically(...)slipsaretobeseenasa

consequenceofconfusedproduction,accident,carelessness,andone-timemufngs

not as ignorance ofofcial standards orunderlying incompetence. (Goffman 1981:

209)

Gaffes,ontheotherhand,areexamplesofwhatGoffmandescribedasdoesnt

know better faults,thatis:

unintendedandunknowingbreachesinmannersorsomenormofgoodconduct

(...)Averyspecialignoranceisinadvertentlydisplayed,namely, ignoranceofwhat

onewouldhave toknowabout the rights and biography ofones coparticipants in

ordertoconductoneselfwithmoralsensibilityinregardtothem.(Goffman1981:210

211)

Goffmansclassicationoftheseerrorswasthusbasedonwhatthespeaker

wasunderstoodtoknowornotknowaboutcanonicalstandardsofconduct

and/orabouttheco-participantsinthiscase,theradiolisteners.However,as

Goffmansworkwasbasedonradiomonologuesratherthaninteraction,thereisadegreeofspeculationastowhatthespeakerknowsorintendsinrelationto

theproductionofthefault.WhiletheDJsdidworktorepair,orremedy,the

error,inmanycasessuchremedyingwasminimalanddidnotrevealthestatus

oftheblunderasaknowsbetterordoesntknowbetterfault.

Inthispaperweexamineswearinginbroadcastinterviewswhich,through

theirdialogicnature,allowanexaminationofhowboththespeakerand/orco-

presentparty(i.e.,thehostorinterviewer)treattheincidenceofswearingas

eitheraknowsbetterordoesntknowbetterfault.Weexamine,then,how

theuseofswearwordsis interactionallyproducedaseitherasliporagaffethroughtheproduction,accounting,andrepairofanexpletive.Fromthiswe


3/28

Swearing on live television 527

demonstratehowthematterofwhatthespeaker/intervieweeknowsinrela-

tiontothecodesofconductandtheirco-participantsisaresourceforrepair

that is used bymembers in the instance and aftermath of a swear on live

television.Goffman(1981:212213)proposedthatspeakerresponsestospeechfaults

consist of two parts: reaction (in the form of exhibited embarrassment,

chagrin,consternation,andthelike,externalisedasnoticationoragging)

and remedy (in the form of some corrective effort, both substantive and

ritualistic). In two-party interaction, the reaction and remedymay bedis-

tributed between participants. In the collection of interviews examined in

thispaper,speakersand/orlistenerstreatexpletivesasproblemsofspeaking,

whichSchegloff,Jefferson,andSacks(1977)treatasacaseforrepair.The

repairstreattheexpletivesassomethingthatshouldnotbesaidin this contextandassuch,thereaction(initiationofrepair)andremedy(therepairandsub-

sequentapologies)clearlyinvoketherelevanceofthesituationthespeakers

arein.

Therelevanceofacontextfortheproductionandtreatmentofexpletivesis

alludedtoinJefferson,Sacks,andSchegloffs(1987:160)discussionofinti-

macy,wheretheysuggestthatfrankness,rudeness,crudeness,profanity,ob-

scenity,etc.,areindicesofrelaxed,unguarded,spontaneous;i.e.intimateinter-

action.Theuseofsuchlanguagedemonstratesaspeakersunderstandingor

treatmentofaninteractionasaninformalandintimateone,andcanalsobe

usedtoinitiateamoveintointimacy.Fromthisperspective,swearingboth

reectsandcreatesthelocallyrelevantidentitiesandrelationshipoftheparties

toaninteraction.Swearingintheinstitutionalandpubliccontextofabroadcast

interview isclearlynot aseasily usedasresourceorsignierofmembers

relationships,andthisisparticularlythecasewhenparticipantsareboundby

institutionalizedrulesagainstswearing.Neverthelessourdatashowthatthe

localcontext,identities,andrelationshipsofthemembersbecomeforegrounded

whenanintervieweeordiscussantswearsonlivetelevision.Wesuggestthat

thisis,inpart,becausethelivetelevisioncontextsweexaminearefocusedon

therelationshipsbetweenpartiesandrelyonasenseofinformalityandopen-nessonbehalfoftheintervieweeordiscussant.

Twoofthemaintrendsthathaveemergedinrespecttobroadcastinterviews

arebothcharacterized through informality. Fairclough (1994)observed the

increasingconversationalizationofnewsdiscourse,which hasevolved into

amore informal studio environment and interactional styleofpresentation

(Montgomery2008).Thecelebritychatshowformatalsoemploysaninformal

styleofinterview(Tolson2001,2006)inwhichtheaudienceexperienceis

oftensetuptobelikelisteninginonachatbetween twofriendsas ratied

overhearers(Heritage1985;Hutchby2006).Thisinformalstyleofinterview-ingisseentoprovidealevelofgenuineness(Fairclough1994;Tolson2001),


4/28


where this achieved informality works to hide the institutional mediation

(Grusin2010)of the interviewandpromote thebroadcasttalkasauthentic

chat.However,despitetheairofinformalitythatcharacterizessomebroadcast

interactions,theinteractionremainsboundedasaninstitutionalencounterthatissubjecttoorganizationalrules(ClaymanandHeritage2002).Mostofthe

time,thisorganizationalframeworkrunsbeneaththesurfaceoftheinteraction

asagenerative,sense-makingapparatusthatisonlymadevisiblewhenexplic-

itlyorientedtobytheparticipants,asoccurswhensomebreachisnotedbythe

members.Forexample,intervieweescantreataninterviewersquestioningas

sohostileorrude that itwarrantsapremature terminationof the interview

achievedbywalkingout(LlewellynandButler2011).Inthispaperwedemon-

strate how instancesofswearinginlivebroadcast interviewsare treatedas

breachesof the organizationalapparatus of the setting, and thus reveal the

achievedauthenticityandinformalityoftheselivebroadcasts(Lundell2009;

Scannell2001;Tolson2006).

2. Dataandanalysis

Ourdataaredrawnfromliveinterviewsanddiscussionswhereguestsandin-

tervieweesutteranexpletive.Datawerecollectedfromexcerptsofbroadcasts

posted on the video-sharing websiteYouTube and were transcribed using

Jeffersonianconventions(Jefferson2004).Ethnomethodologicalconversation

analytictechniqueswereusedtoexaminethesequentialandcategoricalorga-

nizationoftheexcerptswithafocusonhowexpletivesweretreatedasslipsor

gaffes(Goffman1981).Theanalysisexamineshowparticipantsorienttothe

institutionalcontextinwhichtheirswearingoccursandhowswearingreveals

thelimitsofthearticeofinformalityofbroadcasttalk.

2.1. Gaffes

Thersttwoexamplesinvolvecelebritiesswearinginrelativelyinformalin-

terviewcontextsinwhichintervieweesareencouragedtobeauthenticinthe

senseofrevealingtheirtrueselvestotheviewingaudience.Ineachcase,the

swearingistreatedbyparticipantsasagaffeinthatthereisadisplayedmis-

understandingabouttherightsandbiographyofonesco-participantsinorder

toconductoneselfwithmoralsensibilityinregardtothem(Goffman1981:

211),thatis,thattheviewingaudiencearelive.Thematterofwhetherthe

speakersknowbetterornotisanachievedstatus,integrallyrelatedtodis-playedunderstandingsofthecontext.


5/28


Example(1)isfromaredcarpetinterviewwiththeactorHelenMirren.

Sky News UK interviewer (IR)Matt Smith introducesMirren to the audi-

enceandthenannouncestoMirren,wereliveonskynews(lines1and

2).

(1) HelenMirren,Sky News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ULpRnDrGjQ

1 IR: Ah:andhereisHelenMirrenwhoplays

2 theleadrolewereliveonskynews

3 Mirren: Hithere,

4 IR: (Butalso)[pleasedont ]swear.Butyou=

5 Mirren: [Howareyou.]

6 IR: =dontsweardo[you.

7 Mirren: [Peopledontswear?

8 Fucking[never

9 IR: [*No::::*((holdspaperover

10 Mirrensmouth))

11 IR: hihhehYouonc:eyouonc:esworeinone

12 ofmylivesyouvedoneitagain.[Hahhah

13 Mirren: [Isit

14 live?.HH((openmouth))

15 IR: YehWewereinthe(camp)[(---------)

16 Mirren: [Idoapologise.

17 Totheaud[ience.Iw-thatwasajoke=

18 IR: [(--)-

19 Mirren: =Itakeitback,thatwasanappallingthing

20 todo.Idoapologise.

Aninformal chatty framefor the interview isestablishedwithMirrens re-

sponsetotheintroductionwithagreetinghithere,howareyou(lines3

and5).TheintervieweraddsarequestforMirrentonotswear,followedby

whatwelaterlearnisapointedquestionbutyoudontsweardoyou?(lines4and6).Mirrendisplaysamishearingwithherrepeat,peopledontswear?

followedbytheemphaticallydeliveredresponsefuckingnever.Withher

ironicresponseMirrendisplaysanunderstandingofthisasaninformaland

jokeycontext.

The interviewer responds immediately with a high pitched no::: and

moveshispapersinfrontofMirrensface(Figure1).Thisvocalandembodied

responsecrytargetstheswearasproblematicandMirrenturnstothecamera

(Figure2)witheyebrowsraisedandherhandoverhermouth,displayingan

understandingoftheproblemwithherresponsebeingrelatedtotheviewingaudience.


6/28


The interviewer continueswith an account of a previous live interview inwhichMirren had sworn, and a reproach(youvedone itagain)which

offersbothMirrenandtheaudiencesomecontextforhisinitialquestionbut

youdontsweardoyou?.Withherclaricationrequest,isitlive?(Figure

3),Mirrenattendstothecontextinwhichshehasswornonlivetelevision.

Her openmouthembodiesa shocked reaction.The displayof surpriseand

claricationrequestoperateasaccountsforswearingMirrendidnotknow

thebroadcastwaslive.Thusitisnottheswearingbuttheunderstandingofthe

contextthatrevealsthecauseoftheproblem.

InGoffmansterms,Mirrentreatsherswearasagaffeanunintendedandunknowingbreachinmannersorsomenormofgoodconduct,thatisex-

Figure1. No::::::! (line 9)

Figure2. Mirren turns to the camera


7/28


plained in termsof ignoranceofwhatonewould have toknow about the

rightsandbiographyofonescoparticipantsinordertoconductoneselfwith

moral sensibility in regard to them (1981:210211).Mirren displaysher

ignorancewithrespecttothelivenessoftheaudienceamisunderstandingaboutwhowouldhearherswearing(ratherthanableepedword).Theimplica-

tionisthatMirrenwouldnothaveswornifshehadbeenawarethatheraudi-

encewerewatchinglive.Whiletheinterviewersreactioninvolveschastising

andcensoringMirren,Mirrensreactionisanexhibitedchagrin(Goffman

1981),withherapologyservingasaritualisticremedy.

Astheinterviewerbeginstorecountafurtherstoryaboutherpastswearing,

Mirrenreturnshergazetothecameraanddeliversanapologyexplicitlyad-

dressedtotheaudience(lines16and17;Figure4).Sheaccountsforherswear-

ingasbeingajoke,attemptsaretraction(Itakeitback),andassessesher

actionasappalling.Atline20Mirrenreturnshergazetotheinterviewerand

apologizesdirectlytohim.

Throughherdirectgazetothecameraandexplicitapologytotheaudience

(line17),Mirrenorientstotheviewersasratiedparticipants(Hutchby2006).

WhilewithhisaccountofMirrenspastswearinginoneof(his)lives(lines

11and12)theinterviewertreatsMirrensgaffeasimpactingonhimperson-

ally,Mirrenattendsprimarilytotheoverhearingaudienceasthepotentially

offendedpartyandonlyapologizestotheintervieweraftertheapologytothe

audience.AssuggestedbySchegloff(2005:452),thecomplainabilityofan

actioniscontingentupontheidentityoftheagentsandtherecipientsoftheconduct.Whiletheinterviewercanbeseentobecomplainingbyhisresponse

Figure3. Is it live? (lines 13 and 14)


8/28


cryandbyblockingMirrensmouth,Mirrenorientsinitiallytotheaudience

asthe recipientsand asthe oneswhodetermine the complainability ofher

conduct.

Insum,MirrensswearresultedinamarkedreactionbytheIR,whichwas

treatedasarepairinitiator.MirrensoughtforanaccountfortheIRsreaction,

whichwas then incorporatedinher repair (the retraction)and remedy (the

apology).Withherapology,Mirrenembodiesaclaimtohaveoffendedsome-

one(Robinson2004:305)andacknowledgespersonalresponsibilityforhav-

ingdoneso.Throughthisdisplayednoticingandthefollowingrepairwork,

Mirrenshowsherunderstandingofhavingbreachedanormthatonedoes

notswearonlivebroadcasts.Mirrenproducesherswearingasagaffeinthat

shesuggestsshedidnotknowbetter(i.e.,knowthatheraudiencewerewatch-

inglive)atthemomentoftheswear.Yet,theredcarpetcontext,andindeedthe

announcementoftheinterviewerthattheyarelive(line2),provideconditions

underwhichMirrenmightbestronglyexpectedtoknowbetter from the

outset. Both swearing and liveness have beenmade relevant andMirrensswearappearstobebothdeliberateandknowing.However,ratherthanassume

whatMirrenactuallydoesordoesnotknowaboutthecontext,orwhatherin-

tentionwasinswearing,ourfocusisinsteadonhowsheherselfaccountsfor

swearing.Byseekingconrmationastowhethertheinterviewwaslive,Mir-

renusesnot knowingasanaccountandthroughthisaccomplishesatreatment

oftheswearasagafferatherthananaccidentalslip.

Theachievedstatusofaswearasagaffeisalsoevidentinthenextexample

inwhichtheinterviewee,JoanRivers,swearsemphaticallyfordramaticeffect.

LiketheMirrenexample,theuseofanexpletiveisorientedtoasabreachandaccountablebyvirtueofthelivenessoftheinterview.

Figure4. I do apologise. To the audience. (lines 16 and 17)


9/28


(2) JoanRivers,Loose Women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOpquHD4HJQ

1 Host: >Isthat-isthatso-


10/28


Inansweringthehost,Riversseeksoutthecameratodeliverthepunchline,in

anenactmentofwhatshewantstosaytothecamera(line11,i.e.,theaudi-

ence)withpeoplelikeRussellCrowe.Sheisheardtobeabouttodoa

confessionbyrevealingwhatshewouldliketosay,butusuallycannotbecauseofbroadcastand interpersonalconstraints.Afterbeginningherhypothetical

reportedspeechwithyouareapieceofshecutsthisofftodeliverawarning,

getreadytobleepthis,(Figure5)beforeshecompletesherimaginedinsult

toCrowewithfuckingshit(lines11and12).Thereisloudlaughterfromthe

liveaudience,andfromthepanelmemberswhohaveshockedexpressions,

withsomeputtingtheirhandsovertheirmouths(Figure6).

Figure5. Get ready to bleep this (line 12)

Figure6. Panel members react


11/28


Riversswarningsuggestsherunderstandingofthecontextandthatswearing

may be potentially inappropriate, but also that the technological ability to

bleepgiveshersomelicensetoswear.Afterthestrongreactionsfromthepanel

andaudienceRiverslooksaroundwithanopenmouthandnods.Atthispoint,thereispotentiallysomeambiguityastothereasonforthepanelsreaction

whichmaybearesponsetotheextremityofthenegativeassessmentofCrowe,

ratherthantheuseoftheexpletive.

Over the roar of the audience which displays their appreciation (Mont-

gomery2000),thehostapologizes(line15)withaninstitutionalwe(Watson

1986), positioning the broadcaster as author of the swearing and demon-

stratingthebroadcastersresponsibilityforRiverssactions.Thehostappears

todelivertheapologytocamera,butasawideshotcameraangleisused,

the apology isnot clearly seenbythe homeaudience. Inoverlapwith this

apology,Rivers justiesher swearingby saying thatshe saidget ready to

bleep (lines 16 and 17), which challenges the treatment of her swear as

complainable.Anumberofpanelmembersthenrespondinoverlaptoclar-

ify they dont have a bleeper, which sparks a further burst of laughter,

andleadsonepanelmembertoputherhandsoverherface(Figure7).There

is then a tight shot on themain host (Figure 8) who looks composed and

camera-readywhendeliveringthesecond,andthenathirdandfourthapol-

ogy(line26), followedbyanaccount aroundRiverss lack ofunderstand-

ingaboutthefactthattheyareabsolutelylive,andthenafthandnal

apology (line29).This emphatic series of apologies is directed straight to

theviewersathome,andasearlier,isauthoredbytheinstitutionalwethe

broadcasters.

Figure7. We do apologise (line 24)


12/28


Riverssswear,likeMirrens,isproducedandtreatedasagaffe.Theswear-

ing occurredbecauseofsomedisplayed (mis)understanding about the con-

text of the interview and recipients of the expletivethe panel members

and live audience, but not the audience at home.Riverss justication for

swearing(in thatshehadaggedableep-ablepriorto its delivery)dem-

onstratesherorientationtothecontext,withthesubsequentmanagementof

theexpletivedisplayingamisunderstandingthataccountsforthebreachof

norms.

So,Riverssaccountforswearingsuggestsshedoesntknowbetterinthat

shewas not aware that her co-participants (i.e., the home audience) were

watchinglive-to-airandwouldhearherswearingratherthanableep.Riverss

justicationdenies responsibility for having caused offence.An apology is

deliveredtotheaudiencebythehost,onbehalfofthebroadcastersthemselves,

throughwhichthehosttakesresponsibilityfortheoffensiveconductaswellas

minimizingRiverssculpability.SowhereasMirrensswearingwasdealtwith

throughaprocessofother-initiatedself-repairandself-remedy,Riverssswear-ingwasnotrepairedintermsofaretractionandwasremediedbythehost.

Throughboththepanelsreactionsandthehostsapology,Riverssconductis

treatedasbreachingthenormsthatorganizetheliveinterviewandassuchre-

vealsthesenormsasoperational.Inthisinstance,itisthehostwhoemphasizes

Riversasnotknowingandproducestheswearingasagaffethatwouldnot

havehappenedhadRiversbeenawareofthelivenessoftheinterview.Again,

thespecicsofwhy aspeakeractually swore,andwhattheywereorwerenot

awareofarenotaccessibletousbutwecanseehowcharacterizingtheuse

ofanexpletiveasagafferatherthanaslipissomethingthatparticipantsac-tivelyaccomplish.

Figure8. We do apologise for that (lines 26/28)


13/28


2.2. Slips

Comparedtogaffes,slipsareinstanceswherethespeakerdisplaysthatthey

doinfactknowbetterandthattheexpletivewasaccidental.Thepotentialtotreattheirswearingasaccidental,whetherornottheydidactuallyknow

better, can be used as a resourceby interviewees.The next extractexem-

plies this: after swearing by the interviewee (Keaton) ismade noticeable

by the interviewers (Sawyer)physicalreaction,Keatonattemptsto remedy

theproblemquicklyandcarryonwiththeinterviewasnormal.Indoingso,she

treatstheswearasanaccident,ratherthantheresultofignoranceaboutthe

context.

(3) DianeKeaton,Good Morning America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnIu5CZNfDw&feature=PlayList&p=

8166C01D843585D1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

1 Keaton: ...Idliketohavelipslikethat.

2 Aud: ((laughter))

3 Keaton: ThenIwouldnthaveworkedonmy

4 fuckingpersonality.>Ormy-Iknow


14/28


alternativephrasing(ormy,line4)butcutsthisofftoinsertanapologetic

scuseme (line5), before doingadeletionrepair byrepeating the phrase

without the swearword.Keaton then immediately continueswithher turn,

makingfurtherjokesaboutherlipswhileSawyercontinuestolaugh.Inthis

way,Keatonpushesonpasttheswearingandcontinueswiththeinterview,

therebyminimizing the potential disruptivenessof her language.However,

SawyerusesKeatonsrhetoricalquestionaboutherlipsatline13(whatamI

goingtodo?)asanopportunitytomentionKeatonslanguage,byusingan

idiomaticreferencetoSawyersmotherwashing(her)mouthoutwithsoap

asareproach.InitiallyKeatontreatsthisasajoke,beforeacknowledgingthe

moralimproprietyofherlanguage(Iknow),deliveringafurtherminimal

apology(excuseme)andthenaself-reproach(Ishouldntsayanythinglike

that,lines18and19).

Therearenodirectapologiestotheliveorstudioaudience,andneitheristhereanyaccountingworkdonebyKeaton.WhileKeatonsapology,repair,

andacknowledgementthatsheshouldntsaythingslikethatattendtothe

swearingasinappropriate,thecontextisnotexplicitlyinvoked.Thereareno

displaysofmisunderstandingsabouttherecipientsoftheexpletiveorofthe

institutionalcontextofthebroadcast.Inthissense,Keatonsswearingistreated

asaslipratherthanagaffeasitisaknowsbetterfault(Goffman1981)

andisdescribedassuch(lines18and19).Itisaconsequenceofaccident,

carelessnessnotasignoranceofofcialstandardsorunderlyingincompe-

tence(Goffman1981:209).However,thestatusoftheexpletiveasaslipisonlyevidentinthemanagementoftheswearingbybothparties.Keatononly

Figure9. Sawyer reacts to Keatons expletive (line 4)


15/28


beginsher repairafterSawyerspointednoticingags theneedforremedial

work.Sawyersreactioniscriticalinmakingrelevantthematterofwhetheror

notKeatonshouldknowbetter.

Whiletheinteractionalcontextisnotexplicitlyorientedinthiscase,bothKeatonandSawyerattributetheexpletivetoapersonalshortcoming,suggest-

ingcarelessness.Despitenopartyhaltingtheproceedingsinordertodirectly

apologizetotheaudience,andKeatonsattempttopushthroughandcontinue

withthestory,Sawyerorientstoandmaintainstherelevanceoftheswearing

inawaywhichdisruptstheprogressivityoftheinterview.Thenextexample

alsoshowshowaslipdisruptstheprogressivityofaliveteleviseddiscussion.

Example(4) involvesnancialjournalist/commentatorCharlieGasparino

swearingduringadiscussiononCNBCPower Lunch.Theuseoftheswear

wordfollowsasarcasticcommentfromcommentatorDonnieDeutschregard-

inggivingbonusestoWallStreetexecutives.Whereasinthepreviousexample

KeatonappearedtoonlyinitiaterepairfollowingSawyersembodiedreaction,

hereGasparinobothinitiatesandcarriesouttherepairofhisturn,displaying

hisownnoticingofhavingbreachedanorm.

(4) CharlieGasparino,CNBCPower Lunch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yzOjyeuoD0

1 CG: Thesegu:ysdidsomeingthatwasso:

2 s:toopid.[.hh

3 DD: [Soletsbo:nusem.

4 (0.8)

5 CG: [Letsno:tbonusem.=

6 Host: [hihh

7 DD: =Bo:nusem.[Theydidrea:llygood- ]

8 CG: [Thatsnotevenbythe]way

9 DD: O:b[viously.

10 CG: [(Thatsnoteve).hh[

11 Host: [Hes-(.)

12 [hes-hessothatplay]ingdevils[a:dvocate13 CG: [Bo-yknowbo-] [Youknowheres

14 thething.[Thebo:nus:]thebo:nus:question,=

15 Host: [Igottago ]

16 CG: =(0.5)w-shweshouldntbeTA:lkinga[boutit.

17 DD: [Exactly.

18 CG: Itsas:too:p[idfuck>op


16/28


23 CG: [Imsorry. ]

24 Host: [Youreagr]ee:ingwereleavingitthere

25 (0.2)

26 Host: [Were-youreagreeing.27 CG: [Imso:rry.

28 (0.3)

29 Host: Th[atsit.

30 CG: [Imsorry.

31 (0.2)

32 Host: ikHAHHAHHAH.HH(Ch(h)a(hh)rlie(hh)[.hh

33 CG: [You

34 cantputme[o(h)ntheshow.$

35 Host: [Tha:nk-

36 Host: Thankyou[Cha:rlie.=

37 ??: [(-------------)

38 CG: =Im[s:orry.

39 ??: [(-----)

40 Host: ihahhih[hahhahhah.hhhah.hh

41 CG: [Imsorry.

42 Host: Ch[arliesagreeing.

43 ??: [Hello:you:tube.

44 Host: $.hihyikeshe:rewe[go.$

45 CG: [(Itsmyfault.)

46 ??: O:kay.

47 Host: ihhihhah

48 ??: Where[werewenow.

49 Host: [Um

50 Host: Letssee.

51 (0.3)

52 Host: [Letstryan-.hh

53 BG?: [Tryfora(recess)shallwe?

Inlines115GasparinorespondstoDeutschssarcasminapo-facedmanner

(Drew1987), usingittoescalate the deliveryofhis position.After getting

agreementfromDeutschthattheyshouldntevenbetalkingaboutit(line

16),Gasparinocontinuesandisonhiswaytocharacterizingitasastupid

fuckingdebate.However,Gasparinosexpletiveiscutoffbeforeitisfully

said(droppingtheprojectedingattheendoffuck).Heproducesacom-

pressedversionofoops(op)beforerepeatinghisturnwiththeswearword

removedadeletionrepairsimilartoKeatonsinExcerpt(3).Inthiscase,the

repair isnot promptedby the reactionofothers,whichonly happens afterGasparinohasproducedamodiedversionofhisturn(line21).Bycuttingthe


17/28


expletiveoffmid-courseGasparinoattemptstodrivethrough(Goffman1981)

andminimizeattentiontotheswearword.Indoingsohetreatsitasaslip,as

somethinginappropriatebutaccidental.

Deutschrespondswithanemphaticwowasresponsecry(Goffman1981)and turnsto theotherparticipantsin the studio,askingdidhe?(line21),

withoutformulatingtheactiondone.Deutschsconrmation-seekingquestion

orientsperhapstoGasparinoscoveringupwork.Gasparinothendeliversan

apology,whichservesasanacknowledgementthathedid(swear),recogni-

tionofthisasacomplainable,andremedyforhisswearing.Notably,thisrem-

edyisnotdoneuntilaftertheexpletivewasnoticedbyothers.

Figure10. Youre agreeing were leaving it there (line 24)

Figure11. Panel members laugh


18/28


InoverlapwithGasparinosapology,thehostattemptstoclosethediscussion

altogether, saying were leaving it there (Figure 10). She focuses on the

apparentagreement between the correspondents, albeitwith a smileand in

line32withlaughter,whileofferingagentlereproachwiththeaddresstermCharlie.The otherpanelmembers also laugh (Figure 11).Gasparino re-

peatedly apologizes, and offers the self-deprecation you cant put me on

theshow(lines33and34).ThroughthisGasparinopositstheproblemas

apersonaldeciencythatispartofhisownbiography(cf.Goffman1981),

similar toKeatons self-blame inExtract (3).Gasparino displaysanunder-

standingthatswearingiswrongandthatit isinappropriatetoswearin this

publiccontext,butthathecannothelpitandthereforeshouldnotbeinvitedto

speakinsuchpubliccontexts.

Gasparinos apologies are directed to the host and otherpanelmembers

ratherthantheaudience.Thehostdoesnottopicalizetheuseoftheexpletive,

whichcontrastswiththeRiversexamplewherethehostpositionedherselfand

thebroadcastersasauthorsbydeliveringanapologytotheaudience.However

atline43,anotherpanelmembersayshelloyoutube,inrecognitionofthis

beingthesortofblooperthatendsuponthevideo-sharingsite.Thereisthen

anorientationtothepossiblefutureviewingaudience,incontrasttothedirect-

to-audienceapologiesinExtracts(1)and(2).Here,livenessisnottreatedas

theproblemperse,buttheconsequenceofthatliveness(i.e.,thatGasparinos

swearcannotbedeleted)becomesrelevant.Thediscussionisthenbroughtto

anend,butitisclearthatGasparinosexpletivedisruptedtheintendedprogres-

siontowardthisclosinganddelayeditduetothereactionsofthemembersand

Gasparinosmultipleapologies.

Acrossallcasesdiscussedsofar,theidentitiesoftheparticipantstheaudi-

ence,hosts,and/ortheswearerthemselvesaremaderelevant.Inthecaseof

gaffes,therelationshipbetweenmemberswashighlighted(inparticularthat

betweeninterviewee/broadcasterandaudience),whereasinslipsthepersonal

qualities(ordeciencies)oftheswearerweredrawnoninaccountingforthe

instanceoftheswear.Althoughswearingisconsistentlytreatedasabreach,the

notionthatswearinginvokesasenseofintimacybetweenmembersisalsoap-parentacrossallcases.Instancesofswearingwereproducedaspartofconfes-

sional,personal,oremotionallychargedtalk.KeatonsandGasparinosac-

countsfortheirslipswereusedtodofurtherintimatetalkinthattheyrevealed

personalaws.

Inthenalexample,theinstitutionalidentityoftheswearerasprimeminis-

terismaderelevantaspartofthetreatmentoftheswearasabreach.Thedis-

juncturebetweenthecategorymembershipof thespeakerand theactionof

swearingisusedas a resource forestablishingasenseofintimacy.Theextract

istakenfromaninterviewwiththethenAustralianPrimeMinisterKevinRuddontheSunday Nightshowduringthe20082009globalnancialcrisis.The


19/28


studioaudiencewaslargelycomposedofpeoplemaderedundantafteralarge

clothingmanufacturercloseddownandrelocatedabroad.Theextractistaken

fromaresponsetoaninterviewersquestionregardingthegovernmentsstim-

uluspackage.(5) KevinRudd,Sunday Night

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JPGfSNryzw

1 Rudd: ...Youeithersitbackasgovernment,(0.7)and

2 donothing;(0.3)andjustwaitforthe

3 freemarkettoxitallup.hhhOryoustep

4 in,(0.3)andtryandllthebrea:ch(0.3)for

5 atemporaryperiod.Andthatmeanstemporary

6 bo:rrowings.

7 IR1: .hhMis[ter-8 Rudd: [>SoIneed


20/28


(atline15).Ruddthusdisplayshisrecognitionofhavingmadesomebreach,

andhislaughter,quicknoticing,andself-repairindicateatreatmentofthis

asaslip.Theswearingismanagedasaknowsbetterfault(Goffman1981),

causedbycarelessnessratherthanalackofunderstandingaboutthecontextandco-participants.Interviewer1participatesinthisframingoftheswearingas

aslip,withherresponsewhoopsandgrimacingexpressiondeliveredtothe

camera(Figure13)orientingtotheswearasbothaccidentalandinappropriate.

Interviewer2(line14)thenturnstothestudioaudiencetodeliveramockre-proachwiththeaddresstermPrimeMinister! (Figure14).Indoingso,he

Figure12. Sorry (line 11)

Figure13. Whoops (line 13)


21/28


makesrelevantthedisjuncturebetweenthecategorialmembershipofRuddas

primeministerandtheactionofswearing.Theaudiencebeginstolaugh,perhaps

inorientationtotheinterviewersselectionofthemthroughgaze.Thecamera

turnstotheaudience,andthenbacktoRuddwhoabandonshisprojectedcon-tinuation(withsoatline15)andlookstowardtheaudiencewithasmileand

raisedhandwhilemouthingsomethingindiscernibletothem(Figure15).

Interviewer1makesmovestoprogresstheinterviewbybringinganother(re-

mote)guestLindsayFoxintotheinterview(line18).Hervoiceissmiley

throughoutandsheendsupabandoningherturnwhenshebeginstolaugh,andis joined by the other interviewerindoingso.The audience applauds, and

Figure14. Prime Minister! (line 14)

Figure15. Rudd responds to audience laughter and applause


22/28


continuestodosofornearlyvesecondsbeforeIR1successfullybringsMis-

terFoxintotheinterview.

Similartoearlierexamples,Ruddsswearingdisrupts theprogressivityof

theinterview.However,itistreatedasahumorousincidentratherthananof-fensiveone.Whereasinpreviousexamplestheaudiencewereratiedthrough

apologieswhichtreatedtheswearingascomplainableandpotentiallyoffen-

sivetoviewers,inthiscasetheengagementoftheaudienceisfocusedaround

theentertainmentvalueoftheprime ministerswearing.WhileIR2smockre-

proachmaybeseenasanorientationtoRuddsswearingascomplainable,it

doesnotdoanapologyandisusedprimarilytoinvitetheaudiencetorespond.

AfterIR1 re-initiates the entryofMr.Fox into the interview,Ruddself-

selectstoaddressFox,IminrealstrifeLindsaydigmeoutandindoingso,

positionshimselfas someone in trouble,whichhighlights rather thanmini-

mizesthefactthatheswore.Indeed,Ruddmakesthisappealincompetition

withIR1fortheoor,therebyextendingtherelevanceofhisswearingrather

thanattendingtotheIRsmovestoprogresstheinterview.

WhileRudds swearingendsupdisrupting the progressivityof the inter-

view,thereactionsbuildafliationbetweenRuddandtheaudience.AsEriks-

son(2009)suggests,audiencelaughterinpoliticaldiscussionprogramscanbe

treatedasaresourcebywhichtheaudienceisseenasgivingsupportfora

politiciansideasorposition,andcanmomentarilyrelaxtheformalityof the

event.Inthesemoments,Eriksson(2009:917)suggestslaughterallowsthe

personaltobeglimpsedandacommongroundtobecreated.Thecommonality

andafliationinthisexamplehingesontheinformalspacecreatedbetween

theaudienceandtheprimeministerthroughtheuseofaswearword,through

thephysicalorientationtotheliveaudience,andthroughthesmilingapology.

Ruddpresentshimselfandistreatedasanordinarypersonwhoswearsin

spiteofhismembershipasprimeminister.Hemaintainsthissenseofordinari-

nessbyusingMr.FoxsrstnameandtheAustraliancolloquialismsstrife

anddigmeout.

3. Discussion

DrawingonGoffman (1981),wehave discussed howdistinctions between

swearingasacaseofknowingbetterslipsornotknowingbettergaffesare

interactionallyproducedandmaderelevant.Theincidenceofswearingand

subsequentresponsetoandmanagementoftheexpletive,maderelevantthe

contextoftheinteractionasalivemediabroadcast.Insomecasestherewasan

explicitorientationtothecontextthroughapologiestotheaudience(Extracts

[1]and[2])ortalkaboutbeingontheshow(Extract[3]),whileinotherin-stancestheseorientationsweremoreimplicit.Therepairs,displaysofshock,


23/28


laughter,andreproachesbyselfandothersthatfollowedacaseofswearing

demonstratedtherelevanceoftheinteractionalcontextviaanorientationtothe

normsthatgovernconductintheseenvironments.

The interactional management of swearing reveals the practicalities ofrecipientdesignissuespeopleproducetheirtalkwithanorientationtothe

specicsofthepersonthattheyareaddressing.Expletivesthemselvesarenot

problematicitis thecontextinwhich theyareused(includingwhothere-

cipientandlistenersare)thatshapeshowtheyaretreated.Inthecaseofmedia

interviews,recipiencyismorecomplicatedthanitisinstandardmulti-party

talk,astalkisdesignedfortheoverhearingaudience.Extracts(1)and(2)(Mir-

renandRivers)demonstratetherelevanceoftheaudiencetowhatgoesonin

theinterview.InHutchbys(2006:14)terms,theaudienceareratiedasdis-

tributedparticipants.Whenanintervieweeswears,therightsandbiographies

(Goffman1981)ofthelive audience,whichtypicallyremainopaqueininter-

views,aredirectlyinvoked.InExtracts(1)and(2)thelaughableaspectsofthe

swearingdemonstrateanindiscretionthatlendsitselftothegossipyinformal

statusachievedintheseformats.Whiletheaudienceisapologizedtoasapos-

sibleupset recipient, there isalso a sense that the audience is treated toa

glimpseintotherealbackstagebehaviorofthecelebrity.

Amongtheseexamples,theaudiencewasexplicitlyorientedtoincasesthat

wereproducedasgaffesratherthanslips.Withgaffestheintervieweeistreated

asnottakingintoaccounttheirrecipientsandtheswearingistreatedasacom-

plainablefortheviewingaudience.Therewaslittleorientationtotherecipients

inthecaseofslips,wherebythespeakersself-initiatedrepairontheirexpletive

andattemptedtodriveonthroughtheturn.Ineachcase,thespeakeroftheslip

performedasame-turndeletionrepair,suggestinganorientationtothespeaker,

ratherthantherecipients,asproblematic.Althoughitisthecompositionofthe

recipients(i.e.,theliveviewingaudience)andrelationshipbetweenthemand

thespeakerthatmakethespeakersslipproblematic(i.e.,swearingmightgo

unnoticedandunrepairedinconversationsthespeakerhaswithintimates),this

isnotwhatisattendedtointhetalksubsequenttotheswearing.Ineachcaseof

a slip, the intervieweewas reproachedKeaton was advised towash hermouthoutwithsoap,whereasGasparinoandRuddwereaddressedinatone

thatintimatedmisbehavior.Ineachcase,theintervieweeorientedtotheslipas

apersonalmatter.Therewerenoexternallyprovidedaccountssuchasalack

ofunderstandingaboutthecontextandinsteadtheintervieweeaccountedfor

themselvesandattendedtotheirownresponsibilityfortheirconduct.

Acrossallthecasestherewasanorientationtoswearingasoffensiveand

complainableconduct.Whetherornotanactionistreatedasoffensiveiscon-

textuallybound,andintheseexamplesthecontextoftheinterviewandidenti-

tiesoftheparticipantsareinvokedaspartofthemanagementoftheswearing.AsSchegloffsuggests,thecomplainabilityofsomeformofconductcanbe


24/28


contingentontheidentityoftheagentsandtherecipientsoftheconduct

identitiesoftengroundedincategorymemberships(Schegloff2005:452;see

alsoStokoe2009;StokoeandEdwards2007).Inthecaseofgaffes,thecontin-

gencyofthesituatedrelevanceofmembershipswithinaudience /broadcaster/intervieweecategorieswasusedintreatingswearingascomplainableconduct.

Withslips,itisbyvirtueofthemembersparticipationwithintheinterview

that the incidenceofswearingisproblematic, but itismoreaboutwho the

speakers are rather thanwhat they are doing that ismade relevant. In the

KeatonandGasparinoexamples,institutionalcategorymembershipswerenot

explicitlyinvokedasthebasisforthecomplainabilityoftheconduct,andper-

sonalratherthancategoricalaccountswereprovided.Bycontrast,intheRudd

example,therewasinterplaybetweenthepersonalandcategorical.Thebroad-

castcontextwasnotexplicitlyinvokedasanaccountforcomplainability,and

therewasagreaterfocusontheidentityofthespeakerratherthantheirrela-

tionshipwiththeaudience(atleastonthesurface).But,incontrastwithother

examples,Ruddsmembershipas prime ministerwashighlightedastherele-

vantgroundsonwhichtomakesenseofandassesshisswearing.Itisthrough

theseorientationstocontextandmembershipthataccountabilityismanaged,

revealingthelocallyrelevantandconstructedinteractionalorder.

Thedisruptioncausedbyparticipantsorientationstotheswearingwasnot

merelysequentialinthattheinterviewitselfwasputonholdtomanagerepair

andaccountability,butalsodisruptiveintermsoftheparticipationframework

oftheinterview.Swearingcouldleadtodirectaddressestotheviewingaudi-

ence,makingtheinteractionalcontextanditsdistributedparticipantssalient.

Mediainterviewsanddiscussionstypicallycarryonwithoutorientationsto

theoverhearingaudience,despitetheseeventsbeingdesignedthroughoutfor

thisaudience(Heritage1985).Thematterofwho-we-are-and-what-we-are-

doingtypicallycarriesonasanunderlyingandunstatedorganizationallyrel-

evantcategorizationdevice.Whenaninstanceofswearingleadstoanexplicit

invocationofthecontext,itbringsthisotherwiseimplicitdeviceintosharp

reliefanddemonstratestheomnirelevance(Sacks1995)ofthelivemediain-

terviewdevice.Allactionwithinthisboundedencountercanbe,andis,under-stoodbyreferencetothisdevice.

Inthesemoments,theveilofinformalityandchattinessthatcharacterizes

theinterviewsisrevealedassomethingofafacade.Swearingopensatear

inthefabricoftheencounterandrevealstheinstitutionalframeworkthatbinds

theinteractiontogetherandtowhichallconductisaccountable.Swearingis

treatedasback-stageconductthatinadvertentlyandinappropriatelyslipsonto

thefrontstage(Goffman1959).Theactcouldbeseentounderminetheillu-

sionofbackstaged-nessthattheinformalinterviewpresents.Whileinviting

andpromotinganhonestpresentationofself,theaftermathofabriefexpletiveshowsusthattherearestillboundariesaroundwhatsortofselfcanbepre-


25/28


sentedinthisunremittinglyfront-stagecontext(Goffman1959).However,the

boundarybetweenfront-stageandback-stageselfisblurredandtestedinthese

moments.These glimpses of extreme back-stage behavior in a front-stage

eventprovideasenseofplayfulness,whichmayaccountfortheattractiontheyholdforaudiencemembersatthetime,and,intheageofYouTube,formonths

andyearstocome.1

Appendix:transcriptionconventions

BasedonJefferson(2004).

[ ] Squarebracketsshowthebeginningandendofoverlappingspeech.

= Nobreakorgapbetweenorwithinturns

: Soundbeforecolonisstretched.

(0.2) Lengthofsilencetonearesttenthofasecond

(.) Micropause(lessthan0.2seconds)

Ashiftintoveryhighorlowpitch

. Falling,nalintonation

, Slightlyrising,continuingintonation

? Risingorquestioningintonation

Slightlyrisingintonation

>


26/28


1. Wethankananonymousreviewerforthispointandtheireloquentdiscussionoftheludicpos-

sibilitiesofswearingininterviews.

References

Chidester,Tresea.2004.Whatthe#$%&ishappeningontelevision?Indecencyinbroadcasting.

CommLaw Conspectus 13(1).135167.

Clayman,Steven&JohnHeritage.2002.The news interview: Journalists and public gures on the

air.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Drew,Paul.1987.Pofacedreceiptsandteases.Linguistics25(1).219253.

Eriksson,Goran.2009.Themanagementofapplauseandlaughterinlivepoliticalinterviews.

Media, Culture & Society31(6).901920.

Fairclough,Norman.1994.Conversationalizationofpublicdiscourseandtheauthorityofthecon-

sumer.InRussellKeat,NigelWhiteley&NicholasAbercrombie(eds.), The authority of the

consumer, 253268.London:Routledge.

Goffman,Erving.1959.The presentation of self in everyday life.NewYork:Doubleday.

Goffman,Erving.1981.Forms of talk.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

Grusin, Richard. 2010.Premediation, affect and mediality after 9/11. Basingstoke: Palgrave

McMillan.

Heritage,John.1985.Analyzingnewsinterviews:Aspectsoftheproductionoftalkforanover-

hearingaudience.InTeunA.vanDijk(ed.),Handbook of discourse analysis,95117.London:

AcademicPress.

Hutchby,Ian.2006.Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting.Bucking-

ham:OpenUniversityPress.

Jefferson,Gail.2004.Glossaryoftranscriptsymbolswithanintroduction.InGeneH.Lerner(ed.),

Conversation analysis: Studies from the rst generation, 1331.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:

JohnBenjamins.

Jefferson,Gail,HarveySacks&EmanuelA.Schegloff.1987.Notesonlaughterinthepursuitof

intimacy.InGrahamButton&JohnR.E.Lee(eds.),Talk and social organisation,152205.

Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Llewellyn,Nick&CarlyW.Butler.2011.Walkingoutonair.Research on Language and Social

Interaction 45.4464.

Lundell,AsaK.2009.Thedesignandscriptingofunscriptedtalk:Livenessversuscontrolina

TVbroadcastinterview.Media, Culture & Society31.271288.

Marriott,Stephanie.2007.Live television: Time, space and the broadcast event.London:Sage.

Montgomery,Martin.2000.Televisedtalk:Facework,politenessandlaughterin The Mrs Merton

Show. InMalcolmCoulthard,JanetCotterill&FrancesRock(eds.),Dialogue analysis: Work-

ing with dialogue, 121137.Tbingen:Niemeyer.

Montgomery,Martin.2008.Thediscourseofthebroadcastnewsinterview. Journalism Studies

9(2).260277.

Robinson,JeffreyD.2004.Thesequentialorganizationofexplicitapologiesinnaturallyoccur-

ringEnglish.Research on Language & Social Interaction37.291331.

Sacks,Harvey.1995.Lectures on conversation,GailJefferson(ed.).Oxford:Blackwell.

Schegloff,Emanuel.2005.Oncomplainability.Social Problems52(4).449476.

Schegloff,EmanuelA.,GailJefferson&HarveySacks.1977.Thepreferenceforself-correction

intheorganizationofrepairinconversation.Language 53(2).361382.

Stokoe,Elizabeth.2009.Doingactionswithidentitycategories:Complaintsanddenialsinneigh-bordisputes.Text & Talk29(1).7597.


27/28


Stokoe,Elizabeth&DerekEdwards.2007.Blackthis,blackthat:Racialinsultsandreported

speechinneighbourcomplaintsandpoliceinterrogations.Discourse & Society 18(3).337372.

Tolson,Andrew.2001. Beingyourself:Thepursuitofauthenticcelebrity.Discourse Studies

3(4).443457.

TolsonAndrew.2006.Media talk: Spoken discourse on radio and TV. Edinburgh:EdinburghUni-versityPress.

Watson,RodD.1986.Doingtheorganizationswork:Anexaminationofacrisisintervention

centre.InS.Fisher&A.D.Todd(eds.),Discourse and institutional authority: Medicine, educa-

tion, and law, 911920.Norwood:Ablex.

Wyatt,E.2010.F.C.C.Indecencypolicyrejectedonappeal. New York Times 13July. http://www.

nytimes.com/2010/07/14/business/media/14indecent.html?_r=1&src=busln.

CarlyW.ButlerisLecturerintheDepartmentofSocialSciencesatLoughboroughUniversity.Her

researchinterestsarein ethnomethodologyandconversationanalysis,childrens talkandplay,

familyinteractions,helplineinteractionsandnewsinterviews.Sheis authorofTalk and Social

Interaction in the Playground(2008).Addressforcorrespondence: DepartmentofSocialSciences,LoughboroughUniversity,Loughborough,LeicestershireLE113TU,England.

RichardFitzgerald isSenior Lecturerin the School ofJournalismandCommunication at the

UniversityofQueensland,Australia.Hisresearchexploresmediainteractionandlanguage,par-

ticularlyintheareasofnewsandradiodiscourse,andthedevelopmentandapplicationofthe

methodologyofmembershipcategorizationanalysisandconversationanalysisforexploringthe

organizationofculturalknowledgeandidentityininteraction.Hisrecentpublicationsincludea

specialissueoftheAustralian Journal of Communication(guesteditedwithCarlyButlerandRod

Gardner)onEthnomethodologicalapproachestocommunication,andMedia, Policy and Inter-

action(Ashgate),editedwithWilliamHousley.Addressforcorrespondence:SchoolofJournalismandCommunication,JoyceAckroydBuilding,UniversityofQueensland,Australia.


28/28

Copyright of Text & Talk is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phalangchok-wanphet
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

My fxxxing personality- swearing as slips and gaffes in live television broadcasts.pdf

Documents