Norton&Gieve(2010)Erasure of Lx Diff in Media Reps of Encounters With Others on Brit TV

8/7/2019 Norton&Gieve(2010)Erasure of Lx Diff in Media Reps of Encounters With Others on Brit TV

1/22

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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 AwarenessPublication 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 encounterswith others on British televisionJulie E. Nortona; Simon Gieveaa 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 representationsof encounters with others on British television', Language Awareness, 19: 3, 205 225

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.505290URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.505290

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 orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould 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 directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297825http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.505290http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.505290http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297825


2/22

Language Awareness

Vol. 19, No. 3, August 2010, 205225

The erasure of linguistic difference in media representations

of encounters with others on British televisionJulie 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 inthe discourse of television lifestyle, travel, and documentary genres where an Englishnative 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-nativespeakers are allowed to speak and to what extent their contributions are mediated inthe editorial process. Critical language awareness and critical discourse analysis aredrawn upon to uncover constructions of Otherness in the examples of broadcast talk andto examine how power relations are manifest. Short descriptions of relevant scenes andbrief transcripts from the programmes in our small corpus are discussed. It is arguedthat the way foreigners are represented on British television does ideological work,potentially reinforcing the notion that it is not important to learn foreign languagesbecause everyone speaks English these days.

Keywords: media representation of identity; constructions of Otherness; criticallanguage awareness

IntroductionCritical 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 peoples use of language (Clark

& Ivanic, 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 onBritish 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: [email protected]

ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 onlineC 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.505290

http://www.informaworld.com


3/22

206 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve

done in English to the extent that linguistic difference and communication difficulties

are portrayed as irrelevant and unimportant when chasing ones dream lifestyle abroad or

travelling around the world. The expectation, it seems, is that everyone will speak English

these days.

Other genres of televised programmes, such as serious, issues-based documentaries,

handle linguistic difference in slightly different ways, adopting a variety of strategies to

deal with encounters across linguistic difference, such as voice-over summary, subtitles,

and interpreters. There is still, however, 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.

In Gieve and Norton (2007), we presented a framework for analysing television pro-

grammes which include examples of communication across linguistic difference. This study

focused upon the triangular relationship between protagonists, FL speakers, and audience

and identified strategies adopted in dealing with linguistic difference in a corpus of lifestyle,

travel, and documentary programmes (see Appendix 1). The strategies we identified in-cluded avoiding encounters where linguistic difference exists by preferring, for example, to

include only foreigners who can speak English or expatriates in the programmes or using

mediation strategies to make communication appear smooth, unproblematic, and everyday.

This study illustrated the numerous ways that processes of marginalisation can potentially

occur as a result of specific production and editorial practices.

In this paper, building upon our previous work and drawing upon the same corpus of

broadcast talk (see the Research methodology section for further details), we present a fine-

grained analysis of the dynamics of the interaction represented in two of the programmes in

our corpus. 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, 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. Burger, 2002)?

It is argued that the way foreigners are represented on British television does ideologi-

cal work, flattening or even erasing linguistic difference, constructing NNSs of English as

linguistically deficient (but not English speakers who are unable to speak other languages),

failing to provide models of English speakers attempting strategies to bridge linguistic

difference, and reinforcing the notion that it is not important to learn foreign languages

(Coleman, 2009; Kilborn, 1993).

Theoretical perspectives

The theoretical orientation of this paper draws upon CLA (Clark & Ivanic, 1999; Fairclough,

1999; Pennycook, 2001; Svalberg, 2007; Wallace, 1999), CDA (Barker & Galasinski, 2001;

Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1995a, 1995b; Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, &Liebhart, 1999), post-structuralist perspectives on language and identity (Duff, 2002; Duff

& Uchida, 1997; Kubota, 1999; Norton, 1997, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004), and


4/22

Language Awareness 207

research on the representation of social actors in media discourse (Machin, 2007; Machin

& van Leeuwen, 2007; Talbot, 2007; van Dijk, 1996; van Leeuwen, 1996). Through these

broad frameworks, 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.

CDA aims to provide a framework for systematically linking properties of discoursal

interactions and texts with features of their social and cultural circumstances (Fairclough,

1999, p. 79). 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. Thus, a common theme of CDA has been to explore

how discourse constructs common-sense opinions, which are ideological in the sense that

they may be used to maintain the status quo and unequal relations of power (Fairclough,

2001). One example taken from our data is the hegemonic assumption that everyone

speaks English. Discourse is viewed as the means by which participants construct their

social realities and maintain and reproduce discriminatory and hegemonic social practices,

leading to the Othering, marginalisation, or exclusion of less powerful social groups andindividuals. CDA provides a tool to uncover strategies of discriminatory inclusion and

exclusion in language use (Wodak et al., 1999, p. 8).

Identity is defined as a discursive construction and a site of struggle (Norton, 2000,

p. 127). 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, 1989, p. ix, cited

in Ivanic, 1998, p. 18). Identities are viewed as multiple, contradictory, and shifting across

time and space (Norton, 1997; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004) and must be understood with

reference to wider social processes and power relations. In the case of broadcast media, thepossibilities for negotiation of identities is controlled and constrained by decisions taken by

programme makers in the production process (Fairclough, 1995b; Talbot, 2007). Although

editorial intervention, therefore, impacts upon the representation ofallactors (their ability

to participate on their own terms and in their own voices), NNSs who have to negotiate

their identity positions across linguistic difference, and may not be wholly aware of the

programme makers priorities and objectives, are placed in a weaker position than the NS

actors who are allowed greater opportunities to address the audience directly (Gieve and

Norton, 2007; cf. van Dijk, 1996).

Machin (2007) and Machin and van Leeuwen (2007) have also shown that the way

social actors are represented in particular categories, as individuals and in groups, or not

represented even though they may be present influences the relationship which develops

between audience and actor, sometimes drawing the viewers closer to specific people and

distancing them from others. According to van Leeuwen (1996), representations include or

exclude social actors to further specific interests and achieve political agendas in relation to

the intended audience. He discusses exclusions which leave no traces in the representation

and involve the exclusion of the social actor and their activities. He also distinguishes

between two types of exclusion: suppression and backgrounding (van Leeuwen, 1996,

p. 39). In the case of suppression, reference to the social actor is removed from the text,

whilst backgrounding allows the social actor to be mentioned and their identity to be

inferred with reasonable (though never total) certainty (van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 39). He

notes that ambiguity often arises because it is unclear if the suppressed actor is supposed tobe retrievable by the audience or not and that this strategy is sometimes exploited to allow

particular social practices to remain uncontested.


5/22


Similarly, Fairclough (1995b, p. 106) discusses different degrees of presence in a text:

We might think in terms of a scale of presence, running from absent to fore-grounded:absent presupposed backgrounded foregrounded. If something is presupposed, it is in asense present in the text, but as part of its implicit meaning. If something is explicitly presentin a text, it may be informationally backgrounded or informationally foregrounded.

Fairclough (1995b, pp. 107108) claims that presuppositions position the viewers and

ascribe common-sense assumptions to them regarding the culture and participants depicted,

drawing them into the worldview upheld in the programme.

Issues of representation and language ideology are pervasive in media discourse

(Fairclough, 1995a, 1995b; Johnson & Ensslin, 2007). Our interest in language ideol-

ogy here relates to the way cultural groups are constituted, the way cultural difference is

constructed in media texts, and the social consequences of this with reference to the repre-

sentation of interaction across cultural and linguistic difference. Woolard (1998) suggests

that textual realisations of language ideology are evident in terms of what people actu-

ally do with language, that is, their linguistic and discursive practice, their meta-linguisticawareness in terms of the views they explicitly express about language, and their use of

language knowledge to produce and interpret language acts.

The interpersonal function of language allows broadcasters to construct particular social

identities and establish relationships with other actors and their audience. The imperative

in media discourse for audience engagement, termed broadcast sociability (Talbot, 2007,

p. 87), depends, however, upon shared cultural understandings, that is, a representation of

the world which is familiar, recognizable, intelligible, shareable (Scannell, 1992, p. 334).

This representation may involve a discourse of inclusion for some but, as Talbot (2007,

p. 91) warns, may result in the marginalisation or exclusion of others: Sociabiliy needs

to, indeed must, erase difference; it depends on shared cultural background, implicit or

otherwise.

In cases where linguistic and cultural difference exists between actors in televised

broadcasts, the production team has to decide upon the type of mediation that will be adopted

to overcome potential communication difficulties. In Gieve and Norton (2007), we noted that

a number of possibilities exist for the mediation of linguistic difference. It can, for example,

be mediated through erasure. It can be backgrounded, foregrounded, or thematised as the

procedure of talk between speakers of different languages becomes the topic or content of

the interaction itself; or it can be represented as an ordinary, everyday interactional practice

through the choice of editorial techniques such as subtitling. 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 ourdata. The theoretical perspectives outlined above have also informed the development of

the coding categories which are explained later (see the Research methodology section).

In the final part of this section, we offer a definition of the key terminology we have

used.

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. A

scene is defined as a given location with the given participants appearing in a singlecontinuous period of real time (which may have been edited into non-continuous parts).

The programmes in our corpus contain scenes where one would expect to find interaction


6/22


7/22


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. The categories are grounded in the data and mark the degree of

mediation we have observed in the representation of these actors.The core categories that were identified are as follows:

(1) unseen/unheard and not reported;

(2) unseen/unheard but reported;

(3) seen/unheard;

(4) seen/heard mediated;

(5) seen/heard in English (self-mediated?); and

(6) seen/heard unmediated (speaking in an FL).

The categories are ordered from top to bottom according to the criterion of how directlythe audience have access to the speaking voice of the Other. Category 1 illustrates the least

access to the speaking voice of the actor, whilst the final three categories (46) generally

show greater access to the speaking voice of the actor, albeit with varying degrees of

mediation, which will be discussed in greater detail below.

Category 1: unseen/unheard and not reported

This category refers to people who are necessary for the action to proceed (e.g. car drivers,

shop assistants, interpreters, estate agents), but they do not appear in a scene, and their

speech is not reported. For example, Kileys 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, as we are only able to include people we can reasonably

assume to have been involved (cf. van Leeuwen, 1996).

Category 2: unseen/unheard but reported

This category refers to people who are not given a voice but are reported (cf. van Leeuwen,

1996). For example, Kiley tells us about crowds of refugees on the banks of Lake Albert in

CKF.

Category 3: seen/unheard

This category refers to people who are not given a voice, but we see them either in the

foreground or in the background of the camera shot. For example, Alfonso, the plumber,

in NGB never speaks directly to the camera, but we see him interacting with the Turnbull

family, and his actions are explained by voice-over narration or summary by Richard

Turnbull.

Category 4: seen/heard with mediation

This category refers to people whose voices are mediated through summary (voice-over),translation, and subtitling. For example, Robert Maku in CKFspeaks in French directly to

the camera and subtitling is used.


8/22


Category 5: seen/heard in English

This category refers to people who are included in the action because they can self-

mediate, that is, speak English to the camera. For example, Max, the Italian estate agent

in NGB, shows a property to a British family and interacts with them in English.

Category 6: seen/heard unmediated

This category refers to people speaking in a foreign language which, we assume, is their

preferred language or L1, for example refugees who are shown speaking in an African

language on the banks of Lake Albert in CKF.

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. It could, however, 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,

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, although heard, are to an

extent still reduced. It could be argued that a speakers 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. Nevertheless, 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. In making the Other knowable through

mediation strategies, television erases their linguistic difference and a bias intrudes, such

that the more known person is the English speaker, and the non-English speaker is left out

of sight or not given a voice. In addition, speakers who are not given the opportunity touse their own language to communicate may face a threat to their self-image as competent

social beings, as Kilborn (1993, p. 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.

Linguistic difference is least erased in Category 6 (seen/heard unmediated), 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, and in doing so the audience

realises that linguistic difference is problematic and something that has to be engaged

with and struggled with. Otherness, then, becomes real in the sense that other people

are different from us and have the right to speak in their own preferred language. Theproblem of understanding is thrown back on the hearer, not on the speaker, and difference

is preserved, not erased. Somebody who does not speak English is not an inadequate Other,

but we as audience become equally inadequate, taking our share of responsibility for dealing

with linguistic difference.

Whilst the six main coding categories are explained above and examples of each cat-

egory are presented in Table 1, numerous subtly defined layers of mediation were also

coded to fine-tune our analysis of the visual and aural representation of the actors. For

example, we noted if the actors appeared in the foreground or background of the camera

shot during a scene. We also recorded whether the content of the FL speakers contri-

butions was or was not reported and, in cases where it was reported, recorded how the

reporting was done (summary, translation, voice-over). Summary narrations were some-times provided by one of the participants in the scene or sometimes by an external narrator.

Some of the strategies we observed were decided pre-filming, such as selecting English


9/22


Table 1. Coding categories.

Degrees of mediation in media representation of Others

Examples of scenes where the category occurs

Category Description No Going Back Congos Killing Fields

(1) Unseen/unheardand not reported

People implicated inthe action but notactually shown

27 10, 12

Total: 1 (3%) Total: 2 (2%)(2) Unseen/unheard

but reportedUnseen people not

given a voice butreported

23 12, 22, 31, 32, 39, 42,43, 50

Total: 1 (3%) Total: 8 (8%)(3) Seen/unheard People who appear

but without a voice2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 17,

22, 25(2), 29, 30,

31, 32, 36, 37,38(2), 39(4),41

1, 2, 4(2), 5(2),6(3), 7, 8, 9,

11(3), 12(3), 14,15, 16(2), 17,18(2), 19, 20,24(2), 25, 26(2),27(2), 29, 31, 32,33, 34(2), 39(2),40, 47(2), 48(2),49, 50

Total: 24 (73%) Total: 49 (49%)(4) Seen/heard with

mediationPeople who appear

and are heardthroughvoice-over,

translation,subtitling, andnarration

21, 25 3, 8, 13, 16, 17(2),23(4), 28(2),30(2), 35, 36(3),41, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,

45(2), 46, 49(2)

Total: 2 (6%) Total: 29 (29%)(5) Seen/heard in

EnglishFL speakers

interacting inEnglish

1, 2, 29, 31, 32 6, 7, 34, 37

Total: 5 (15%) Total: 4 (4%)(6) Seen/heard

unmediatedPeople speaking in an

FL22, 32, 39, 40, 42, 43,

48, 49Total: 0 Total: 8 (8%)

speakers as informants (Category 5) or avoiding interaction with FL speakers (Categories

1 and 2); whilst others would have been adopted during filming, for example an intermit-

tent report, summary, or narration included by one of the NS actors in the scene (Cate-

gory 4). Post-filming strategies, such as narration, voice-over translation, and subtitling,

were also used on occasions (Category 4). For the purposes of this paper, the very de-

tailed analysis described above has been condensed into the basic categories presented in

Table 1.

Table 1 includes a brief description of each category and lists the scenes where the

particular category occurs. Some of these scenes are discussed in greater detail in the Data

analysis and Discussions sections of the paper to illustrate particular categories furtherand develop our analysis of identity construction in the respective programmes. Each scene

is numbered, and a list of scenes for each programme is presented in Appendices 3 and 4 to


10/22


11/22


at Bunya (scene 1) and shows us women cooking pots of rice and children who are scarred.

Kiley comments that these children have seen little fun in their short lives. Similarly, in

scene 39, 30 minutes later in the programme, Kiley is shown wandering around amongst

refugees on the banks of Lake Albert. Some refugees are weak and hurt and are lying down.

The camera lingers over particular individuals as Kiley explains how they fled Uganda in

dugout canoes. The individuals who Kiley discusses are seen but are given no speaking

voice during these scenes.

This particular representation of Others described above and noted in numerous other

scenes in our data resulted in a coding problem for us, as it was sometimes unclear if the

people shown in CKFwere 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.

There are a relatively large number of scenes (16%) in which people appear to have been

foregrounded, but only visually, through the use of lingering close-ups. They do not speak

and may or may not be referred to. We do not know what they think or what they have to

say for themselves. The ambiguity about whether these actors are part of the action may be

deliberate: in some scenes, on the one hand, they could be the men armed with machetes,who are committing the atrocities that are reported, and they may thus contribute to the

sense of threat created in the programme; on the other hand, they could simply be passing

by, totally harmless men on their way to a local store. In the latter context, they could be

local colour evidence that what we are seeing is authentic (for further discussion of

modality in visual imagery, see Johnson, 2007, p. 99).

The shots of unknown people on the streets certainly contribute to a particular represen-

tation of the Congo and reinforce Kileys themes of lawlessness, random brutal violence,

unpredictable militias, anarchy, and sudden death. Through this representation, programme

makers are also able to justify the need for a UN presence in this environment (cf. Machin,

2007; Machin & van Leeuwen, 2007). Boltanski (1999), Chouliaraki (2006), and Hoijer(2004) have discussed such scenes through the lens of distant suffering, 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. 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; we can watch them but

do not need to respond to them as a speaking presence. It is unclear why Kiley does not

attempt to speak to any of these people on our behalf. We can speculate that this may be due

to fear of attack, or it may not be possible to physically approach them, though the camera

can focus on them. Another possibility may be linguistic problems: he cannot speak to

them because he does not speak their languages and apparently has no interpreter. If Kiley

does not have an interpreter, however, one might ask why not; and if he does have one, one

might ask why the interpreter has been hidden.

The actual speech of FL speakers is mediated on only two occasions (6%) in NGB but

on 29 occasions (29%) in CKF(Category 4). 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, the Lowes, 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). Subtitles are never used in NGB.

In CKF, a wider range of mediation strategies are adopted to deal with linguistic

difference (Category 4). There are three examples of narrator summary, 10 examples ofparticipant summary, two examples of translation in a voice-over, three examples of the use

of visible interpreters, and 11 examples of the use of subtitling.


12/22


Table 2. Percentages of scenes in Categories 3 and 4.

No Going Back Congos 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 CKFfall within

coding Categories 3 and 4 (see Table 2): Categories 3 and 4 are the largest in CKF, 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.

In the final part of this section, we examine how the use of the strategies outlined in this

section contributes to the construction of FL speakers identities in the two programmes.

Identity construction in No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany

The main actors in this series are the Turnbull family, who have relocated to Tuscany and are

struggling to restore their dilapidated farmhouse before paying guests arrive. In this respect,

it is hardly surprising that their voices dominate the narrative of the series, and the audience

is allowed access to intimate conversations in which respective family roles, relationships,

and identities are discursively constructed. It is nonetheless striking that very few Italians

appear in the series and that those who do are rarely given linguistic participant roles,

unless they are proficient in English. This idyllic location is, therefore, represented as an

Italy almost devoid of Italians, and this fact is highlighted particularly as the British payingguests at the farmhouse are given speaking roles and the expertise of British expatriates

is called upon on numerous occasions throughout the series. In this episode of the series,

only two Italian males feature in the main action: Alfonso, the plumber, and Max, the estate

agent. Alfonso speaks little English but is employed by the Turnbulls to help renovate

the farmhouse. Max is sought out for his proficiency in English to help a British family,

the Lowes, guests at the Turnbulls farmhouse, find a Tuscan property of their own. The

representation of Max contrasts starkly with the representation of Alfonso, and we would

claim that the different representations are related to the respective linguistic capabilities

of the two men.

The representation of two Italian males

Alfonso features in four short scenes in this episode of the series. In the first scene,

Alfonso is shown playing momentarily with the Turnbulls young son, Gregory (scene 5).

The frame then switches to Alfonso and Richard working on Richards car outside the

farmhouse (scene 6). Richard has bought an off-road vehicle to ferry guests and luggage

via a dirt track between the main road and the farmhouse. The vehicle needs some repair,

and Richard asks Alfonso for help. In return, Richard offers Alfonso a lift down the hill to

his car, and in the next scene Alfonso and Richard are shown driving down the hill from

the farmhouse to the main road (scene 7). In the final scene, the car wheel rolls away when

they are halfway down the hill, and Alfonso and Richard are shown fixing the car onceagain (scene 8). Throughout the four short scenes, Alfonso is given no audible speaking

voice, although there is clearly some interaction with Richard, which is inaudible. Alfonso


13/22


does not speak directly to the audience and is referred to by his first name only, suggesting

either his lack of status or his informal, friendly relationship with the Turnbull family, or

possibly both. Richard does not reveal what Alfonso thinks about the situation with the

broken-down car, and the viewing public are left in doubt about the extent Richard is able

to communicate with him.

Inspection of the series as a whole suggests that Richard knows limited Italian, but we

are given very little direct access to his interactions in Italian. Although the programme

is about the fortunes of the Turnbull family and not about Alfonso, the representation of

communication across linguistic difference seems systematic: Richard and Sarahs linguistic

encounters with Italian speakers are rarely foregrounded, though it is frequently clear that

they do have major linguistic difficulties. Max, the Italian estate agent who speaks English,

in contrast, is given a speaking voice of his own; he can claim a linguistic participant role

and an identity as a speaker. Indeed, Max is represented as a larger-than-life character,

wearing designer clothing. He is presented as fashionable and cool and is foregrounded in

the camera shots and the action, because of, we suggest, his English language proficiency

which legitimises him, unlike Alfonso, as a valid participant.Max also appears in four short scenes (scenes 2932), but his introduction to the

audience is foregrounded dramatically by the camera which focuses exclusively on him and

pans the length of his body, lingering on his expensive Gucci shoes and Rolex watch, and by

comedy music, reminiscent of a 1960s rom-com movie, 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/ hes chic/ hes

suave/ AND (2.0) he speaks ENGLISH/ he has a property theyll adore/ at a price they simplycannot refuse/ its a traditional Tuscan farmhouse/ with three bedrooms/ three acres of olivetrees/ and/ a small outhouse for conversion/ on the market/ for a mere/ 125,000 / surely/ onlya crazy person would walk away. (scene 29)

The narrator focuses upon many aspects of Maxs identity, including his job, his physical

appearance, his language proficiency, and his thoughts on the property. Maxs English lan-

guage proficiency is emphasised by the narrators dramatic pause for effect before he reveals

this significant piece of information and by the stress he places upon certain words: AND

(2.0) he speaks ENGLISH. 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. Maxis represented in a rather light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek manner: he is the saviour of the

Lowe family who enlist his help to find their dream home abroad, but he is also represented as

a caricatured Italian male who is interestedin the external trappings of designer fashion. Max

shows the Lowe family around the property, explaining its traditional features to them in En-

glish. Like Alfonso, he is introduced by first name only, but Max is allowed to speak directly

to the camera and to the audience at home (scenes 31 and 32). He participates more fully

in the episode through his interactions with the English-speaking actors, and his identity

is constructed far more fully than Alfonsos through these conversations and the narrators

commentary. In van Leeuwens (1996, pp. 5455) terms, Max is identified not only by what

he does but also by who he is, whilst Alfonso is functionalised, that is, categorised in terms

of his occupation only and deprived of full participation status (Goffman, 1974, p. 224).This resonates with the observation of Jaworski, Thurlow, Lawson, and Ylanne-McEwen

(2003a) that presenters of British television holiday programmes often deny FL speakers


14/22


participation rights and objectify their presence by ignoring their capacity to hear and

talk.

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. As such he is kept in the background,

seen to be speaking but not heard, his presence in the programme diminished almost to that

of a bystander. Similar strategies are observed when Sarah prepares for the birth of her new

baby, when the Turnbulls buy sheep, when they buy their off-road vehicle, and so on: we

feel the presence of Italian actors, hear their voices in the background, but encounter them

fully as people only if they speak English. This is clearly reflected in the coding of this

programme: Category 3 (seen/unheard) is the largest category (73%) inNGB, and Category

5 (seen/heard in English) is the second largest category (15%).

Identity construction in Congos Killing Fields

It is of interest in this study to examine how genre impacts upon the erasure of linguisticdifference in media representations of Others. We turn, therefore, to the analysis of iden-

tity construction in the serious, issues-based documentary CKF to uncover the mediation

strategies adopted by the programme makers in this case. As the title suggests, this is a

rather dark programme with the hint of danger and threat present throughout. The voice

of the main actor, Sam Kiley, 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. Kileys representation as a male action

hero, reporting from a war-torn zone, fits with Talbots (2007, p. 127) identification of a

masculinist discourse in current-affairs broadcasting.

Kileys interactions with his informants are often hidden, as we have previously noted,

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. It is the very absence of

communication that heightens the sense of danger and threat that we are encouraged to

feel, along with a parallel sense of respect for Kiley who dares to be there on our behalf.

However, in the scenes in which Kiley is shown openly interviewing informants, 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.

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 lessfavourable identities, respectively, for the two men.

The representation of two African males

Two set-piece interviews are presented in CKF, one with Robert Maku, a man who has

witnessed a terrible atrocity which he recounts to Kiley (scene 3), and one with Thomas

Lubanga, the leader of the Hemma militia group (scene 13). Both these FL speakers

speak French, but the mediation strategies adopted to represent their speaking voices differ

markedly and impact upon the identity construction of the two men.

The interview with Robert Maku is an extended scene of several minutes duration

which is not intercut with footage from outside the interview. The camera focuses uponKiley and Robert Maku who are sitting in close proximity on a doorstep outside a simple

house and appear deep in conversation. This is a sympathetic interview with a man who has


15/22


witnessed an appalling massacre. Robert Maku is allowed to speak his own words in French

which are subtitled in English. This constitutes one of 11 scenes where subtitling is used

and participants are given their own voice (Category 4). Initially, there appears to be the

minimum of mediation during this interview; however, as the interview progresses, there is

evidence of editorial intervention in the interaction. Kiley appears to speak some French, but

it is not clear how proficient he is, as during the course of the programme the audience sees

Kiley asking questions in English but receiving replies in French, Swahili, or other African

languages. The audience must assume that interpreters are present but hidden, as Maku

responds to a question we never hear being asked and produces a packet of photographs of

the massacre to show Kiley. This suggests that some moments of negotiation of meaning

and communication struggle have been erased from the programme in the editorial process.

It is apparent that an attempt is being made to build the audiences sympathy with Maku

in the way the camera shows close-ups of his face and Kileys emotional response to the

tragic story. A deep sense of his sadness, loss, and suffering is evoked through his calm

narration of unspeakable events. Makus participant role is legitimised through subtitling

and the appearance of intimate interaction with the presenter, which OKeefe (2006, p. 90)has termed pseudo-intimacy. In this way, programme makers construct Makus identity

as a victim in this hostile environment.

In the other set-piece interview with Lubanga, the leader of the Hemma militia group

(scene 13), tension is created as Kiley is shown waiting in a deserted bar (scene 11) before

being taken on a car journey to Lubangas camp (scene 12). Kiley is visibly nervous about

this arranged meeting and the obvious possibility of ambush by the militia group. This is

confirmed by Kileys commentary which explains the potential danger. We are shown people

wandering around in the streets and heavily armed soldiers (scene 14) who contribute to this

sense of threat. In this case the way Lubangas voice is presented serves to distance Kiley

from his subject and further disaffiliate the audience. The camera focuses upon Lubangastalking head in a darkened room. Kiley does not appear in the same shot as Lubanga, and

there are no reaction shots of Kiley and no subtitles, and the scene is constantly intercut with

shots of menacing armed guards outside. A voice-over technique is adopted, whereby the

audience hears Lubangas voice for a few seconds initially (to authenticate the speech as his

own), but this is quickly faded and replaced by a translated version which has been scripted

and added later. This is a more distancing method of mediation than subtitling because we

miss most paralinguistic features, and we cannot check the reliability of the translation, as

the background French is barely audible, and the English version sometimes precedes what

we can hear Lubanga faintly saying in French. The sound of the unmediated voice of the

Other, partially obscured, adds to the sense of his moral dubiousness, 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.

Lubangas participation rights are de-legitimised through the use of voice-over and speaking

without an interlocutor. Mediation strategies are used as a deliberate tool to construct his

identity as a perpetrator rather than a victim, suggesting the subtle management of audience

interpretation (Fairclough, 1995b, p. 83).

Discussion

Jaworski (2007, p. 277) comments that two key themes evident in much of broadcast media

are authenticity and Othering, which resonates with the analysis we have presented here.In particular, he notes that de-legitimising individual language users results in Othering.

We now return to our original research questions, listed in the Introduction:


16/22


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, with subtitling being adopted only in the

serious documentary, 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 discussedhere. This contrasts with some other programmes in our corpus, for example The Day I Will

Never Forget, a documentary on female circumcision which, because it is made in Swahili

with added subtitles and English narration, is able to bring us significantly closer to the

lives of its subjects. However, such examples are significantly rare in our corpus.

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, particularly in the lifestyle series NGB, owing to

a concern to maximise entertainment value and attract high viewing figures. This strategy

also adds to the identification potential of the show, in the sense that it makes it possible

for viewers who might consider emigrating to perceive the Turnbulls as role models whose

lead they could easily follow.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. Indeed, 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. This fits with Dunns (2005, p. 101) observation that

television travel coverage focuses more upon visual consumption of the place than uponinteraction with the locals.

In NGB, few Italians appear. The Turnbulls buy their off-road vehicle from a speaker

of American English; they are taught how to drive a tractor by Liberty Mallard, an English-

speaking expatriate. In this sense, the programme presents a textbook example of immi-

grants socialising with co-ethnics abroad,4 once again reinforcing the view that linguistic

difference is unimportant when chasing ones 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, 2007). The general ethos of this programme

is English as a global language or, possibly in Mrs Lowes case, English as an imperial

language, given her attitude towards the Italian estate agents she encounters who do not

speak English:

Sample 2

Mrs Lowe: Well/ you know/ its FINE/ finding immobiliers/ like the estate agents over here/but (2.0) you GO in the window/ theres all cards/ and its just/ all in Italian/ so there we were/were/ getting our dictionaries out/ trying to translate everything/ then/ you keep coming upwith new words/ you have to go back/ and when you go in >


17/22


et al., 2003a, p. 23). This seems an apt way to characterise the situation represented in this

series, and it is interesting to note that Mrs Lowe is allowed to deliver the above speech

directly to the camera, sitting at a table outside the Turnbulls farmhouse. That is to say,

she takes centre stage to pronounce judgement on the linguistic capabilities of the Italian

estate agents she meets during her stay in Italy, without acknowledging her own linguistic

deficiency when it comes to Italian. Her considerable lack of self-awareness, demonstrated

by the comment they dont speak English! (as opposed to we dont speak Italian5),

clearly has ideological roots (cf. van Dijk, 1998, p. 25; Woolard, 1998, p. 7).

In the case ofCKF, we do not wish to dispute the truth values of the documentary, but we

wish simply to highlight the way that Kiley and his sources are presented as communicating

with each other. In the Congo, there are various languages of the Niger-Congo group of

African languages, plus French, Swahili, and English. Kiley knows some French and no

African languages and has no obvious interpreters, except once or twice when he is out

in the field and interviews child soldiers with the help of local militiamen. In his role as

presenter/reporter, Kiley frequently stands in front of groups of people and tells us about

them, sometimes in a low voice which creates an impression of external threat, and hesometimes makes comments as asides. We usually do not know how he has obtained the

information he reports. We do not know, for example, if he has spoken to the groups of

people who occupy the same scene as him, and we do not know who his contacts and

sources are. In the set-piece interviews with Maku and Lubanga the potential of linguistic

difference for signalling moral values is manipulated by editorial intervention.

Conclusion

Whilst we have noted specific genre effects in the two programmes considered here, further

research is necessary to explore a wider range of programmes to investigate the effectsof genre upon the representational strategies used to depict FL speakers in television

broadcasting in a more systematic manner. 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.

The coding categories we have developed so far reflect particular tendencies in media

representations of encounters with others. The more serious documentary programmes,

for example, adopt different types of mediation for particular purposes, whilst the lifestyle,

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, 1991).

Svalberg (2007, p. 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

others languages and cultures. 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., 2003a, 2003b) does little to promote engagement with FL learning or to

suggest that it is a legitimate and useful activity.

Acknowledgements

The support of the University of Leicester is gratefully acknowledged for granting study leave toallow the completion of the paper.


18/22


Notes

1. We acknowledge an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.2. The IRA was a paramilitary organisation which sought to remove Northern Ireland from the UK.

Its armed campaign formally ended in 2005.3. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.

4. We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.5. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this point.

Notes on contributors

Julie Norton is a lecturer in Education in the School of Education, University of Leicester, UK. Sheteaches on MA courses in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and supervises doctoral students in theseareas. Her research interests and publications include: linguistic identity, intercultural pragmatics,discourse analysis, oral testing and materials development for language teaching.

Simon Gieve is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics and TESOL in the School of Education, Universityof Leicester, UK. His main research interests are in classroom language learning, language teacher

education, and interaction across linguistic difference. He has previously co-edited a book with InesMiller on Understanding the Language Classroom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

References

Barker, C., & Galasinski, D. (2001). Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on languageand identity. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi: Sage.

Boltanski, L. (1999). Distant suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Burger, M. (2002). Identities at stake in social interaction: The case of media interviews. Studies in

Communication Sciences, 2(2), 120.Christophersen, P., & MacArthur, T. (1992). Native speaker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chouliaraki, L. (2006). The spectatorship of suffering. London: Sage.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourseanalysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1999). Critical language awareness [Special issue]. Language Awareness,8(2).

Coleman, J. (2009). Why the British do not learn languages: Myths and motivation in the UnitedKingdom. Language Learning Journal, 37(1), 111127.

Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh UniversityPress.

Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnographyof communication in high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289322.

Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers sociocultural identities and practices inpostsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451486.

Dunn, D. (2005). Venice observed: The traveller, the tourist, the post-tourist and British television.In A. Jaworski & A. Pritchard (Eds.), Discourse, communication and tourism (pp. 98120).Clevedon, UK: Channel View.

Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness,

8(2), 7283.Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.) London: Longman.Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY:

Harper and Row.Hoijer, B. (2004). The discourse of global compassion: The audience and media reporting of human

suffering. Media, Culture & Society, 26(4), 513531.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: JohnBenjamins.Jaworski, A. (2007). Language in the media: Authenticity and othering. In S. Johnson & A. Ensslin

(Eds.), Language in the media (pp. 271280). London and New York, NY: Continuum.


19/22


Jaworski, A., Thurlow, C., Lawson, S., & Ylanne-McEwen, V. (2003a). The uses and representationsof local languages in tourist destinations: A view from British TV holiday programmes.Language

Awareness, 12(1), 529.Jaworski, A., Ylanne-McEwen, V., Thurlow, C., & Lawson, S. (2003b). Social roles and negotiation

of status in hosttourist interaction: A view from British television holiday programmes. Journal

of Sociolinguistics, 7(2), 135163.Johnson, S. (2007). The iconography of orthography: Representing German spelling reform inthe news magazine Der Spiegel. In S. Johnson & A. Ensslin (Eds.), Language in the media(pp. 91110). London and New York, NY: Continuum.

Johnson, S., & Ensslin, A. (Eds.) (2007). Language in the media. London and New York, NY:Continuum.

Kilborn, R. (1993). Speak my language: Current attitudes to television subtitling and dubbing.Media, Culture & Society, 15, 641660.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguisticsresearch and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 935.

Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. London: Hodder Education.Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Global media discourse. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409430.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.OKeefe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis. The study of talk-in-interaction. Qualitative Research

Methods Series No. 35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rampton, B. (1999). Displacing the native speaker: Expertise, affiliation and inheritance. ELT

Journal, 44(2), 97101.Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.) (2007).Applying conversation analysis. New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Scannell, P. (1991). Broadcast talk. London: Sage.Scannell, P. (1992). Public service broadcasting and modern life. In P. Scannell, P. Schlesinger, & C.

Sparks (Eds.), Culture and power: A media, culture and society reader (pp. 31748). London:Sage.

Shotter, J., & Gergen, K.J. (Eds.) (1989). Texts of identity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Susser, B. (1998). EFLs othering of Japan. JALT Journal, 20, 4982.Svalberg, A. M-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teacher, 40, 287

308.Talbot, M. (2007). Media discourse, representation and interaction. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh

University Press.Ten Have, P (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Van Dijk, T.A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.),

Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84104). London and New York,NY: Routledge.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.),Approachesto media discourse (pp. 2163). Oxford: Blackwell.

Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Therepresentation of social actors. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard(Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 3270). London and NewYork, NY: Routledge.

Wallace, C. (1999). Critical language awareness: Key principles for a course in critical reading.Language Awareness, 8(2), 98110.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of nationalidentity. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K.

Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 347). New York,NY: Oxford University Press.


20/22


Appendix 1

Titles of items in the corpus:A Place in the Sun [Television series]. (2003). Channel 4.Airport. [Television series], BBC. (2003).Around the World in 80 Days [Television series]. (1993). BBC Enterprises Ltd.

Around the World in 80 Treasures [Television series]. (2005). BBC 2.Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror [Television broadcast]. (2003). Carlton.Chaos at the Chateau [Television series]. (2004, October). Channel 4.The Dark Heart of Italy [Television broadcast]. (2005, June 8). BBC 4.The Day I Will Never Forget[Television broadcast]. (2003, August 18). Channel 4.The Deal[Panorama documentary series]. (2005, March). BBC 1.

Dispatches: Congos Killing Fields [Television broadcast]. (2003, August 17). Channel 4.DIY SOS France Special[Television broadcast]. (2003). BBC 1.Dream Home Abroad[Television series]. (2005). Channel 5.French Exchange [Television series]. (2005). BBC 4.French Leave [Television series]. (2003). Channel 4.Headmasters and Headscarves [Television broadcast]. (2005, March 29). BBC 2.

I Want That House [Television series]. (2003). Channel 4.Jamies Great Escape [Television series]. (2005). Channel 4.The Lost Boys of Sudan [Television broadcast]. (2003, October 4). Channel 4.

No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany [Television series]. (2003). Channel 4.The Reign in Spain [Television broadcast; documentary on David and Victoria Beckhams life inSpain]. (2003, November). Channel 4.Tale of Two Alis, [Cutting Edge documentary series]. (2003). Channel 4.Tales from Italy [Television series]. (2005). BBC 2.

Appendix 2

Key to transcription symbols (based on Psathas, 1995; Richards & Seedhouse, 2007; Ten Have, 2007):

/ = short pause(3.0) = 3-second pause>


21/22


Appendix 3

Table A3.1. List of scenes in No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany, broadcast on Channel 4 on 28August 2003.

Scene Description

1 Inside the car salesroom.2 Outside the car salesroom.3 Chestnut House.4 Richard fixes the car outside the house.5 In the farmhouse (Alfonso and Gregory).6 Richard and Alfonso fix the car outside the farmhouse.7 Richard and Alfonso drive down the hill.8 Richard and Alfonso fix the car at the bottom of the hill.9 Guests arrive at Chestnut House (small guest house annexe set apart from the main

farmhouse).10 Sarah to the camera, discussing new guests.

11 Preparing the farmhouse.12 Hanging the curtains in the farmhouse.13 Guests sitting outside Chestnut House.14 Farmhouse guests arriving (the Lowe family).15 Sarah and Richard in the new accommodation.16 The Lowe family in the farmhouse.17 Eating ice cream.18 Gregory and Anna outside.19 Richard and Sarah in the farmhouse.20 The Lowe family in the farmhouse.21 In the townhouse with the Italian estate agent.22 Outside the townhouse.

23 Sarah on the phone.24 Outside the hospital in Florence.25 Inside the hospital.26 Outside the hospital.27 The Low family outside the farmhouse.28 Richard reading the expat newspaper.29 Max standing outside, direct to the camera.30 Max meets the Lowe family outside.31 Max showing the property to the Lowe family.32 Max and the Lowe family outside the property.33 The Lowe family at the table outside the farmhouse.34 Richard talking about work.35 Richard talking about the farm.36 The agronomist and the translator Tony Leonardo arrive.37 The agronomist and Tony talking outside.38 The agronomist inspects the farm.39 Richard talks to the camera and discusses the inspection.40 Sarah talks to the camera.41 Discussion around the table with drinks, following the inspection.42 Richard talks to the camera.43 Sarah and Richard work on the land.44 Sarah moans to the camera about Richard cutting the trees.45 Sarah confronts Richard.46 Preview of next weeks episode.


22/22


Appendix 4

Table A4.1. List of scenes in Congos Killing Fields, broadcast on Channel 4 on 17 August 2003.

Scene Description

1 Kiley and the children in the Bunya refugee camp.2 Streets of Bunya.3 Robert Maku talking to Kiley.4 People on the streets/UN soldiers in Bunya.5 Videotape from the priest.6 Meeting the French colonel Daniel Vollot.7 Tour of the town in the car.8 The airstrip.9 People on the streets.

10 Kiley in the car prior to the meeting with Lubanga.11 Kiley waiting in the deserted bar.12 Kiley travels to the meeting with Lubanga.

13 The interview with Lubanga.14 At Lubangas camp/boy soldier.15 In the car: Kiley is taken on a tour by Lubanga to see his subjects in the local village.16 At Lubangas village.17 Lubanga makes a speech to a crowd gathered outside in the village.18 Marching to villages.19 At the airfield: French special forces arrive.20 Kiley takes a trip to the edge of Bunya in a car.21 A house attacked by the militia.22 Videotape of the aftermath of an attack.23 Interview with the daughter, Lolo.24 At the airport.

25 Bunya: the next morning.26 In the UN camp.27 Outside a local clinic.28 Interview with Augustin Katho.29 Journey to the airstrip.30 At the airport.31 Flying to the Lendu base.32 Lendu headquarters (Pendruma): meeting with Floribert Njabu and Fleubert Umjabu.33 In the car with Fleubert Umjabu.34 Fleubert Umjabus headquarters.35 Interview with the first boy soldier (aged 14 years).36 Interview with the second boy soldier (perhaps aged 10 years).37 Interview with Floribert Njabu, Front for National Integration.38 In the aeroplane.39 On the banks of Lake Albert, Uganda.40 At a clinic on the outskirts of a town in Uganda.41 Outside the clinic (a woman is sitting alone in the dust).42 Demonstrations against the Congolese police in Bunya.43 Lubanga summoned to the UN headquarters.44 Driving to see the informant.45 The informant about Rwandan arms supplies.46 Back at the UN headquarters car park.47 On UN patrol on the outskirts of Bunya.48 The UN troops encounter Lendu militia.49 Kiley on a bridge after the UN troops have left.

50 The driver takes Kiley back to town, and Kiley leaves.

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	faze2
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Norton&Gieve(2010)Erasure of Lx Diff in Media Reps of Encounters With Others on Brit TV

Documents