1. health and fitness
2. disorders
3. mental disorder
4. panic and anxiety

English Seminar
University of Zurich
MA Research Seminar
Interpersonal Pragmatics
Prof. Dr. Andreas Jucker
Playing Offensively –
Impoliteness Strategies
in Post-Football Match Interviews
Submitted by
Hannah Jewitt
07-740-285
Kanzleistrasse 86
8004 Zürich
on
31 s t July 2014
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. WHERE POLITENESS MEETS IMPOLITENESS 5 2.1 THE PIONEERS OF POLITENESS 2.2 PENELOPE BROWN AND STEVEN LEVINSON 2.3 JONATHAN CULPEPER 2.3.1 CRITIQUE AND ADDITIONS TO CULPEPER 5 6 9 11 3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY 12 3.1 DATA 3.2 DATA COLLECTION 3.3 TRANSCRIBING THE DATA 3.4 LIMITATIONS 12 12 14 15 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 16 4.1 THE STANDARD POST-­‐MATCH INTERVIEW 4.2 IMPOLITENESS OUTPUT STRATEGIES 4.2.1 CONVEY THAT H IS NOT LIKED 4.2.2 CALL THE OTHER NAMES 4.2.3 USE TABOO WORDS – SWEAR, OR USE ABUSIVE OR PROFANE LANGUAGE 4.2.4 INTERRUPTIONS 4.2.5 DENY IN-­‐GROUP STATUS 4.2.6 EXCLUDE THE OTHER FROM AN ACTIVITY 4.2.7 EXPLICITLY ASSOCIATE THE OTHER WITH A NEGATIVE ASPECT 4.2.8 USE THREATS, VIOLENCE 4.3 ADDITIONS TO THE FRAMEWORK 4.3.1 SELF-­‐AWARENESS OF IMPOLITENESS 4.3.2. ADDITIONAL IMPOLITENESS STRATEGIES 16 16 17 18 19 19 21 21 22 22 23 23 25 5. CONCLUSION 28 REFERENCES 30 SECONDARY LITERATURE DATA 30 33 APPENDIX 35
List of tables
TABLE 1: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPOLITENESS OUTPUT STRATEGIES ............................................................ 11 TABLE 2. DATA SEARCH TERMS .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 3. TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 14 List of figures
FIG. 1. SPORTS COMIC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 FIG. 2. YOUTUBE USER COMMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Fig. 1. Sports comic
1. Introduction
As the World Cup 2014 opening ceremony was launched in Brazil, millions of
people tuned in to what they share as an interest, hobby and passion that stretches over
cultures, age, wealth and religion. Whilst the world put many other activities on hold
and turned to newspapers, online news, television and radio, the global mass media
worked overdrive to deliver multilingual live commentaries, expert opinions and postresult analysis round the hour.
Besides the results, what appeared to be of particular interest for the media was the
tension amongst the players before, during and after the game – the more important
the match, the higher the emotions flared. This was also reflected in the amount of
hostility present in the discourse between football professionals and journalists, which
took place directly after the match. The journalists conformed to stereotypes,
relentlessly posing questions, provoking reactions and sparking controversy – and the
footballers played along. Expletives, disagreements and insults provided the media with
extensive material with which to produce a multitude of stories and suppositions. Yet
maintaining a linguistic interest in the events, questions developed regarding the
motives behind the discourse that arose between the managers, sportsmen and
journalists. As the sport itself already provided an assortment of actions whose labels
are ambiguous in terms of football and discourse, e.g. attacking, defensive, offense, an
application seemed both plausible and feasible. Where discourse between two
interlocutors is a negotiation of assumptions, mutual understanding, trust and
strategies, so is football. Furthermore, to loose face during or after discourse may also
be applied to loosing face after being beaten by the opposition in a football match.
Therefore, with a general impression of the data available, an array of positive and
negative emotions were noted, which provided a distinct platform on which to apply a
discursive, qualitative analysis of impoliteness strategies employed by both interactants
– the football professionals and the media professionals. Regarding types of
impoliteness delivered and developed by scholars over the past fifty years, the aim of
this paper is to discover how it is done in the world of football. This paper adopts the
focus on football as the ‘culture’ behind the extracted data.
This paper analyses impoliteness strategies in the specific context of conflictive
post-football-match interviews, with the aim to provide a discursive, qualitative analysis
on how impoliteness strategies are employed and reciprocated. It starts by considering
4 the boundaries between politeness and impoliteness, by providing an overview of the
pioneers of politeness theories and the development of scholarly attention towards a
more discursive research approach. Models by Culpeper (1996; 2003; 2005) and
Lachenicht (1980) on impoliteness strategies are employed to provide a framework for
data analysis. Following information on the extracted data and methodology, a
discussion of findings is presented.
2. Where politeness meets impoliteness
When approaching politeness in theory, differentiations must be made between
what the general public or specific cultures deem polite, as opposed to the scientific notion
of ‘politeness’. Eelen (2001) makes this distinction, which he terms “Politeness 1” and
“Politeness 2” (Eelen 2001: 31). Furthermore, the boundaries between politeness and
impoliteness are in no way clear cut; although culturally specific, being over-polite can be
interpreted by the hearer as an impolite utterance, whereas being impolite with a friend
can be judged as polite, termed as “mock impoliteness” (Haugh and Bousfield 2012).
In fact, according to Culpeper, “impoliteness is very much the parasite of politeness”
(1996: 355). Models of such evolved out of previous studies on face (Goffmann 1967) and
politeness (Lakoff 1973; Brown and Levinson 1987). However, research on impoliteness
proved harder than expected, owing to the fact that politeness itself does not yet own a
singular understanding. As late as 2003, Bargiela-Chiappini commented that “despite the
variety of studies which focus on linguistic politeness (…) the field still lacks an agreed
definition of what ‘politeness’ is” (Bargiela-Chiappini 2003: 1464). Theories on politeness
stretch back over fifty years (Austin 1962; Searle 1969; Grice 1975) 1 , although explicit
definitions were not produced until the nineteen-eighties. The following section outlines
the beginnings and consequent developments in the field before merging into theories on
impoliteness.
2.1 The pioneers of politeness
Studies at the beginning of politeness research focused on “how we employ
communicative strategies to maintain or promote social harmony” (Culpeper 2011: 395). In
1973, Robin Lakoff published a ground-breaking work, “The logic of politeness; or,
minding your p’s and q’s’”, which bridged the gap between transformational grammar and
1
Further information is given at a later stage in this paper.
5 the issues of language use, including attempts to explain what language can achieve (Ide in
Bayraktaroğlu and Sifianou 2001: xi). In her work, Lakoff presents two underlying rules of
pragmatic competence: “be clear and be polite” (1973: 116). In order to create harmonious
discourse, both must adhere to the above rules for conversation, she says. As a “maximbased view of politeness” (Culpeper 2011: 397), Lakoff posits, “it is more important in a
conversation to avoid offense than achieve clarity” (1973: 297). Lakoff’s second rule of
pragmatic competence, namely “(1) Don’t Impose, (2) Give Options, and (3) Make your
receiver feel good.” (Culpeper 2011: 397), is seen as the first attempt to integrate initial
theories on politeness “into an encompassing theory of language use” (Ide in Bayraktaroğlu
and Sifianou 2001: xi).
Lakoff paved the way for the formulation of Grice’s Cooperative Principle (1975),
which requires the speaker to make the “contribution such as it is required, at the stage at
which is occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged” (Grice 1989: 26), thus also providing explanations for how indirect meanings may
be conveyed (Culpeper 2011: 398). Lakoff’s findings also reached Leech (1983), who
adopted both the Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle, introducing maxims to
“allow for the minimisation of impolite beliefs and the maximisation of polite beliefs”
(Culpeper 2011: 398). It is generally agreed upon that Leech’s findings only apply to polite,
and not impolite, types of interaction (Jucker 1988: 376), as being impolite is not
necessarily “deviant linguistic behaviour to be avoided” (Bousfield 2008: 51).
2.2 Penelope Brown and Steven Levinson
Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1987) present a view of politeness that, at
the time of publication, was a “specialist, even somewhat esoteric topic” (Culpeper 2011:
393). However, Brown and Levinson’s theory sparked controversies and criticism from
various scholars (Matsumoto 1988, Ide 1989), due to lack of elaboration on the first superstrategy (Bousfield 2008: 60) and various issues with the idea of a “model person” (Bousfield
2008: 66, Werkhofer 1992: 155). However, it remains the most quoted work on politeness
theories so far. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) “face-based politeness” covers face and facethreatening acts (FTAs), whilst also incorporating sociological aspects and providing five
strategies of “counterbalancing face threat with (at least some) specific linguistic strategies”
(Culpeper 2011: 399). Their work on face heavily leans on Goffman’s findings (1967), who
posited “facework” as “the actions taken by a person to make whatever he [sic.] is doing
6 consistent with face” (Goffman 1967: 12). Brown and Levinson describe and analyse
politeness “according to the type of face addressed, positive or negative” (Culpeper 2011:
400), whereby they distinguish the above as follows;
Positive face
the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some
others (...) in particular, it includes the desire to be ratified,
understood, approved of, liked or admired.
the want of every competent adult member that his actions be
unimpeded by others.
(Brown and Levinson 1987: 62)
Negative face
They also make the distinction between face-threatening acts that threaten the hearer’s
face (e.g. orders, requests, threats, criticism) or the speaker’s face (e.g. expressions of
thanks, apologies, confessions), yet do not elaborate greatly on this (Brown and Levinson
1987: 65-8; Culpeper 2011: 400). However, they explicitly state that both parties tend to
cooperate, due to the “mutual vulnerability of face” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61).
Brown and Levinson’s discussion on the amount of threat posed by a specific face
threat is measured with the following variables;
1)
Distance (D) is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference between the
speaker and the hearer. It is often based on the frequency of interaction. The reciprocal
giving and receiving of positive face is symptomatic of social closeness.
2)
Relative Power (P) of the hearer over the speaker is an asymmetric social dimension. It is
the degree to which a participant can impose his/her own plans and self-evaluation.
Deference is symptomatic of a great power differential.
3)
Absolute Ranking (R) refers to the ordering of impositions according to the degree to
which they impinge upon an interactant’s face wants in a particular culture and
situation.
(Brown and Levinson 1987: 74-78; Culpeper 2011: 400-401, my emphasis)
It is also agreed upon by Culpeper (1996), that should one wish to perform an act that may
be interpreted as face-threatening, one of the first steps of politeness work is to calculate a
degree of face threat using the three dimensions listed above. In terms of relative power
(not an absolute term), Culpeper (2008) also argues that “the exercise of power is involved
in trade-offs between the speaker’s and the hearer’s faces” (2008: 33-4). The term trade-offs
is not an idly chosen synonym for exchange on Culpeper’s part, but in itself entails what
Brown and Levinson (1987) also stress; the three variables depend on what “the actors
think (…) is mutual knowledge between them”, thus these are “actors’ assumptions of such
ratings” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 74-76). Hence the more power one interactant is
7 perceived as having over the other, the more politeness the former, more ‘powerful’
interlocutor is said to receive. Brown and Levinson suggest a formula, whereby numerical
values may be attached to calculate the extent of face threat, or an “act’s weightiness (W)”
(Culpeper 2011: 401), given as
Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx
(Brown and Levinson 1987: 76)
However, it remains to be seen whether any scholar may apply this formula to quantitative
analysis with convincing results, says Culpeper (2011: 401).
Perhaps reasons for this may be found in the fact that discourse can never be
described by a simple equation, nor can it be reduced to variables and numerical values.
Furthermore, there are more than just three dimensions to an interaction. The beauty of
discourse lies in the interlocutor’s finesse of tailoring a specific utterance, bending what I
have discussed so far as the ‘rules’, and providing too little or too much of what the black
and white above describes. It is for this reason that Brown and Levinson thus speak of the
(widely criticised) “model person” (1987: 69) when they define the “five super-strategies” or
“general orientations to face” (Culpeper 2011: 401), which are chosen in order to avoid or
to “counterbalance” the expected FTA (Culpeper 2011: 401);
1)
Bald on record: The FTA is performed “in the most direct, clear, unambiguous and
concise way possible” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69).
2)
Positive politeness: The use of strategies designed to redress the addressee’s positive
face wants (…) a “sugaring of the pill technique” (Culpeper intro 402).
3)
Negative politeness: strategies adopted in order to redress the hearer’s negative face
wants. By doing so, the speaker displays respect for the hearer’s face wants and the wish
not to impede on the hearer’s freedom. (1987: 70) – “a softening of the blow technique”
(Culpeper intro 402).
4)
Off-record: The speaker performs the FTA in such a way that “there is more than one
unambiguously attributable intention so that the actor cannot be held to have
committed himself to one particular intent” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69) - if the
speaker is challenged on an intent to imply another message (Grice 1975), he may always
opt out or deny it.
5)
Withhold the FTA: The speaker does not speak at all.
(Brown and Levinson 1987: 69, my emphasis)
8 2.3 Jonathan Culpeper
Yet what occurs when an interlocutor does not aim to avoid an FTA, but in fact
aims to provoke or verbally attack the other party? The following section describes more
recent research that is built upon politeness but looks at “the use of strategies that are
designed to have the opposite effect - that of social disruption” (Culpeper 1996: 350).
Furthermore, developments in research moved away from considerations of single
utterances (Brown and Levinson 1987; Leech 1983) towards an analysis more integrated in
the context of extended, multiple utterances taken from real-life examples.
Although researchers such as Craig et al. (1986) and Tracy (1990) also pick up on the
idea that the analysis of communication should cover both the positive and negatives sides,
i.e. should consider hostile as well as cooperative types of communication strategies
(Culpeper 1996), Culpeper’s study is the first to focus on impoliteness of its own accord
and as a crucial part of most conversational discourse. In fact, Culpeper rejects Leech’s
notion that conflict in communication is "rather marginal to human linguistic behaviour in
normal circumstances" (1983a: 105) and proposes a list of impoliteness strategies, built
upon those2 suggested by Brown and Levinson (1987).
However, what Culpeper and other findings stress is the importance of context –
utterances analysed outside of the discourse they stem from may be interpreted as polite or
impolite, whereas discursive analysis infers the utterance’s real intention. Fraser and Nolen
(1981) also emphasise this in the following;
... no sentence is inherently polite or impolite. We often take certain expressions to be
impolite, but it is not the expressions themselves but the conditions under which they are
used that determines the judgement of politeness.
(Fraser and Nolan 1981: 96)
Culpeper et al. (2003) list a variety of examples
for contexts, especially referring to
“conflictive talk”, such as army training discourse, courtroom discourse, family/adolescent
discourse, doctor-patient discourse, everyday conversation and fictional texts (Culpeper et
al. 2003: 1545-46), however there has been no study on conflictive talk in sports interviews
so far.
A further subcategory of Culpeper’s impoliteness studies focuses on “mock
impoliteness” or “banter” (Culpeper 1996: 352), described as surface impoliteness
constructed to reflect and foster social intimacy (Culpeper 1996: 352; Leech 1983: 144). As
this notion ties in with intimacy, and therefore also power between the interlocutors, the
2
See chapter 2.2
9 association of lack of politeness coupled with growing intimacy will be of importance in the
discussion of the data at a later stage.
A framework that is important for my analysis is Culpeper’s impoliteness strategies
(1996: 356), which are (in short) presented here;
1)
Bald on record impoliteness – contra to Brown and Levinson’s first strategy, this does not
include situations of emergency but refers to the speaker performing an FTA in a direct
way.
2)
Positive impoliteness – “the use of strategies designed to damage the addressee's positive
face wants” (Culpeper 1996: 356).
3)
Negative impoliteness – “the use of strategies designed to damage the addressee's negative
face wants” (Culpeper 1996: 356).
4)
Sarcasm or mock politeness3 - obviously insincere politeness strategies.
5)
Withhold politeness – the speaker does not carry out politeness work where it is expected,
which results in the hearer’s face being threatened.
(Culpeper 1996: 356)
These are accompanied by a list of positive and negative impoliteness strategies, which
according to Culpeper, rely on discursive application only. As the various elements of the
list are crucial for my consequent analysis, it is reproduced in the following. It should be
noted here that, where Brown and Levinson’s model lacks reference to "paralinguistic and
non-verbal politeness” (Culpeper 1996: 358), Culpeper’s impoliteness strategies take them
into account. However, Culpeper’s observations also have various shortcomings, such as
they are “largely untested empirically” (Bousfield 2008: 5). What is noteworthy for this
particular study is it’s predecessor, “Aggravating language: a study of abusive and insulting
language” by Lachenicht (1980), of which Culpeper was unaware (Bousfield 2008: 83).
Despite the fact that Bousfield argues Lachenicht’s model seems
“hopelessly dated”
(Bousfield 2008: 99), I would tend to disagree on the fact that it cannot still be employed for
additions to the model provided in Table 1, is the model’s content provides important
additions to what Culpeper (1996) suggests. Table 1 is thus a merging of both researchers’
strategies. Those given in italics belong to territory covered by Lachenicht only, and not by
Culpeper.
According to Culpeper (1996: 357) “Sarcasm (mock politeness for social disharmony) is clearly the opposite of
banter (mock impoliteness for social harmony)“.
3
10 Table 1: Positive and negative impoliteness output strategies Positive Aggravation/Positive impoliteness
output strategies:
Negative Aggravation/Negative
impoliteness output strategies:
Convey that h is not liked
Use negative politeness
Express dislike for h
Use sarcasm
Ignore, snub the other, interrupt h
Exclude the other from an activity
Disassociate from the other
Deny in group status
Be disinterested, unconcerned, unsympathetic
Use inappropriate identity markers
Use obscure or secretive language
Seek disagreement
Make the other feel uncomfortable
Use taboo words
Call the other names
Etc.
Frighten, stress
Use inappropriate positive politeness
Condescend, scorn or ridicule
Invade the other's space
Question
Deflate
Challenge (indirectly or directly)
Disagree, contradict
Explicitly associate the other with a negative
aspect
Put the other's indebtedness on record
Use threats and violence
Etc.
Adapted from Culpeper (1996: 357-58) and Bousfield (2008: 85-86)
2.3.1 Critique and additions to Culpeper
Further critique made to Culpeper’s impoliteness theory – and indeed any other
impoliteness theories – is made by Bousfield, who states that no theory produced so far has
been able to fully account for reasons and nature behind confrontation in discourse
(Bousfield 2008: 71). Discussions so far have attempted to define, but do not cover
prerequisites for impolite behaviour, such as stated by Bousfield in his observation that
“for impoliteness to be considered successful impoliteness, the intention of the speaker (…) to
‘offend’ (threaten/damage face) must be understood by those in a receiver role” (Bousfield
2008: 72, my emphasis). Unfortunately, even in defining the nature of the counter-strategy
on the recipient’s part – “dismiss, make light of the face damage, joke” or “ignore the face
attack” (Bousfield cited in Bousfield 2008: 72) does not alleviate the researcher’s task of
defining whether the impoliteness was successful or not, as the nature of the hearer’s
reaction cannot always be agreed upon. Thus, what this paper seeks to pick out is not failed
politeness, but “instrumental impoliteness” (Beebe 1995: 166; Bousfield 2008: 73).
11 3. Data and Methodology
3.1 Data
The data collected consists of 15 dyadic interviews of a total 31 minutes 42 seconds,
between a) a professional footballer and a professional journalist or b) a football club
manager and a professional journalist. On average, the interviews last 3 minutes each and
were held immediately after the end of the respective game. No real-time recording or
physical presence was necessary (or possible) during data extraction. However, these postmatch interviews screened after every game on television (radio commentary and postmatch radio interviews are not included) are accessible online, which facilitated
transcription and enabled qualitative analysis.
3.2 Data collection
In the collection of material, I relied on online sources such as club websites and
online collections of football interviews. This first step was successful in understanding the
structure of the ‘standard’ post-match interview, yet also provided some jargon and
information regarding any reputation certain characters of the trade carry. With a list of
footballer’s and manager’s names – of whom some are more willing to give interviews than
others – the search was carried out for samples on youtube.com, a search engine for
anything ranging from short video clips to lengthy documentaries, upload by private and
corporate users. As previous research on post-match football interviews is barely existent
(in written or electronic form), I felt obliged to make use of the broad collection offered on
youtube.com, yet was also cautious to avoid data that had obviously been tampered with –
examples for such included obvious cuts and voice overs, which were often signposted by
the video’s title, user comments below, notable breaks in audio quality and/or increased
background noise. Using the video search engine as one might use an online corpus of
linguistics, I proceeded to search for distinct terms, seeking them in the title of the
respective clip and thus in the video’s content. As I aimed to focus on particularly
emotional and/or conflictive content in order to analyse how the levels of impoliteness in
discourse may function, my search was restricted to combinations of the following;
12 Table 2. Data search terms Fixed search terms
+ additional term
Post + match + interview
+ world cup +(*year*)
Post-match + interview
+ Premier + (league)
Football + (post-match)
+ angry
*journalist’s name*
+ emotional
*manager’s name*
+ looses
*footballer’s name*
+ emotional
+ looses
+ flips + (out)
+ world cup (*year*)
Regarding the labelling of the video’s titles, for which only the youtube.com users who
uploaded the videos are responsible, all elements of subjectivity (if at all present) is
unavoidable, yet also not influential for the data extraction and analysis – one must merely
bare it in mind. On the other hand, user comments below the videos also have a function
when it comes to data extraction – sentiments towards journalists (see fig. 2) in particular
help to pinpoint well-known names and thus locate further data.
Fig. 2. YouTube user comment It was particularly important to locate interviews held just after the game had ended, where
emotions are high and thus speech is more or less spontaneous4. A pin pointer for this is
already in the clip’s preview, where the backdrops of advertisements behind the scenes at
the stadium are evident. Any hits that proved to be prepared interviews, for example in a
studio, were not of use.
Lastly, in terms of language, there is a large amount of data available in other
languages, particularly Spanish, German and Italian. Whilst a comparative multilingual
study would also be noteworthy, this study focuses on the English language. However, data
does include non-native English speakers, an approach also taken by Schmidt (2007), who
states “scenes and frames are not language specific. It can be expected that a speaker of
4
See chapter 3.4 on limitations.
13 German has the same or very similar knowledge about prototypical events of a football
match and of ways of taking a perspective on them as a speaker of English” (Schmidt cited
in Lavric et al. 2008: 13).
3.3 Transcribing the data
The transcription conventions in my analysis are adopted and adapted from
Bousfield (2008), who worked with sources such as Ochs (1979), Gumperz (1992) and
Eggins and Slade (1997) using the stave method rather than the more standard CA style
(Bousfield 2008: 8). It sufficed to provide the standard orthography rather than include any
regional dialectal features. The transcription was carried out according to the individual
utterances made by the interlocutor and non-verbal communication is given in
parentheses, an approach widely known in discourse research in general (Bloom 1973;
Jefferson 1984; Gumperz and Berenz 1993). Whereas it was not necessary to transcribe
pauses and prosodic features, self-repairs and turn-taking (including interruptions and
simultaneous speech) were taken into account. In the individual data samples given in the
paper, information on the context is provided only when not already entailed in the
discourse – otherwise the assigned S1 always refers to the journalist, and S2 to the football
professional. The transcripts were not divided into staves as is the case in Bousfield’s
conventions (2008: 8), but rather the individual utterances numbered in the appendix for
reference purposes only. Punctuation is omitted, fillers such as “err” and “uhm” written as
words and the transcriptions in the appendix are not printed in any particular order.
Table 3. Transcription conventions S#
<indistinct>
.
..
=
CAPS
<laughs>
[*other*]
[///]
sic.
Speaker identification assigned in context
Unintelligible utterance
Pause up to ½ second
Pause between ½ second and 1 second
Latching contribution, a speaker’s utterance directly follows another
Pitch is louder e.g. shouting
Non-verbal expressions
Other actions or activities
Self-repair
Word is transcribed as it is stated in the data, even if grammatically incorrect
End
No further exchanges available to be transcribed
=
Interruptions, also indicated through spacing
14 3.4 Limitations
Although my data is not comparable to Bousfield’s in terms of content 5 ,
considerations concerning the data is equally applicable to my study. Besides being utilised
for expert analysis on football tactics, match development etc., post-match football
interviews are held, recorded and projected by the media for the main purpose of
entertainment. Culpeper (2008) made the link between impoliteness and entertainment –
therefore the chances that television broadcasters “have biased their own selection of
scenes” should, also here, be taken into account. A further level can be added to this, in
that many youtube.com users could also be seen as favouring certain clips over others in
order to cater for more sensation-seeking consumers. However, what may compensate the
above limitation is the fact that the interviews selected for analysis all fall into the category
of live interviews. Neither the film crew nor the studio was able to censor anything said
during the interviews.
A further limitation is also found in the fact that, due to the pressure to deliver
something of interest to the viewer and to entertain, the journalist could be seen as ‘acting’
in front of the camera. As Bousfield states, “(I)t is quite conceivable that the presence of
the camera crew may, in some cases, (…) have led to
more extreme conversational
behaviour” (Bousfield 2008: 13). This acting cannot necessarily be defined as the observer’s
paradox, due to the fact that the journalist is not systematically observed for any research
purposes and, more importantly, due to the fact that the camera is present at all times and
therefore no novelty to the journalists, players or managers. However, the presence of the
camera crew, the essence of live broadcasting and the pressure to deliver in such short
time may have an affect on the nature of discourse, the amount of face-saving strategies
(Brown
and
Levinson
1987)
or
impoliteness
strategies
(Culpeper
1996).
Bousfield focused on conflictive encounters between two or more persons, his data was extracted from
television ‘docusoaps’ and documentaries (Bousfield 2008: 8 – 12).
5
15 4. Findings and discussion
4.1 The standard post-match interview
Before regarding the content of conflictive post-match interviews, the average
structure such an event has is crucial, as to break the standard structure may already be
understood as an impolite occurrence. It is important to stress at this point that the
standard post-match interview is taken from data extracted that includes both highly
emotional scenes and scenes where little to no positive or negative impoliteness was found.
The extracted data conveyed the essence of a standard post-match interview,
consisting of introductory utterances, the main body of the interview, and a closing
comment. Physical closeness was observed throughout the interview, and in cases [2], [5]
and [6], the person interviewed chose to leave the floor before mutual agreement on the
discourse ending had been achieved. Introductory utterances were often in the form of
positive politeness, such as compliments, exaggerations or direct questions, often including
the interviewee’s first name if the reporter addressed a footballer, and using his surname
and/or title if he/she addressed a football club manager. In observing the total data sets, it
can be said that the main body of the standardised post-match interview consists of a Q&A
format that tends to avoid overlaps or interruptions – a feature possibly due to the presence
of a microphone, allowing smooth cuts between the speakers’ utterances. However, in
more emotional scenes or interviews where both speakers have microphones mounted on
their clothing, the results differ.
In terms of the average content, there are only very few parameters that determine
the ‘script’ of the standard interview. Topics addressed include winning/loosing, performing
well/performing badly, an important game/an unimportant game and the season ahead/ the
season so far. The discussion of my findings kicks off with the description of how interviews
of a more conflictive nature are commenced and, in turn, discusses their most common
impoliteness strategies.
4.2 Impoliteness output strategies
The beginning of every post-match football interview extracted for my data sets
displayed common ground in the lack of haste displayed by both interlocutors. As
previously stated, the beginning of interviews does not entail any form of introduction as
16 the standard meeting of two people displays. Where one would expect a form of greeting,
the data displays a direct question in its place. According to Lachenicht (1980), to question
already amounts to a negative impoliteness strategy, as it infringes upon the addressee’s
freedom – in the case of the football interview, both mentally and physically (the footballer
cannot proceed through the tunnel but is blocked by the press). This may also be read as a
positive impoliteness strategy, namely Culpeper’s make the other feel uncomfortable – not
only does the football professional’s non-verbal expressions display a dislike in being
questioned in itself, the content of the questions in more conflictive interviews are often
tailored to attack the addressee’s positive face wants – some of which the below examples
display.
4.2.1 Convey that h is not liked
The first section of qualitative analysis refers back to Lachenicht’s positive
aggravation strategies (1980). The following seeks situations in the data sets whereby the
speaker explicitly or implicitly conveys the impression to the hearer that the hearer is
disliked, either by the speaker or by a third party. This is designed to damage the
addressee’s positive face wants – thus, to be liked and approved of (see 2b.). The following
extract is taken from a dyadic interaction between a well-known journalist (S1) and a club
manager (S2);
[1]
(…)
S1:
S2:
S1:
Now before the game
We spoke about it
You said you may not get the warmest of receptions
But that was absolutely awful
With the crowd all booing you
What was that like for you
I can guarantee you that because
I am focused on the game
I don’t listen the crowd
And I don’t know if they say something or no
For me the main thing was the team the performance of the team on the
pitch
I understand your focus but
Even if you didn’t hear it I can tell you
Virtually the entire Chelsea crowd booed you and they were singing we
don’t want you here the [///]
It is going to be really difficult for you Rafa to turn this round
(…)
(App. 369 – 385)
17 Here, S1 conveys that S2 is disliked by an entire fan club – hence, by inferring it is not the
opinion of one but thousands of individuals, in a sense multiplies the positive impoliteness
strategy. However, by merely reporting this (and S1 not implying that this is S1’s personal
opinion), S1 performs this FTA off-record and “cannot be held to have committed himself
to one particular intent” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 69) – hereby inferring a combination
of impoliteness strategies. S1 continues to threaten S2’s positive face wants by insisting
“but seriously how do you go about it/And how big a problem is it/When you’ve got your
own fans booing the manager” (lines 389 – 391). Even though S1 makes multiple attempts
to convey that S2 is extremely disliked, S2’s strategies for counteracting the FTA remain
the same throughout the discourse. S2 dismisses the allegations by stating that he was
unaware of the events. As S2 implies he was unaware and thus unaffected by the situation,
S1 cannot provoke a reaction – hence S1’s multiple attempts to gain a more emotional
response.
4.2.2 Call the other names
Very much on-record, situations where either S1 or S2 uses expletives or swear
words to insult the addressee’s positive face wants were found to be a component of
conflictive football interviews, illustrated by the following examples.
S1:
[2]
[3] S1:
S2:
And you know
You’ve made your name as a wheeler dealer
(App. 460 – 461)
Manchini wants you to be like Cantona
Do you feel a bit like Cantona today
He was a winner here
Cantona
Cantona is really a big player
Me im different
I’m Mario
(App. 732 – 738)
Again, the actor of the FTA in [2] commits the FTA in a way that it could be argued is not his
opinion, but the opinion of others and the fault or action of S2, by using the phrase you’ve made you
name as. It was found that, in example [2], the recipient of the name-calling counteracted
the FTA by first dismissing it explicitly, and then using a different positive impoliteness
strategy as a counter-attack, namely “use taboo words” (see table 1.);
[4]
S2:
No no I’m not a wheeler dealer
No fuck off
(App. 463 – 464)
18 In [4] the visual data displayed S2 removing the microphone from his collar and leaving the
scene of the interview, whilst he used further swear words as he removed himself from the
scene. As S2’s positive face wants were very much damaged and he displayed his offense
openly, an interesting phenomenon could be noted in the development of the discourse.
As S1 insists “Oh no I didn’t mean it like that!” (line 465), thus inferring that S2’s reaction
was inappropriately matched to what S1 intended (this recalls the matter of intent behind a
speaker’s utterance that does not always directly correlate with the outcome).
4.2.3 Use taboo words – swear, or use abusive or profane language6
Not only were positive impoliteness strategies such as taboo words used on-record,
to offend (as seen in [4]), but S2 also uses negative impoliteness strategies. This is done by
ordering S1 to ‘go away’ – a phenomenon also found in Bousfield (2008) and described as
an “impingement on his freedom of action” (Bousfield 2008: 111-112). Extracts [2] and [4]
were taken from a discourse that displayed a high number of taboo words, as S2 is
recorded exclaiming;
[5]
S2:
I’m not a fucking dealer don’t say that
I’m a fucking football manager
(App. 467 – 468)
As also noted in Bousfield, the use of the word fucking operates “as a ‘booster’ (cf. Holmes
1984), enhancing the face threat of the main challenge” (Bousfield 2008: 112), which
indicates S2’s negative attitude towards S1.
4.2.4 Interruptions
It became apparent in the data set that although microphones were present
throughout each interview, interruptions were common if not employed as strategies.
Lachenicht (1980) categorises interruptions as positive impoliteness strategies, however the
data showed that these positive impoliteness strategies were most often countered by
negative impoliteness strategies, such as challenge (directly or indirectly) and disagree,
contradict (also Lachenicht 1980). The following extracts show these combinations;
6
(Culpeper 1996: 358)
19 [6]
(…)
S1:
S2:
And you know
You’ve made your name as a wheeler dealer
There’s not been much wheeling and dealing here has there=
=No no I’m not a wheeler dealer
No fuck off
(…)
[7]
(App. 460 – 464)
(…)
S1:
So are you are you blaming the news channel=
S2:
S1:
S2:
=No no=
=what are you saying
No, I’m just saying
it was a bit tight trying to get through there
(…)
[8]
(App. 572 – 578)
(…)
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
well surely it’s yours now Steven
Four games left
Five points=
=nothing’s ours yet=
=five points split=
=nothing’s ours yet you know that
Nothing’s ours yet=
=it’s yours to go and win
Nothing’s ours yet
(…)
(App. 640 – 648)
Whilst in examples [6] and [7] disagreement is voiced explicitly with no, disagreement in the
form of contradiction is found in [8], where S2 repeats the phrase nothing’s ours yet 4 times,
where 50% of S2’s utterances are interruptions. Whilst S2 insists on overpowering S1’s
speech through interruptions, S1 employs the same strategy, interrupting S2’s interruption
and insisting on completing his monologue. An interruption of an interruption is also
noted in [7], however this occurs in the form of a challenge – as S2 harms S1’s positive
face, S1 retaliates by harming S2’s negative face, forcing him to explain precisely what his
point is.
20 4.2.5 Deny in-group status
The only occurrence of this positive impoliteness strategy is found in the form of a
counter-attack (see [9]). When the journalist oversteps the mark and asks the football player
for inside information, the football player responds by letting the journalist know he is not
entitled to that status.
[9]
(…)
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Tell me what did you say
In that huddle right at the end
None of your business
Give us an idea, a clue
I think you know what I said to them players in the huddle Geoff
I think the important thing now is not to get carried away with that result
(…)
(App. 649 – 654)
As the journalist, S1, threatens the footballer’s negative face by invading his space
metaphorically (see invade other’s space Culpeper 1996: 357), S2 threatens S1’s positive
face by denying him the knowledge. However, this strategy seems inefficient, as S1 is
unaffected and commits the FTA a second time. At this point, S2 divulges (parts of) the
information – and proves S1’s relentlessness to be a success.
4.2.6. Exclude the other from an activity
A further positive impoliteness strategy that seems to be unlocked by a negative
impoliteness strategy is Culpeper’s (1996) exclude the other from an activity. From the data
sets collected, it would seem that this strategy was only provoked by a negative
impoliteness strategy, namely frighten, stress or also deflate (Culpeper 1996; Lachenicht
1980). The following example displays their interaction;
[10]
S1:
S2:
But the harsh reality is
That’s eight seasons without a trophy for arsenal now
Yeh well
I’d rather not talk about that now
To be honest
After [///] after how we’ve played today
(…)
(App. 422 – 428)
21 By reminding the football player about his team’s lack of success, the footballer’s negative
face is threatened. This is the very opposite of “softening the blow” (Culpeper intro 402), a
strategy said to redress the recipient’s negative face wants. Therefore, S2 reacts by
countering the FTA with positive impoliteness by not giving the journalist the interview he
was seeking. S1, the journalist, has to spontaneously re-plan the interview and is excluded
from the insights on the team’s failures that he was hoping to be given.
4.2.7 Explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect
What Culpeper argues as part of negative impoliteness output strategies, to
explicitly associate the other with a negative aspect may also be seen as bald on-record
impoliteness – the FTA is performed directly, without any option to claim any sort of
ambiguity in his utterance’s intention. It was surprising that, from the data collected, there
was only one instance of this;
[11]
(…)
S1:
S2:
Do you think you have to take a serious look at his refusal to shake his hand
and the way it subsequently set the tone
For elements of what happened here today
I think you are very severe
and I think you are bang out of order
to blame Luis Suárez for anything that happened here today right
(…)
(App. 536 – 542)
This phenomenon was found much more in the multilingual data collected, yet not
included for analysis (see below).
4.2.8 Use threats, violence
Although aggression before, during or after the match is discussed (see appendix
lines 515 – 585), little violence was displayed in the post-match interviews collected. The
only explicit threat made is noted in [12], and made in the form of one of the speaker’s
threatening to end the discourse – a strategy not included in either positive or negative
impoliteness strategies listed in table 1. However, I would argue that threatening to
physically abandon the interview is a FTA towards the recipient’s negative face, as by
doing so, the recipient’s freedom to pose his questions (and do his job) is adversely
22 affected. The following (subsequent parts after excerpt [11]) displays the instance and
includes the recipient’s reaction to the FTA;
[12]
(…)
S2:
I think predominantly that both sets of fans behaved really well
They had a bit of banter between each other no problem right
How many bookings was there=
S1:
S2:
S1:
=Kenny I’m not=
=End of story=
=Kenny no I’m not talking about the fans
S2:
What do you mean no I can go any time I want=
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
=no no no when I said no I wasn’t talking about the fact =
=how many bookings was [sic.] there =
I wasn’t asking you to stay here=
=how many bookings was [sic.] there=
Kenny I’m not talking about the fans=
A couple of bookings =
= <indistinct>
S2:
(…)
(App. 543 – 559
4.3 Additions to the framework
4.3.1 Self-awareness of impoliteness
An interesting phenomenon noted during the analysis of the data displayed what
could be termed as a ‘speaker awareness’ of his or her positive or negative impoliteness
strategies. In contrast to [5], involving many instances of a taboo word, examples such as
[13] were noted, whereby the speaker used a taboo word and followed up his utterance by
asking permission to use the word. Although the permission was granted, the speaker
proceeded to rephrase his utterance, avoiding the taboo word.
[13]
(…)
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Was that your best game
You’ve ever played
For Manchester City
.. I say that
I played all my season
Was shit
Can I say that
(nods)
My season wasn’t good
I play no very good [sic.]
(…)
(App. 720 – 729)
23 Further examples of such speaker awareness were found in [14] and [15], where S2
explicitly asked to be allowed the floor to rid himself of his emotions (see [14])– thus in a
sense warning S1 of possible FTAs to come. By giving S1 time to prepare for possible
impoliteness strategies, S2 contributes to alleviating the situation.
[14]
(…)
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Well Sam you’ve given them a real scare
What do you make of the performance of your team
And the result you’ve ended up with
Well can I get my anger out the way first
Go
Well
You know
<sighs>
(…)
[15]
(App. 164 – 171)
(…)
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
A lot [///] a lot of speculation
did [///] did you ever ask to leave
Listen I’ve just told you I’m concentrating on my football which I’m doing
all summer
and [///] and the way that the fans are behind you
the way that the club is behind you erm
well it must give you a lot of optimism for the season ahead
The fans have been brilliant erm
I’ve just had a long game
the fans here have been fantastic with me and
erm you know its great the reception I get [///] I get here so erm
hopefully I can repay them with good performances and goals like tonight
(…)
(App. 26 – 37)
A similar phenomenon is noted in [15] – S2 becomes exasperated with S1 (the journalist)
and implies he was not paying attention. By stating Listen I’ve just told you (line 28), S2
implies S1 was ignoring S2’s previous statements, which would have threatened S2’s
positive face. By explicitly telling S1 to listen, S2 is using a negative impoliteness strategy,
putting S1’s indebtedness on record. Thus, we are faced with a situation whereby a
positive impoliteness strategy is counteracted by a negative impoliteness strategy. S1’s
reaction to this includes many self-repairs and fillers, which point towards insecurity and
perhaps sparks S2 into mending the previous FTA. S2 answers the question in a calmer
24 manner, and inserts an utterance into the content of his answer that is unrelated to the
topic. By adding I’ve just had a long game (line 34), he attempts to account for his previous
FTA – and redresses S1’s positive face wants and making S1 feel that S1 and S2 are
members of the same group.
4.3.2. Additional impoliteness strategies
During data evaluation, a number of impoliteness strategies not listed by Culpeper
(1996) or Lachenicht (1980) became apparent. Variants of the strategies given in the
framework could also not describe the data and it is therefore necessary to list the
additions to the framework describing the impoliteness found in my data.
4.3.2.1 Criticise h
Neither of the above references considers the element of criticising someone a
positive face threatening strategy. Only Bousfield (2008: 126) includes this element by
breaking one of Leech’s maxims (1983) , changing “minimise dispraise of other” (1983: 125)
to “maximise dispraise of other”, noting the potential power behind this FTA (Bousfield
2008: 126). The following extract displays the data that displays this strategy;
[16]
(…)
S1:
You know you may well get criticism for the way you played in the first half
A lot of time wasted
Should you apologise should you even care
(…)
(App. 119 – 121)
Many implicit criticisms were also handed to the football professionals by the journalists,
see [17]. The journalist asks the manager about a situation involving a dispute with a ball
boy, and, following the manager’s insightful answer, proceeds to imply that the manager
undertook controversial action in doing so.
[17]
(…)
S1:
S2:
what did you say to the ball boy when you when you went over
I told him not to do that because err
It has a risk of err.
One of my players to punch him or to loose his temper so don’t don’t
do that because you
You are risking
But somebody told him to do that
25 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
It’s always a controversial moment at the moment with managers
going out of their <indistinct> are you concerned at all=
=no no NO no no I went there I went there to stop=
=<indistinct>
Because ah.
(…)
(App. 934 – 944)
In all situations where explicit or implicit criticism was made, the positive impoliteness
strategy was usually also coupled with another strategy, e.g. in [16] in combination with a
negative politeness strategy – put the other’s indebtedness on record, and in [17] again in
combination with a negative politeness strategy, namely frighten, stress.
4.3.2.2 Use a language foreign to h
Although this paper does not consider multilingual data and the following example
was not integrated in the data, an example was found where intentionally using a different
language is an impoliteness strategy in itself. S2 and S3 proceeded to answer S1’s question
(an English speaking reporter) in a dialect belonging to the region of Bayern, Germany, as
the following extract of the interview displays;
[18]
Context: Journalist (S1), interviews Thomas Müller (S2) and Bastian Schweinsteiger (S3)
following their World Cup Championship in 2014. Thomas Müller came close to being
awarded the golden shoe for the most goals scored in the Championship – however this title
ended up going to someone else.
S3:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S3:
S2:
S3:
S2:
[*to reporter*] You have to speak in Bavarian
Yeh
No I don’t speak Bavarian but
You know congratulations for this world cup
You were this close to being
You know, you’re the top striker
Of the whole world
World championship
How does that make you feel
DAS INTERESSIERT MICH ALLES NICHT
[*none of that interests me*]
DE SCHEISSDRECK
[*that bullshit*]
<laughs>
WELTMEISTER SIND WIR
[*we are world champions*]
DEN POTT HABEN WIR
[*we won the cup*]
<laughs>
DEN SCHEISSIGEN GOLDENEN SCHUH KANNST DU DIR HINTER DEN
OHREN SCHMIEREN
[*you can stick the golden shoe where the sun doesn’t shine*]
<walks away>
26 End
(App. 974 – 989)
This impoliteness strategy is an FTA that damages S1’s positive face. As the speaker proves
that he understands S1’s language (as he understands the question), he chooses to answer
in a language S1 has previously states she does not speak. This fosters group status
between S2 and S3 whilst, simultaneously, threatens S1’s wish to interact, be negotiated
with and be liked. Again, this positive impoliteness strategy is coupled with another,
namely leaving the floor of discourse all together.
4.3.2.3 Make h aware of his impoliteness
Although this strategy may be perceived to belong under the umbrella of strategies
listed in table 1, such as make the other feel uncomfortable, or explicitly associate the other with
a negative aspect, a tendency for h to directly address the speaker regarding their FTAs
seems to lack in both Culpeper’s and Lachenicht’s strategies. It was noticed in the data that
some professionals who were questioned made the reporter aware that they were not
impressed with the strategies being used – the extract below illustrates this phenomenon;
[19]
(…)
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Ashley Young =
= I dunno why you ask these questions
You just looking for.
Stupid little things
Anyway [*shakes head*]
Because he played very well
It was a compliment to Lindeguard for the performance he put in
Proves they were two terrific goal keepers
(…)
(App. 1040 – 1046)
In [19], the football manager interrupts and voices his annoyance over the interview’s
content so far. By stating the journalist is merely looking for novel facts, rumours or gossip,
the speaker gains power over the journalist – in a sense, he has pinpointed S1’s motivation
to converse and damages S1’s positive face in the process. It could be argued that this
strategy is a counter-strategy without exception, as to make another speaker aware of his or
her impoliteness demands at least one occurrence of impoliteness prior to the utterance.
27 5. Conclusion
This paper set out to analyse post-match interviews recorded and made public, even
when – and particularly when, of a conflictive nature. It was assumed that, not only were
these interviews designed in such a way as to provoke emotionally charged responses, but
also made available to the public for reasons of entertainment. The paper did not aim to
argue that all post-football-match interviews are emotionally charged to this extent, or to
argue that they all follow the same structure.
The data sets collected and examined qualitatively delivered a heterogeneous result,
whereby certain findings could be pinpointed. It was found that, although widely
employed by scholars in politeness research, Culpeper’s model (1996) on impoliteness
output strategies did not suffice to make a qualitative analysis of my data. Even having
included older, yet just as noteworthy impoliteness strategies presented by Lachenicht
(1980), did not provide an adequate framework for the discussion. As were the findings in
Bousfield’s study of 2008, the edges between one impoliteness strategy and another are
indeed blurred. It has been shown to be the case in my analysis as well that, regarding
papers and theories on impoliteness, “none could fully account for how impoliteness is
actually expressed in all the situations of the extracts taken from [my] corpus” (Bousfield
2008: 100).
However, the paper has provided convincing evidence to suggest that impoliteness
strategies never occur alone. Once present in discourse, they are part of an intricate web of
verbal provocation, power imbalance and work in the sense of ‘action – reaction’, or display
a ‘chicken or egg’ character. As Bousfield (2008) states, we speak here of a situation
whereby “whilst language shapes the situation, the situation shapes language” (Bousfield
2008: 170). Thus, how impoliteness is triggered in post-match interviews and how it is
ended demands qualitative research and cannot be reduced to numbers.
What the findings of this paper point towards, refers to the nature of the
impoliteness employed in the specific context of the post-football match interview. It is
here where I argue against Bousfield’s comment on triggering impoliteness, where he
states “the contexts in which impoliteness appears and is utilised strategically must have
been previously invoked (…) the interactant who utters impoliteness must have felt
sufficiently provoked at some point prior to actually delivering the impoliteness” (Bousfield
183). In many of my data sets, this was not the case. Impoliteness was generated from ‘the
28 unknown’ – a seemingly pleasant discourse was found to turn sour quickly, or the
discourse was initiated with impoliteness. Reasons behind the interactant behaving in such
a way were not measured or researched in great detail, for this would require in-depth
media studies. However, I would argue that there is a strong possibility that impoliteness in
post-football match interviews delivers a higher consumer rate than depicting an average
conversation of results. Thus, I would argue here that we are dealing with ‘strategic
impoliteness’ – impoliteness with the goal to cause offense and, moreover, spark further
impoliteness.
29 References
Secondary literature
Andersen, Gisle and Karin Aijmer (eds.).
2011.
Pragmatics of Society. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Austin, John L.
1962.
How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca.
2003.
“Face and politeness: New (insights) for old (concepts).” Journal of
Pragmatics 35(10–11): 1453–1469.
Bayraktaroğlu, Arin and Maria Sifianou (eds.).
2001.
Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Beebe, Leslie, M.
1995.
Bloom, Lois.
1973.
Bousfield, Derek.
2008.
“Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence.” In:
Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: Ethnolinguistic,
Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Georgetown University
Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown:
Georgetown University Press, 154-168.
One word at a Time: The Use of Single Word Utterances Before Syntax.
The Hague, Mouton.
Impoliteness in Interaction. Andreas H. Jucker (ed.).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson.
1987[1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Craig, Robert, Karen Tracy and Frances Spisak.
1986.
The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. In:
Human Communication Research 12: 437-468.
Culpeper, Jonathan.
1996.
“Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. In: Journal of Pragmatics 25
(1996) 349-367.
2008.
“Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power”. In: Derek
Bousfield and Miriam Locher (eds.). Impoliteness in Language. Studies
on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. (Language, Power
and Social Process 21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 17-44.
30 2011.
“Politeness and Impoliteness”. In: Pragmatics of Society. Andersen,
Gisle and Karin Aijmer (eds.). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann.
2003.
“Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and
prosodic aspects.” In: Journal of Pragmatics 25 (10/11): 1545-1579Eelen, Gino.
2001.
A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome's Press.
Eggins, S. and D. Slade.
1997.
Analysing Casual Conversation. London and Washington: Cassell.
Fraser, Bruce and William Nolan.
1981.
“The association of deference with linguistic form”. In: International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 27: 93-109.
Goffman, Erving.
1967.
Grice, H.P.
1975.
1989.
Gumperz, J. J.
1992.
Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
“Logic and conversation”. In: Speech Acts [Syntax and Semantics 3],
Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.). New York: Academic Press, 41 –
58.
Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.
“Contextualisation and Understanding”. In: Rethinking context:
Language as an interactive phenomenon. A. Duranti and S. Goodwin
(eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 229 – 252.
Gumperz, John J. and Berenz, Norine B.
1993.
“Transcribing conversational exchanges”. In: Talking Data:
Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Jane A. Edwards and
Martin D. Lampert (eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haugh, Michael and Derek Bousfield.
2012.
“Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian
and British English”. In: Journal of Pragmatics 44, 1099-1114.
Jefferson, Gail.
1984.
Jucker, Andreas.
1988.
“Transcript notation”. In: Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ix-xvi.
“Relevance theory and the communication of politeness”. Multilingua
7: 375 – 384.
31 Lachenicht, L. G.
1980.
Lakoff, R.
1973.
1989.
“Aggravating Language: A study of abusive and insulting language.”.
International Journal of Human Communication 13 (4):607-688.
“The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s’”. In: Papers
from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 292–
305.
“The limits of politeness.”. Multilingua 8: 101-129.
Lavric, Eva, Gerhard Pisek, Andrew Skinner and Wolfgang Stadler (eds.).
2008.
The Linguistics of Football. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
GmbH + Co. Kg.
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1977.
1983a.
Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
1983b.
Pragmatics, discourse analysis, stylistics and “the celebrated letter”.
Prose Studies 6(2): 141–57.
Ochs, E.
1979.
Penman, Robyn.
1990.
Schmidt, Thomas.
2007.
Searle, John R.
1969.
Tracy, Karen.
1990.
Language and Tact. Linguistic Agency University of Trier, Series A,
Paper No.46. [Reprinted in Leech, G. (1980) Explorations in
semantics and pragmatics. Pragmatics and Beyond I(5), 79–117.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.]
“Transcription as Theory”. In: The Discourse Reader. A. Jaworski and
N. Coupland (eds.), 1999. London and New York: Routledge.
“Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse.” In:
Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9: 15 – 38.
“The Kicktionary: Combining Corpus Linguistics and Lexical
Semantics for a Multilingual Football Dictionary”. In: The Linguistics
of Football. Eva Lavric, Gerhard Pisek, Andrew Skinner and
Wolfgang Stadler (eds.). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
GmbH + Co. KG, 2008.
Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
“The many faces of facework“. In: H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (eds.).
In: Handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 209226.
32 Werkhofer, K. T.
1991.
“Traditional and modern views: The social constitution and the
power of politeness”. In: Politeness in Language: Studies in its History,
Theory and Practice, Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich
(eds.). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Data
AdamsHighlights I Goals 2011. “Benfica vs Manchester United (1-1) Sir Alex Ferguson
Interview HQ”. Youtube.com. 14th September 2011. (3rd July 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhA2oIolsnI#t=89.
Albunu. “Thomas Müller & Bastian Schweinsteiger Interview || EPIC REACTION On
Golden Boot Award ||”. Youtube.com. 16th July 2014. (24th July 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TC-AO4gtik.
ChaznDave1947. “Harry Redknapp ‘I'm no wheeler dealer’ x rated reaction to Sky's Rob
Palmer”. Youtube.com. 29th August 2010. (4th July 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBsI7RAuvk.
CriRo7i. “Cristiano Ronaldo's Interview: ‘Maybe I'm Too Good’”. Youtube.com. 13th August
2013. (19th July 2014). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUUxgPMryZk
Don’t forget to subscribe!. “Alan Pardew Owns BBC Reporter | Joey Barton vs Gervinho
Incident | Full Interview!”. Youtube.com. 14th August 2011. (9 July 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA4RqcB7vLI.
Efosa12. “Mario Balotelli interview + swear and Micah Richards interview”. Youtube.com.
15th May 2011. (3 July 2014). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3OTZd-97n4.
Football Weekly. “Geoff Shreeves Cruelly Lets Jenkinson Know it's 8 Years Without A
Trophy”. Youtube.com. 13th March 2013. (28th June 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq9I4s_LzHs.
Football Weekly. “Chelsea 2-0 Liverpool Frank Lampard & Ba Post Match Interview 27
April 2014”. Youtube.com. 27th April 2014. (7th June 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rtCVJDYXmA.
Michael Bentley. “Paul 'Gazza' Gascoigne”. Youtube.com. 8th August 2006. (16th July 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwNAZFHHirg.
Onlyfailstuf. “Geoff Shreeves Tells Rafa Benitez That The Chelsea Fans Hate Him After
His First Game In Charge”. Youtube.com. 26th November 2012. (1st July 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm6kMVB9xj8.
Rohit Sinwar. “Jose Mourihno Best Ever football interview, Jose Mourihno press
conferences”. Youtube.com. 12th April 2014. (11 July 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yUuwDr0f9w.
33 Sky Sports. “Steven Gerrard's team talk & emotional post match interview”. Youtube.com.
13th April 2014. (7th July 2014). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVsiclRKBms.
Soccermatch. “’ANGRY’ Wayne Rooney Post Match Interview Questions”.Youtube.com. 20th
March 2014. YouTube Video Editor. (5th June 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyUCPVDLM08.
Sportstuff11. “Sam Allardyce Angry About Offside Goal Post Match Interview West Ham
2-2 Manchester United 17/4/13”. Youtube.com. 17th April 2013. (30th June 2014).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKAmRzaM7Cs.
Telegraph Staff. “Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish's fractious post-match interview with
Sky Sports: the full transcript”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk. 12th February 2012. (5th
July 2014).
Vectorbelly.com. (27th July 2014). http://i.imgur.com/gUgkpTx.jpg.
34 Appendix
35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyUCPVDLM08
Context: Journalist = S1, Wayne Rooney = S2
Total time 2:14
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Well a piece of history tonight
200 goals for Manchester United
what does that represent for you
Yes it’s something I’m very proud of, obviously
uhm delighted first of all to be playing [///] back playing and scoring
erm yeh so good result obviously the first game in the Champions League is always
important and
thankfully we’ve got the victory
Should it have been a hatrick
I don’t know I’m sort of in two minds to be honest erm
I didn’t know whether to shoot or Robben was there as well so
I was sort of in two minds so
maybe I should’ve just went straight for goal but you know it’s erm
at the end of the day we’ve got the three points which is more important
Well your name’s being sung again are you happy here again
Listen I’m concentrating on my football as I’ve done all summer so erm
I’ve put my head down I’ve worked hard and erm to get myself fit
I’m ready for the season so erm
I’m delighted the way I’ve come back erm
delighted that I’m back playing scoring goals
A lot [///] a lot of speculation
did [///] did you ever ask to leave
Listen I’ve just told you I’m concentrating on my football which I’m doing all
summer
and [///] and the way that the fans are behind you
the way that the club is behind you erm
well it must give you a lot of optimism for the season ahead
The fans have been brilliant erm
I’ve just had a long game
the fans here have been fantastic with me and
erm you know its great the reception I get [///] I get here so erm
hopefully I can repay them with good performances and goals like tonight
And the head band
yeh
<laughs>
Lucky head band
It’s not something I really want to wear but
erm I don’t think I’d be able to play if I didn’t wear it so
it’s helped me get on the pitch so that’s the most important thing
And what sort of importance is it for the team tonight
to win for David Moyes
his first Champions League game?
Of course it was
It was a big learning curve for the manager and
his first game in a Champions League proper
36 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
erm you know when we see it tonight we didn’t take many chances but got two goals
so
that’s something I’m sure we’ll look at but
at the end of the day I think tonight was all about just getting the three points
which thankfully we got
and what about the kid
when you scored a hatrick here nine years ago
would you ever have thought 200 goals in the red shirt
Yeh it’s obviously it’s gone quick so
erm no I’m very delighted erm with that
I’m pleased to score 200 goals for a club like Manchester United
It’s a fantastic honour for me
more to come
I hope so
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rtCVJDYXmA
Context: Journalist = S1, Frank Lampard = S2, Demba Ba = S3
Total time 2:59
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S3:
<indistinct> on the league, was that all a load of bluff
Err I dunno err you’ll have to ask him that it’s obviously not mathematically
impossible for this game and certainly not now still so
we’ll keep going we showed that desire today on the pitch you could see that on the
pitch
What was your motivation today
Well what we always have yeah
We have spirit we wanna win err we wanna stay in the game
We were devasted last week at Sunderland cuz that was a home game we wanted to
win erm
But we’ve bounced back today you know we’ve changed the teams <indistinct>
coming in with his debut absolutely fantastic
I think every man out there today was brilliant
It looked fairly obvious today but tell us what the tactics were from the boss
well we didn’t we [///] we knew how [///] how good
Liverpool are in the first fifteen twenty minutes
So that was the moment we definitely didn’t want to give them anything
We didn’t want to give them space behind us you know
Their strength’s been their attacking force all season
We’ve been watching them recently they’re so good so
We set out to stop that err
We knew we could then start to the game and the man up there got us the goal
Demba how surprised were you when you got your opportunity
Well I don’t know.
It doesn’t happen every day that a player like Steven Gerrard to slip like this in so
important game on the pitch but erm
I got this chance I had to take it and I took it
And thanks God for me for the whole team that we are happy today
37 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 S1:
S3:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S3:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Because of the style of the game you were playing after the break did you just have
to be ready as soon as you got a chance, cuz you had so few chances
As a striker you always have to be ready you know sometimes you have a lot of
chances sometimes it’s just one chances [sic.] that has been created by the opener
and give you the win and err
Today this is this kind of style we play but we are very happy all of us
It was a horrible moment for Steven Gerrard do you have sympathy for him
Of course without a doubt
I think yeah.
You know it can happen to any player Stevie’s a top top player
Whether Liverpool go on to win the league or not I don’t think that takes anything
off the player
He is and has been without a doubt
And he’ll be low there but he’s been dropping them all season so
you know
what can you say that’s just not a nice moment
You know you may well get criticism for the way you played in the first half
A lot of time wasted
Should you apologise should you even care
No I don’t think so err I don’t know if Liverpool apologised for not giving us the
ball back twice so
That’s the way the game is erm
You know we played to win the game we’ve won titles here before we know what it
takes
If we’re gonna go away and gonna dig in and win games that’s what we’ll try do
Like we played away at Liverpool at the beginning of the season we played a
fantastic game forward if we can do that we’ll do that so we have both sides to win
the league
Demba what do you think this has done to the title race now
Err
You know
We’re still in it
We’re still in it and err
We always believe that we can err get the title
Unfortunately we have to wait for the mistake from the other teams and err But
we’re gonna fight until the end
Two games to go and we gonna go for it.
How much was today down to Jose Mourinho
Well a lot I mean <sighs>
You know he’s our manager and teams are the image of the manager just as
Liverpool are Brendan
And by the end of the day players have to go out and follow orders
They have to show their own individuality their own expression and
You need men like Demba to come in and finish like he does so
It’s a group effort you talk about the managers, you talk about the staff you talk
about the team we come up here to win this game
With a few difficulties around it
Injuries suspensions a massive game on Wednesday
And we’ve dug in and won a game there
You certainly did congratulations guys thank you both
cheers mate
38 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 S3:
thank you
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKAmRzaM7Cs
Context: Journalist = S1, Sam Allardyce = S2
Total time 4:09
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Well Sam you’ve given them a real scare
What do you make of the performance of your team
And the result you’ve ended up with
Well can I get my anger out the way first?
Go
Well
You know
<sighs>
We played Manchester United and it’s a famous victory for us today
And it doesn’t come very often
And when you play as well as we played against Manchester United and your team
has shone
As best they can play
And scored one of the best goals of the season
And the assistant referee takes it away from you
It’s a bit difficult to take when you
You know
That’s their job
Their job is to give the offside decisions when they appear in front of them
And this is a blatant one
This is not an excuse
Its not a position he should or shouldn’t be in
It’s straight across the line
On that last defender
He can see Percy too <indistinct> offside
On our last defender
It hits the post comes around Percy
Should put his flag up he doesn’t
Now
Andy Carrol shot two minutes in
To the first half
And his flag went straight up
So I don’t know what’s going on
Unless he’s taken a famous victory away from us today
I mean you could say
If Manchester United hadn’t scored then they might have scored from there on
But to have them draw this game by a default goal from Manchester United
Is a bitter pill to swallow
Fantastic performance by the team
An outstanding performance in fact
You know they get rubbished
Some of our players
39 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
For the type of football they play
Because of me
And I do think that’s a disgrace as well
Because they’ve shown everybody how good they are today
What do you think it’s down to
The linesman’s mistake
Is it just a mistake
Well they shouldn’t make them mistakes
You know if we make those mistakes
They’re out
They’re dropped
They don’t play
You know what I mean
Because they’re blatant
You make big decisions
And you don’t get them right in my team
You’re out the team
And that’s a massive decision he’s made
And like I said you don’t know what the game would’ve finished up at
But
At that particular time
You know
Its an off side goal
And it should’ve been given
And im bitterly bitterly disappointed
That we haven’t had a famous victory
Our Westham fans go home tonight
With 41 points
Knowing that we’re safe
Probably we will be safe for 39
Uhm
60 70 80 million riding on it
they’re riding on their decisions as well as those you know
There was one other incident towards the end of the first half where Andy Carroll
went up for a corner
Smashed into David Le Hail
What did you make of that
Well yeah I mean
You know
He’s gotta he’s gotta try and get the ball
He shouldn’t
It’s a foul
As simple as that
Uhm
He’s committed to the challenge he can’t stop
So it you know
The referee has to give the free kick and I suppose the worst it’s a booking it’s a
yellow card
You know it’s nothing more than that really
It’s clumsy challenge
Urr like I said you know
40 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
At the end of the day
We’ve given great account of everyone today
I’m proud of our players
And err
It shows that we’re improving
Learning to lead with this level of football
Against one of the best teams or probably
It is the best team in the Premier League this year innit
You know and we’ve given <indistinct> in the game
And we got a fantastic result
But it should’ve been more
Err
And it only should’ve been more
<indistinct> a bad decision by the system unfortunately
and and like I said
41 points
leaves us almost certain to start playing for next year
Andy Carroll is one of those
Who gave a good account of himself
You seem to indicate in the build up to this game
You won’t be able to keep him
Is that how you feel
Is that the case
Well I mean like I said you know
I I the implications of financial fair play will
Will take its toll
And that might be a case
Where it takes its toll
Im absolutely certain yeh cuz
Our budgets haven’t been set yet
But it can be a deciding factor in terms of where we go
And what we want to bring in next year
Make our life a little bit more difficult
But I can understand that
You know that everybody wants a bit more financial stability
I can understand that
But it doesn’t make my job any easier
and it wasn’t a bad performance
As you negotiate your own contract was it
Tonight
Well no not at all like I said
We worked err
<indistinct> I’ve said all season we’ve been really good at home
you know we’ve only lost four at home all season
we’ve been really really good
some of the performances that we’ve lost
the fans have really appreciated as well
and I’m sure they’d have loved to have gone home
Knowing that we beat Manchester United tonight
And really when they get home they know
When they look at the TV
41 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 S1:
S2:
We actually should have done
But
There we go
I’m happy with the point
Thanks Sam well done
Cheers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm6kMVB9xj8
Context: Journalist = S1, Rafa Benitez = S2
Total time 3:06
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
What did you make of your first game in charge of Chelsea
I’d say it was a tough game against a good team
We knew
And I think that the first half
We had two or three situations that we were running with the ball
And gave the ball away
And we were in a bad position
But it wasn’t very clear
No clear chances for them no clear chances for us
The second half we started really well
Much better
And then counter attack and then we were
Err linking with the small play between the lines it was much better
And after when we were a little bit tired they were attacking
And you know, the players that they have they are good players too so
It was a tough game but err
It’s not the ideal to show that at the end.
Err against a top side to have a clean sheet
And see the team, the way the team is spirit the mentality the world trait I think was
quite positive so really pleased with the players because they were doing a great
effort
Was that the biggest positive for you
The mental reaction of the players
And the way they played for you
yeh err clearly you could say they were trying really hard
With and without the ball and that was positive
I think that normally has a quality when you are defending
You work so hard and so (almost sneezes)
You can sneeze.
(points to nose) urr yes
you okay?
but the they were working and they were trying and had some chances
against a great team
They had some chances too
But you could see the team spirit the mentality was there
Your best chance probably fell to Fernando Torres
Even though it was on his weaker foot
points to nose
42 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
let me know when its coming
It fell to his weaker foot
Should he have scored
I think it was a great shot
But he won’t this kind of situation is on target
But again I will not talk about individuals
I think that the team as a team was doing really well
So the effort I thought you could see everyone trying to help each other
So that’s the main thing and the positive thing for the future
Now before the game
We spoke about it
You said you may not get the warmest of receptions
But that was absolutely awful
With the crowd all booing you
What was that like for you
I can guarantee you that because
I am focused on the game
I don’t listen the the crowd
And I don’t know if they say something or no
For me the main thing was the team the performance of the team on the pitch
I understand your focus but
Even if you didn’t hear it I can tell you
Virtually the entire Chelsea crowd booed you and they were singing we don’t want
you here the [///]
It is going to be really difficult for you Rafa to turn this round
We will wait
We will see what happen
S1:
Have [///] but seriously how do you go about it
And how big a problem is it
When you’ve got your own fans booing the manager
S2:
To be fair
Again
I was not listening
I was just concentrate on the game
So for me that’s it
So you could see
My body language on the on the dug out I was try to control it
and giving something to my players and that’s it
S1:
S2:
Ok as I said having told you that what could you do to turn this around
Keep working on the pitch
And coop with the players
Preparing the team
For the next game
And try to win the next game
could you say you enjoyed today
no because I
We couldn’t win
But at least I could see the reaction of the players
S1:
S2:
43 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 And I like it
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq9I4s_LzHs
[4]
Context: Journalist = S1, Carl Jenkinson = S2, Mikel Arteta = S3
Total time 0:54
S1:
But the harsh reality is
That’s eight seasons without a trophy for arsenal now
S2:
Yeh well
I’d rather not talk about that now
To be honest
After after how we’ve played today
And after the positives we can take from tonight
You know I think
That’s putting a bit of a negative approach on this evening and err
I think we need to take the positives from tonight
Those positives
Do you think they’ll be a clean sheet
Also some belief and confidence going into the weekend as well
And that all important fourth spot
S1:
S3:
S1:
S2:
S3:
S1:
Yeh I’m telling you its not easy to react
To a <indistinct> we had in the past
And the 3:1 at home was very difficult
For us all to take from the boys and come in here
Not many teams win here
And they shown that they are top sides in Europe this season so
I think the lads deserve credit
The boss as well because he believed from the start that we could do it
And we tried our best
It was a terrific performance tonight
Well done guys
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you.
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBsI7RAuvk
[5]
Context: Journalist = S1, Harry Redknapp = S2
Total time 0:14
S1:
And you know
You’ve made your name as a wheeler dealer
There’s not been much wheeling and dealing here has there=
44 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 S2:
S1:
S2:
=No no I’m not a wheeler dealer
No fuck off
Oh no I didn’t mean it like that!
Didn’t mean it like that Harry
I’m not a fucking dealer don’t say that
I’m a fucking football manager
End
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9077354/Liverpool-managerKenny-Dalglishs-fractious-post-match-interview-with-Sky-Sports-the-full-transcript.html
[6]
Context: Journalist = S1, Kenny Dalglish = S2
Total time 3:22
S1:
Kenny first of all
Your thoughts on the match itself
And the way it panned out
erm..
Obviously two goals come at it quite lazy <indistinct>
<indistinct>
opportunity for us to find the end of the game
give the boys credit they go back
and the get they got a goal
at least not far over the line
the the free kick so
erm.
Then <indistinct>
I think over all they were the better side
You expected them to be at home
Just 5 minutes 2 goals
did you have a view on the incident
Just before half time
As far as Rio Ferdinand got there
And actually got there <indistinct> the first touch on the ball
We still cant decide
well I fear for 24 cameras here and 30 40 PCs cannot see what happened
Then there’s no chance of me giving a valid opinion
<indistinct> the first one
but I don’t know if Ferdinand played the ball first or not
now substitutions you may seem
To have a terrific affect
What were you looking to change
In the way that you’ve been playing with your substitutions
try to get ourselves back into the game
Erm
Everybody just needs a wee change and maybe sometimes it works sometimes it
doesn’t
We got a goal but we still loose the game so
<Indistinct>
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
45 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 S1:
as you know the football <indistinct> will dominate the headlines tomorrow
First of all your reaction
to Luis Suárez refusing to shake Patrice Evra’s hand
and did you have an inkling that he was going to do that
S2:
I never knew he never shook his hand
S1:
He refused to shake his hand
S2:
I’ll take your word for it but I don’t know
I wasn’t there so I never saw it
I didn’t look at the handshakes
but that’s contrary to what I was told
S1:
Well now that I have told you that
that he did do it
Kenny
what’s your reaction to that
S2:
We’ll ask him and take it from there
S1:
Do you think you have to take a serious look at his refusal to shake his hand and the
way it subsequently set the tone
For elements of what happened here today
S2:
I think you are very severe
and I think you are bang out of order
to blame Luis Suárez for anything that happened here today right
S2:
I think predominantly that both sets of fans behaved really well
They had a bit of banter between each other no problem right
How many bookings was there=
S1:
S2:
S1:
=Kenny I’m not=
=End of story=
=Kenny no I’m not talking about the fans
S2:
What do you mean no I can go any time I want=
S1:
S2:
=no no no when I said no I wasn’t talking about the fact =
=how many bookings was [sic.] there
=
S1:
I wasn’t asking you to stay here=
=how many bookings was [sic.] there=
Kenny I’m not talking about the fans=
A couple of bookings =
= <indistinct>
yes but Kenny you also know there was controversy in the tunnel
the police were called the stewards were called
before and after the game
cuz of the tension during the game
and a lot of that was down to the fact they didn’t shake hands
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
46 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 S2:
Do you know something else
See when we had the game the FA Cup tie right
because it wasn’t on a 24-hour news channel
in the build-up to the game
nothing like this happened
S1:
So are you are you blaming the news channel=
S2:
S1:
S1:
S2:
=No no=
=what are you saying
S2:
No, I’m just saying
it was a bit tight trying to get through there
I don’t know what happened in there because I was here right
So if you want to know what happened in there ask somebody else that was there
Cuz I wasn’t
Ok
Kenny thanks for talking to us
No problem
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVsiclRKBms
[7]
Context: Journalist = S1, Steven Gerrard = S2
Total time 2:44
S1:
Steven we’ve seen the tears and emotion there at the end, tell us about it
S2:
<sighs> really emotional
Emotional
But
I need to keep calm
Still four big games to come but (sighs)
That meant so much basically when
You know we got back into the game and
We feared the worst at that point but
I think we’ve shown today that we wanna go to the wire
We wanna go all the way
You know nothings won yet but
That was err, probably the biggest statement we’ve made so far
what was it like
as the game was with you
was going away from you
then you got it back again
and potentially the title
in parallel with all of that
S1:
47 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 S2:
that was the longest ninety minutes I’ve probably ever played in
Erm
Kept flashing back to how long the clock was taking
You know in cup finals and big games I’ve played in before
But you know
It felt like the clock was going backwards in some parts of that game
Erm
I’m a little bit lost for words at the moment because
That is such a big result for us
And we’ve got four good finals left
You know people said that was the biggest one but
I disagree I think the biggest one now is Norwich
S1:
was there a subtle change today as well it’s gone from being in your hands
Now four games it’s yours to loose
(sighs) well we’ll let other people comment and have opinions on whose it is to
S2:
loose
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
And who’s in pole position
I’ll leave that down to your experts
NAME Neville Redknapp Carragher all the
All the men I’m sure they’ll put whoever they want into the driving seat but
well surely it’s yours now Steven
Four games left
Five points=
=nothing’s ours yet=
=five points split=
=nothing’s ours yet you know that
Nothing’s ours yet=
=it’s yours to go and win
Nothing’s ours yet
Tell me what did you say
In that huddle right at the end
None of your business
give us an idea, a clue
I think you know what I said to them players in the huddle Geoff
I think the important thing now is not to get carried away with that result
Erm
We need to stay calm, focussed
We worry about Norwich now
We’ve got all week to prepare for Norwich now
They’re fighting for their lives and
You know
It showed against Westham against Fulham
Against Sunderland
On our journey on they are the games that were just as tough as today so
You know the scenes are great today
And the fans are very happy but
Day off tomorrow and then we go we go for Norwich
can you dare to dream now though
not yet
48 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 S1:
S2:
Steven thanks for your time
cheers
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwNAZFHHirg
Context: Journalist = S1, Paul Gascoigne = S2
Total time 0:29
S1:
S2:
S1
S2:
A contrast of the <indistinct>
Happy
So happy
Couldn’t sleep last night had to have
A couple of injections
<indistinct<
had a couple of injections
cuz I just couldn’t sleep
so nervous
im happy
im now away to get my shot measured
YES!
(walks away)
what about your start to the game
I was (///) it wasn’t bad was it
Exclaims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3OTZd-97n4
Context: Journalist = S1, Mario Balotelli = S2
Total time 1:18
S1:
S2:
Mario Balotelli
How does that feel
To win at FA Cup level
I’m happy no
Err
I said I said to the guys
Before the game
I said to the guys before the game
That we are better than them
We have to respect them
Because they are
They are a team
So
You have to go on the pitch with respect
But you have to give everything
And I said if we give everything we gonna win
49 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Was that your best game
You’ve ever played
For Manchester City
.. I say that
I played all my season
Was shit
Can I say that
(nods)
My season wasn’t good
I play no very good
Today maybe I played more for the team
So I think this is important
Manchini wants you to be like Cantona
Do you feel a bit like Cantona today
He was a winner here
Cantona
Cantona is really a big player
Me im different
I’m Mario
So
He knows that every player have his quality
I have my quality
And if I give my quality for the team I can be important
Mario you’re man of the match congratulations well done
Thank you
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA4RqcB7vLI
Context: Journalist = S1, Alan Pardew = S2
Total time 4:06
S1:
S2:
Alan uhm
First game of the season
A point against Arsenal’s not a bad thing but
But uhm
Unsatisfaction gained in lots of ways
Probably for both teams
Well I think you know when you go to the premier league
Err the first game err
Of any season
You’re not nailed down
You’re not quite right
The concentration levels are not quite there
Certainly in the first half
uhm
For all our effort endeavour
We kept giving away the ball too cheaply and err
Asking for trouble
And we struggled in that first half for long periods but
50 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
But err you know Arsenal
A lot of criticism this week
That they aint gonna do nothing
And that result showed
I thought the really passed it well
And moved us around
We were resilient <indistinct> on the pitch were outstanding today
It looked like their twelfth game in the Premier League not their
Uhm err and we had some good performances today
You need to when you play teams like arsenal
You know they’re going to
You gotta understand
That they’re gonna boss the possession at times
And you gotta be patient
What let us down today was
Set plays were really poor
And that’s unusual for us
Cuz we’re really good at set plays
Uhm we could’ve put more pressure on Arsenal
Obviously the talking point will be though
The sending off of <indistinct>
Three red cards in the game when you
When you look at it
<indistinct> seemed to stand on Barton
well he did
yeh
Well he did yeh
Barton might have gone
And Gervinho did
Why Barton
Well cuz he grabbed him by the throat
That’s. Fairly clear
Well I just thought that err
Firstly the guys dived
And I think with any professional that’s
That you know
Get your blood boiling
And I think Joey generally wanted to
Exercise that frustration to him
Uhm without
With that said
It was <indistinct> the laws
<indistinct> picked him up as if to say you know what you doing
and then there was the grapple
and err
I thought that err
<indistinct> there’s no angels in there
and err but of course
he slapped him round the head
and you can’t do that
and err he had to go
first
51 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
The erm
The fact that you lost you know a big player for you this week you know
Makes things very difficult
So uhm
you <indistinct> that negative strand for
No No NO no no no not at all
nice to nice to see you smiling
No I was just about
To say given
Given you know they’re in that situation as well
You’ve lost a player just before the start of the season
Yeh
yeh of course but
Listen
You know the top teams can come and get players at our place
Cuz they got the finance to do it
Some of these teams are backed by sovereign states
So you know
And err its difficult
But we’re gonna try and build a sign
And build young players and
We had a lot of young players on the pitch today
Who would’ve learnt from today
It’s a good learning curve
Especially for our new boys
Err they found it difficult at times
But they’ll be better for it
And err hopefully as we grow and get stronger
We can resist some err some of this but you know
Even Arsenal are vulnerable at the moment
And it looks like <indistinct> loosing two players
And you don’t wanna loose your best players
I’m going to say something positive about Joey
Oh I’m pleased about that
<laughs>
Cuz he played well
He did play well
I thought he err
You know
Its obvious that he’s
We’ve had frustrations in pre season
Uhm both myself and him and I expressed them to him
Err he’s expressed his to me
And we had a little fall out but
We’ve err kinda put right
And I think err Joey knows that he can trust me I’ll look after him and take care of
him
And err I think he might stay here
Erm.
And I think that’d be good for us
You know he has to give me insurances and he did that Friday morning
He played and played well so err
52 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 S1:
S2:
He’s given me what I wanted today a Joey Barton performance and err
For all what you could say about Joey his play today was excellent and err
And fair play to him
And I thought <indistinct> showed a lot of promise
That s good player
Well he showed flashes
Because he’s a lot better than he showed today
He had to do a lot of defending today
And was moved around a little bit
Erm but as I say he’s one of those players that will grow on this division
And we think he’s gonna be a big hit this year
And err one or two of his passes didn’t quite make when it looked like it was gonna
get in so
But he will make those passes and err
Err as I say we’re certainly threatening the goal more going forward than we did
today
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yUuwDr0f9w
Context: Journalist = S1, Jose Morinho = S2
Total time 3:55
S1:
S1:
S2:
And I think err the goal keeper made some some good saves
In the first half we had probably the best the best chance of the first 45 minutes
But I think their spirit was stronger their desire was stronger their commitment was
stronger
And err I think that makes me feel that maybe they deserve the victory
And the chances they had in the last part of the game are out of context
They’re out of the concept of the game
Where the team that is loosing is giving a lot of spaces and
Is gambling everything
But even without without that I think because of the spirit
I think they deserve
Does that disappoint you that
You say your team were beaten by a side you say had more spirit today
Yes it disappoints me
But is a kind of erm.
Of defeat that err
We can only blame ourselves
The referee was good erm
I think the only mistake was to give 4 minutes of extra time but that
Give 4 or 5 or 6 wouldn’t change I think the game
But the referee was fine
The opponent err fought for life
In an aggressive way but err
Err in a fair way
Erm..
53 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Again doesn’t interfere with the result of the game
I don’t like the ball boys provocating (sic.) the players cuz
At the end of the day happens what happened last year at Swansea when the player
loose a little bit his temper
After that the player he’s guilty of something that
He’s not guilty so I think its not right to educate kids to do that
But all of the scenes outside the the. Main. Err
Analyse of the game which is for me because of that spirit because of that desire the
deserve
what did you say to the ball boy when you when you went over
I told him not to do that because err
It has a risk of err. One of my players to punch him or to loose his temper so don’t
don’t do that because you
You are risking
But somebody told him to do that.
It’s always a controversial moment at the moment with managers going out of their
<indistinct> are you concerned at all
<indistinct>
no no NO no no I went there [///]I went there to stop <indistinct>
Because ah.
I know that emotional guy one of the guys really was not loosing for them in terms
of spirit because my full defenders are all phenomenal in their attitude in in the way
they play every minute of every game
I was afraid of ask him to go there and to do something to push to kid of to create a
situation
So I went there just to stop my player not [///] not for anything else
And the kid knows because he knows what I told him
it’s one result
How does it affect your title aspirations
Do you feel
Perhaps the manner of the result
I think now we loose any chance
Of err of finish first
I think now we depend too much on other results too much err
I know that erm <indistinct> was an important weekend in this round
But today we we threw away three points
We lost against a team that is difficult
Erm
But we lost against a team that was better than us in terms of spirit in terms of
mentality and that is that last scene that normally my teams are is.
My teams normally they don’t loose because the opponent was err was stronger in
terms of spirit of motivation of aggressivity [sic.] and today –
End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TC-AO4gtik
Context: Journalist = S1, Thomas Müller= S2, Bastian Schweinsteiger = S3
Total time 0:28
S3:
You have to speak in Bavarian
S2:
yeh
54 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 S1:
S2:
S3:
S2:
S3:
S2:
No I don’t speak Bavarian but
You know congratulations for this world cup
You were this close to being
You know, you’re the top striker
Of the whole world world championship
How does that make you feel
Das interessiert mich alles nicht
De scheissdreck
<laughs>
Weltmeister sind wir
Den Pott haben wir
<laughs>
Den scheissigen goldenen Schuh kannst du dir hinter den Ohren schmieren <walks
away>
Ends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhA2oIolsnI#t=89
Context: Journalist = S1, Sir Alex Ferguson = S2
Total time 2:24
S1:
S2:
S1:
half
S2:
S1:
S2:
Sir Alex
Was that a good result for Manchester United
Well when we were down
And coming back
I thought that was a good part of the game
I thought the second half of the first half went very well
<indistinct>
But the last 15 minutes I think they come into a little bit
Err and the two turning saves
To keep us in it
We had one or two chances ourselves
But you know I think our draw was probably fair
What do you think changed in the performance between the first and the second
I think <indistinct> a goal
Was a good thing because it put them in the back for a bit
Second half we dominated it
Went well
Err there were a couple of good opportunities
Ryan was very keen to show up and fight and <indistinct>
But other than
Apart from that I think it was a good performance by us
I know you were expecting a difficult game
Was it more difficult than you expected
No no it you could well expect it
With a <indistinct> a game of contrasts
Possession
When you get the possession
55 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 They did well with the possession
We did well that’s what good teams can do
And I think in that >indistinct> match <indistinct>
S1:
goal
You went for an experienced Champions League side but there was a debutant in
A champions league debutant in goal
Has he given you a selection >indistinct> ahead of the Chelsea match at the
weekend
S2:
oh no David gave <indistinct> on Sunday
I was err
That was the understanding we had before the game
And it doesn’t change
S1:
Ashley Young =
S2:
= I dunno why you ask these questions
You just looking for. Stupid little things
Anyway <shakes head>
S1:
Because he played very well
It was a compliment to Lindeguard for the performance he put in
S2:
Proves they were two terrific goal keepers
S1:
and also Ashley Young played not part in this game is he in consideration for the
weekend?
Yes we just gave him a rest tonight
I felt that the two games with <indistinct> and Saturday’s game in Bolton
He just needed a little break
Because he’s new to the club and
Obviously every game is massive for him
So he’ll be nice and fresh for Sunday
S1:
And you talked not only about resting players to keep them fresh but about players
getting match experience by playing tonight
Have you got what you wanted out of those =
S2:
=yes I think that
Most of them have had good game time
Some parts of the full game
<indistinct> full game
and <indistinct> a good part of the game
young Fabio a good part of the game
we needed that because
we’ve got important times coming up now with the Champions League started
err we’ve got a <indistinct> next Tuesday
we’ve got Chelsea on the Sunday
Stoke on Saturday
They all play their part
S1:
Thanks very much
Ends
56 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUUxgPMryZk
Context: Journalist = S1, Cristian Ronaldo = S2
Total time 1:59
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
S1:
S2:
Cristiano only one place to start was it a penalty
If the referee [///] is decision for referee
For me its penalty
You need to you need to see in television
I don’t understand against Cristiano every time is polemic
I don’t know why
as soon as he touched it, did you know it was a penalty
Did you feel the contact
of course I felt the contact <shrugs shoulders>
This is why I.. slip.
He touch me
I’m not saying you should but could you have stayed on your feet
yeah but if you touch me I can. <imitates falling>
I I I loose my my movement and this is why I go down
Cuz he kicked me
having had the penalty awarded
Was it then mind games cuz you took one against Barra in the first game
.. you know
When some.
Team loose have something to say
Err I think err
The win is fair
I think Manchester play well play better
Ad you go second round to semi final
Everyone is happy im happy because I scored
And I helped my team
Had you had good chances before that do you think
Yeah you have a good chance
You play against err err Watford
You never know err <indistinct> is difficult games but err
You have a good team
And err you have a good chance to go to the final
Once again as you say its Cristiano Ronaldo and its controversy once again
Why is it always the case with you
<laughs>
I don’t know why err
It’s everytime against Middlesborough
For me its err it’s a penalty
Maybe someone’s don’t like me but
Because I’m [///] maybe I’m too good
I dunno why
But when you hear accusations that you cheated how do you feel
I feel good I feel confident
I feel in a good form
57 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 S1:
S2:
S1:
I think the team is very very good
And erm
You need to carry on like that
Well done you’re the <indistinct> man of the match
thank you very much
<laughs>
End
58 59