Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Language Awareness
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297825
To cite this Article Norton, Julie E. and Gieve, Simon(2010) 'The erasure of linguistic difference in media representations
of encounters with others on British television', Language Awareness, 19: 3, 205 — 225
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.505290
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.505290
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Language Awareness
Vol. 19, No. 3, August 2010, 205–225
This paper explores how ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speaker identities are created in
the discourse of television lifestyle, travel, and documentary genres where an English
‘native speaker’ audience is assumed. It presents a coding system for analysing the rep-
resentation of actors in television programmes and examines to what extent ‘non-native’
speakers are allowed to ‘speak’ and to what extent their contributions are mediated in
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
the editorial process. Critical language awareness and critical discourse analysis are
drawn upon to uncover constructions of Otherness in the examples of broadcast talk and
to examine how power relations are manifest. Short descriptions of relevant scenes and
brief transcripts from the programmes in our small corpus are discussed. It is argued
that the way ‘foreigners’ are represented on British television does ideological work,
potentially reinforcing the notion that it is not important to learn foreign languages
because everyone speaks English these days.
Keywords: media representation of identity; constructions of Otherness; critical
language awareness
Introduction
Critical language awareness (CLA) deals with language as discourse, viewing verbal in-
teraction as a form of social practice (Svalberg, 2007, p. 296). As this definition suggests,
CLA is closely related to critical discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 1999, p. 72) and can
be used to show how certain languages, such as English, achieve a dominant status and how
speakers of less privileged language varieties are constructed and represented. CLA offers
language users the potential to develop greater ‘consciousness and control over the way
they use language and the way they are positioned by other people’s use of language’ (Clark
& Ivanič, 1999, p. 64). This is particularly important in media representation of foreign
language (FL) speakers who may for a variety of reasons (see Gieve and Norton, 2007) find
their identity options reduced and their participation rights limited when they appear on
British television. In this paper, we draw upon CLA and CDA to uncover constructions of
Otherness in a small corpus of broadcast talk, focusing upon social relationships, identities,
and power relations.
Lifestyle and travel programmes which see ‘Brits’ setting up home abroad and opting for
a new life in the sun or portray celebrity presenters, such as Michael Palin, on globetrotting
expeditions have become increasingly common on British television. One thing that these
programmes share is a reluctance to allow the ‘foreigners’ who feature to ‘speak’ in their
own voices. Programme makers depict a world where it appears possible to get everything
∗
Corresponding author. Email: jen7@le.ac.uk
ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 online
C 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.505290
http://www.informaworld.com
206 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
done in English to the extent that linguistic difference and communication difficulties
are portrayed as irrelevant and unimportant when chasing one’s dream lifestyle abroad or
travelling around the world. The expectation, it seems, is that everyone will speak English
these days.
Other genres of televised programmes, such as serious, ‘issues-based’ documentaries,
handle linguistic difference in slightly different ways, adopting a variety of strategies to
deal with encounters across linguistic difference, such as voice-over summary, subtitles,
and interpreters. There is still, however, a reluctance to expose the British viewing public
to talk in a foreign language for extended periods and a tendency to minimise any kind of
communicative stress both for the participants in the programmes and for the audience at
home.
In Gieve and Norton (2007), we presented a framework for analysing television pro-
grammes which include examples of communication across linguistic difference. This study
focused upon the triangular relationship between protagonists, FL speakers, and audience
and identified strategies adopted in dealing with linguistic difference in a corpus of lifestyle,
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
travel, and documentary programmes (see Appendix 1). The strategies we identified in-
cluded avoiding encounters where linguistic difference exists by preferring, for example, to
include only ‘foreigners’ who can speak English or expatriates in the programmes or using
mediation strategies to make communication appear smooth, unproblematic, and everyday.
This study illustrated the numerous ways that processes of marginalisation can potentially
occur as a result of specific production and editorial practices.
In this paper, building upon our previous work and drawing upon the same corpus of
broadcast talk (see the ‘Research methodology’ section for further details), we present a fine-
grained analysis of the dynamics of the interaction represented in two of the programmes in
our corpus. We introduce a coding system which allows us to explore identity construction
in greater depth and address the following research questions:
(1) How are the identities of non-native speakers (NNSs) of English created in the discourse
of television documentary and lifestyle genres?
(2) Are NNSs given their own voices, or are they represented through the voices of others?
(3) How ‘distant’ are the voices of NNSs made through the use of different representational
strategies? How are their contributions evaluated?
(4) How are the contributions of NNSs transformed in the editorial process from speakers-
in-interaction to speakers-observed-by-overhearing-audience (cf. Burger, 2002)?
It is argued that the way ‘foreigners’ are represented on British television does ideologi-
cal work, ‘flattening’ or even erasing linguistic difference, constructing NNSs of English as
linguistically deficient (but not English speakers who are unable to speak other languages),
failing to provide models of English speakers attempting strategies to bridge linguistic
difference, and reinforcing the notion that it is not important to learn foreign languages
(Coleman, 2009; Kilborn, 1993).
Theoretical perspectives
The theoretical orientation of this paper draws upon CLA (Clark & Ivanič, 1999; Fairclough,
1999; Pennycook, 2001; Svalberg, 2007; Wallace, 1999), CDA (Barker & Galasiński, 2001;
Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1995a, 1995b; Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, &
Liebhart, 1999), post-structuralist perspectives on language and identity (Duff, 2002; Duff
& Uchida, 1997; Kubota, 1999; Norton, 1997, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004), and
Language Awareness 207
research on the representation of social actors in media discourse (Machin, 2007; Machin
& van Leeuwen, 2007; Talbot, 2007; van Dijk, 1996; van Leeuwen, 1996). Through these
broad frameworks, we attempt to reveal the ideological framings that are apparent within
the discursive constructions of the actors in our study in conjunction with the mediation
strategies adopted by the programme makers.
CDA ‘aims to provide a framework for systematically linking properties of discoursal
interactions and texts with features of their social and cultural circumstances’ (Fairclough,
1999, p. 79). It is relevant to our study because it aims to make visible the relationship
between power struggles and discourses which are prevalent in public life and are propagated
and appropriated by broadcast media. Thus, a common theme of CDA has been to explore
how discourse constructs common-sense opinions, which are ideological in the sense that
they may be used to maintain the status quo and unequal relations of power (Fairclough,
2001). One example taken from our data is the hegemonic assumption that everyone
speaks English. Discourse is viewed as the means by which participants construct their
social realities and maintain and reproduce discriminatory and hegemonic social practices,
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
leading to the Othering, marginalisation, or exclusion of less powerful social groups and
individuals. CDA provides a tool to uncover ‘strategies of discriminatory inclusion and
exclusion in language use’ (Wodak et al., 1999, p. 8).
Identity is defined as a discursive construction and a site of struggle (Norton, 2000,
p. 127). Discourses are the site at which identity is apparent: ‘The primary medium within
which identities are created and have currency is not just linguistic but textual: persons
are largely ascribed their identities according to the manner of their embedding within a
discourse – in their own or in the discourse of others’ (Shotter & Gergen, 1989, p. ix, cited
in Ivanič, 1998, p. 18). Identities are viewed as multiple, contradictory, and shifting across
time and space (Norton, 1997; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004) and must be understood with
reference to wider social processes and power relations. In the case of broadcast media, the
possibilities for negotiation of identities is controlled and constrained by decisions taken by
programme makers in the production process (Fairclough, 1995b; Talbot, 2007). Although
editorial intervention, therefore, impacts upon the representation of all actors (their ability
to participate on their own terms and in their own voices), NNSs who have to negotiate
their identity positions across linguistic difference, and may not be wholly aware of the
programme makers’ priorities and objectives, are placed in a weaker position than the NS
actors who are allowed greater opportunities to address the audience directly (Gieve and
Norton, 2007; cf. van Dijk, 1996).
Machin (2007) and Machin and van Leeuwen (2007) have also shown that the way
social actors are represented in particular categories, as individuals and in groups, or not
represented even though they may be present influences the relationship which develops
between audience and actor, sometimes drawing the viewers closer to specific people and
distancing them from others. According to van Leeuwen (1996), representations include or
exclude social actors to further specific interests and achieve political agendas in relation to
the intended audience. He discusses exclusions which leave no traces in the representation
and involve the exclusion of the social actor and their activities. He also distinguishes
between two types of exclusion: ‘suppression’ and ‘backgrounding’ (van Leeuwen, 1996,
p. 39). In the case of ‘suppression’, reference to the social actor is removed from the text,
whilst ‘backgrounding’ allows the social actor to be mentioned and their identity to be
inferred ‘with reasonable (though never total) certainty’ (van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 39). He
notes that ambiguity often arises because it is unclear if the suppressed actor is supposed to
be retrievable by the audience or not and that this strategy is sometimes exploited to allow
particular social practices to remain uncontested.
208 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
awareness in terms of the views they explicitly express about language, and their use of
language knowledge to produce and interpret language acts.
The interpersonal function of language allows broadcasters to construct particular social
identities and establish relationships with other actors and their audience. The imperative
in media discourse for audience engagement, termed ‘broadcast sociability’ (Talbot, 2007,
p. 87), depends, however, upon shared cultural understandings, that is, a representation of
the world which is ‘familiar, recognizable, intelligible, shareable’ (Scannell, 1992, p. 334).
This representation may involve a discourse of inclusion for some but, as Talbot (2007,
p. 91) warns, may result in the marginalisation or exclusion of others: ‘Sociabiliy needs
to, indeed must, erase difference; it depends on shared cultural background, implicit or
otherwise’.
In cases where linguistic and cultural difference exists between actors in televised
broadcasts, the production team has to decide upon the type of mediation that will be adopted
to overcome potential communication difficulties. In Gieve and Norton (2007), we noted that
a number of possibilities exist for the mediation of linguistic difference. It can, for example,
be mediated through erasure. It can be backgrounded, foregrounded, or ‘thematised’ as the
procedure of talk between speakers of different languages becomes the topic or content of
the interaction itself; or it can be represented as an ordinary, everyday interactional practice
through the choice of editorial techniques such as subtitling. The choices which are made
during various stages of the production process and their implications for the discursive
construction of identity and social relationships are explored further in the analysis of our
data. The theoretical perspectives outlined above have also informed the development of
the coding categories which are explained later (see the ‘Research methodology’ section).
In the final part of this section, we offer a definition of the key terminology we have
used.
between NSs of British English (in the case of lifestyle and travel genres because they
have moved abroad or are on holiday or in the case of documentary genres because they
are presenters or reporters) and NNSs of English, that is, usually the ‘local’ inhabitants
of these places. The terms ‘native speaker’ (NS) and ‘non-native speaker’ (NNS) are
problematic (Christophersen & McArthur, 1992; Davies, 1991; Rampton, 1999) and are
used here only as convenient markers of linguistic difference. Similarly, our use of the
terms ‘Other’, ‘local’, and ‘foreign language speakers’ (FL speakers) is not intended to
patronise or suggest essentialised, homogeneous groupings but merely indicates the way
speakers whose L1 is not English are represented in the programmes in our corpus. Susser
(1998, p. 42, after Said, 1978) defines ‘Othering’ as positioning FL speakers as different
from and, by implication, inferior to L1 speakers of English and as entailing stereotypical
and essentialist representations of the ‘Other’.
‘Actors’ are defined not in the sense of dramatic actors but in the linguistic sense of
participants appearing in a scene; passers-by or onlookers are considered actors as much as
speakers are. Additionally we include ‘assumed actors’ who are not actually represented on
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
screen but are present at the time of filming in order for the programme to have been made.
This is of course a potentially wide and subjective category, but it allows us to include as
unseen actors the translators and interpreters who would have had to have been present for
a scene to have been shot in the way it finally appeared.
Research methodology
The data
A broad range of travel-based programmes feature in our corpus, including the following:
lifestyle shows; ‘celebrity travelogues’; ‘living-abroad’ lifestyle documentaries; themed
fly-on-the-wall documentary series; and serious, ‘issues-based’ documentaries. The pro-
grammes were sampled opportunistically and range from individual programmes taken
from a series such as A Dream Home Abroad, shown on Channel 5 about British buyers of
property overseas, to whole series such as French Leave, broadcast on Channel 4, which
traces the escapades of celebrity chef John Burton-Race who has set out to reacquaint
himself and the British viewing public with the delights of French cuisine. The corpus also
includes one-off documentaries, such as The Day I Will Never Forget, which deals with the
issue of female circumcision in the Sudan. All the programmes were filmed on locations
outside the UK and, with the exception of Around the World in 80 Days which was released
in 1993, were broadcast on British television between 2003 and 2005. A full list of the
programmes we analysed is presented in Appendix 1.
This paper focuses on one episode of the living-abroad, lifestyle series No Going Back:
A Year in Tuscany (NGB), which was broadcast on Channel 4 on 28 August 2003, and on
one issues-based documentary Congo’s Killing Fields (CKF), broadcast on Channel 4 on
17 August 2003. In NGB, we follow the fortunes of the Turnbull family from Otley, West
Yorkshire, in the UK. Richard Turnbull, a Jimmy Saville impersonator and DJ, his wife,
Sarah, and their young son, Gregory, leave behind their former life to buy into the Tuscan
dream, working in an idyllic, rural environment as olive farmers and proprietors of a bed
and breakfast. In the other programme, CKF, a one-off documentary, reporter Sam Kiley
visits the Congo and reports on the activities of the local militias, the Congolese Army, and
the UN peacekeeping forces. Kiley visits the town of Bunya, which has a UN headquarters,
an airfield, and a refugee camp and which is being contested by rival militias of the Hemma
and Lendu peoples.
210 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
The categories are ordered from top to bottom according to the criterion of how directly
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
the audience have access to the speaking voice of the Other. Category 1 illustrates the least
access to the speaking voice of the actor, whilst the final three categories (4–6) generally
show greater access to the speaking voice of the actor, albeit with varying degrees of
mediation, which will be discussed in greater detail below.
Category 3: seen/unheard
This category refers to people who are not given a voice, but we see them either in the
foreground or in the background of the camera shot. For example, Alfonso, the plumber,
in NGB never speaks directly to the camera, but we see him interacting with the Turnbull
family, and his actions are explained by voice-over narration or summary by Richard
Turnbull.
the voices of FL speakers who are shown speaking in their own language (Category 6)
but do not address the main protagonists or the camera directly, although heard, are to an
extent still reduced. It could be argued that a speaker’s identity is less visible or accessible
to the audiences if they cannot understand the speaker: those who we do not linguistically
understand remain in the darkness – alien and unknowable. Nevertheless, we adhere to
the above sequencing of categories in the belief that speakers who are allowed to speak
in their own preferred language experience less direct editorial intervention and greater
opportunities for expressing their own meanings. In making the Other knowable through
mediation strategies, television erases their linguistic difference and a bias intrudes, such
that the more known person is the English speaker, and the non-English speaker is left out
of sight or not given a voice. In addition, speakers who are not given the opportunity to
use their own language to communicate may face a threat to their self-image as competent
social beings, as Kilborn (1993, p. 641) observes: ‘any attempt to control the ways in which
we use our native tongue can therefore be viewed as an attack upon our personal or national
identity’.
Linguistic difference is least erased in Category 6 (seen/heard unmediated), as the
audience has to struggle with linguistic difference just as the actors in the scene who speak
only English would have had to as speakers-in-interaction, and in doing so the audience
realises that linguistic difference is problematic and something that has to be engaged
with and struggled with. Otherness, then, becomes real in the sense that ‘other’ people
are different from ‘us’ and have the right to speak in their own preferred language. The
problem of understanding is thrown back on the hearer, not on the speaker, and difference
is preserved, not erased. Somebody who does not speak English is not an inadequate Other,
but we as audience become equally inadequate, taking our share of responsibility for dealing
with linguistic difference.
Whilst the six main coding categories are explained above and examples of each cat-
egory are presented in Table 1, numerous subtly defined layers of mediation were also
coded to fine-tune our analysis of the visual and aural representation of the actors. For
example, we noted if the actors appeared in the foreground or background of the camera
shot during a scene. We also recorded whether the content of the FL speakers’ contri-
butions was or was not reported and, in cases where it was reported, recorded how the
reporting was done (summary, translation, voice-over). Summary narrations were some-
times provided by one of the participants in the scene or sometimes by an external narrator.
Some of the strategies we observed were decided pre-filming, such as selecting English
212 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
Data analysis
The coding categories reveal tendencies in the data which will be analysed in greater
detail with reference to particular scenes from the respective television programmes in this
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
section. From Table 1, it is immediately clear that there are no examples of FL speakers
speaking unmediated (Category 6) in their L1 in the lifestyle series NGB. Examples of this
category are rare in our corpus overall, but sometimes this strategy is used to create ‘local
colour’ or a ‘linguascape’ (Jaworski, Ylänne-McEwen, Thurlow, & Lawson , 2003b, p. 145)
and provide a backdrop for the action. This strategy is more common in the documentary
genres in our corpus, and there are eight examples (8%) of this in CKF. For example, we
can hear crowds on the banks of Lake Albert speaking unmediated in an African language
(scene 39). In the lifestyle programme NGB, which prioritises entertainment, it is relatively
more common to engage FL speakers who are proficient in English (Category 5: 15%) than
in the documentary genre (4%).
Another notable feature of the representation of Others in CKF is the number of unseen
and unheard actors who are reported (Category 2: 8%). Usually, they are unspecified people
in the UN or from the army or militias or are local people who have given Kiley information
– ‘anonymous sources’ who do not exist as people at all in this programme, and it is never
made clear how Kiley communicated with them. There is only one example (3%) of this
category in NGB, when Sarah Turnbull reports on a telephone conversation she had with
her Italian gynaecologist (scene 23).
It is striking that Category 3 (seen/unheard) features in the largest number of scenes
in both programmes. This confirms our initial subjective impressions that FL speakers are
often seen but not allowed to speak. There are 49 examples of this category in CKF (49%)
and 24 examples in NGB (73%). One obvious explanation for this is that the main actor of
CKF, Sam Kiley, the journalist/presenter of the programme, often stands in front of large
groups of people and informs the audience of their plight. The main actors in NGB, Richard
and Sarah Turnbull, are not cast so obviously in the role of fly-on-the-wall reporters, and
more use is made of the external narrator of the series to move the action forward. There
are also three examples of participant summary: Richard Turnbull reports on fixing the car
with Alfonso, the plumber (scene 6); Richard reports on the farm inspection which was
carried out by an Italian agronomist (scene 39); and the Turnbulls’ expatriate friend, Tony,
explains the findings of the inspection (scene 39).
In CFK, there are a large number of ‘local’ people who are backgrounded visually and
aurally (cf. Fairclough, 1995b). We see them and may hear them speaking under Kiley’s
narration, but we do not know who they are or what they are saying. They do not participate
in the action, and whilst they may be referred to, they are not given a voice. For example, in
a short scene at the beginning of the documentary, the camera pans across the refugee camp
214 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
at Bunya (scene 1) and shows us women cooking pots of rice and children who are scarred.
Kiley comments that ‘these children have seen little fun in their short lives’. Similarly, in
scene 39, 30 minutes later in the programme, Kiley is shown wandering around amongst
refugees on the banks of Lake Albert. Some refugees are weak and hurt and are lying down.
The camera lingers over particular individuals as Kiley explains how they fled Uganda in
dugout canoes. The individuals who Kiley discusses are seen but are given no speaking
voice during these scenes.
This particular representation of Others described above and noted in numerous other
scenes in our data resulted in a coding problem for us, as it was sometimes unclear if the
people shown in CKF were participating in the action of the programme or were only part
of the passing scene and were of no particular relevance to viewers/programme makers.
There are a relatively large number of scenes (16%) in which people appear to have been
foregrounded, but only visually, through the use of lingering close-ups. They do not speak
and may or may not be referred to. We do not know what they think or what they have to
say for themselves. The ambiguity about whether these actors are part of the action may be
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
deliberate: in some scenes, on the one hand, they could be the men armed with machetes,
who are committing the atrocities that are reported, and they may thus contribute to the
sense of threat created in the programme; on the other hand, they could simply be passing
by, totally harmless men on their way to a local store. In the latter context, they could be
‘local colour’ – evidence that what we are seeing is ‘authentic’ (for further discussion of
modality in visual imagery, see Johnson, 2007, p. 99).
The shots of unknown people on the streets certainly contribute to a particular represen-
tation of the Congo and reinforce Kiley’s themes of lawlessness, random brutal violence,
unpredictable militias, anarchy, and sudden death. Through this representation, programme
makers are also able to justify the need for a UN presence in this environment (cf. Machin,
2007; Machin & van Leeuwen, 2007). Boltanski (1999), Chouliaraki (2006), and Höijer
(2004) have discussed such scenes through the lens of ‘distant suffering’, and it is not to be
denied that much of the force of the documentary is permeated with the moral questions
raised by presenting such scenes of suffering. Our contribution here is simply to note that
the moral impact is mediated in part by a distancing achieved by the actors being deprived
of a speaking voice: they are brought close to us but safely close; we can watch them but
do not need to respond to them as a speaking presence. It is unclear why Kiley does not
attempt to speak to any of these people on our behalf. We can speculate that this may be due
to fear of attack, or it may not be possible to physically approach them, though the camera
can focus on them. Another possibility may be linguistic problems: he cannot speak to
them because he does not speak their languages and apparently has no interpreter. If Kiley
does not have an interpreter, however, one might ask why not; and if he does have one, one
might ask why the interpreter has been hidden.
The actual speech of FL speakers is mediated on only two occasions (6%) in NGB but
on 29 occasions (29%) in CKF (Category 4). There is one example of translation as a form
of mediation in this episode of NGB when Richard Turnbull provides a limited consecutive
translation for an Italian estate agent who is showing an English family, the Lowes, around
a townhouse (scene 21) and one example of a voice-over summary provided by the external
narrator of a conversation between the Turnbulls and an Italian hospital consultant who
speaks no English (scene 25). Subtitles are never used in NGB.
In CKF, a wider range of mediation strategies are adopted to deal with linguistic
difference (Category 4). There are three examples of narrator summary, 10 examples of
participant summary, two examples of translation in a voice-over, three examples of the use
of visible interpreters, and 11 examples of the use of subtitling.
Language Awareness 215
It is noteworthy that 79% of all scenes in NGB and 78% of all scenes in CKF fall within
coding Categories 3 and 4 (see Table 2): Categories 3 and 4 are the largest in CKF, and the
similar overall high percentage for these combined categories in NGB reinforces our point
that FL speakers are frequently represented as having no speaking voice of their own in the
respective programmes.
In the final part of this section, we examine how the use of the strategies outlined in this
section contributes to the construction of FL speakers’ identities in the two programmes.
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
does not speak directly to the audience and is referred to by his first name only, suggesting
either his lack of status or his informal, friendly relationship with the Turnbull family, or
possibly both. Richard does not reveal what Alfonso thinks about the situation with the
broken-down car, and the viewing public are left in doubt about the extent Richard is able
to communicate with him.
Inspection of the series as a whole suggests that Richard knows limited Italian, but we
are given very little direct access to his interactions in Italian. Although the programme
is about the fortunes of the Turnbull family and not about Alfonso, the representation of
communication across linguistic difference seems systematic: Richard and Sarah’s linguistic
encounters with Italian speakers are rarely foregrounded, though it is frequently clear that
they do have major linguistic difficulties. Max, the Italian estate agent who speaks English,
in contrast, is given a speaking voice of his own; he can claim a linguistic participant role
and an identity as a speaker. Indeed, Max is represented as a ‘larger-than-life’ character,
wearing designer clothing. He is presented as fashionable and ‘cool’ and is foregrounded in
the camera shots and the action, because of, we suggest, his English language proficiency
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
Sample 1
Narrator: Enter Max/ estate agent extraordinaire/ from his Guccis to his Rolex/ he’s chic/ he’s
suave/ AND (2.0) he speaks ENGLISH/ he has a property they’ll adore/ at a price they simply
cannot refuse/ it’s a traditional Tuscan farmhouse/ with three bedrooms/ three acres of olive
trees/ and/ a small outhouse for conversion/ on the market/ for a mere/ £125,000 / surely/ only
a crazy person would walk away. (scene 29)
The narrator focuses upon many aspects of Max’s identity, including his job, his physical
appearance, his language proficiency, and his thoughts on the property. Max’s English lan-
guage proficiency is emphasised by the narrator’s dramatic pause for effect before he reveals
this significant piece of information and by the stress he places upon certain words: ‘AND
(2.0) he speaks ENGLISH’. It suggests that programme makers are aware that language is a
problem but that their solution is to avoid this problem by supplying an English speaker. Max
is represented in a rather light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek manner: he is ‘the saviour’ of the
Lowe family who enlist his help to find their dream home abroad, but he is also represented as
a caricatured Italian male who is interested in the external trappings of designer fashion. Max
shows the Lowe family around the property, explaining its traditional features to them in En-
glish. Like Alfonso, he is introduced by first name only, but Max is allowed to speak directly
to the camera and to the audience at home (scenes 31 and 32). He participates more fully
in the episode through his interactions with the English-speaking actors, and his identity
is constructed far more fully than Alfonso’s through these conversations and the narrator’s
commentary. In van Leeuwen’s (1996, pp. 54–55) terms, Max is identified not only by what
he does but also by who he is, whilst Alfonso is ‘functionalised’, that is, categorised in terms
of his occupation only and deprived of full ‘participation status’ (Goffman, 1974, p. 224).
This resonates with the observation of Jaworski, Thurlow, Lawson, and Ylänne-McEwen
(2003a) that presenters of British television holiday programmes often deny FL speakers
Language Awareness 217
participation rights and objectify their presence by ignoring their capacity to hear and
talk.
Alfonso must be assumed not to constitute ‘good television’ in that his interactions
with Richard would have been problematic for programme makers whose ideal audience
might be impatient with cross-linguistic struggle. As such he is kept in the background,
seen to be speaking but not heard, his presence in the programme diminished almost to that
of a bystander. Similar strategies are observed when Sarah prepares for the birth of her new
baby, when the Turnbulls buy sheep, when they buy their off-road vehicle, and so on: we
feel the presence of Italian actors, hear their voices in the background, but encounter them
fully as people only if they speak English. This is clearly reflected in the coding of this
programme: Category 3 (seen/unheard) is the largest category (73%) in NGB, and Category
5 (seen/heard in English) is the second largest category (15%).
witnessed an appalling massacre. Robert Maku is allowed to speak his own words in French
which are subtitled in English. This constitutes one of 11 scenes where subtitling is used
and participants are given their own voice (Category 4). Initially, there appears to be the
minimum of mediation during this interview; however, as the interview progresses, there is
evidence of editorial intervention in the interaction. Kiley appears to speak some French, but
it is not clear how proficient he is, as during the course of the programme the audience sees
Kiley asking questions in English but receiving replies in French, Swahili, or other African
languages. The audience must assume that interpreters are present but hidden, as Maku
responds to a question we never hear being asked and produces a packet of photographs of
the massacre to show Kiley. This suggests that some moments of negotiation of meaning
and communication struggle have been erased from the programme in the editorial process.
It is apparent that an attempt is being made to build the audience’s sympathy with Maku
in the way the camera shows close-ups of his face and Kiley’s emotional response to the
tragic story. A deep sense of his sadness, loss, and suffering is evoked through his calm
narration of unspeakable events. Maku’s participant role is legitimised through subtitling
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
and the appearance of intimate interaction with the presenter, which O’Keefe (2006, p. 90)
has termed ‘pseudo-intimacy’. In this way, programme makers construct Maku’s identity
as a victim in this hostile environment.
In the other set-piece interview with Lubanga, the leader of the Hemma militia group
(scene 13), tension is created as Kiley is shown waiting in a deserted bar (scene 11) before
being taken on a car journey to Lubanga’s camp (scene 12). Kiley is visibly nervous about
this arranged meeting and the obvious possibility of ambush by the militia group. This is
confirmed by Kiley’s commentary which explains the potential danger. We are shown people
wandering around in the streets and heavily armed soldiers (scene 14) who contribute to this
sense of threat. In this case the way Lubanga’s voice is presented serves to distance Kiley
from his subject and further disaffiliate the audience. The camera focuses upon Lubanga’s
talking head in a darkened room. Kiley does not appear in the same shot as Lubanga, and
there are no reaction shots of Kiley and no subtitles, and the scene is constantly intercut with
shots of menacing armed guards outside. A voice-over technique is adopted, whereby the
audience hears Lubanga’s voice for a few seconds initially (to authenticate the speech as his
own), but this is quickly faded and replaced by a translated version which has been scripted
and added later. This is a more distancing method of mediation than subtitling because we
miss most paralinguistic features, and we cannot check the reliability of the translation, as
the background French is barely audible, and the English version sometimes precedes what
we can hear Lubanga faintly saying in French. The sound of the unmediated voice of the
Other, partially obscured, adds to the sense of his moral dubiousness, in the same way that
at one time the illegitimacy of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)2 was signalled
by the removal of the authentic speaking voice of its leadership in broadcast interviews.
Lubanga’s participation rights are de-legitimised through the use of voice-over and speaking
without an interlocutor. Mediation strategies are used as a deliberate tool to construct his
identity as a perpetrator rather than a victim, suggesting ‘the subtle management of audience
interpretation’ (Fairclough, 1995b, p. 83).
Discussion
Jaworski (2007, p. 277) comments that two key themes evident in much of broadcast media
are authenticity and Othering, which resonates with the analysis we have presented here.
In particular, he notes that ‘de-legitimising individual language users’ results in Othering.
We now return to our original research questions, listed in the Introduction:
Language Awareness 219
Questions 1 and 2
Although the two genres of programme that we discuss in this paper appear to deal with
linguistic difference in slightly different ways, with subtitling being adopted only in the
serious documentary, the extent to which Others are allowed to speak in their own voices and
construct their own identities is called into question in both of the programmes discussed
here. This contrasts with some other programmes in our corpus, for example The Day I Will
Never Forget, a documentary on female circumcision which, because it is made in Swahili
with added subtitles and English narration, is able to bring us significantly closer to the
lives of its subjects. However, such examples are significantly rare in our corpus.
The two programmes considered here were broadcast at peak viewing times and are
potentially able to command and influence large audiences. This may be one possible
motivation for hiding linguistic difference, particularly in the lifestyle series NGB, owing to
a concern to maximise entertainment value and attract high viewing figures. This strategy
also adds to the identification potential of the show, in the sense that it makes it possible
for viewers who might consider emigrating to perceive the Turnbulls as role models whose
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
Questions 3 and 4
The dominant voices represented in the programmes we discuss are those of the producers
and presenters rather than the ‘local’ people. Indeed, it is startling that in a programme
about the adventures of a British family struggling to realise their dream life abroad so
little foreign language interaction and negotiation of meaning is included as actors attempt
to communicate with one another. This fits with Dunn’s (2005, p. 101) observation that
television travel coverage focuses more upon ‘visual consumption of the place’ than upon
interaction with the locals.
In NGB, few Italians appear. The Turnbulls buy their off-road vehicle from a speaker
of American English; they are taught how to drive a tractor by Liberty Mallard, an English-
speaking expatriate. In this sense, the programme presents a textbook example of immi-
grants socialising with co-ethnics abroad,4 once again reinforcing the view that linguistic
difference is unimportant when chasing one’s dream lifestyle abroad and portraying an
ideological representation of the world which suggests that ‘language is not a dimension of
difference between people’ (Gieve and Norton, 2007). The general ethos of this programme
is English as a global language or, possibly in Mrs Lowe’s case, English as an imperial
language, given her attitude towards the Italian estate agents she encounters who do not
speak English:
Sample 2
Mrs Lowe: Well/ you know/ it’s FINE/ finding immobiliers/ like the estate agents over here/
but (2.0) you GO in the window/ there’s all cards/ and it’s just/ all in Italian/ so there we were/
we’re/ getting our dictionaries out/ trying to translate everything/ then/ you keep coming up
with new words/ you have to go back/ and when you go in ><if they haven’t got anything in
the window ><‘cos they haven’t got obviously EVERYTHING in the window/ you go in/ and
talk to them (1.0) ↑they don’t speak English! (scene 27)
The Italian estate agents’ inability to speak English completely flouts the expectations
of the Lowe family who clearly uphold the view propagated on British television: ‘you
can remain British even outside of Britain, finding “home away from home” ’ (Jaworski
220 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
et al., 2003a, p. 23). This seems an apt way to characterise the situation represented in this
series, and it is interesting to note that Mrs Lowe is allowed to deliver the above speech
directly to the camera, sitting at a table outside the Turnbulls’ farmhouse. That is to say,
she takes centre stage to pronounce judgement on the linguistic capabilities of the Italian
estate agents she meets during her stay in Italy, without acknowledging her own linguistic
deficiency when it comes to Italian. Her considerable lack of self-awareness, demonstrated
by the comment ‘they don’t speak English!’ (as opposed to ‘we don’t speak Italian’5 ),
clearly has ideological roots (cf. van Dijk, 1998, p. 25; Woolard, 1998, p. 7).
In the case of CKF, we do not wish to dispute the truth values of the documentary, but we
wish simply to highlight the way that Kiley and his sources are presented as communicating
with each other. In the Congo, there are various languages of the Niger-Congo group of
African languages, plus French, Swahili, and English. Kiley knows some French and no
African languages and has no obvious interpreters, except once or twice when he is out
in the field and interviews child soldiers with the help of local militiamen. In his role as
presenter/reporter, Kiley frequently stands in front of groups of people and tells us about
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
them, sometimes in a low voice which creates an impression of external threat, and he
sometimes makes comments as asides. We usually do not know how he has obtained the
information he reports. We do not know, for example, if he has spoken to the groups of
people who occupy the same scene as him, and we do not know who his contacts and
sources are. In the set-piece interviews with Maku and Lubanga the potential of linguistic
difference for signalling moral values is manipulated by editorial intervention.
Conclusion
Whilst we have noted specific genre effects in the two programmes considered here, further
research is necessary to explore a wider range of programmes to investigate the effects
of genre upon the representational strategies used to depict FL speakers in television
broadcasting in a more systematic manner. It would also be interesting to develop cross-
cultural studies to investigate how linguistic difference is handled in travel programmes and
documentary genres shown on television in other countries around the world.
The coding categories we have developed so far reflect particular tendencies in media
representations of encounters with others. The more ‘serious’ documentary programmes,
for example, adopt different types of mediation for particular purposes, whilst the lifestyle,
travel documentary programmes use a range of strategies to avoid placing any communica-
tive stress upon the audience or even showing others being subjected to communicative
stress to give media talk the appearance of seamlessness to which we have become accus-
tomed (Scannell, 1991).
Svalberg (2007, p. 302) suggests that engagement with language is an important concept
for language awareness and that work on cross-cultural language awareness has been
particularly concerned with the engagement of minority and dominant groups with each
other’s languages and cultures. The representation of FL speakers in the travel programmes
in our corpus and in other similar types of data of holiday programmes on British television
(Jaworski et al., 2003a, 2003b) does little to promote engagement with FL learning or to
suggest that it is a legitimate and useful activity.
Acknowledgements
The support of the University of Leicester is gratefully acknowledged for granting study leave to
allow the completion of the paper.
Language Awareness 221
Notes
1. We acknowledge an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.
2. The IRA was a paramilitary organisation which sought to remove Northern Ireland from the UK.
Its armed campaign formally ended in 2005.
3. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us.
4. We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.
5. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this point.
Notes on contributors
Julie Norton is a lecturer in Education in the School of Education, University of Leicester, UK. She
teaches on MA courses in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and supervises doctoral students in these
areas. Her research interests and publications include: linguistic identity, intercultural pragmatics,
discourse analysis, oral testing and materials development for language teaching.
Simon Gieve is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics and TESOL in the School of Education, University
of Leicester, UK. His main research interests are in classroom language learning, language teacher
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
education, and interaction across linguistic difference. He has previously co-edited a book with Ines
Miller on Understanding the Language Classroom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).
References
Barker, C., & Galasiński, D. (2001). Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on language
and identity. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi: Sage.
Boltanski, L. (1999). Distant suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burger, M. (2002). Identities at stake in social interaction: The case of media interviews. Studies in
Communication Sciences, 2(2), 1–20.
Christophersen, P., & MacArthur, T. (1992). Native speaker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chouliaraki, L. (2006). The spectatorship of suffering. London: Sage.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse
analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1999). Critical language awareness [Special issue]. Language Awareness,
8(2).
Coleman, J. (2009). Why the British do not learn languages: Myths and motivation in the United
Kingdom. Language Learning Journal, 37(1), 111–127.
Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University
Press.
Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography
of communication in high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289–322.
Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in
postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451–486.
Dunn, D. (2005). Venice observed: The traveller, the tourist, the post-tourist and British television.
In A. Jaworski & A. Pritchard (Eds.), Discourse, communication and tourism (pp. 98–120).
Clevedon, UK: Channel View.
Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness,
8(2), 72–83.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.) London: Longman.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Höijer, B. (2004). The discourse of global compassion: The audience and media reporting of human
suffering. Media, Culture & Society, 26(4), 513–531.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Jaworski, A. (2007). Language in the media: Authenticity and othering. In S. Johnson & A. Ensslin
(Eds.), Language in the media (pp. 271–280). London and New York, NY: Continuum.
222 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
Jaworski, A., Thurlow, C., Lawson, S., & Ylänne-McEwen, V. (2003a). The uses and representations
of local languages in tourist destinations: A view from British TV holiday programmes. Language
Awareness, 12(1), 5–29.
Jaworski, A., Ylänne-McEwen, V., Thurlow, C., & Lawson, S. (2003b). Social roles and negotiation
of status in host–tourist interaction: A view from British television holiday programmes. Journal
of Sociolinguistics, 7(2), 135–163.
Johnson, S. (2007). The iconography of orthography: Representing German spelling reform in
the news magazine Der Spiegel. In S. Johnson & A. Ensslin (Eds.), Language in the media
(pp. 91–110). London and New York, NY: Continuum.
Johnson, S., & Ensslin, A. (Eds.) (2007). Language in the media. London and New York, NY:
Continuum.
Kilborn, R. (1993). ‘Speak my language’: Current attitudes to television subtitling and dubbing.
Media, Culture & Society, 15, 641–660.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics
research and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9–35.
Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. London: Hodder Education.
Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Global media discourse. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409–430.
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
O’Keefe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis. The study of talk-in-interaction. Qualitative Research
Methods Series No. 35. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rampton, B. (1999). Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation and inheritance. ELT
Journal, 44(2), 97–101.
Richards, K., & Seedhouse, P. (Eds.) (2007). Applying conversation analysis. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Scannell, P. (1991). Broadcast talk. London: Sage.
Scannell, P. (1992). Public service broadcasting and modern life. In P. Scannell, P. Schlesinger, & C.
Sparks (Eds.), Culture and power: A media, culture and society reader (pp. 317–48). London:
Sage.
Shotter, J., & Gergen, K.J. (Eds.) (1989). Texts of identity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Susser, B. (1998). EFL’s othering of Japan. JALT Journal, 20, 49–82.
Svalberg, A. M-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teacher, 40, 287–
308.
Talbot, M. (2007). Media discourse, representation and interaction. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press.
Ten Have, P (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.),
Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 84–104). London and New York,
NY: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches
to media discourse (pp. 21–63). Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard
(Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32–70). London and New
York, NY: Routledge.
Wallace, C. (1999). Critical language awareness: Key principles for a course in critical reading.
Language Awareness, 8(2), 98–110.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national
identity. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K.
Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Language Awareness 223
Appendix 1
Titles of items in the corpus:
A Place in the Sun [Television series]. (2003). Channel 4.
Airport. [Television series], BBC. (2003).
Around the World in 80 Days [Television series]. (1993). BBC Enterprises Ltd.
Around the World in 80 Treasures [Television series]. (2005). BBC 2.
Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror [Television broadcast]. (2003). Carlton.
Chaos at the Chateau [Television series]. (2004, October). Channel 4.
The Dark Heart of Italy [Television broadcast]. (2005, June 8). BBC 4.
The Day I Will Never Forget [Television broadcast]. (2003, August 18). Channel 4.
The Deal [Panorama documentary series]. (2005, March). BBC 1.
Dispatches: Congo’s Killing Fields [Television broadcast]. (2003, August 17). Channel 4.
DIY SOS France Special [Television broadcast]. (2003). BBC 1.
Dream Home Abroad [Television series]. (2005). Channel 5.
French Exchange [Television series]. (2005). BBC 4.
French Leave [Television series]. (2003). Channel 4.
Headmasters and Headscarves [Television broadcast]. (2005, March 29). BBC 2.
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
Appendix 2
Key to transcription symbols (based on Psathas, 1995; Richards & Seedhouse, 2007; Ten Have, 2007):
/ = short pause
(3.0) = 3-second pause
><><= quicker than surrounding talk
WORD = upper case indicates especially loud sounds relative to the surrounding talk
↑↓ =Arrows indicate marked shifts into higher or lower pitch in the utterance part immediately
following the arrow
word = underlining indicates some form of stress, via pitch and/or amplitude
! = animated or emphatic tone
224 J.E. Norton and S. Gieve
Appendix 3
Table A3.1. List of scenes in No Going Back: A Year in Tuscany, broadcast on Channel 4 on 28
August 2003.
Scene Description
1 Inside the car salesroom.
2 Outside the car salesroom.
3 Chestnut House.
4 Richard fixes the car outside the house.
5 In the farmhouse (Alfonso and Gregory).
6 Richard and Alfonso fix the car outside the farmhouse.
7 Richard and Alfonso drive down the hill.
8 Richard and Alfonso fix the car at the bottom of the hill.
9 Guests arrive at Chestnut House (small guest house annexe set apart from the main
farmhouse).
10 Sarah to the camera, discussing new guests.
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011
Appendix 4
Table A4.1. List of scenes in Congo’s Killing Fields, broadcast on Channel 4 on 17 August 2003.
Scene Description
1 Kiley and the children in the Bunya refugee camp.
2 Streets of Bunya.
3 Robert Maku talking to Kiley.
4 People on the streets/UN soldiers in Bunya.
5 Videotape from the priest.
6 Meeting the French colonel Daniel Vollot.
7 Tour of the town in the car.
8 The airstrip.
9 People on the streets.
10 Kiley in the car prior to the meeting with Lubanga.
11 Kiley waiting in the deserted bar.
12 Kiley travels to the meeting with Lubanga.
Downloaded By: [University of Wollongong] At: 10:49 1 May 2011