“my f***ing personality”: swearing as slips and gaffes in ...posted on the video-sharing website...

1860–7330/11/0031–0525 Text & Talk 31–5(2011),pp.525–551Online1860–7349 DOI10.1515/TEXT.2011.026©WalterdeGruyter

“My f***ing personality”: swearing as slips and gaffes in live television broadcasts*

CARLY W. BUTLER and RICHARD FITZGERALD

Abstract

This paper examines instances of swearing in live television broadcasts. While some cable television shows routinely involve swearing without censorship and recorded shows may include swearing “bleeped out,” our interest is in instances of swearing in contexts where swearing is prohibited. We look at live interviews and panel debates where swearing is clearly noticed and r eacted to strongly — and in all cases retracted or apologized for in some way. The ex-amples we examine thus involve a participant visibly moving outside the normative limits of the interaction, and as such reveal the boundaries that serve as organizational structures for the interactions. Drawing on Goffman’s work on gaffes and slips and ethnomethodological conversation analysis, the paper explores how swearing is treated by the participants as a practical con-cern, and how swearing and its management implicates the identities and rela-tionships of the participants and the specific context of the interaction. We discuss how swearing in live broadcasts reveals the limits of authenticity within informal, conversational interviews and debates.

Keywords: news interviews; live broadcast; expletives; ethnomethodology; conversation analysis; Goffman.

1. Introduction

Swearingisoneofthestrongesttaboosonprimetimetelevisionandissubjecttostrictregulationsandharshpenalties(Chidester2004).Whileswearingcanbeeasilyavoidedorcensoredinpre-recordedshows,inthe“anythingcanhap-pen”contextoflivebroadcasts(Marriott2007)participantscandolittlemorethanattendtotheirlanguageuseandremainmindfulofthecontextinwhichtheyspeak.Profanitiesandobscenitiesthatdoslipoutduringlivebroadcasts

Brought to you by | University of Queensland - UQ LibraryAuthenticated

Download Date | 12/19/14 5:10 AM

526 Carly W. Butler and Richard Fitzgerald

aredescribedasfleeting expletivesandcanleadtoheftyfines.Inapressstate-mentfollowingarecentFederationCommunicationsCommitteeruling,FoxNewsstatedthat“whilewewillcontinuetostrivetoeliminateexpletivesfromlivebroadcasts,theinherentchallengesbroadcastersfacewithlivetelevision,coupledwiththehumanelementrequiredformonitoring,mustallowfortheunfortunate isolated instances where inappropriate language slips through”(Wyatt2010).Theclaim,then,isthatfleetingexpletivesareslips — accidentalandisolated

casesthatoccurthroughamomentarylackofself-monitoring.Thenotionthatsomewordsoractions“slipout”isaddressedbyGoffman,wholookedspe-cificallyatsuchmomentsinhisworkonradiobroadcasttalkinForms of Talk (1981). WithinadiscussionofblundersandbloopersmadebyDJsinliveradiobroadcasts,Goffmandistinguishedbetweenslips andgaffes. Slips,asGoffman(1981)describesthem,are“knows better”faults,whichinclude

...breachesofthecanonsof“proper”grammar,pronunciation,andwordusagethatthespeakerhimself[sic]wouldordinarilyavoidautomatically(...)slipsaretobeseenasaconsequenceofconfusedproduction,accident,carelessness,andone-timemuffings — not as ignorance of official standards or underlying incompetence. (Goffman 1981:209)

Gaffes,ontheotherhand,areexamplesofwhatGoffmandescribedas“doesn’t know better” faults,thatis:

unintendedandunknowingbreaches in“manners”orsomenormof“good”conduct(...)Averyspecial ignoranceis inadvertentlydisplayed,namely, ignoranceofwhatonewould have to know about the rights and biography of one’s coparticipants inordertoconductoneselfwithmoralsensibilityinregardtothem.(Goffman1981:210 –211)

Goffman’sclassificationof theseerrorswas thusbasedonwhat thespeakerwasunderstood toknowornotknowabout canonical standardsof conductand/orabouttheco-participants — inthiscase,theradiolisteners.However,asGoffman’sworkwasbasedonradiomonologuesratherthaninteraction,thereisadegreeofspeculationastowhatthespeakerknowsorintendsinrelationtotheproductionofthefault.WhiletheDJsdidworktorepair,orremedy,theerror,inmanycasessuchremedyingwasminimalanddidnotrevealthestatusoftheblunderasa“knowsbetter”or“doesn’tknowbetter”fault.Inthispaperweexamineswearinginbroadcastinterviewswhich,through

theirdialogicnature,allowanexaminationofhowboththespeakerand/orco-presentparty(i.e.,thehostorinterviewer)treattheincidenceofswearingaseithera“knowsbetter”or“doesn’tknowbetter”fault.Weexamine,then,howtheuseofswearwordsisinteractionallyproducedaseitherasliporagaffethroughtheproduction,accounting,andrepairofanexpletive.Fromthiswe



Swearing on live television 527

demonstratehowthematterofwhatthespeaker/interviewee“knows”inrela-tiontothecodesofconductandtheirco-participantsisaresourceforrepairthat is used bymembers in the instance and aftermath of a swear on livetelevision.Goffman(1981:212–213)proposedthatspeakerresponsestospeechfaults

consist of two parts: “‘reaction’ (in the form of exhibited embarrassment,chagrin,consternation,and the like,externalisedasnotificationorflagging)and ‘remedy’ (in the form of some corrective effort, both substantive andritualistic).” In two-party interaction, the reaction and remedymay be dis-tributed between participants. In the collection of interviews examined inthispaper,speakersand/orlistenerstreatexpletivesasproblemsofspeaking,whichSchegloff, Jefferson,andSacks (1977) treatasacase for repair.Therepairstreattheexpletivesassomethingthatshouldnotbesaidin this contextandassuch,thereaction(initiationofrepair)andremedy(therepairandsub-sequentapologies)clearlyinvoketherelevanceofthesituationthespeakersarein.Therelevanceofacontextfortheproductionandtreatmentofexpletivesis

alludedtoinJefferson,Sacks,andSchegloff’s(1987:160)discussionofinti-macy,wheretheysuggestthat“frankness,rudeness,crudeness,profanity,ob-scenity,etc.,areindicesofrelaxed,unguarded,spontaneous;i.e.intimateinter-action.”Theuseofsuchlanguagedemonstratesaspeaker’sunderstandingortreatmentofaninteractionasaninformalandintimateone,andcanalsobeused to initiate amove into intimacy.From this perspective, swearingbothreflectsandcreatesthelocallyrelevantidentitiesandrelationshipofthepartiestoaninteraction.Swearingintheinstitutionalandpubliccontextofabroadcastinterview is clearly not as easily used as resource or signifier ofmembers’relationships,andthisisparticularlythecasewhenparticipantsareboundbyinstitutionalizedrulesagainstswearing.Neverthelessourdatashowthat thelocalcontext,identities,andrelationshipsofthemembersbecomeforegroundedwhenanintervieweeordiscussantswearsonlivetelevision.Wesuggestthatthisis,inpart,becausethelivetelevisioncontextsweexaminearefocusedontherelationshipsbetweenpartiesandrelyonasenseofinformalityandopen-nessonbehalfoftheintervieweeordiscussant.Twoofthemaintrendsthathaveemergedinrespecttobroadcastinterviews

are both characterized through informality. Fairclough (1994) observed theincreasing conversationalization of news discourse,which has evolved intoamore informal studio environment and interactional style of presentation(Montgomery2008).Thecelebritychatshowformatalsoemploysaninformalstyleof interview (Tolson2001,2006) inwhich the audience experience isoftensetup tobe like listening inonachatbetween twofriendsasratifiedoverhearers(Heritage1985;Hutchby2006).Thisinformalstyleofinterview-ingisseentoprovidealevelofgenuineness(Fairclough1994;Tolson2001),




where this achieved informality works to hide the institutional mediation(Grusin 2010) of the interviewandpromote the broadcast talk as authenticchat.However,despitetheairofinformalitythatcharacterizessomebroadcastinteractions,theinteractionremainsboundedasaninstitutionalencounterthatissubject toorganizationalrules (ClaymanandHeritage2002).Mostof thetime,thisorganizationalframeworkrunsbeneaththesurfaceoftheinteractionasagenerative,sense-makingapparatusthatisonlymadevisiblewhenexplic-itlyorientedtobytheparticipants,asoccurswhensomebreachisnotedbythemembers.Forexample,intervieweescantreataninterviewer’squestioningasso hostile or rude that itwarrants a premature termination of the interviewachievedbywalkingout(LlewellynandButler2011).Inthispaperwedemon-strate how instances of swearing in live broadcast interviews are treated asbreaches of the organizational apparatus of the setting, and thus reveal theachievedauthenticityandinformalityoftheselivebroadcasts(Lundell2009;Scannell2001;Tolson2006).

2. Dataandanalysis

Ourdataaredrawnfromliveinterviewsanddiscussionswhereguestsandin-tervieweesutteranexpletive.Datawerecollectedfromexcerptsofbroadcastsposted on the video-sharing website YouTube and were transcribed usingJeffersonianconventions(Jefferson2004).Ethnomethodologicalconversationanalytictechniqueswereusedtoexaminethesequentialandcategoricalorga-nizationoftheexcerptswithafocusonhowexpletivesweretreatedasslipsorgaffes(Goffman1981).Theanalysisexamineshowparticipantsorienttotheinstitutionalcontextinwhichtheirswearingoccursandhowswearingrevealsthelimitsoftheartificeofinformalityofbroadcasttalk.

2.1. Gaffes

Thefirsttwoexamplesinvolvecelebritiesswearinginrelativelyinformalin-terviewcontextsinwhichintervieweesareencouragedtobeauthenticinthesenseofrevealingtheir“trueselves”totheviewingaudience.Ineachcase,theswearingistreatedbyparticipantsasagaffeinthatthereisadisplayedmis-understandingaboutthe“rightsandbiographyofone’sco-participantsinordertoconductoneselfwithmoralsensibilityinregardtothem”(Goffman1981:211), that is, that the viewing audience are live.Thematter ofwhether thespeakers“knowbetter”ornotisanachievedstatus,integrallyrelatedtodis-playedunderstandingsofthecontext.




Example (1) is froma red carpet interviewwith the actorHelenMirren.Sky News UK interviewer (IR)Matt Smith introducesMirren to the audi-ence and then announces toMirren, “we’re live on skynews” (lines 1 and2).

(1) HelenMirren,Sky Newshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ULpRnDrGjQ1 IR: Ah:andhereisHelenMirrenwhoplays2 theleadrole↑we’reliveonskynews¿3 Mirren: ↑Hithere,4 IR: (Butalso)[ pleasedon’t ]swear.Butyou=5 Mirren: [Howareyou.]6 IR: =don’tsweardo[you.7 Mirren: [Peopledon’tswear?8 Fucking[never9 IR: [*↑No::::*((holdspaperover10 Mirren’smouth))11 IR: hihhehYouonc:eyouonc:esworeinone12 ofmylivesyou’vedoneitagain.[Hahhah13 Mirren: [↑Isit14 live?.HH((openmouth))15 IR: YehWewereinthe(camp)[(---------)16 Mirren: [Idoapologise.17 Totheaud[ience.Iw-thatwasajoke=18 IR: [(--)-19 Mirren: =Itakeitback,thatwasanappallingthing20 todo.Idoapologise.

An informal chatty frame for the interview is establishedwithMirren’s re-sponsetotheintroductionwithagreeting“hithere”,“howareyou”(lines3and5).TheintervieweraddsarequestforMirrentonotswear,followedbywhatwelaterlearnisapointedquestion“butyoudon’tsweardoyou?”(lines4and6).Mirrendisplaysamishearingwithherrepeat,“peopledon’tswear?”followedby the emphatically delivered response “fuckingnever”.With herironicresponseMirrendisplaysanunderstandingof thisasaninformalandjokeycontext.The interviewer responds immediately with a high pitched “no:::” and

moveshispapersinfrontofMirren’sface(Figure1).ThisvocalandembodiedresponsecrytargetstheswearasproblematicandMirrenturnstothecamera(Figure2)witheyebrowsraisedandherhandoverhermouth,displayinganunderstandingoftheproblemwithherresponsebeingrelatedtotheviewingaudience.




The interviewer continues with an account of a previous live interview inwhichMirren had sworn, and a reproach (“you’ve done it again”) — whichoffersbothMirrenandtheaudiencesomecontextforhisinitialquestion“butyoudon’tsweardoyou?”.Withherclarificationrequest,“isitlive?”(Figure3),Mirrenattendstothecontextinwhichshehassworn — onlivetelevision.Her openmouth embodies a shocked reaction.The display of surprise andclarificationrequestoperateasaccountsforswearing — Mirrendidnot“know”thebroadcastwaslive.Thusitisnottheswearingbuttheunderstandingofthecontext thatrevealsthecauseoftheproblem.InGoffman’sterms,Mirrentreatsherswearasagaffe — an“unintendedand

unknowingbreachin‘manners’orsomenormofgoodconduct,” that isex-

Figure1. “No::::::!” ( line 9)

Figure2. Mirren turns to the camera




plained in terms of “ignorance ofwhat onewould have to know about therightsandbiographyofone’scoparticipantsinordertoconductoneselfwithmoral sensibility in regard to them” (1981: 210 –211).Mirren displays herignorancewithrespect to the livenessof theaudience — amisunderstandingaboutwho wouldhearherswearing(ratherthanableepedword).Theimplica-tionisthatMirrenwouldnothaveswornifshehadbeenawarethatheraudi-encewerewatchinglive.Whiletheinterviewer’sreactioninvolveschastisingandcensoringMirren,Mirren’sreactionisan“exhibitedchagrin”(Goffman1981),withherapologyservingasaritualisticremedy.Astheinterviewerbeginstorecountafurtherstoryaboutherpastswearing,

Mirrenreturnshergazetothecameraanddeliversanapologyexplicitlyad-dressedtotheaudience(lines16and17;Figure4).Sheaccountsforherswear-ingasbeingajoke,attemptsaretraction(“Itakeitback”),andassessesheractionas“appalling”.Atline20Mirrenreturnshergazetotheinterviewerandapologizesdirectlytohim.

Throughherdirectgazetothecameraandexplicitapology“totheaudience”(line17),Mirrenorientstotheviewersasratifiedparticipants(Hutchby2006).WhilewithhisaccountofMirren’spastswearinginoneof“(his)lives”(lines11and12)theinterviewertreatsMirren’sgaffeasimpactingonhimperson-ally,Mirrenattendsprimarily to theoverhearingaudienceas thepotentiallyoffendedpartyandonlyapologizestotheintervieweraftertheapologytotheaudience.AssuggestedbySchegloff (2005:452), thecomplainabilityofanactioniscontingentuponthe“identityoftheagentsandtherecipientsoftheconduct.”Whiletheinterviewercanbeseentobecomplainingbyhisresponse

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




cryandbyblockingMirren’smouth,Mirrenorientsinitiallytotheaudienceas the recipients and as the oneswho determine the complainability of herconduct.Insum,Mirren’sswearresultedinamarkedreactionbytheIR,whichwas

treatedasarepairinitiator.MirrensoughtforanaccountfortheIR’sreaction,whichwas then incorporated in her repair (the retraction) and remedy (theapology).Withherapology,Mirren“embodiesaclaimtohaveoffendedsome-one”(Robinson2004:305)andacknowledgespersonalresponsibilityforhav-ingdoneso.Throughthisdisplayednoticingandthefollowingrepairwork,Mirrenshowsherunderstandingofhavingbreachedanorm — thatonedoesnotswearonlivebroadcasts.Mirrenproducesherswearingasagaffeinthatshesuggestsshedidnot“knowbetter”(i.e.,knowthatheraudiencewerewatch-inglive)atthemomentoftheswear.Yet,theredcarpetcontext,andindeedtheannouncementoftheinterviewerthattheyarelive(line2),provideconditionsunderwhichMirrenmight be strongly expected to “knowbetter” from theoutset. Both swearing and liveness have been made relevant andMirren’sswearappearstobebothdeliberateandknowing.However,ratherthanassumewhatMirrenactuallydoesordoesnotknowaboutthecontext,orwhatherin-tentionwasinswearing,ourfocusisinsteadonhowsheherselfaccountsforswearing.Byseekingconfirmationastowhethertheinterviewwaslive,Mir-renusesnot knowing asanaccountandthroughthisaccomplishesatreatmentoftheswearasagafferatherthananaccidentalslip.Theachievedstatusofaswearasagaffeisalsoevidentinthenextexample

inwhichtheinterviewee,JoanRivers,swearsemphaticallyfordramaticeffect.LiketheMirrenexample,theuseofanexpletiveisorientedtoasabreachandaccountablebyvirtueofthelivenessoftheinterview.

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




(2) JoanRivers,Loose Womenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOpquHD4HJQ1 Host: >↑Isthat-isthatso-<isthatapart2 ofyourlifethatyouenjoydoingthat3 kindofmeetingandgreetingthe4 celebritiesontheredcar[ pet?<’cosit’sa-5 Rivers: [Whenthey’renice.6 Host: Yeah.7 (0.5)8 Rivers: Andweknowwhatwe’resaying.9 Host: Yeah.10 Rivers: .hYougetsomeonelikeRussellCrowe,and11 youwannasaytothecamera.hH:eisapiece12 of-getreadytobleepthis.hFUCKIN’shit.13 .hh[↑HEISJUST-14 All: [↑OH:::::::((laughterandapplause))15 Host: Wemusta-hihwe↑d[oapologise.16 Rivers: [↑Isaidgetreadytih17 bleep.18 ??: (Ohnowe‘aven’tgotableeper)19 Host: We[haven’tgotableeper.20 ??: [( )21 ??: [( )22 Panelist: ( )23 Aud: [((laughterandapplause ))24 Host: [Wedoapologise.25 Rivers: (↑Nowait)26 Host: We’resorryabout[thatwedoapologise=27 Rivers: [Wait-hihhehhihhih28 Host: =forthat.Joanwasn’tawarethatwewere:29 absolutelylive.Andwedo[apologise.30 Rivers: [Andwe’vegotta31 a:dd.h<alle:dgedly>.Coshe’ll[seehih32 Aud: [((laughter))33 Host: ‘Coshe’sgonnasee-34 Rivers: Wouldn’tthatbefunny35 Panelist: ↑Nottomentionthemotherthat’ssayingtoher36 fouryearo[ldnownow↑thesewor[ds [a:re37 Host: [old [words[a:re38 Rivers: Thesewords,.harewordsthat↑Mummynowhas39 towearabigvest.40 Aud/ Pan: ((laughterandapplause))




Inansweringthehost,Riversseeksoutthecameratodeliverthepunchline,inanenactmentofwhatshe“wantstosaytothecamera”(line11,i.e.,the“audi-ence”)with people like “RussellCrowe”. She is heard to be about to do aconfessionbyrevealingwhatshewouldliketosay,butusuallycannotbecauseof broadcast and interpersonal constraints.After beginningher hypotheticalreportedspeechwith“youareapieceof ”shecutsthisofftodeliverawarning,“getreadytobleepthis”,(Figure5)beforeshecompletesherimaginedinsulttoCrowewith“fuckingshit”(lines11and12).Thereisloudlaughterfromtheliveaudience, and from thepanelmemberswhohave shockedexpressions,withsomeputtingtheirhandsovertheirmouths(Figure6).

Figure5. “Get ready to bleep this” ( line 12)

Figure6. Panel members react




Rivers’swarningsuggestsherunderstandingofthecontextandthatswearingmay be potentially inappropriate, but also that the technological ability tobleepgiveshersomelicensetoswear.AfterthestrongreactionsfromthepanelandaudienceRiverslooksaroundwithanopenmouthandnods.Atthispoint,thereispotentiallysomeambiguityastothereasonforthepanel’sreaction — whichmaybearesponsetotheextremityofthenegativeassessmentofCrowe,ratherthantheuseoftheexpletive.Over the roar of the audience which displays their appreciation (Mont-

gomery2000),thehostapologizes(line15)withaninstitutional“we”(Watson1986), positioning the broadcaster as author of the swearing and demon-stratingthebroadcaster’sresponsibilityforRivers’sactions.Thehostappearsto deliver the apology to camera, but as awide shot camera angle is used,the apology is not clearly seen by the home audience. In overlapwith thisapology,Rivers justifiesher swearingby saying that she “saidget ready tobleep” (lines 16 and 17), which challenges the treatment of her swear ascomplainable.Anumberofpanelmembers then respond inoverlap toclar-ify they “don’t have a bleeper”, which sparks a further burst of laughter,andleadsonepanelmembertoputherhandsoverherface(Figure7).Thereis then a tight shot on themain host (Figure 8) who looks composed andcamera-readywhendelivering thesecond,and thena thirdandfourthapol-ogy (line 26), followed by an account aroundRivers’s lack of understand-ing about the fact that they are “absolutely live”, and then afifth andfinalapology (line 29). This emphatic series of apologies is directed straight totheviewersathome,andasearlier,isauthoredbytheinstitutionalwe — thebroadcasters.

Figure7. “We do apologise” ( line 24)




Rivers’sswear,likeMirren’s,isproducedandtreatedasagaffe.Theswear-ing occurred because of some displayed (mis)understanding about the con-text of the interview and recipients of the expletive — the panel membersand live audience, but not the audience at home. Rivers’s justification forswearing (in that shehadflaggeda “bleep-able”prior to itsdelivery)dem-onstratesherorientation to thecontext,with thesubsequentmanagementofthe expletivedisplayingamisunderstanding that accounts for thebreachofnorms.So,Rivers’saccountforswearingsuggestsshe“doesn’tknowbetter”inthat

she was not aware that her co-participants (i.e., the home audience) werewatchinglive-to-airandwouldhearherswearingratherthanableep.Rivers’sjustification denies responsibility for having caused offence.An apology isdeliveredtotheaudiencebythehost,onbehalfofthebroadcastersthemselves,throughwhichthehosttakesresponsibilityfortheoffensiveconductaswellasminimizingRivers’sculpability.SowhereasMirren’sswearingwasdealtwiththroughaprocessofother-initiatedself-repairandself-remedy,Rivers’sswear-ingwasnotrepaired in termsofaretractionandwasremediedby thehost.Throughboththepanel’sreactionsandthehost’sapology,Rivers’sconductistreatedasbreachingthenormsthatorganizetheliveinterviewandassuchre-vealsthesenormsasoperational.Inthisinstance,itisthehostwhoemphasizesRiversas“notknowing”andproducestheswearingasagaffethatwouldnothavehappenedhadRiversbeenawareofthelivenessoftheinterview.Again,thespecificsofwhy aspeakeractually swore,andwhattheywereorwerenotawareofarenotaccessibletous — butwecanseehowcharacterizingtheuseofanexpletiveasagafferatherthanaslipissomethingthatparticipantsac-tivelyaccomplish.

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




2.2. Slips

Comparedtogaffes,slipsareinstanceswherethespeakerdisplaysthattheydoinfact“knowbetter”andthattheexpletivewasaccidental.Thepotentialtotreattheirswearingasaccidental,whetherornottheydidactually“knowbetter,” can be used as a resource by interviewees.The next extract exem-plifies this: after swearing by the interviewee (Keaton) is made noticeableby the interviewer’s (Sawyer)physical reaction,Keatonattempts to remedytheproblemquicklyandcarryonwiththeinterviewasnormal.Indoingso,shetreats theswearasanaccident,ratherthantheresultof ignoranceaboutthecontext.

(3) DianeKeaton,Good Morning Americahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnIu5CZNfDw&feature=PlayList&p=8166C01D843585D1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=91 Keaton: ...I’dliketohavelipslikethat.2 Aud: ((laughter))3 Keaton: ↑ThenIwouldn’thaveworkedonmy4 fuckingpersonality.>Ormy-<(0.3)5 my‘scuseme(0.8)[mype:rsona:lity.6 Sawyer: [hihhehhah.hhh7 Keaton: IfIhad[lipslike(yours)I’dbe[betteroff.8 Sawyer: [Alsoacri:me. [$Al↑soa9 cri:me$.[ihhhihhehhehhahhah=10 Keaton: [Mylife’dbebetter.I’dbemarried?11 Sawyer: =[.hhhhhhhhhh [(Iwasgonnasa---)12 Keaton: [(I’vegotthesethin)[littleskinnylips.13 Keaton: WhatamIgonnado?=14 Sawyer: =Mymother’sgonnaworkonyourpersonality15 (and)[$soapinyourmouth$iswhatshe’s=16 Keaton: [hihhehhahhahhahhahhah17 Sawyer: =goingto(H)do(HH)$18 Keaton: ↑(soapinyourmouth)>Iknow<excuseme19 I°shouldn’tsayanythinglikethat°20 (Sawyer): (Inthemorning).

LikeMirrenandRivers,Keatonswearsfordramaticeffect — atthepointofapunchlineorjoke.Sawyer’sreactionismarkedlyemphatic.HerjawdropsasshepullsawayfromKeatonandfallsontothearmofthesofawithherhandoverhermouth(Figure9).Upon seeingSawyer’s reactionKeatonbegins to repairher turn, demon-

strating recognitionof theuseof “fucking”asproblematic.Sheprojects an




alternativephrasing(“ormy”,line4)butcutsthisofftoinsertanapologetic“scuseme” (line 5), before doing a deletion repair by repeating the phrasewithout the swearword.Keaton then immediately continueswith her turn,makingfurtherjokesaboutherlipswhileSawyercontinuestolaugh.Inthisway,Keatonpushesonpast the swearingandcontinueswith the interview,therebyminimizing the potential disruptiveness of her language. However,SawyerusesKeaton’srhetoricalquestionaboutherlipsatline13(“whatamIgoingtodo?”)asanopportunitytomentionKeaton’slanguage,byusinganidiomaticreferencetoSawyer’smother“washing(her)mouthoutwithsoap”asareproach.InitiallyKeatontreatsthisasajoke,beforeacknowledgingthemoral improprietyofher language(“Iknow”),deliveringa furtherminimalapology(“excuseme”)andthenaself-reproach(“Ishouldn’tsayanythinglikethat”,lines18and19).Therearenodirectapologiestotheliveorstudioaudience,andneitheris

thereanyaccountingworkdonebyKeaton.WhileKeaton’sapology,repair,andacknowledgement thatshe“shouldn’tsay things like that”attendto theswearingasinappropriate,thecontextisnotexplicitlyinvoked.Therearenodisplaysofmisunderstandingsabouttherecipientsoftheexpletiveoroftheinstitutionalcontextofthebroadcast.Inthissense,Keaton’sswearingistreatedasaslipratherthanagaffe — asitisa“knowsbetter”fault(Goffman1981)andisdescribedassuch(lines18and19).Itis“aconsequenceofaccident,carelessness — notasignoranceofofficialstandardsorunderlyingincompe-tence”(Goffman1981:209).However,thestatusoftheexpletiveasaslipisonlyevidentinthemanagementoftheswearingbybothparties.Keatononly

Figure9. Sawyer reacts to Keaton’s expletive ( line 4)




beginsherrepairafterSawyer’spointednoticingflagstheneedforremedialwork.Sawyer’sreactioniscriticalinmakingrelevantthematterofwhetherornotKeatonshould“knowbetter.”Whiletheinteractionalcontextisnotexplicitlyorientedinthiscase,both

KeatonandSawyerattributetheexpletivetoapersonalshortcoming,suggest-ingcarelessness.Despitenopartyhaltingtheproceedingsinordertodirectlyapologizetotheaudience,andKeaton’sattempttopushthroughandcontinuewiththestory,Sawyerorientstoandmaintainstherelevanceoftheswearinginawaywhichdisruptstheprogressivityoftheinterview.Thenextexamplealsoshowshowaslipdisruptstheprogressivityofaliveteleviseddiscussion.Example (4) involvesfinancial journalist/commentatorCharlieGasparino

swearingduringadiscussiononCNBCPower Lunch.TheuseoftheswearwordfollowsasarcasticcommentfromcommentatorDonnieDeutschregard-inggivingbonusestoWallStreetexecutives.WhereasinthepreviousexampleKeatonappearedtoonlyinitiaterepairfollowingSawyer’sembodiedreaction,hereGasparinobothinitiatesandcarriesouttherepairofhisturn,displayinghisownnoticingofhavingbreachedanorm.

(4) CharlieGasparino,CNBC — Power Lunchhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yzOjyeuoD01 CG: Thesegu:ysdidsome’ingthatwasso:2 s:toopid.[.hh3 DD: [Solet’sbo:nus‘em.4 (0.8)5 CG: [Let’sn↑o:t↑bonus‘em.=6 Host: [hihh7 DD: =B↑o:nus‘em.[Theydidrea:llygood- ]8 CG: [↑That’snoteven↑bythe]way9 DD: O:b[viously.10 CG: [↑(That’snoteve).hh[11 Host: [He’s-(.)12 [he’s-he’ssothatplay]ingdevil’s[a:dvocate13 CG: [↑Bo-y’knowbo-] [Youknow↑here’s14 thething.[Thebo:nus:]thebo:nus:question,=15 Host: [Igottago ]16 CG: =(0.5)w-shweshouldn’tbeTA:lkinga[boutit.17 DD: [Exactly.18 CG: It’sas:too:p[idfuck>op<(0.2)it’sa[stoopid=19 DD: [It-it-it’sa- [insane.20 CG: =debate.21 DD: W↑o:w¿Didhe-?22 (0.5)




23 CG: [I’msorry.]24 Host: [You’reagr]ee:ingwe’re↑leavingitthere25 (0.2)26 Host: [We’re-you’reagreeing.27 CG: [I’mso:rry.28 (0.3)29 Host: Th[at’sit.30 CG: [I’msorry.31 (0.2)32 Host: ikHAHHAHHAH.HH(Ch(h)a(hh)rlie(hh)[.hh33 CG: [You34 can’tputme[o(h)ntheshow.$35 Host: [Tha:nk-36 Host: Thankyou[Cha:rlie.=37 ??: [(-------------)38 CG: =I’m[s:orry.39 ??: [(-----)40 Host: ihahhih[hahhahhah.hhhah.hh41 CG: [I’msorry.42 Host: Ch[arlie’sagreeing.43 ??: [Hello:you:tube.44 Host: $.hihyikeshe:rewe[go.$45 CG: [(It’smyfault.)46 ??: O:kay.47 Host: ihhihhah48 ??: Where[werewenow.49 Host: [Um50 Host: Let’ssee.51 (0.3)52 Host: [Let’stry‘an-.hh53 BG?: [Tryfora(recess)shallwe?

Inlines1–15GasparinorespondstoDeutsch’ssarcasminapo-facedmanner(Drew1987), using it to escalate the delivery of his position.After gettingagreementfromDeutschthat they“shouldn’tevenbetalkingaboutit”(line16),Gasparinocontinuesand isonhisway tocharacterizing itasa“stupidfuckingdebate”.However,Gasparino’sexpletive iscutoffbefore it is fullysaid(droppingtheprojected“ing”attheendof“fuck”).Heproducesacom-pressedversionof“oops”(“op”)beforerepeatinghisturnwiththeswearwordremoved — adeletionrepairsimilartoKeaton’sinExcerpt(3).Inthiscase,therepair is not prompted by the reaction of others,which only happens afterGasparinohasproducedamodifiedversionofhisturn(line21).Bycuttingthe




expletiveoffmid-courseGasparinoattemptstodrivethrough(Goffman1981)andminimizeattentiontotheswearword.Indoingsohetreatsitasaslip,assomethinginappropriatebutaccidental.Deutschrespondswithanemphatic“wow”asresponsecry(Goffman1981)

and turns to theotherparticipants in the studio, asking“didhe?” (line21),withoutformulatingtheactiondone.Deutsch’sconfirmation-seekingquestionorientsperhapstoGasparino’scoveringupwork.Gasparinothendeliversanapology,whichservesasanacknowledgementthathe“did”(swear),recogni-tionofthisasacomplainable,andremedyforhisswearing.Notably,thisrem-edyisnotdoneuntilaftertheexpletivewasnoticedbyothers.

Figure10. “You’re agreeing we’re leaving it there” ( line 24)

Figure11. Panel members laugh




InoverlapwithGasparino’sapology,thehostattemptstoclosethediscussionaltogether, saying “we’re leaving it there” (Figure 10). She focuses on theapparent agreement between the correspondents, albeitwith a smile and inline32withlaughter,whileofferingagentlereproachwiththeaddressterm“Charlie”. The other panel members also laugh (Figure 11). Gasparino re-peatedly apologizes, and offers the self-deprecation “you can’t put me onthe show” (lines33 and34).Through thisGasparinoposits theproblemasapersonaldeficiency that ispartofhisownbiography(cf.Goffman1981),similar toKeaton’s self-blame inExtract (3).Gasparino displays an under-standing that swearing iswrongand that it is inappropriate to swear in thispubliccontext,butthathecannothelpitandthereforeshouldnotbeinvitedtospeakinsuchpubliccontexts.Gasparino’s apologies are directed to the host and other panel members

ratherthantheaudience.Thehostdoesnottopicalizetheuseoftheexpletive,whichcontrastswiththeRiversexamplewherethehostpositionedherselfandthebroadcastersasauthorsbydeliveringanapologytotheaudience.Howeveratline43,anotherpanelmembersays“helloyoutube”,inrecognitionofthisbeingthesortof“blooper”thatendsuponthevideo-sharingsite.Thereisthenanorientationtothepossiblefutureviewingaudience,incontrasttothedirect-to-audienceapologiesinExtracts(1)and(2).Here,livenessisnottreatedastheproblemperse,buttheconsequenceofthatliveness(i.e.,thatGasparino’sswearcannotbedeleted)becomesrelevant.Thediscussionisthenbroughttoanend,butitisclearthatGasparino’sexpletivedisruptedtheintendedprogres-siontowardthisclosinganddelayeditduetothereactionsofthemembersandGasparino’smultipleapologies.Acrossallcasesdiscussedsofar,theidentitiesoftheparticipants — theaudi-

ence,hosts,and/ortheswearerthemselves — aremaderelevant.Inthecaseofgaffes, therelationshipbetweenmemberswashighlighted(inparticularthatbetweeninterviewee/ broadcasterandaudience),whereasinslipsthepersonalqualities(ordeficiencies)oftheswearerweredrawnoninaccountingfortheinstanceoftheswear.Althoughswearingisconsistentlytreatedasabreach,thenotionthatswearinginvokesasenseofintimacybetweenmembersisalsoap-parentacrossallcases.Instancesofswearingwereproducedaspartofconfes-sional,personal,or“emotionallycharged”talk.Keaton’sandGasparino’sac-countsfortheirslipswereusedtodofurtherintimatetalkinthattheyrevealedpersonalflaws.Inthefinalexample,theinstitutionalidentityoftheswearerasprimeminis-

terismaderelevantaspartofthetreatmentoftheswearasabreach.Thedis-juncturebetween thecategorymembershipof thespeakerand theactionofswearingisusedas a resource forestablishingasenseofintimacy.TheextractistakenfromaninterviewwiththethenAustralianPrimeMinisterKevinRuddontheSunday Nightshowduringthe2008–2009globalfinancialcrisis.The




studioaudiencewaslargelycomposedofpeoplemaderedundantafteralargeclothingmanufacturercloseddownandrelocatedabroad.Theextractistakenfromaresponsetoaninterviewer’squestionregardingthegovernment’sstim-uluspackage.

(5) KevinRudd,Sunday Nighthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JPGfSNryzw1 Rudd: ...Youeithersitbackasgovernment,(0.7)and2 donothing;(0.3)andjustwaitforthe3 freemarkettofixitallup¿.hhhOryoustep4 in¿,(0.3)andtryandfillthebrea:ch(0.3)for5 atemporaryperiod.Andthatmeanstemporary6 bo:rrowings.7 IR1: .hhMis[ter-8 Rudd: [>SoIneed<tosayonthat(0.3)people9 havetounderstand↑that,because10 there’sgoingtobetheusualpolitical11 shi:tsto:rm.hsorrys-politica(h)l12 [.hhpo(h)litica(h)l[ politicalstorm=13 IR1: [HHHWhoops14 IR2: [↑Pri:meMi:nister!15 Rudd: =overthat.[So:((turntoaudience,handup))16 (IR2): hihhihhih[hih17 Aud: [((laughter))18 IR1: [$.hhhUmMisterFoxumwhilea-$19 [hihhih20 IR2: [hihhehheh21 Audience: ((Clapsandcheers))(4.9seconds)22 IR1: Rightjustu-onthesubjectofthatstormMister23 Fox[umwhatarethethreetoppoints24 Rudd: [uhhuhhuhhuh[huhhuh.25 IR2: [huhhuhhuhhuh26 IR1: =[ that you think we need uh to- ]to get us- =27 Rudd: [I’minrealstrifeLindsaydigmeout]huhhuh28 IR1: =togetusthroughthisrightnow.

Ruddhashearablybroughtaturntocompletionattheendofline6,whenin-terviewer1beginstolaunchanewquestion.However,Ruddthenextendshisturn and continues by describing the reactions to the stimulus package andassociatedborrowingas leading toa“politicalshitstorm”(lines10and11).Immediatelyafter“shitstorm”,Ruddapologizeswithasmile(Figure12)andeventuallymanagesadeletionrepair,withhisinitialattemptsatrepeating“po-litical”punctuatedbylaughterparticles,beforebringinghisturntocompletion




(atline15).Ruddthusdisplayshisrecognitionofhavingmadesomebreach,andhis laughter, quicknoticing, and self-repair indicate a treatment of thisasaslip.Theswearingismanagedasa“knowsbetter”fault(Goffman1981),causedbycarelessnessratherthanalackofunderstandingaboutthecontextandco-participants.Interviewer1participatesinthisframingoftheswearingasaslip,withherresponse“whoops”andgrimacingexpressiondeliveredtothecamera(Figure13)orientingtotheswearasbothaccidentalandinappropriate.

Interviewer2(line14)thenturnstothestudioaudiencetodeliveramockre-proachwiththeaddressterm“PrimeMinister!”(Figure14).Indoingso,he

Figure12. “Sorry” ( line 11)

Figure13. “Whoops” ( line 13)




makesrelevantthedisjuncturebetweenthecategorialmembershipofRuddasprimeministerandtheactionofswearing.Theaudiencebeginstolaugh,perhapsinorientationtotheinterviewer’sselectionofthemthroughgaze.Thecameraturnstotheaudience,andthenbacktoRuddwhoabandonshisprojectedcon-tinuation(with“so”atline15)andlookstowardtheaudiencewithasmileandraisedhandwhilemouthingsomethingindiscernibletothem(Figure15).

Interviewer1makesmovestoprogresstheinterviewbybringinganother(re-mote)guest — LindsayFox — intotheinterview(line18).Hervoiceissmileythroughoutandsheendsupabandoningherturnwhenshebeginstolaugh,andis joined by the other interviewer in doing so.The audience applauds, and

Figure14. “Prime Minister!” ( line 14)

Figure15. Rudd responds to audience laughter and applause




continuestodosofornearlyfivesecondsbeforeIR1successfullybrings“Mis-terFox”intotheinterview.Similartoearlierexamples,Rudd’sswearingdisruptstheprogressivityof

theinterview.However,itistreatedasahumorousincidentratherthananof-fensiveone.Whereasinpreviousexamplestheaudiencewereratifiedthroughapologieswhichtreatedtheswearingascomplainableandpotentiallyoffen-sivetoviewers,inthiscasetheengagementoftheaudienceisfocusedaroundtheentertainmentvalueoftheprime ministerswearing.WhileIR2’smockre-proachmaybeseenasanorientationtoRudd’sswearingascomplainable,itdoesnotdoanapologyandisusedprimarilytoinvitetheaudiencetorespond.After IR1 re-initiates the entry ofMr.Fox into the interview,Rudd self-

selectstoaddressFox,“I’minrealstrifeLindsaydigmeout”andindoingso,positionshimself as someone in trouble,whichhighlights rather thanmini-mizesthefactthatheswore.Indeed,RuddmakesthisappealincompetitionwithIR1forthefloor,therebyextendingtherelevanceofhisswearingratherthanattendingtotheIR’smovestoprogresstheinterview.WhileRudd’s swearing ends updisrupting the progressivity of the inter-

view,thereactionsbuildaffiliationbetweenRuddandtheaudience.AsEriks-son(2009)suggests,audiencelaughterinpoliticaldiscussionprogramscanbetreatedas a resourcebywhich the audience is seenasgiving support for apolitician’sideasorposition,andcanmomentarilyrelaxtheformalityoftheevent. In thesemoments,Eriksson(2009:917)suggests laughterallows thepersonaltobeglimpsedandacommongroundtobecreated.Thecommonalityandaffiliationinthisexamplehingesontheinformalspacecreatedbetweentheaudienceandtheprimeminister — throughtheuseofaswearword,throughthephysicalorientationtotheliveaudience,andthroughthesmilingapology.Ruddpresentshimself — andistreatedas — anordinarypersonwhoswearsinspiteofhismembershipasprimeminister.Hemaintainsthissenseofordinari-nessbyusingMr.Fox’sfirstnameandtheAustraliancolloquialisms“strife”and“digmeout”.

3. Discussion

Drawing onGoffman (1981), we have discussed how distinctions betweenswearingasacaseof“knowingbetter”slipsor“notknowingbetter”gaffesareinteractionallyproduced andmade relevant.The incidenceof swearing andsubsequentresponsetoandmanagementoftheexpletive,maderelevantthecontextoftheinteractionasalivemediabroadcast.Insomecasestherewasanexplicitorientationtothecontextthroughapologiestotheaudience(Extracts[1]and[2])ortalkaboutbeingontheshow(Extract[3]),whileinotherin-stancestheseorientationsweremoreimplicit.Therepairs,displaysofshock,




laughter,andreproachesbyselfandothersthatfollowedacaseofswearingdemonstratedtherelevanceoftheinteractionalcontextviaanorientationtothenormsthatgovernconductintheseenvironments.The interactional management of swearing reveals the practicalities of

recipientdesignissues — peopleproducetheirtalkwithanorientationtothespecificsofthepersonthattheyareaddressing.Expletivesthemselvesarenotproblematic — itisthecontextinwhichtheyareused(includingwhothere-cipientandlistenersare)thatshapeshowtheyaretreated.Inthecaseofmediainterviews,recipiencyismorecomplicatedthanit is instandardmulti-partytalk,astalkisdesignedfortheoverhearingaudience.Extracts(1)and(2)(Mir-renandRivers)demonstratetherelevanceoftheaudiencetowhatgoesonintheinterview.InHutchby’s(2006:14)terms,theaudienceareratifiedas“dis-tributedparticipants.”Whenanintervieweeswears,therightsandbiographies(Goffman1981)ofthelive audience,whichtypicallyremainopaqueininter-views,aredirectlyinvoked.InExtracts(1)and(2)thelaughableaspectsoftheswearingdemonstrateanindiscretionthatlendsitselftothegossipyinformalstatusachievedintheseformats.Whiletheaudienceisapologizedtoasapos-sible upset recipient, there is also a sense that the audience is treated to aglimpseintothe“real”backstagebehaviorofthecelebrity.Amongtheseexamples,theaudiencewasexplicitlyorientedtoincasesthat

wereproducedasgaffesratherthanslips.Withgaffestheintervieweeistreatedasnottakingintoaccounttheirrecipientsandtheswearingistreatedasacom-plainablefortheviewingaudience.Therewaslittleorientationtotherecipientsinthecaseofslips,wherebythespeakersself-initiatedrepairontheirexpletiveandattemptedtodriveonthroughtheturn.Ineachcase,thespeakeroftheslipperformedasame-turndeletionrepair,suggestinganorientationtothespeaker,ratherthantherecipients,asproblematic.Althoughitisthecompositionoftherecipients(i.e.,theliveviewingaudience)andrelationshipbetweenthemandthespeakerthatmakethespeaker’sslipproblematic(i.e.,swearingmightgounnoticedandunrepairedinconversationsthespeakerhaswithintimates),thisisnotwhatisattendedtointhetalksubsequenttotheswearing.Ineachcaseofa slip, the interviewee was reproached — Keaton was advised to wash hermouthoutwithsoap,whereasGasparinoandRuddwereaddressedinatonethatintimatedmisbehavior.Ineachcase,theintervieweeorientedtotheslipasapersonalmatter.Therewerenoexternallyprovidedaccountssuchasalackofunderstandingaboutthecontextandinsteadtheintervieweeaccountedforthemselvesandattendedtotheirownresponsibilityfortheirconduct.Acrossallthecasestherewasanorientationtoswearingasoffensiveand

complainableconduct.Whetherornotanactionistreatedasoffensiveiscon-textuallybound,andintheseexamplesthecontextoftheinterviewandidenti-tiesoftheparticipantsareinvokedaspartofthemanagementoftheswearing.AsSchegloffsuggests,“thecomplainabilityofsomeformofconductcanbe




contingenton the identityof theagentsand the recipientsof theconduct — identitiesoftengroundedincategorymemberships”(Schegloff2005:452;seealsoStokoe2009;StokoeandEdwards2007).Inthecaseofgaffes,thecontin-gencyofthesituatedrelevanceofmembershipswithinaudience/ broadcaster/intervieweecategorieswasusedintreatingswearingascomplainableconduct.Withslips, it isbyvirtueofthemembers’participationwithintheinterviewthat the incidenceof swearing is problematic, but it ismore aboutwho the speakers are rather thanwhat they are doing that ismade relevant. In theKeatonandGasparinoexamples,institutionalcategorymembershipswerenotexplicitlyinvokedasthebasisforthecomplainabilityoftheconduct,andper-sonalratherthancategoricalaccountswereprovided.Bycontrast,intheRuddexample,therewasinterplaybetweenthepersonalandcategorical.Thebroad-castcontextwasnotexplicitlyinvokedasanaccountforcomplainability,andtherewasagreaterfocusontheidentityofthespeakerratherthantheirrela-tionshipwiththeaudience(atleastonthesurface).But,incontrastwithotherexamples,Rudd’smembershipas prime ministerwashighlightedastherele-vantgroundsonwhichtomakesenseofandassesshisswearing.Itisthroughtheseorientationstocontextandmembershipthataccountabilityismanaged,revealingthelocallyrelevantandconstructedinteractionalorder.Thedisruptioncausedbyparticipants’orientationstotheswearingwasnot

merelysequentialinthattheinterviewitselfwasputonholdtomanagerepairandaccountability,butalsodisruptiveintermsoftheparticipationframeworkoftheinterview.Swearingcouldleadtodirectaddressestotheviewingaudi-ence,makingtheinteractionalcontextanditsdistributedparticipantssalient.Media interviews anddiscussions typically carryonwithout orientations totheoverhearingaudience,despitetheseeventsbeingdesignedthroughoutforthisaudience(Heritage1985).Thematterof“who-we-are-and-what-we-are-doing”typicallycarriesonasanunderlyingandunstatedorganizationallyrel-evantcategorizationdevice.Whenaninstanceofswearingleadstoanexplicitinvocationof thecontext, itbrings thisotherwise implicitdevice intosharpreliefanddemonstratestheomnirelevance(Sacks1995)ofthelivemediain-terviewdevice.Allactionwithinthisboundedencountercanbe,andis,under-stoodbyreferencetothisdevice.Inthesemoments,theveilofinformalityandchattinessthatcharacterizes

the interviews is revealed as something of a facade. Swearing opens a tearinthefabricoftheencounterandrevealstheinstitutionalframeworkthatbindstheinteractiontogetherandtowhichallconductisaccountable.Swearingistreatedasback-stageconductthatinadvertentlyandinappropriatelyslipsontothefrontstage(Goffman1959).Theactcouldbeseentounderminetheillu-sionof“backstaged-ness”thattheinformalinterviewpresents.Whileinvitingandpromotinganhonestpresentationofself,theaftermathofabriefexpletiveshowsusthat therearestillboundariesaroundwhatsortofselfcanbepre-




sentedinthisunremittinglyfront-stagecontext(Goffman1959).However,theboundarybetweenfront-stageandback-stageselfisblurredandtestedinthesemoments. These glimpses of extreme back-stage behavior in a front-stageeventprovideasenseofplayfulness,whichmayaccountfortheattractiontheyholdforaudiencemembersatthetime,and,intheageofYouTube,formonthsandyearstocome.1

Appendix:transcriptionconventions

BasedonJefferson(2004).[ ] Squarebracketsshowthebeginningandendofoverlappingspeech.= Nobreakorgapbetweenorwithinturns: Soundbeforecolonisstretched.(0.2) Lengthofsilencetonearesttenthofasecond(.) Micropause(lessthan0.2seconds)↑↓ Ashiftintoveryhighorlowpitch. Falling,finalintonation, Slightlyrising,continuingintonation? Risingorquestioningintonation¿ Slightlyrisingintonation> < Talkbetweenarrowsisspeededup.< > Talkbetweenarrowsissloweddown._ Underliningindicatesstress/emphasis.CAPS Markedincreaseinvolume° ° Quietvoicerelativetosurroundingtalk* Croakyvoicebu- Adashshowsawordiscut-off.! Averyanimatedtone$ “Smiley”voice.hhh In-breathhhh Outbreath(h) Plosivenesswithinawordhehhih Representslaughterparticles(---) Representsuntranscribablewords(guess) Wordsinbracketsshowtranscriber’sbestguess.(( )) Wordsindoublebracketsaretranscriber’scommentsordescriptions

ofnonverbalaction.

Notes

* WethankmembersoftheRossPriorySeminarGroupfortheircommentsonaversionofthispaperpresentedin2009.




1. Wethankananonymousreviewerforthispointandtheireloquentdiscussionoftheludicpos-sibilitiesofswearingininterviews.

References

Chidester,Tresea.2004.Whatthe#$%&ishappeningontelevision?Indecencyinbroadcasting.CommLaw Conspectus 13(1).135–167.

Clayman,Steven&JohnHeritage.2002.The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Drew,Paul.1987.Pofacedreceiptsandteases.Linguistics25(1).219–253.Eriksson,Goran. 2009.Themanagement of applause and laughter in live political interviews.

Media, Culture & Society31(6).901–920.Fairclough,Norman.1994.Conversationalizationofpublicdiscourseandtheauthorityofthecon-sumer.InRussellKeat,NigelWhiteley&NicholasAbercrombie(eds.),The authority of the consumer, 253–268.London:Routledge.

Goffman,Erving.1959.The presentation of self in everyday life.NewYork:Doubleday.Goffman,Erving.1981.Forms of talk.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Grusin, Richard. 2010. Premediation, affect and mediality after 9/11. Basingstoke: PalgraveMcMillan.

Heritage,John.1985.Analyzingnewsinterviews:Aspectsoftheproductionoftalkforanover-hearingaudience.InTeunA.vanDijk(ed.),Handbook of discourse analysis,95–117.London:AcademicPress.

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

Jefferson,Gail.2004.Glossaryoftranscriptsymbolswithanintroduction.InGeneH.Lerner(ed.),Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

Jefferson,Gail,HarveySacks&EmanuelA.Schegloff.1987.Notesonlaughterinthepursuitofintimacy.InGrahamButton&JohnR.E.Lee(eds.),Talk and social organisation,152–205.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Llewellyn,Nick&CarlyW.Butler.2011.Walkingoutonair.Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.44 – 64.

Lundell,AsaK.2009.Thedesignandscriptingof“unscripted”talk:LivenessversuscontrolinaTVbroadcastinterview.Media, Culture & Society31.271–288.

Marriott,Stephanie.2007.Live television: Time, space and the broadcast event.London:Sage.Montgomery,Martin.2000.Televisedtalk:Facework,politenessandlaughterinThe Mrs Merton

Show. InMalcolmCoulthard,JanetCotterill&FrancesRock(eds.),Dialogue analysis: Work-ing with dialogue, 121–137.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Montgomery,Martin.2008.Thediscourseof thebroadcastnewsinterview.Journalism Studies9(2).260 –277.

Robinson,JeffreyD.2004.Thesequentialorganizationof“explicit”apologiesinnaturallyoccur-ringEnglish.Research on Language & Social Interaction37.291–331.

Sacks,Harvey.1995.Lectures on conversation,GailJefferson(ed.).Oxford:Blackwell.Schegloff,Emanuel.2005.Oncomplainability.Social Problems52(4).449– 476.Schegloff,EmanuelA.,GailJefferson&HarveySacks.1977.Thepreferenceforself-correctionintheorganizationofrepairinconversation.Language 53(2).361–382.

Stokoe,Elizabeth.2009.Doingactionswithidentitycategories:Complaintsanddenialsinneigh-bordisputes.Text & Talk 29(1).75–97.




Stokoe,Elizabeth&DerekEdwards.2007.“Blackthis,blackthat”:Racialinsultsandreportedspeechinneighbourcomplaintsandpoliceinterrogations.Discourse & Society 18(3).337–372.

Tolson,Andrew.2001. “Beingyourself ”:Thepursuitof authenticcelebrity.Discourse Studies3(4).443– 457.

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

Watson,RodD. 1986.Doing theorganization’swork:An examinationof a crisis interventioncentre.InS.Fisher&A.D.Todd(eds.),Discourse and institutional authority: Medicine, educa-tion, and law, 911–920.Norwood:Ablex.

Wyatt,E.2010.F.C.C.Indecencypolicyrejectedonappeal.New York Times 13July. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/ business/media/14indecent.html?_r=1&src=busln.

CarlyW.ButlerisLecturerintheDepartmentofSocialSciencesatLoughboroughUniversity.Herresearch interests are inethnomethodologyandconversationanalysis, children’s talkandplay,familyinteractions,helplineinteractionsandnewsinterviews.SheisauthorofTalk and Social Interaction in the Playground (2008).Addressforcorrespondence: DepartmentofSocialSciences,LoughboroughUniversity,Loughborough,LeicestershireLE113TU,England<[email protected]>.

Richard Fitzgerald is Senior Lecturer in the School of Journalism and Communication at theUniversityofQueensland,Australia.Hisresearchexploresmediainteractionandlanguage,par-ticularly in theareasofnewsand radiodiscourse, and thedevelopmentandapplicationof themethodologyofmembershipcategorizationanalysisandconversationanalysisforexploringtheorganizationofculturalknowledgeandidentityininteraction.HisrecentpublicationsincludeaspecialissueoftheAustralian Journal of Communication(guesteditedwithCarlyButlerandRodGardner)on“Ethnomethodologicalapproachestocommunication”,andMedia, Policy and Inter-action(Ashgate),editedwithWilliamHousley.Addressforcorrespondence:SchoolofJournalismandCommunication,JoyceAckroydBuilding,UniversityofQueensland,Australia<[email protected]>.



“my f***ing personality”: swearing as slips and gaffes in ...posted on the video-sharing website...

Documents