Perceptions of assertiveness among women: Triggering and managing conflict in reality television

Abstract

Since the 1990s, the reality television phenomenon has transformed the face of television in many countries (O’Loughlin, 2004). In Spain, for instance, the private domain has gradually invaded the public domain in an attempt to increase audience ratings and also reflect patterns of asymmetrical societal organization (García-Gómez, 2009). Different television formats, which range from docusoaps to the most blatant examples of so-called ‘voyeur television’ (Higgins, 2009), have occupied the prime-time hours. In particular, a wide range of reality television shows has taken the place that mini-series, sitcoms and films of the week used to occupy. These reality television programmes show the transformation of the private domain into one which can be manipulated and incorporated as an essential element in the theatricalization of the intimate experiences of anonymous people (Myers, 2001). By addressing the relationship between mothering and gendered styles, this study adds to the field of research on reality television research by investigating language and gender within the institutional setting of a docusoap and throwing light on the discursive strategies which two different generations of women use to express anger and assertiveness and impose on others. The study reveals that the strategies used by the Spanish female teenagers under scrutiny are associated with hostile laddish verbal behaviour, whereas the mothers’ strategies relate to an instrumental view of aggression.

Keywords

Femininity gendered discourses linguistic strategies reality television verbal conflict

Introduction

Over the years, television, along with society in general, has taken a dramatic turn (García-Gómez, 2009). Sociologists and psychologists claim that the reality television phenomenon is responsible for this significant change in television formats (Hill, 2002; Jones, 2002; O’Loughlin, 2004). These formats, which span from docusoaps¹ to what has been dubbed ‘voyeur television’ (Higgins, 2009), have taken up prime-time slots in Spanish television, and a wide range of reality television shows have replaced mini-series, sitcoms and films in those coveted slots. These reality television programmes show the transformation of the private domain into one which can be manipulated and incorporated as an essential element in the theatricalization of the intimate experiences of anonymous people (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004; Huff, 2006; Murray and Ouellette, 2004). The vast majority of work has analysed this social phenomenon from either a discourse or a psycho-analytical perspective. Focusing on the nature of experts’ interactions with lay people (inter alia, Andrejevic, 2004; Hill, 2005; Hutchby, 1996, 2006, 2011; Myers, 2004; Thornborrow and Montgomery, 2010; Tolson, 2006).

The present study is an exercise in discourse analysis and is based on the video-tape recording and transcription of 20 episodes of a popular reality show on Spanish television: Hoy me cambio de familia (henceforth HCF), the Spanish version of Wife Swap. Given that this TV show is characterized by aggressive verbal behaviour, the present study focuses on women’s assertive expressions of anger in HCF. In doing so, it uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach to examine the use and effects of the linguistic strategies which two generations of women employ in episodes of relational aggression. In order to address Spanish female voices in HCF, I take an interdisciplinary approach. Although my primary focus is on discourse analysis, influence from a range of other disciplines is also evident, including social and discursive psychology and sociology. My work embraces the critical social theories of Butler (1990, 2006) and applies them to an empirical discourse analysis of female voices in order to ascertain how power and authority are enacted in episodes of relational aggression. In particular, a primary emphasis of the study is the exploitation of discursive strategies whereby mothers and daughters discursively construct their gendered identities in heated arguments.

In what follows, these preliminary considerations will be given careful thought. The following section presents an overview of the concepts and relevant theoretical issues that aim to contextualize the objectives this study pursues. The next section explains the methodology used to collect and process the data, followed by the Analysis section which presents the results from the analysis of the discursive construction of femininities in an episode of relational aggression. Finally, the Conclusion considers the main implications derived from the analysis.

Literature review

Gender performativity: From aggressive to laddish behaviour

Although aggressive behavioural practices in general have traditionally been associated with masculinity (Dorias, 2004), in the last few years a growing body of work has pointed to evidence of an increase of a ‘ladette culture’ wherein girls are gradually adopting aggressive behaviour and overt laddishness in the classroom (Jackson, 2005) and in other social contexts (Ringrose, 2006). Female teenagers seem to have found in this laddish behaviour their own code of communication, socialization and maintenance of social hierarchies (Myrttinen, 2003). Relational aggression, however, is far from being a new social problem; it is simply becoming more widely recognized (García-Gómez, 2011).

Within the context of reality television, research on relational aggression has mainly focused on the analysis of conflict management at an interpersonal level (Brenes Peña, 2011; García-Gómez, 2007; Lorenzo-Dus, 2010). More specifically, different studies present a genre-based approach to impoliteness (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2009, 2010) and others focus on the role of the mediator (Myers, 2001) and conflict triggers that may lead to an episode of verbal intimidation (Hutchby, 2001; Lorenzo-Dus, 2000). Surprisingly, there has been very little research on reality TV from a feminist perspective. In fact, the meagre feminist empirical research focuses on the type of social practices which are usually related to relational aggression (e.g. how adolescent girls victimize other girls). These social practices may include slandering, ridiculing, rumour-spreading, ignoring, excluding from social groups and activities, and using hostile body language (Dellasega and Nixon, 2003).

In spite of the alarming growth of female teenagers’ aggressive behaviour (see Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Ringrose, 2012), there is a lack of gender-specific research that explicitly addresses differences and similarities in the use of linguistic strategies to encode such behaviour between two generations of women. This study aims to fill this gap by comparing within the context of HCF potential differences in gender performativity in episodes of relational aggression between female teenagers (i.e. the ones who are supposed to be representative of this laddish culture) and their mothers’ generation (who are supposed to represent different social values that respond to variables such as generational and educational differences and social class).

Language, women and acts of aggression: The private and public female voice

The few feminist studies on relational aggression contrast with the number of researchers who have examined the complex interplay between gender and discourse within both the public and private spheres (see e.g. Biressi, 2005; Brenton, 2003). Within the latter, there is still much work to be done. In a recent study which outlines the defining principles of 21st-century discursive language and gender research, Ringrose (2012) argues that it is essential for linguists to examine the language of social institutions, of which reality television is an example, in order to explore the role that linguistic strategies play in terms of social inequality based on gender grounds.

Female teenagers not only live in a generally more violent society in the 21st century (Muncer et al., 2000), but their role models are also more assertive in every realm from television to the yellow press (Ringrose, 2010). There is also a reliable gender difference in the way in which men and women experience acts of aggression (Campbell, 1993). Traditionally, psychological research on aggression expression has suggested that women tend to regard it as an expressive act that comes out of a temporary loss of self-control, whereas men tend to regard it instrumentally (Campbell, 2002).

The hypothesis to be tested in this study is that there is a relationship between the use of linguistic strategies by these two generations of women and a change in the differentiated social representation of verbal aggression: hostile versus instrumental aggression.² By examining gendered discourses in a reality television show in which the boundaries between the public and private sphere are blurred, this study contributes to a recent strand of research which focuses on the female voice in the public sphere (see inter alia, Baxter, 2006, 2010; Holmes, 2006; Holmes and Meyerhoff, 2003; Sunderland, 2004). I agree with McElhinny’s (1997: 107) claim that the dichotomy between public versus private language and its associated linguistic counterparts of ‘institutional’ versus ‘ordinary’ should be seen as ideological labels rather than as specific, definable spheres. Although her concerns were not those of the present study, her words are of relevance here as she points out (1997: 108) that ‘relationships between occupations (including mothering) and gendered styles have been ignored’.

The data provide a unique opportunity to analyse realistic examples of women’s expression of assertiveness in episodes of relational aggression, episodes that are clearly connected with the private sphere but which are broadcast and used to illustrate values on television (i.e. connected with the public). Given that both the male and the female self emerge and are shaped in social interaction, this study will argue that these two generations of women have a choice in terms of how to express themselves in discourse and how to perform the gender role in which they would like to be perceived.

Methodology

Data

Reality television in Spain: The case of Hoy me cambio de familia

HCF is the Spanish version of Wife Swap. This reality television programme, originally produced by the UK, was first broadcast in 2003 on the UK’s Channel 4. The Spanish version was broadcast in 2004 on the national channel TVE1 and then aired on the private channel Telecinco. At present, new episodes of the show have been filmed and will be aired on Canal Cuatro.

Each episode of HCF portrays two families from vastly different social backgrounds and lifestyles which swap mothers for two weeks. HCF is certainly controversial, and challenges the social norms of both families in so far as it deliberately swaps wives with polar opposite lifestyles, one with deep religious faith and one completely lacking religious belief. During the first week, each mother writes a manual wherein she describes her household rules; however, new mothers are free to establish their own rules which their new families must follow during the second week. At the end of these two weeks, both mothers and their real husbands meet for the first time and have a conversation, not always polite, about everything they experienced with the adoptive family.

Even though both families are encouraged to establish a middle ground and develop understanding in order to learn from the experience, swapping these very different mothers often triggers verbal conflict, quarrels and insults. In Culpeper’s (2005: 47) words, HCF can be classified within ‘exploitative shows’ in so far as it seems to have ‘evolved through the subversion of the politeness norms of the standard shows’:³ that is, traditional family sitcoms which used to portray perfect families with ideal relationships. HCF, however, tackles social problems (e.g. teen sex, homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, etc.) and seems to depict the reality that many Spanish families experience.

Data collection, participants and coding process

This research reports the results of quantitative and qualitative discursive analyses of the anger expression of 46 Spanish daughters and mothers. In order to provide a homogeneous sample, the data were selected from a specific subsection of the female population represented in the reference corpus. These 46 teen females ranged from 14 to 17 years of age and all 46 mothers ranged from 38 to 48 years of age. Both groups can be classified as heterosexual, white and lower-middle-class.

Initially, a content analysis of all the programmes broadcast for a period of six months was conducted. This content analysis made it possible to select a total number of 20 programmes and subdivide each episode into topically defined segments. In the end, only those segments which shared the following features were selected: a) swap mother and teenage daughter interact; b) swap mother and teenage daughter overtly disagree with each other about something one or the other must (not) do; and c) swap mother and teenage daughter are verbally aggressive and use a loud tone of voice to communicate their feelings to each other. Finally, 73 conflictual passages were identified, providing a total of 14,245 utterances. Each of these topically defined passages comprising conflictual behaviour was treated as a macro-face-threatening act (MFTA) (Garcés Conejos, 1991).

In order to analyse these 73 selected conflictual passages a tripartite process was followed. The passages were first analysed in terms of the strategies used to introduce a topic which could be said to trigger a (television) conflictual episode, that is, topic conflict initiation strategies. The second stage of the analysis identified the strategies employed to develop that particular topic, that is, topic development strategies. As soon as topic introduction and continuation strategies had been identified, a detailed pragma-discursive analysis was carried out. Both topic conflict initiation and topic development strategies were codified following a taxonomy developed specifically for this corpus (bottom–up approach). Moreover, following García-Gómez’s (2009) study of turn-taking in talk show conflict talk, every turn in each topically defined conflictual passage was then coded for its pragmatic force.⁴ In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, both topic introduction and continuation strategies and their discursive realizations will be further explained as the analysis unfolds.

Analysis

In what follows, I first discuss how swap mothers and teenage daughters initiate a conflictual episode in terms of topic management. In doing so, I discuss the different topic management strategies which these two generations exploit in order to start a verbal dispute. Next, my attention turns to the specific topic continuation strategies which swap mothers and daughters use in order to challenge and undermine each other’s point of view in the development of their argument.

Topic conflict initiators: Triggering violence in reality television arguments

Topic conflict initiation strategies in my data show a distinctive number of pragmatic characteristics which differentiate them from topic introduction strategies in ordinary conversations⁵ (García-Gómez, 2002). Topic conflict initiators may be differentiated in terms of their attitudinal colouring which displays the form of mutual opposition in the interaction. This in turn allows the analyst to identify when an episode of this nature occurs. Therefore, I argue that they share the following characteristics:

Topic conflict initiators can be identified as elicitations and informatives which serve to evaluate human behaviour positively or negatively by reference to the speaker’s social norms.

Both elicitations and informatives imply a preferred answer/statement of agreement by the addressee with the speaker’s assessment of a given state of affairs. Both, however, may be identified as topic-conflict initiations because they are followed by an oppositional move which challenges the illocutionary intent of the first move. Let us take the following instances from the corpus as an example:

Extract (1)

Daughter7: Could you tell me why the hell you have thrown my clothes into the bin?

SMother7:⁶ It wasn’t me. The clothes were so filthy that they jumped into the bin on their own!

Extract (2)

Daughter21: You said I didn’t have a shower this morning to humiliate me in front of my friend, didn’t you?

SMother21: No, I said so because you stink.

In the above examples, both mothers’ and daughters’ differing points of view trigger and fuel anger. Therefore, interaction unfolds as a succession of face-threatening initiating moves which are always followed by a challenging move. In this interactive process, the illocutionary force of the utterances is negotiated between the swap mother and the daughter. This may then require a further contribution from the speaker as an attempt to recover the illocutionary force intended in their previous turn (García-Gómez, 2000). The following provides a typical example of an exchange in TV conflict talk:

Extract (3)

SM21: I told you, you have to help me with house chores.

D21: Leave me alone!

SM21: You have to help me with house chores. I’m not your slave!

Table 1 shows the taxonomy of linguistic realizations of topic conflict initiators in the corpus, and the number of instances of each therein.

Table 1.

Realizations of topic conflict initiators.

	Instances
	Daughters	SMothers
Elicit: asking for information	347	374
Elicit: clarification of opponent’s point of view	261	336
Elicit: confirmation of opponent’s point of view	37	173
Informative: direct negative self-evaluation	358	265
Informative: indirect negative self-evaluation	92	53
Informative: direct negative evaluation of the opponent	322	404
Informative: indirect negative evaluation of the opponent	169	118
Total	1586	1723

For clarifying purposes, examples of all these realizations will be explained in the illustrative examples given below so that the reader can fully see the pragmatic force of each utterance in context.

These topic conflict initiators have a particular intra-turn design, which consists of a tripartite exchange as its basic organizational unit. Given the face-threatening nature of these eliciting and informative initiating moves, the addressee answers back and challenges the first move. The recurrent presence of these challenging moves makes the speaker produce a follow-up move which attempts to recover the illocutionary force intended in the initiating move. This, in turn, makes it possible to differentiate topic conflict initiators from every other topic initiation sequence. The content-based nature of topic conflict initiators makes it possible not only to locate and recognize a conflict episode as a differentiated stretch of discourse within the whole programme interaction, but also to throw light on how topic management works in this particular kind of interaction. As Goodwin and Goodwin (1990: 97) claim:

One very interesting feature of argument is the way in which a single oppositional exchange can encompass talk about a range of different subjects. Argument begun about one issue can escalate into many points of contention between the parties.

More specifically, it can be seen in the different episodes selected for analysis that the whole verbal dispute is made up, in Downing’s terms (1997, heavily indebted to Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983), of a range of local topics, which are hierarchically structured under the umbrella of the global discourse topic⁷ which unifies them and constitutes the whole script. In view of these criteria, all the content shifts within the conflict episode will be regarded as a set of local topics that mothers and daughters manage in interaction.

In what follows, I analyse topic conflict initiators as the linguistic resource available to swap mothers and daughters in order to introduce a topic which will develop into a conflict episode. In spite of the fact that swap mothers are supposed to have a strong power position in the programme, Table 1 shows no significant variation in the number of instances (Daughters: n = 1583; SMothers: n = 1723) where a mother or a daughter initiates the verbal dispute. It is important to point out that these topic conflict initiators determine the global discourse topic, as potential content shifts take place and are usually connected with the issue which triggered the verbal fight. Topic conflict initiation is linguistically performed in the data by means of informatives, which assert a state of affairs and elicitations which commit the addressee to confirm and comply, as illustrated in (4).

Extract (4): This swap mother complains about her daughter not doing any household chores.

SM7: No sé cómo te puedes quedar ahí sentada (.) y no hacer NADA (.) mientras tu madre tiene que hacértelo todo (.) Mis hijos me ayudan a todo y (0.2) no tengo que pedírselo (I have no idea how you can just sit there without doing anything, while your mother has to do everything. My children help me with everything and I needn’t ask.)

D7: Pues ya sabes (0.7) dile a tus hijos que te ayuden (.) tú no eres mi madre (Well then . . . go ask your kids for help. You are not my mum)

SM7: No soy tu madre pero (.) es que tú no ayudas ni a tu madre (0.3) tú te crees que esto (0.5) es por mi bien (.) algún día te tendrás que ir de aquí y casarte (.) quién te crees que te va a hacer las cosas↑ no ves que si lo aprendes es mejor para ti↑ una chica bien educada sabe hacerse estas cosas (I am not your mother, but you won’t even help your own mother. Do you think this is for my own sake? Some day you will leave and get married. Who do you think will do it then? Can’t you see that if you learn you’ll be better off? A girl who had been raised properly would know how to do such chores)

D7: Me la suda (.) a ver si tú vas a (0.7) venirme a enseñar algo (.) tú no eres mi madre y no me ralles (.) que me estas petando la cabeza ] de tus ralladas

(I don’t give a shit. As if you were going to teach me something. You are not my mother so don’t piss me off)

SM7: ]No quieres ser mejor persona↑ (Don’t you want to be a better person?)

D7: Sí claro (.) qué tengo que hacer ↑ coger una escoba y barrer↑ (Yeah, sure! What have I gotta do? Grab a broom and sweep?)

SM7: Eso (.) lo ves como cuando quieres si sabes↑ (You see? See how you do know what to do when you want to?)

D7: Yo es que (.) prefiero coger una escoba y (0.6) darte con ella ] en la cabeza ((riéndose)) (I’d rather grab a broom and hit you on the head!) ((laughing))

SM7: ]Yo no tengo por qué aguantar esto ((se va llorando)) (I don’t have to put up with this) ((she leaves crying))

In this extract SMother7 complains about the fact that Daughter7 does not help her with any household chores. In doing so, she is negatively assessing her swap daughter’s attitude. Daughter7, however, challenges the illocutionary intent in SMother7’s initiating move and disagrees with her evaluation. In the third move, as SMother7 believes that her negative evaluation is self-evidently true, she produces a third move to insist on her previous idea and restates her initial illocutionary force. Daughter7 evaluates negatively what SMother7 has just said and challenges the second initiating move. The lack of a positive response on the part of Daughter7 makes SMother7 produce a follow-up move to emphasize her point. In spite of SMother7’s efforts to persuade her swap daughter to help with household chores by giving her reasons why she should do so, Daughter7 ridicules her.

In spite of the heated argument, these swap mothers also show a tendency to exploit positive strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987). By doing so, swap mothers try to support their point by presenting what they want their swap daughters to do as socially acceptable and the most beneficial thing for them. Nevertheless, generally they do not produce the expected response – an agreement turn. Rather, they provide a further assessment which contradicts the informational content of the swap mother’s previous turn. Finally, the disagreement usually becomes a bitter dispute.

As we saw in Table 1, daughters initiate conflict episodes just as often as swap mothers do. Let us take the following extract as an example:

Extract (5): Daughter21 accuses her swap mother of throwing all her clothes in the trash.

D21: Me puedes decir (.) por qué narices me has tirado la ropa (0.4) a la basura↑ (Could you tell me why the hell you threw my clothes in the bin?)

SM21: Yo no he sido ((riéndose)) tenía tanta mierda la ropa que (.) se ha ido solita a la basura (It wasn’t me. The clothes were so filthy that they jumped into the bin can on their own!)

D21: Tú te crees que yo soy idiota↑ me la has tirado tú (Do you think I’m stupid? You did throw them in the bin)

SM21: Si no la hubieras dejado tirado ((riéndose)) (If you hadn’t left them lying around) ((laughing))

D21: Lo ves como lo has tirado tú↑ me lo vas a pagar (.) pienso mearme en toda tu ropa (.) ahora sí que voy a ser una guarra (See? I knew it was you! You’re gonna pay for this. I’m gonna piss on all of your clothes. Now I am gonna be a real slob)

In this extract, Daughter21’s first elicitation move expresses what she assumes to be true and wants the addressee to confirm that assumption; however, the addressee is not willing to confirm that she has indeed thrown away Daughter21’s clothes. As a result, she challenges the illocutionary intent of Daughter21’s elicitation. The exchange is perceived as incomplete and Daughter21 produces a third move to produce a negative evaluation, to restate the illocutionary intent of the first initiating move so as to provide support for what she believes to be self-evidently true. Finally, SMother21 confirms the speaker’s assumption. Although Daughter21 assumed her proposition to be self-evidently true, she produces a third move to complain and ends by threatening her swap mother.

To sum up, the results of the analysis of topic conflict initiators suggest that swap mothers and daughters use both elicitations and informatives to assert their assessment of a particular state of affairs. This particular type of utterance is used to evaluate the addressee’s behaviour and to try to exert pressure over her to comply with a given course of action or agree with a previous assessment.

Topic continuation strategies: Challenging and undermining others’ points of view

In any ordinary conversation, topic continuation is an obligatory technique as a sequence of two successive topic introductions is impossible (Goutsos, 1997). In this section, I will concern myself with the use and function of those turns at talk aimed at continuing the topic in a conflict episode. When swap mothers and daughters are placed in verbal opposition and their disagreement about the disputed issue statement has been made explicit, they tend to argue in favour of their stance and disagree with their opponent’s. They also negotiate the force of their utterances until the conflict reaches a climax and swap mothers and daughters reinforce their point by undermining each other. Close inspection of the data shows that, in conflict about a disputed issue statement, there are two different ways of continuing a topic. Let us consider the following illustrative extracts:

Extract (6): Swap mother12 has accused her daughter of stealing her money.

SM12: Me faltan 20 euros y (.) sé que me los has robado tú (I am missing €20 and I know it was you)

D12: ¡Puff!

SM12: Te estoy hablando (.) dime que me los has cogido (.) y fuera (I am talking to you. Just say that it was you and we’ll move on)

D12: ¡Me aburres! ((gritando)) (You bore me out of my mind!) ((shouting))

SM12: Cómo puedes tener tan poca vergüenza↑ me has robado (.) y encima no lo reconoces (The nerve you have! You have taken money from me and you can’t even admit to it!)

D12: ¡Me estás chinando! (You’re making me angry)

SM12: Confiesa que me lo has robado y (.) fuera (Just admit it and it’ll be over)

D12: ¡Piérdete guarra! ((se marcha de casa)) (Get lost bitch!) ((she leaves the house))

Extract (7): Daughter25 does not want to tidy up her room.

D25: Yo paso de limpiar mi habitación (.) eso siempre lo ha hecho mi madre (.) tú eres mi madre (0.5) tú lo haces (I’ll pass on cleaning my room. My mum has always done it. You’re my mum, you clean it)

SM25: Yo soy tu madre pero no tu esclava (.) cada uno es responsable de lo suyo (.) si todos hacemos un poco (.) no es trabajo para ninguno pero (.) si lo tengo que hacer yo todo es (.) mucho trabajo (.) no puedes ver eso↑ (I am your mother but I am not your slave. Each one of us is responsible for their own things. If we all lend a hand, each of us hasn’t got much to do, but if I have to do all of it, then there is a lot to be done. Can’t you see that?)

D25: ¡Yo no limpio! (I don’t clean!)

SM25: Dame una sola razón (.) si me das una ] razón (0.2) yo lo hago (Give me a reason. If you give me one single reason why you should not clean, I’ll do it)

D25: ]Ya estás rallándome ((murmura)) (You’re pissing me off) ((whispering))

SM25: Tú entras gritándome y diciéndome que (.) tengo que limpiar tu cuarto y (0.2) soy yo quien te ralla ↑ (You come in yelling and telling me that I have to clean your room and I’m the one pissing you off?)

D25: Joder (0.3) ¡estoy harta! (Fuck! I am so fed up! )

SM25: Como no me dices (.) por qué tengo que hacer yo todo (0.2) lo vamos a hacer como yo digo (As you won’t tell me why I should do it, we’ll do as I say)

D25: ¡Que te jodan! ((se mete en su habitación)) (Fuck you!) ((she goes to her room))

Extract (6) illustrates the strategy labelled ‘topic challengers’, which is based on a direct challenge to the information content of previous turns (see Table 2). Although topic challengers base continued conversation on whatever was discussed in the previous move, they themselves do not develop, extend or add any new piece of information. Extract (7) illustrates the strategy labelled ‘topic-discord contributors’. This was mainly employed by swap mothers (see Table 3). This strategy differs from topic challengers in that it not only provides for continued conversation based on whatever was discussed, but also develops the informational content. In other words, apart from signalling the challenge, topic discord contributors aim to elaborate on the topic discussed.

Table 2.

Realizations of topic challengers.

	Instances
	Daughters	SMothers
Directive: imposition of a course of action on the opponent	725 (33.34)	72 (23.15)
Directive: threat directed at the opponent	647 (29.76)	58 (18.64)
Directive: warning directed at the opponent	289 (13.29)	31 (9.96)
Informative: (in-)direct negative evaluation of the opponent	513 (23.59)	96 (30.86)
Informative: positive self-evaluation	234 (10.79)	54 (17.36)
Total	2408	311

Table 3.

Realizations of topic-discord contributors.

	Instances
	Daughters	SMothers
Informative: positive self-evaluation	62 (6.15)	959 (12.92)
Informative: direct negative evaluation of the opponent	147 (14.59)	1096 (14.92)
Informative: indirect negative evaluation of the opponent	22 (2.18)	566 (7.71)
Elicit: asking for confirmation	327 (32.47)	1084 (14.76)
Elicit: commitment to course of action due to agreement with speaker’s point of view	25 (2.48)	1345 (18.32)
Directive: imposition of a course of action on the opponent Directive: suggestion of a course of action for the opponent’s benefit	45 (4.46) 39 (3.87)	763 (10.39) 512 (6.97)
Directive: threat directed at the opponent	98 (9.73)	327 (4.45)
Directive: warning directed at the opponent	242 (24.03)	689 (9.38)
Total	1007	7341

All in all, the analysis of these two differentiated topic continuation strategies not only illustrates a different linguistic behaviour in a television episode of relational aggression, but also shows that these strategies can provide linguistic evidence of why female teenagers are perceived to be verbally more aggressive than swap mothers.

Use and function of topic challengers: Probing swap daughters’ ladette behaviour

Given the distinction drawn between global discourse topics and local topics (Downing, 1997), topic challengers fulfil a highly important function in the conflictive communicative exchange. In my view, although topic challengers build on the former contribution (i.e. what the other person has just said), they do not actually develop the local topic. Nevertheless, such a strategy triggers the communicative need to continue the development of stances by interlocutors. Linguistically speaking, topic challengers have the following characteristics:

Directives which are aimed at imposing a course of action on the swap mother (e.g. Daughter7: ‘I ordered you to wash my clothes. Do it now’); threatening or warning their swap mothers comprises mainly (in-)direct threats (e.g. Daughter11: ‘Leave me alone or else’, ‘Stop pestering me or I will kick your arse’, etc.) and (in-) direct warnings (e.g. Daughter23: ‘If you keep telling me what to do I will slap your face’).

Informatives which simply negate whatever the swap mother has just said. They are mainly pragmatic-negative repetitions of the previous turns aimed at challenging the informational content.⁸ These informatives evaluate the swap mother negatively, directly or indirectly, through the use of swear words and insults (e.g. Daughter1: ‘You bitch’).

Informatives which self-evaluate daughters positively: a) largely use and validate male-related expressions (e.g. ‘Your words make my balls sweat’); or b) feminize masculine expressions (e.g. Daughter3: ‘You’re touching my tits’, which derives from the male-related counterpart ‘You’re touching my balls’, meaning ‘You piss me off’).

Table 2 shows the linguistic realizations of topic challengers. Topic challengers seem to be correlated with ladette behaviour in so far as these teenagers are perceived as defiant, out of control and pushy. Analysis of the corpus reveals that swap mothers perceive daughters to be more aggressive and verbally abusive than they are.⁹ They all tend to complain about being unable to keep their daughters under control and see them getting away with whatever they want to do. This impression is created by the fact that topic challengers are not only face attack acts¹⁰ (Austin, 1990), but also imply an asymmetrical discourse status, as topic challengers usually impose a course of action on the opponent, (in)directly evaluate the opponent in negative terms and negate whatever the other person says without providing any information to support their own stance. Let us consider the following extract:

Extract (8): Daughter11 is smoking in her room.

SM11: Ya estás fumando otra vez↑ A que sí↑ (You are smoking again, aren’t you?)

D11: ¡Pírate! (Get lost!)

SM11: ¡Claro que sí estás fumando! (0.5) te he dicho que NO puedes fumar en tu habitación (.) apaga el cigarrillo de una] vez (Of course you are smoking! I’ve told you time and again that you can’t smoke in your room. Put out that cigarette at once)

D11: ]Eres mazo coñazo (You are a hell of a pain)

SM11: ¡Cuántas veces te tengo que decir que (0.2) te puedes quedar dormida y (.) quemar la ]casa! (How many times do I have to tell you, you could fall asleep and burn down the house!)

D11: ]Me estás tocando las tetas (You are busting my boobs!)

SM11: Primero (0.4) eres muy joven para fumar como fumas (.) segundo (0.3) no sabes lo que te estás haciendo (.) te estás matando (For starters you are too young to smoke as much as you do and second you have no idea of what you are doing to yourself. You are killing yourself)

D11: ((se enciende otro cigarro)) Ahora me los fumo de DOS en DOS ((riéndose)) ((she lights a second cigarette)) (Now I’m going to smoke them in pairs) ((laughing))

SM11: No podemos seguir así (0.7) te los voy a quitar de la mano y (.) no se fuma (We can’t go on like this. I’ll take them out of your hand so there’ll be no more smoking)

D11: Vete a la MIERDA de una vez o (0.9) te voy a meter el cigarrillo por el CULO ((cierra la puerta con violencia)) (Go to hell to once and for all, I’m gonna stick the cigarette up your arse) ((she slams the door)).

In Extract 8, SMother11’s elicitations express what she assumes to be true and aim to confirm that assumption. Daughter11, however, is not willing to confirm that she is smoking and challenges her swap mother’s elicitation by means of a directive. The exchange is perceived as incomplete, and SMother11 does not accept her swap daughter’s disconfirmation and produces a third move – indicating the inadequacy of her answer and complaining about her behaviour. SMother11 takes advantage of a directive to ask her swap daughter to put out her cigarette. Daughter11 challenges the illocutionary force of this directive, however, by complaining about her swap mother’s attitude. As Daughter11 does not fulfil the illocutionary intent, SMother11 reiterates her utterance and tries to make her see the negative consequences of falling asleep when smoking. Far from being convinced, Daughter11 attempts to act assertively by feminizing a masculine expression. In spite of the offensive language used, SMother11 ignores her comment and tries to explain why she should stop smoking. Daughter11 challenges the previous turn again by lighting one more cigarette and threatening her swap mother to stop pestering her or else. Let us consider the following extract:

Extract (9): Daughter17 cannot find her mobile phone.

D17: No voy a discutir contigo (0.4) ¡Dame mi móvil (.) que para] eso es mío! (I am not gonna argue with you. Just give me my phone, it’s mine after all)

SM17: ]No te lo voy a dar (.) porque no has hecho tus deberes y (.) ya sabes lo que te he dicho (.) el que no hace los deberes (.) no puede tener móvil ni (0.4) hablar con los amigos (I am not going to give it back to you because you haven’t done your homework and you know that if you don’t do your homework you can’t have it or talk to your friends)

D17: ¡Ni hablar¡ (No way)

SM17: Me da igual que te quejes (.) llores y patalees (.) no te lo voy a dar y punto (I don’t care if you complain, whine or kick up a fuss, I am not going to give it to you and that’s that)

D17: Dame el ]móvil y YA (Give me the phone now)

SM17: ]No te lo voy a dar (.) porque tú no has cumplido tu palabra (I will not give it to you because you have not kept your word)

D17: Dámelo o (0.7) te voy a partir la cara (.) ¡Me estás hinchando las tetas¡ (Give it to me or I’ll crack your head open. You are busting my boobs)

SM17: Así es como solucionas tus problemas (0.2) puedes amenazarme lo que quieras (.) no te lo voy a dar] porque (.) no te lo meres (Is that how you sort out your problems? You can threaten me as much as you like, I am not going to give it to you)

D17: ]Eres una zorra y (.) NO te lo consiento (0.4) dámelo ((gritando histéricamente)) (You are a bitch and you just can’t do that. I will not allow it. Give it to me!) ((shouting))

SM17: No te lo doy y no te lo doy ((se encierra en el baño)) (I won’t give it to you, I won’t) ((she hides in the toilet))

D17: ((golpeando la puerta)) Dámelo o (.) te voy a partir la cara ((gritando. Entra el padre y tiene que sacar a la hija de la casa para que se calme)) (Give it to me or I’ll crack your head open) ((shouting at her. Her father comes in and takes her out of the house so that she can calm down)).

In Extract 9, Daughter17 orders her swap mother to give her mobile phone back. SMother17 refuses to do so and tries to explain why she cannot have it back. Without paying any attention to her words, Daughter17 produces a follow-up move and insists on having her phone. As SMother17 keeps refusing to comply, Daughter17’s successive utterances contain a number of informatives that aim to insult and offend her swap mother and directives aimed at threatening her with physical retaliation. Finally, Daughter17 becomes so angry, abusive and violent that SMother12 has to hide in a room to avoid being physically attacked. The use of these topic challengers shows Daughter17’s inability or lack of willingness to reason why she wants her mobile phone back as she does not refute any of SMother17’s arguments. Furthermore, it is important to note that topic challengers, understood as the direct expression of Daughter17’s anger, are mainly realized by threats and insults which eventually put an end to the conversation.

The above analysis indicates that these young women’s antisocial behaviour encompasses a wide range of behaviours and a particular use of linguistic strategies (i.e. topic challengers). Girls who are defiant, out of control and looking for a fight are increasingly presented by the media as a new instance of the ‘youth problem’, yet rather than seek to understand this social phenomenon, this reality show particularly seems to depict these young women in highly gendered ways, where their lack of femininity is emphasized. The next section focuses on the use and function of topic-discord contributors in an attempt to shed some light on swap mothers’ aggressive behaviour.

Use and function of topic-discord contributors: Analysis of swap mothers’ aggressive behaviour

In the course of heated arguments, swap mothers and daughters interact with each other and develop the local topic in and through their discourse. In particular, topic-discord contributors are produced on a moment-to-moment, utterance-to-utterance basis; the episode of relational aggression is built by incrementation (Eggins and Slade, 1997); that is to say, one ‘idea unit’ makes another one possible and relevant. Consequently, a topic-discord contributor becomes a joint accomplishment and a product of the dialogue dynamics of responses and initiative (Linell and Korolija, 1997). Linguistically speaking, topic-discord contributors have the following characteristics:

Informatives which self-evaluate the swap mother positively comprise: a) exaggerations of the swap mother’s personality traits and attitude towards the daughter (e.g. SMother2: ‘I’m very kind to you and you know that’; SMother9: ‘I’m the best mum in the world to you’; SMother7: ‘Nobody cares about you more than I do’); and b) indulgence (e.g. SMother 21: ‘If I’m working myself to death it’s because I want you to be happy’; SMother15: ‘I’m doing my best to make this family work’).

Informatives which evaluate the daughter negatively in a direct or indirect way comprise expressions of: a) humiliation and ridicule (e.g. SMother17: ‘You’re so damn stupid’; SMother2: ‘You’re useless’); b) accusation (e.g. SMother14: ‘I can’t put up with this anymore. You started it’). It is important to highlight that these informatives also support and provide relevant information about the stance taken.

Elicitations which are aimed at committing swap daughters to a course of action after agreement (e.g. SMother15: ‘If I’m right, are you then cleaning up your bedroom’) and confirming a piece of information swap mothers consider to be self-evidently true (e.g. SMother8: ‘Do you really think having sex with that boy is right?’).

Directives which are aimed at imposing a course of action (e.g. SMother12: ‘Don’t talk to me like that’), suggesting a course of action (e.g. SMother19: ‘If I were you, I’d help your mum and appreciate everything she does for you’), threatening (e.g. SMother1: ‘If you keep behaving like that I will ground you’) and warning their swap daughters (e.g. SMother23: ‘I’m telling you, don’t do this to me again or else’) in order to redirect the conversation.

Table 3 shows the linguistic realizations of topic-discord contributors. As Table 3 shows, topic-discord contributors are usually produced by swap mothers and they can be said to construct the local topic. In spite of the oppositional nature of the discourse, every contribution is built on the former turn and elaborates on whatever is being discussed. Let us consider the following illustrative example.

Extract (10): SMother12 complains about her daughter not making her bed.

SM12: ((Entra en la cocina después de buscar a la hija por toda la casa)) No has hecho tu cama para fastidiarme (.) a que sí↑ a que no has hecho tu cama para fastidiarme↑ esto no está bien (.) es] importante que me ayudes un poco ((She comes into the kitchen after having tried to find the daughter all over the house)) (You haven’t made your bed in order to upset me. Isn’t that right? You haven’t made your bed in order to upset me, haven’t you? This is not right. You should help me a little)

D12: ]¡Quién eres tú (0.6) para que me tome tantas molestias! (0.3) no la he hecho porque NO (.) ME (.) SALE (.) DEL (.) CULO (.) y punto (And who are you to make me go out of my way? I haven’t made it because I don’t give a shit)

SM12: ¡Lo ves! (0.9) ¡Lo has hecho para fastidiarme! (0.5) pues vas a hacer la cama (.) quieras o no (.) quieres que se lo diga a tu padre↑ (See! You have done it to upset me! Well, you are going to make your bed whether you want to or not. Do you want me to tell your dad?)

D12: Eso (.) eso (.) díselo a mi padre (.) a ver si te pone a hacer su cama también (0.3) eres la chacha ] a ver si lo entiendes (Go on, go on, tell my dad, he’ll make you make his bed as well! You are the maid, don’t you get it?)

SM12: ]Yo no estoy aquí para que me humilles (.) si no entiendes que todos tenemos que ayudar un poco (.) yo no puedo hacer más (.) la cama os la hacéis vosotros ((se marcha llorando)) (I am not here to be humiliated. If you can’t understand we have to help each other a little I can’t do anything else. You make your own bed!) ((She leaves crying))

In Extract 10, when the conflict topic has been introduced (i.e. Daughter12 does not want to make her bed), SMother12 tries to elicit agreement and commitment from the daughter (she will make her own bed). Daughter12, however, challenges the illocutionary force of the previous utterance by refusing to do anything and insulting her swap mother. In spite of the challenge, SMother12 attempts to force Daughter12 to make her bed by threatening to tell her father. Although SMother12 tries to make her see why everybody should help with household chores, her swap daughter ignores everything she says. Finally, the conversation comes to an end as SMother12 bursts into tears.

Extract (11): SMother3 complains about her daughter being late.

SM3: Ayer te dije que te quería a las 12 aquí ((SM3 está muy enfadada esperando detrás de la puerta a que llegue D3)) (I told you yesterday I wanted you home at 12.00) ((SMother3 is really angry and she is waiting behind the door for Daughter3 to arrive))

D3: y↑ (So?)

SM3: Cómo que (.) y↑ bien lo sabes tú (0.4) son las dos de la mañana (What do you mean with ‘so’? You know perfectly well. It’s 2.00 am)

D3: ¡Déjame en paz! (Leave me alone!)

SM3: No me hables así (.) es que no te das cuenta de que tienes 16 años y de que (.) no puedes andar por la noche tú ]sola (0.2) me estás escuchando↑ (Don’t speak to me like that. Can’t you see you are 16 and you can’t go out on your own at night? Are you listening to me?)

D3: ] Me la pela (.) me la pela (.) todo lo que me digas (I don’t care. I don’t give a shit about anything you say to me)

SM3: El día que te pase algo me lo vas a decir (.) con todo lo bien que yo me porto contigo (.) te intento ayudar en todo y (.) tú me lo devuelves así (.) no eres justa ] yo también sé insultar (The day something bad happens to you, you will. As good as I am to you trying to help you with everything that I possibly can and you thank me like this. You are not fair. I also know how to swear)

D3: ] ME LA PELA ((se encierra en su habitación)) (I don’t give a fuck! ((she hides in her room))

In Extract 11, SMother3 nags at her daughter because she is late. Far from offering any sort of excuse, Daughter3 shows she has no intention of obeying her swap mother’s rules. This makes SMother3 express what for her was self-evidently true in her initiating move. Yet Daughter3 challenges the initiating move by failing to provide information. Even though SMother3 is really angry, she still tries to persuade her swap daughter by telling her how much she cares for her and helps her with everything she can. The conversation cannot proceed as Daughter3 keeps repeating the same words to show she does not care. Finally, she hides in her room.

Conclusion

By addressing the relationship between occupations/mothering and gendered styles, this study adds to the field of research on reality television research by investigating language and gender within the institutional setting of a docusoap, and shedding light on the discursive strategies which two different generations of women use to express anger and assertiveness and impose on others. This, in turn, adds new empirical evidence to the expanding field of women’s studies and draws together insights into the study of female voices in episodes of relational aggression.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis has illuminated the different gendered discourses which these two different generations of lower-middle-class women construct when they have an argument in a reality show. On first impression, these conflict episodes may suggest that mothers and daughters insult, ridicule and attack each other gratuitously. Discourse analysis, however, shows there is a distinctive set of topic management strategies employed by swap mothers and daughters which provides evidence of changes in these two generations’ social representation of verbal aggression. On the one hand, these Spanish female teenagers’ strategies are tied up with laddish verbal behaviour in so far as they show a desire to challenge whatever swap mothers say without analysing their answers. According to Culpeper (2011), this type of attitude is perceived as highly threatening and aggressive by opponents in a conflict episode. On the other hand, these Spanish mothers’ strategies are bound up with an instrumental view of aggression. Even though they also get angry, their utterances show a clear persuasive strategy which, in the end, fails to work owing to swap daughters’ inability or lack of willingness to communicate.

Furthermore, analysis of distinctive topic management strategies elucidates these Spanish female teenagers’ laddish behaviour. As discussed in this study, topic challengers give linguistic evidence of young girls’ laddish behaviour as their use goes hand in hand with overt aggressive behaviour and an inability or lack of willingness to express feelings or opinions. The Spanish teenagers included in my corpus prefer to threaten and warn (i.e. directives) and to negatively evaluate their swap mothers (i.e. informatives) without further reasoning. Consequently, they self-present by demonstrating ‘heart’ and ‘balls’ and stand in very direct contrast to their swap mothers, who use elaborated utterances which aim to explain their point, persuade their daughters and get them to change their attitude. These topic challengers show that these Spanish female teenagers’ social representation of verbal aggression is different from their swap mothers’.

Research suggests that this laddish behaviour results from the adoption of ‘laddish’ attitudes that in turn derive from new aggressive images of women in the media (Ringrose, 2010). This discursive strategy not only gives evidence of verbally aggressive laddish behaviour, but also reveals a culture-specific phenomenon that is rapidly gaining popularity among Spanish female teenagers: the feminization of masculine expressions to express power and assertiveness in interaction (García-Gómez, 2011). To conclude, it can be claimed that the strategy behind this laddish behaviour fails in so far as each and every episode selected for analysis culminates in a physical fight. These daughters, being unable to persuade their swap mothers, try to force them to do by means of verbal and physical aggression what they cannot get them to do by using reasoned argumentation.

Footnotes

Appendix: Transcription conventions

(.) shows falling tone in the preceding element

(0.2) indicates timed pauses

CAPITALS show heavy stress or indicate that speech is louder than surrounding discourse

↑ shows rising tone in the preceding element

¡! shows exclamation

] on successive lines mark beginning and end of overlapping talk

Funding

The present study was financially supported by a grant (ID No: FFI2009-7308) from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. This study is part of a long-term research project: Functions of Discourse: Evaluations in Text Types.

Notes

Author biography

Antonio García-Gómez is an Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain where he teaches discourse analysis and functional linguistics. He holds a PhD in Linguistics from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. His expertise lies mainly in discourse analysis and discursive psychology. Professor García-Gómez’s main and most developed research interest is conflict talk. A main strand of his research has focused on the pragma-discursive strategies employed in conflictual episodes in talk show interaction. Other current research interests include gender, identity and language use in new media. He has published numerous articles and authored two books. Professor García-Gómez was an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Psychology, University College London, UK, and presents regularly at conferences across Spain and Europe.

References

Andrejevic

(2004) Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Oxford: Littlefield.

Austin

(1990) Politeness revisited – the dark side. In: Bell

Holmes

(eds) New Zealand Ways of Speaking English. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 277–293.

Baxter

(ed.) (2006) Speaking Out: The Female Voice in Public Contexts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Baxter

(2010) The Language of Female Leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Biressi

(2005) Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London: Wallflower.

Brenes Peña

(2011) Descortesía verbal y tertulia televisiva. Análisis pragmalingüístico [Impoliteness and television talk. A pragmalinguistic analysis]. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Brenton

(2003) Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London: Verso.

Brown

Levinson

(1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bushman

Anderson

(2001) Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Bulletin 108: 273–279.

10.

Butler

(1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Thinking Gender. New York and London: Routledge.

11.

Butler

(2006) Response to special issue: Troubling identities: Reflections on Judith Butler’s philosophy for the sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 27(4): 529–534.

12.

Campbell

(1993) Men, Women and Aggression. New York: Harper Collins.

13.

Campbell

(2002) A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Culpeper

(2005) Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72.

15.

Culpeper

(2011) Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Dellasega

Nixon

(2003) Girl Wars: 12 Strategies that Will End the Female Bullying. New York: Fireside Publishing.

17.

Dorias

(2004) Dead Boys Can’t Dance – Sexual Orientation, Masculinity, and Suicide. Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

18.

Downing

(1997) Encapsulating discourse topic. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 5: 147–168.

19.

Eggins

Slade

(1997) Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.

20.

Garcés Conejos

(1991) La ira y la cortesía: codificación lingüística del cambio social en el teatro inglés de los años 60 [Anger and Politeness: Linguistic Encoding of Social Change in the British Theatre of the 60s]. PhD thesis, Universidad de Valencia.

21.

Garcés-Conejos-Blitvich

(2009) Impoliteness and identity in the American news media: The culture wars. Journal of Politeness Research 5: 273–304.

22.

Garcés-Conejos-Blitvich

(2010) A genre approach to the study of impoliteness. International Review of Pragmatics 2(1): 46–94.

23.

Garcés-Conejos-Blitvich

Lorenzo-Dus

Bou

(2010) A genre approach to impoliteness in a Spanish television talkshow. Evidence from corpus-based analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4): 689–723.

24.

García-Gómez

(2000) Discourse, politeness and gender roles: An exploratory investigation into British and Spanish talk show verbal conflict. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 8: 97–125.

25.

García-Gómez

(2002) A cognitive approach to topic management in verbal duels on American talkshows. Studies in English Language and Linguistics 4: 145–170.

26.

García-Gómez

(2007) Habla conflictiva como acción social [Conflict Talk as Social Action]. Oviedo: Septem Ediciones.

27.

García-Gómez

(2009) La conversacionalización del discurso mediático en la televisión británica. Ideología, poder y cambio social [The Conversationalisation of Media Discourse in British Television. Ideology, Power and Social Change]. Oviedo: Septem Ediciones.

28.

García-Gómez

(2011) Regulating girlhood: Evaluative language, discourses of gender socialization and relational aggression. European Journal of Women’s Studies 18(3): 243–264.

29.

Givón

(1978) Negation in language: pragmatics, function, ontology. In: Cole

(ed.) Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 69–112.

30.

Goodwin

(1990) Interstitial argument. In: Grimshaw

(ed.) Conflict Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85–117.

31.

Goutsos

(1997) Modeling Discourse Topic. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

32.

Higgins

(2009) Reality television – A noughties phenomenon: How voyeur television shows took over the 2000’s, 21 December. Available at: http://www.suite101.com/content/reality-television-a-noughties-phenomenon-a178974 (accessed 3 October 2010).

33.

Hill

(2002) Big Brother: The real audience. Television and New Media 3(3): 323–340.

34.

Hill

(2005) Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London: Routledge.

35.

Hinduja

Patchin

(2008) Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior 29: 129–156.

36.

Holmes

(2006) Gendered Talk at Work. Oxford: Blackwell.

37.

Holmes

Meyerhoff

(eds) (2003) The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell.

38.

Holmes

Jermyn

(2004) Understanding Reality Television. London: Routledge.

39.

Huff

(2006) Reality Television. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

40.

Hutchby

(1996) Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries and Power on Talk Radio. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

41.

Hutchby

(2001) Confrontation as a spectacle: The argumentative frame of the Ricki Lake Show. In: Tolson

(ed.) Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 155–172.

42.

Hutchby

(2006) Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Buckingham: Open University Press.

43.

Hutchby

(2011) Non-neutrality and argument in the hybrid political interview. Discourse Studies 13(3): 349–365.

44.

Jackson

(2005) Lads and Ladettes in School: Gender and a Fear of Failure. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

45.

Jones

(2002) Investigating the boundaries between notions of consumers and producers of factual television. New Media & Society 5(3): 406.

46.

Linell

Korolija

(1997) Coherence in multi-party conversation: Episodes and contexts in interaction. In: Givón

(ed.) Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 167–205.

47.

Lorenzo-Dus

(2000) The discursive co-construction of participants’ identities in the television talk show Kilroy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales, Cardiff.

48.

Lorenzo-Dus

(2010) Television Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

49.

McElhinny

(1997) Ideologies of public and private language in sociolinguistics. In: Wodak

(ed.) Gender and Discourse. London: SAGE, 106–139.

50.

Muncer

Loader

Burrows

Pleace

Nettleton

(2000) Form and structure of newsgroups giving social support: A network approach. Cyberpsychology and Behavior 3(6): 1017–1029.

51.

Murray

Ouellette

(2004) Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York: New York University Press.

52.

Myers

(2001) I’m out of it; You guys argue: Making an issue of it on The Jerry Springer Show. In: Toldon

(ed.) Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 173–192.

53.

Myers

(2004) Matters of Opinion: Talking about Public Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Myrttinen

(2003) Disarming masculinities. Disarmament Forum 4, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

55.

O’Loughlin

(2004) Living in the Box: An Adventure in Reality TV. Birmingham: Collector’s Edition.

56.

Ringrose

(2006) A new universal mean girl: Examining the discursive construction and social regulation of a new feminine pathology. Feminism and Psychology 16(4): 405–424.

57.

Ringrose

(2010) Introduction: Rethinking gendered regulations and resistances in education. Special issue on regulation and resistance in education. Gender and Education 22(6): 595–602.

58.

Ringrose

(2012) Post-feminist Education? Girls and the Sexual Politics of Schooling. London: Routledge.

59.

Stenström

(1994) An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London and New York: Longman.

60.

Sunderland

(2004) Gendered Discourses. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

61.

Thornborrow

Montgomery

(eds) (2010) Personalization in the broadcast news interview. Special issue. Discourse & Communication 4(2): 99–104.

62.

Tolson

(2006) Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio Media Talk. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

63.

van Dijk

Kintsch

(1983) Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.