Celebrity Chefs Performing the Expert: a Linguistic and Multimodal Analysis of Tv Cooking Shows

Home , 30 Minute Meals, Aarti Party, Aarti Sequeira, Ace of Cakes, Alton Brown, Barefoot Contessa

CELEBRITY CHEFS PERFORMING THE EXPERT: A LINGUISTIC AND MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS OF TV COOKING SHOWS

KERI MATWICK

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2016

To my family

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am thankful to God for my blessings and for this opportunity to fulfil my dream. I am grateful to my chair, Dr. Ann Wehmeyer, who has mentored me and guided this study from the proposal to this final version of the dissertation. I appreciate her attention to detail and smart questions. I also thank my committee members: Dr. Paula

Golombek, Dr. Diana Boxer, and Dr. Jane Townsend. Many ideas in this dissertation started as papers and projects in their engaging classes.

Thank you to my family, especially my mother and my father, Ann and John

Matwick, who encouraged and supported me along the way. Finally, I dedicate this work to my twin sister, Kelsi, who shared the Ph.D. journey with me in her own study of language and gender in cookbooks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 8

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 9

ABSTRACT ...... 11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 13

1.1 Overview ...... 13 1.2 Background of Television Cooking Shows and Celebrity Chefs ...... 15 1.3 Literature Review ...... 15 1.4 Purpose of the study ...... 34 1.5 Research Questions ...... 35 1.6 Significance of the study ...... 36 1.7 Dissertation Layout ...... 39

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 42

2.1 Overview ...... 42 2.2 Discourse Analysis- Narrative ...... 43 2.3 Discourse Analysis- Interactional Sociolinguistics ...... 49 2.3.1 Performance of talk ...... 49 2.3.2 Fresh talk ...... 52 2.3.3 Synthetic Personalization ...... 53 2.3.4 Politeness ...... 56 2.3.5 Legitimation ...... 57 2.4 Multimodality ...... 59 2.4.1 Visual ...... 60 2.4.2 Auditory ...... 64 2.4.3 Gestural ...... 66 2.4.4 Spatial ...... 69 2.5 Summary ...... 71

3 DATA AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS ...... 73

3.1 Overview ...... 73 3.2 Design of the Study...... 73 3.2.1 Data sources ...... 73 3.2.2 Data collection ...... 74 3.2.3 Data transcribing method ...... 76

3.3 Overview of Celebrity Chefs and Cooking Shows ...... 77 3.4 Method of Analysis...... 80

4 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ...... 82

4.1 Overview ...... 82 4.2 Discourse Structure ...... 83 4.2.1 Trademark Opening (Orientation) ...... 83 4.2.2 Introduction of the Episode (Abstract) ...... 88 4.2.3 Complicating Action (Recipe Telling) ...... 90 4.2.4 Side Narratives and Storytelling ...... 95 4.2.5 Assessment Discourse (Evaluation) ...... 99 4.2.6 Closing Scene (Coda) ...... 100 4.3 Discourse Performance ...... 103 4.3.1 Fresh Talk ...... 103 4.3.1.1 Fresh talk: linguistic strategies ...... 103 4.3.1.2 Fresh talk: multimodal effects ...... 105 4.3.2 Storytelling ...... 107 4.3.2.1 Storytelling: Kitchen confessions ...... 107 4.3.2.2 Storytelling: Personal past ...... 109 4.3.3 Synthetic personalization ...... 111 4.3.3.1 Synthetic personalization: The use of I, you, we, and us ...... 112 4.3.3.2 Synthetic personalization: Framing techniques—up close and personal ...... 115 4.3.4 Politeness ...... 117 4.4 Summary ...... 121

5 DISCUSSION ...... 126

5.1 Overview ...... 126 5.2 Legitimation in the Multimodal Discourse of Cooking Shows ...... 127 5.2.1 Authorization ...... 128 5.2.1.1 Personal authority ...... 128 5.2.1.2 Expert authority ...... 132 5.2.1.3 Role model authority ...... 139 5.2.1.4 Authority of tradition ...... 140 5.2.1.5 Authority of conformity ...... 144 5.2.2 Moral Evaluation ...... 146 5.2.2.1 Evaluation: “Good” food ...... 147 5.2.2.2 Evaluation: “healthy” food ...... 150 5.2.3 Rationalization ...... 153 5.2.3.1 Rationalization: money ...... 153 5.2.3.2 Rationalization: time ...... 156 5.3 Summary ...... 157

6 CONCLUSION ...... 159

6.1 Overview ...... 159 6.2 Theoretical Contributions ...... 160 6.2.1 Narrative Contributions ...... 160 6.2.2 Discourse Analysis Contributions ...... 165 6.2.3 Legitimation Strategies Contributions ...... 170 6.3 Celebrity Chefs as the Expert ...... 177 6.4 Study Limitations and Implications for Future Research ...... 179

APPENDIX

A BIOGRAPHY OF CELEBRITY CHEFS...... 181

B COOKING SHOWS ANALYZED ...... 192

C FOOD NETWORK TV SCHEDULE ...... 201

D COOKING CHANNEL TV SCHEDULE ...... 202

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 203

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 213

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Representations of images ...... 61

3-1 Transcription notes ...... 81

4-1 Multimodal narrative framework of cooking shows ...... 125

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

4-1 Opening scenes (Flay, 2011, Episode: QF0413H)...... 85

4-2 Opening scenes, cont’d (Flay, 2011, Episode: QF0413H)...... 85

4-3 Orientation ends with the title (Krieger, 2006, Episode: EK0403)...... 86

4-4 Scene precedes the abstract for Ree Drummond’s The Pioneer Woman (2015, Episode: WU1201H)...... 90

4-5 Celebrity-provided photo accompanying story (Yearwood, 2013, Episode: YW0207H)...... 97

4-6 Evaluative scene: Ina Garten tastes gazpacho (Garten, 2014, Episode: BX1104H)...... 99

4-7 Bobby Flay biting into carrot cake pancakes right after commercials (Flay, 2011, Episode: CCBAB-209H)...... 106

4-8 Close-up of Bobby Flay (Flay, 2011, Episode: CCBAB-209H)...... 116

4-9 Close-up of Ree Drummond (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU0806H)...... 116

5-1 Bobby Deen calls his mother Paula (2012, Episode: CCNMM-207H)...... 130

5-2 Paula Deen regularly tastes Bobby’s dishes on his show (Deen, B., 2012, Episode: CCNMM-207H)...... 130

5-3 Paula Deen’s Chicken Pot Pie with nutrition information (Deen, B., 2013, Episode: CCNMM-301H)...... 131

5-4 Bobby Deen’s remake of Chicken Pot Pie (Deen, B., 2013, Episode: CCNMM- 301H)...... 131

5-5 Alton Brown and his lab-like cooking set (2009, Episode: EA1309H)...... 134

5-6 Guy Fieri cooking in his home professional-grade outdoor kitchen (2013, Episode: GI1313H)...... 135

5-7 Kelsey Nixon suggests viewers to go to the Cooking Channel website for her recipe (2012, Episode: CCKEL-403H)...... 137

5-8 Sandra Lee’s set with her cookbooks on the counter (2010, Episode: SM0312H)...... 138

5-9 Giada De Laurentiis uses her GDL Cuisinart food processor (De Laurentiis, 2014, Episode: GH0709H)...... 138

5-10 Close-up shot of GDL-signature line Cuisinart food processor (De Laurentiis, 2014, Episode: GH0709H)...... 139

5-11 Giada tends to her herb garden in her California backyard (De Laurentiis, 2010, Episode: GH0238H)...... 150

5-12 Visual display of money savings validates Sandra Lee’s verbal discourse (Lee, 2010, Episode: SM0306H)...... 155

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in partial fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

CELEBRITY CHEFS PERFORMING THE EXPERT: A LINGUISTIC AND MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS OF TV COOKING SHOWS

Keri Matwick

May 2016

Chair: Ann Wehmeyer Major: Linguistics

Using a linguistic and multimodal approach, this study examines contemporary instructional television cooking shows in the United States. Cooking shows, as how-to- cook programs for food preparation and cooking, present hosts as experts of taste and lifestyle, thereby circulating discourses about preferred cultural activity. Drawing on

Labov’s (1972) narrative framework and Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2006) multimodal approach, the study proposes that the discourse structure of cooking shows has an overall narrative arc that is enhanced by multimodality, including visual, aural, gestural, and spatial elements. Further, the study examines the discourse performance of celebrity chefs and argues that the celebrity chef is constructed as the “friendly expert,” or the ordinary, likable expert on cooking. The study finds that the discourse and the multimodal aspects confirm the host’s legitimacy as an expert. Informed by interactional sociolinguistics, principally Goffman (1981) and Brown and Levinson (1987), the study identifies interpersonal strategies that add to the narrative and appeal of the celebrity chef, specifically through the use of fresh talk, personal pronouns, politeness strategies, and storytelling. Further, using Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation categories: authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis, the study examines

the strategies of legitimation employed by celebrity chefs in the construction of the expert host, specifically through an appeal to emotion, rationality, expertise, and values.

By effectively integrating discourse strategies of narrative, multimodality, and legitimation, celebrity chefs present themselves as authorities in American cooking and therefore legitimize their definition of “good” food.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The present study examines the discourse and multimodality in traditional how-

to-cook cooking shows in the context of U.S. television. Cooking shows, as instructional

programs for food preparation and cooking, present hosts as experts of taste and

lifestyle, thereby circulating discourses about preferred cultural activity. The discourse

structure in cooking shows contributes to the performance of the host as expert and

follows an overall narrative. Moreover, the multimodal—visual, aural, gestural, and

spatial—medium that constitutes a television program, is synchronized with the

discourse to confirm the hosts’ legitimacy as an expert. The two essential components

of a television cooking show: discourse and multimodality, have rarely been analyzed

together from a linguistics lens despite their symbiotic relationship. The positioning of

the cooking show host as expert in the U.S. and around the world and how the host’s

expertise is emphasized by multimodality merit closer investigation in familiar genres

such as cooking shows, as the construction of the expert host can be produced and

sustained by media. Drawing on multiple sources of legitimation, celebrity chefs claim

authority and present themselves as standard bearers of a new American taste. Their

definition of the contemporary American taste, however, seems contradictory, as they,

on the one hand, draw on tradition, customs, and values, and on the other hand, the

celebrity chefs modify them in order to establish themselves as experts.

This study draws on four linguistic approaches: Narrative (Labov, 1972),

Discourse (Goffman, 1959, 1981), Multimodality (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996), and

Legitimation (Van Leeuwen, 2008). Narrative (Labov, 1972) is based on the premise

that a story is a spoken or written account of connected events and has identifiable structural elements. Discourse relies on the premise that talk and identity are a performance and oriented towards a specific audience (Goffman, 1959, 1981).

Multimodality (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996) acknowledges that media has changed the way in which text is presented, offering an enhanced multimodal text with sound and images. Legitimation (Van Leeuwen, 2008) is authority established in social practices and relays desirable norms, values, and beliefs. The unified framework of narrative, discourse, and multimodality for this study shifts away from the more conventional studies of television that isolate verbal from the visual towards an analysis that more accurately captures the varied ways discourse is practiced and produced.

Moreover, through an interdisciplinary approach, this study adds to academic studies through findings on how a multimodal narrative structure is formed, how television hosts create an intimate relationship with viewers, and what legitimation strategies are called upon; all these aspects contribute to the construction of the celebrity chefs’ expertise, granting them influence and power in determining America’s culinary identity.

This dissertation studies fifty cooking shows and twenty celebrity chefs from two

24-hour American food channels: Food Network and its sister Cooking Channel, that reach over one hundred million viewers, as reported in 2012 by Nielsen Media

Research (Scripps News Release, 2012). Further, Food Network is credited with creating the “celebrity chef phenomenon” (Gagliardi, 2014), or turning cooks into stars with newfound prominence and influence on food and lifestyle trends and cooking as a spectacle. The data presents a rich variety of shows and celebrity chef personalities that

is comparable with the traditional cooking show format. In this way, this study explores how cooking show hosts construct themselves as an expert discursively and how the structure of the program and multimodality strengthen their position as authorities of

American taste and lifestyle.

1.2 Background of Television Cooking Shows and Celebrity Chefs

With its start in the late 1940s, food television programs have offered instruction to Americans in how to buy, prepare, cook, style, and consume food (Collins, 2009).

Strange (1998) offers one of the first frameworks for studying the different cooking show genres: “Tour-Educative,” “Raw-Educative,” “Cookery-Educative,” and “Personality.”

Tour-Educative describes travel-oriented cooking shows, Raw-Educative refers to how a food is transformed from its raw state to a finished dish, Cookery-Educative consists of a host who instructs through cookery demonstration, and Personality refers to the presenter who is in the cooking show format and has elements of entertainment. The present study analyzes the interaction between the latter two, the education and the entertainment aspects of cooking shows by individual hosts, and specifically how discourse and multimodality characterize cooking shows as both instructional and entertaining.

1.3 Literature Review

Studies on media discourse in the Western world are diverse, examining various media outlets and using different theoretical frameworks. Two main approaches to studying media discourse are discourse and media studies. The media forms vary in written and spoken discourse, including the radio, newspaper, websites, mobile devices, email, and television. Different aspects are explored from storytelling and the

performance of talk to the role of the audience, production of expert and ordinariness, and politeness strategies.

An influential contributor to media discourse analysis is Goffman, especially his concepts of the performance of self (1959) and participation in footing (1981). In the performance of self, Goffman (1959) likens human social interaction to theater, suggesting that individuals mediate aspects such as their discourse, appearance, and manner in order to influence the impression others have of them. Television show hosts work to present an image of themselves, and part of their identity comes from the perception of others, the viewers. Identities are managed through “performance,” which

Goffman (1959) defines as “all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants” (p. 15). Ways to influence the impression given of ourselves are through “footing,” or “the alignment we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128) and “face,” or “an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes” (Goffman, 1967, p. 299).

People’s identities are “managed” through everyday interaction, attentive to their own and others’ face needs.

Additionally, Goffman (1981) provides a model of talk with two “global folk

categories”: the Speaker and the Hearer (p. 129). The Hearer consists of a range of

participants: unratified, bystanders, eavesdroppers, addressed and unaddressed

hearers, etc. The Speaker is categorized as an animator, author, and/or principal.

Animator means that the person is actually speaking in a specific situation, the

“sounding box” as Goffman (1981) calls it (p. 144). The author is the creator of the

words spoken by the animator. The principal is the delegator or individual who is socially responsible for what is said, expressing the viewpoint held by the animator and author. These types of speaker can be held by the same individual and can change at any moment through footing in the expression of one’s stance towards something

(Goffman, 1981). This participation framework describes how the relationship among the interlocutors influences the speech event and governs which talk is appropriate.

Bell (1984) builds on Goffman’s participation framework in his “audience design” by considering talk as more than a dyadic exchange. In Bell’s audience design, speakers adjust their style of language to accommodate to their addressees, shifting towards their audience to express intimacy and familiarity or shifting away to distance themselves. Linguistic choices, for instance, can range from pronoun choices and the form of speech acts to the use of honorifics and the switch in languages in bilingual situations (Bell, 1984).

Moreover, drawing on his (1982) research on newscasters in the New Zealand broadcasting system, Bell (1984) identified four main audience types: addressee, auditor, overhearer, and eavesdropper. Addressees are listeners who are known, ratified, and addressed; auditors are listeners who are also known and ratified but are not directly addressed; overhearers are non-ratified listeners that the speaker is aware of; and eavesdroppers are non-ratified listeners that the speaker is not aware of.

Eavesdroppers do not influence the speaker’s style. Finding Bell’s categories limiting, this study adds a fifth audience type that is similar to addressees but are listeners who are unknown, ratified, and addressed. The speaker acknowledges and addresses this type of audience, but does not know them nor can see them. Bell (1984) notes: “The

audience is, at one level, simply the people who hear the speaker’s utterances. Yet their role is by no means passive. As in a theatre, the audience is the responsive, critical forum before whom the utterances are performed” (p. 161). The speaker’s style is in response to the audience. As this present study indicates, television show hosts, like the radio newscasters, demonstrate Bell’s audience design and tailor their content and language style to the targeted audience to appeal to the greatest number of viewers possible.

Expanding on Goffman’s idea of face, Brown and Levinson (1987) define and categorize politeness strategies to indicate ways that people attend to face needs.

Positive and negative politeness strategies relate to the way people balance interdependence and independence in relationships. Positive politeness seeks to minimize the distance between the speaker and hearer with politeness strategies such as compliments, statements of friendship, jokes, and inclusivity. Negative politeness is oriented towards maintaining a distance and deference between the speaker and hearer. Ways to minimize imposition on the hearer include the use of hedges, questions, apologies, and passive constructions. This study adds to politeness studies with an analysis of how tv cooking presenters use politeness strategies to mitigate the inherent didactic nature of cooking shows.

Brown and Levinson (1987) identify three sociological variables that determine the degree of politeness needed for optimal communication: social distance of the speaker and hearer, relative power of the speaker over the hearer, and absolute ranking that is culturally and situationally defined. Brown and Levinson (1987) describe that “a person who is skilled at assessing such rankings and the circumstances in which they

vary, is considered to be graced with ‘tact,’ ‘charm,’ or ‘poise’” (p. 321). For optimal communication, the cooking show host must factor in these variables in evaluating the level of imposition on the viewer. As celebrities, cooking show hosts have a high social distance from listeners to maintain a level of awe. At the same time, celebrities seek a level of closeness with their audience to decrease the perceived power and win their trust and loyalty. As Evans and Hesmondhalgh (2005) points out, celebrities’ power and influence ultimately depend on the audience who determines their popularity. In this way, the relationship is symbiotic and mutually dependent. As such, this study adds how politeness strategies are employed to create a favorable impression and contribute to the constructed relationship mediated by television between the host and viewer(s).

Thornborrow and Haarman (2012) draw on Goffman’s (1959, 1981) work, specifically that of backstage and frontstage regions and footing. Their study analyzes the discourse of British television news reporting among television journalists, politicians, and the audience. The study showed that the hosts used small talk and self- referentiality to make themselves more personal, dismantling the traditional hierarchy of relationships. The analysis integrated both image and text to show how the backstage moments of news hosts become front stage; when hosts shifted their footing from public discourse to private discourse, the camera zoomed in, making available the backstage behavior and unscripted comments to viewers. This present study also integrates image and text in the analysis, yet does not differentiate between the official, scripted discourse and the private, small talk, as only the public moments are made available to viewers by the cameras. This study argues that the backstage, personal talk is artfully woven into the cooking event, and no shift of footing from the audience as

eavesdroppers to ratified participants of the talk takes place. Rather, the editing of the camera and the more informal register construct the front stage as personal and the cooking event already as a shared space between the host and viewers. It is this

“private” discourse that intrigues viewers and differentiates some hosts from other hosts.

Like Thornborrow and Haarman (2012), Tolson (1991) notes a shift in media discourse on television. Analyzing British talk shows, Tolson (1991) observes that the forms of talk mix between informative and entertainment, shifting from “serious and sincere, but also sometimes playful and even flippant” (p. 178). Tolson (1991) proposes that this “playful” discourse of wit and dialogic improvisation produces a particular kind of “personality effect” that Tolson calls the “synthetic personality” (p. 183-184). This self-

consciously created discourse questions more openly the host’s presentation as a “real

person” (Tolson, 1991, p. 199), an argument that Tolson continues a decade later.

Tolson (2001) pursues his research on the construction of authenticity in

television in his study on contemporary celebrities. The study examines the discourse of

Geri Halliwell, a former Spice Girl, in a documentary whose performance of authenticity

is questioned because of the film’s editorial control. Tolson (2001) explores the paradox

that Geri identified and articulated herself in the importance of “being herself.” Tolson

(2001) suggests that “the projection of a public image can simultaneously amount to a

way of ‘being yourself’” (p. 444), and that “this [self-management] must be understood

as a type of public performance: but a performance which, crucially, is not perceived as

‘acting’” (p. 445). Visual rhetoric accompanies the discourse of authenticity and shows

Geri at home, without make-up, and frames her with close-up camera work during

confessional-like narrations. Further, Tolson (2001) finds that shifts of footing contribute to her performance of a “real self.” Geri’s “fresh talk,” or Goffman’s (1981) term for spontaneous, natural-sounding speech, are occasions where Goffman’s animator, author, and principal coincide. Tolson (2001) suggests that this pursuit of authenticity is part of the “professional ideology” of being a celebrity (p. 446).The present study also considers that “being yourself” is a key attribute to the “job” of being a celebrity chef.

Other studies have also investigated specific media celebrities, such as Brownlie and Hewer (2011) and their work on British celebrity chef Nigella Lawson. Brownlie and

Hewer (2011) analyze the Nigella brand from a consumer culture lens and argue that her cookbooks and cooking shows are products created to offer both recipes on food preparation and also instructions on taste and lifestyle norms to its primary female middle-class audience. Brownlie and Hewer (2011) claim that the Nigella brand represents a “new-narrative of domesticity and motherhood,” one that speaks of time

scarcity and stress and of empowerment of the domestic life (p. 2). They suggest that

this is done through images that transform ordinary spaces, such as the kitchen and

garden, in a “breathlessly ‘ecstatic’ coupling of silky dulcet tones, cover-girl looks, über-

cultural awareness, and knowing flirtatious affectations which work hard to convey the

possibility of the spectacularity of the domestic sphere” (Brownlie & Hewer, 2011, p. 4).

In this light, Brownlie and Hewer (2011) argue that mass media produces and promotes

celebrities who become key reference points and advisors on lifestyle for viewers. The

present study also considers how celebrity hosts are created by media producers to

circulate certain ways of thinking and acting.

Also looking at a well-known domestic brand created by a woman, Davies (2003) examines Martha Stewart from a sociolinguistics perspective. Davies (2003) looked at the construction of Martha Stewart as a purveyor of “good taste” specifically in her television shows. From an interactional sociolinguistic approach, Davies (2003) uses three frames to analyze Martha’s linguistic presentation of self as an expert: politeness, credibility, and authenticity. Davies (2003) finds that Martha’s speech conveys authority through use of intensifiers (“SO GOOD”), stress (“I LOVE it”), presuppositions (“I always like to do it this way...”; “‘My favorite way...”), and trademark expressions (“it’s a good thing;” “perfect”) (pp. 149-152). Davies (2003) also finds that Martha uses both

“independence” and “involvement” politeness strategies (Scollon & Scollon, 2001; referenced in Davies, 2003, p. 149). Martha maintains deference and avoidance of imposition through elaborate greetings and thanking rituals with her show guests but also builds solidarity with the audience by addressing the audience as “you” and placing herself in both teacher and student roles. While Martha’s show is a talk show with a live audience, the present study also considers the ways that the cooking show hosts present their expertise but to a virtual audience.

Drawing on the work of Davies (2003), Smith (2010) examined the construction of the expert host on a British property makeover show through the frames of friendship and credibility. Smith (2010) defines the frame of friendship as being supportive and marked by solidarity, employing cooperation and humor and often including colloquial language. To define the frame of the credible expert, Smith (2010) references

Livingstone and Lunt’s description (1994) of expert talk as a more formal, impersonal, direct style of speech, and employing topic-specific register. Noting that the host shifts

between the frames of expert and friend with rapidity, Smith (2010) observes how the structure of the program itself supports the discourse of expertise. For instance, editing, voiceover, face-to-face interactions, personal testimony from the participants, reference to personal experience, and the overall narrative arch of the show confirm the expertise of the host. While Smith’s (2010) study includes the interaction of the host with participants, this study is different in that the host is alone. The types of discourse and

“interaction” with the audience are expected to be different, with the host constructing the ideal subject who shares their values and concerns. This presentation of mutually shared ideology suggests a close relationship, enhancing the host’s appeal and credibility and subsequent power.

Adding to the studies of talk in the media, Lorenzo-Dus (2009) examined specific forms and structures in data varying from docusoaps and talk shows to celebrity chat shows and reality programming. A docusoap is a documentary that follows people around in their daily activities and has elements of a soap opera with real people and unscripted talk. For instance, the cooking show Ace of Cakes on the Food Network shows the daily operations of host Duff Goldman and his team of cake artists creating innovative cakes for clients. Most interesting of Lorenzo-Dus’ work is her analysis of persuasion in lifestyle programs. Like Davies, Lorenzo-Dus (2009) examines Martha

Stewart and notes her simultaneous use of negative and positive politeness strategies.

The former are compatible with the individualism valued by the U.S., while the latter fit in with the U.S. ideology that denies class differences and promotes the idea of social equality and solidarity (Lorenzo-Dus, 2009, pp. 175-176). In this way, Martha’s teaching style exemplifies the shift in the lifestyle television presenter from that of a distant,

authoritarian expert to an appealing “personality-interpreter” as Lorenzo-Dus (2009) calls it (p. 176). The celebrity chefs of this study also act as informed people who willingly share their knowledge about cooking and invite viewers to model their practices.

The emergence of popular expert figures such as lifestyle hosts and celebrity chefs results from the paradigm shift that occurred in late modernity of Western societies in authority legitimation (Giddens, 1990; Hanke, 1989; both referenced in

Tominc, 2014, p. 3). Authority originally was based on an impersonal, institutionalized system in which authority was assigned to positions, rather than to individuals; in late modernity, authority was transformed towards a public sphere where a number of voices, such as intellectuals and popular “experts,” competed for authority (Tominc,

2014). Authority no longer is derived only from actual expertise in the field but also by the media in the promotion of certain individuals and ideologies (Lewis, 2008).

Questioning how celebrity chefs construct their authority, Tominc (2014) investigated the discursive construction of two Slovene amateur celebrity chefs, the husband-and-wife team Luka Novak and Valentina Smej Novak. Using Van Leeuwen’s

(2008) legitimation strategies, Tominc (2014) examined their cookbooks and finds that they draw on contradictory strategies. On the one hand, the celebrity chefs appeal to tradition and expert authority and, on the other hand, they deny their association with such expert figures in order to position themselves as equals in authority (Tominc,

2014). The celebrity chefs also appeal to moral values as a way to be legitimate representatives of Slovenes. Tominc (2014) concludes that such legitimation strategies enabled the celebrity chefs to construct themselves as new authorities of the new

middle-class taste in Slovenia and authorities of the overall Slovene national cuisine.

Also drawing on Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation strategies, this study examines the construction of the expert host, but does not find an overt call for a transformation of the

American national cuisine. Rather, the hosts have a more individually-oriented discourse that reflects American values of individualism.

Providing an analysis of language use on tv cooking shows, Chiaro (2013) focused on two popular British celebrity chefs (Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson) and their “performance of food talk” on their cooking shows. Like Tolson’s (2001) study of the Spice Girl celebrity figure, Chiaro (2013) found that the celebrity chefs use linguistic features that resemble Goffman’s (1981) “fresh talk.” Fillers (e.g. “yeah,” “right”), vague language (e.g. “things like,” “kind of”), informal language (e.g. “excuse me, darling;”

“Barry, me old mate”) and emotion-charged language (e.g. “idea of gastronomic heaven;” groaning) are examples of how the celebrity chefs create a distinctive and natural-sounding discourse that, nonetheless, is still scripted, as Chiaro (2013) acknowledges. Chiaro (2013) identifies that the distinctive manners of the celebrity chefs—Jamie’s “casual ordinariness” and Nigella’s “sensuality”—contribute to the mingling of the public and private spheres, “a factor which renders them both acceptable and, at the same time, familiar to audiences” (p. 87). Likewise, the present study notes that each celebrity chef has a distinctive style of discourse that makes them memorable to audiences.

Also looking at language on tv cooking shows, Gallagher (2004) analyzed the

Japanese cooking-competition show Iron Chef broadcasted in the U.S. on Food

Network. The show’s charismatic master of ceremonies, martial music, altar laden with

raw ingredients, and flaming torches create an environment of spectacle, melodrama and performativity much different than any previous cooking show in the U.S. As esteemed chefs do battle in the “kitchen stadium,” a panel of four judges and voiceover narrators comment on the cooking and then give an evaluation during the tasting. What is noteworthy is that Gallagher (2004) finds that the dubbing sparks both humor and condescension; humor because of the “visual incongruity of Asian actors seemingly speaking in unaccented English” and condescension because “the dubbing establishes an auditory hierarchy in which North American voices literally overwhelm Japanese ones” (pp. 178-179). However, Gallagher (2004) also concedes that Food Network could be viewed as a cultural ambassador for introducing Americans to the Japanese popular culture. Humor is also evident in traditional cooking shows for entertainment purposes, but is relayed through stories and self-deprecation.

Also contributing to the studies on tv cooking shows, Matwick and Matwick

(2014) take a narrative approach to analyze the discourse. They illuminate how side narratives segue into and out of the procedural discourse. They identify these narratives as a form of storytelling that cooking show hosts use to not only entertain the audience but to also construct themselves simultaneously as authorities and as ordinary. Matwick and Matwick (2014) reference Fairclough’s (2001) “synthetic personalization” as a way

to identify how storytelling works to establish credibility for the chef and create a

pseudo-intimacy between the chef and audience. In addition to storytelling, references

to past experiences, relaying of anecdotes, and self-disclosures were found to be discursive techniques. This study also examines storytelling in tv cooking shows but adds how the show in its entirety is a form of storytelling.

Besides cooking shows, lifestyle television programs have been identified to have narrative elements. As mentioned earlier, Smith (2010) analyzed the construction of the expert host in a British property makeover show; here, her work is highlighted again for its contribution to media narrative studies with its identification of a narrative structure in makeover shows:

• contextualizing information; • interview/s with the participant/s; • host offers advice on makeover; • work in progress, with occasional appearances by the host; • the “moment of revelation” (Moseley, 2000); • independent assessment–the ‘validation’; and, • host’s summing up (Smith, 2010, p. 193) The storyline of a makeover show naturally constructs a figure as an expert. The lifestyle guru is presented with the “before” of some beneficiary (e.g. a woman, a man, a

garden, a house), intervenes, and transforms the beneficiary, privvying the audience

with the “after” (Brunsdon, 2003, p. 6). Moseley (2000) claims that this “moment of

revelation” is the defining characteristic of makeover shows (p. 303). The

transformational element enhances the appeal of the program by adding an element of

progression and purpose to the narrative. As Smith (2010) shows, the host positions

herself as someone who is an arbiter of good taste, teaching viewers more in terms of

middle-class quality and taste than practical skills. In this way, Smith (2010) makes a

comparison of the host to Lorenzo-Dus’s (2006) “mythical hero,” a “problem-free

character in a position of superiority for he/she has the skills and resources unknown to

the other characters [participants]” (p. 742, ctd in Smith, 2010, p. 194). To extend the

analogy here: Celebrity chefs are the mythical hero, and the audience, ordinary people,

are the “fairy-tale heroes” who have a problem (Lorenzo-Dus, 2006, p. 742). The

celebrity chefs have the skills and resources unknown to us, the viewers. The celebrity

chefs enable us, the viewers, to be the fairy-tale heroes of our families, the next time we cook with our new knowledge and techniques learned from the cooking shows.

Like other lifestyle programs, food television has been recognized by media discourse scholars as contributing to media’s role in the construction and sustainment of social values and roles of society. Drawing on cooking shows from an Australian context, De Solier (2005) argues that “contemporary culinary TV shows can be understood as performing two key interconnecting forms of cultural work: education and distinction” (p. 466). Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1984) sociological analysis of class distinction, De Solier (2005) claims that tv cooking shows not only teach culinary knowledge in terms of cookery skills, but also transmit implicit social and cultural knowledge about gender, class, ethnicity and national identity. She examines Huey’s

Cooking Adventures and Neil Perry: Rockpool Sessions as programs that target

different classes, the lower-middle class and upper-middle class, respectively. While both hosts are professional chefs, the programming does not mobilize this identity equally: Huey is represented as a figure of domestic masculinity, wearing colored collared shirts and cooking thrifty dishes in a home kitchen; Neil performs his professional identity, wearing the chef’s white jacket and cooking haute cuisine in his award-winning Sydney restaurant. In this study, the production techniques (e.g. everyday clothing, home kitchen) of Food Network are more similar to that of Huey’s show than Neil’s, in favor of the more approachable figure of the domestic “cook.”

De Solier (2005) finishes her analysis with a comparison of the Australian celebrity chef Curtis Stone with the British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver as both representatives of the “new lad,” or “twenty-something new middle-class lads” who

approach cooking as pleasurable, even a moral obligation, to have fun, rather than cooking as a form of domestic labor (De Solier, 2005, p. 478). While the extra analysis on gender and class adds breadth, particularly with her inclusion of a non-Australian cooking celebrity, De Solier’s (2005) study would have been tighter if it had finished its original focus on the Australian tv cooking shows. This “new mannism” that has come to define in Britain and Australia a new image of masculinity and is characterized by a more egalitarian treatment to women has not been correlated to the American man, which may indicate the more conservative hegemonic masculinity in America. An analysis of the representation of men constructed in various popular-culture genres— traditional cooking shows included—in contemporary American media, is beyond this study’s scope, yet merits future research.

British celebrity chefs Nigella Lawson and Jamie Oliver have been the most frequent subjects of research by the U.K. scholars (e.g. Andrews, 2003; Brownlie &

Hewer, 2007; Chiaro, 2013; and Hollows, 2003a, 2003b), because they dominate the

U.K. television cooking programs and have extensive brands, and, as Chiaro (2013) notes, they have strong audience appeal both visually and in terms of their discourse.

Following is an overview of the findings about Nigella and Jamie and their language, gender, and identity display in their cooking shows.

In an analysis of Nigella Lawson, British host of cooking show Nigella Bites,

Hollows (2003a) analyzes her evocative language that reveals her cooking philosophy: cooking is presented as pleasurable for the cook herself:

Throughout her [Nigella’s] television series, she constantly highlights the sensuous pleasures of the cooking process: a lemon pasta sauce smells ‘so fragrant, so comforting’ and is described as ‘harmonious, calm,

voluptuous and creamy;’ the smell of coriander is ‘like a drug, it’s so strong. (Hollows, 2003a, p. 183)

Nigella’s sensuous language strives not only to make her show engaging to watch, but also reflects the social and cultural context. With postfeminism as the backdrop, Hollows (2003a) suggests that Nigella negotiates a form of feminine identity between “the feminist” and “the housewife” by offering the fantasy of a “domestic

goddess” image (p. 188). Nigella’s style of cooking and discourse conveys the

importance of satisfying and caring for the self, offering an alternative view of domestic

femininity (Hollows, 2003a).

Taking a similar gender-based approach, Hollows (2003b) analyzed the gender

performance of Jamie Oliver in his cooking show The Naked Chef. Hollows (2003b), like

De Solier (2005), identifies that Jamie draws on two constructions of masculinity: the

“new lad” and the “new man,” both figures portrayed in British media in the mid-1980s,

in his projection of a working-class masculinity as a middle class man in order to appear

authentic and stable, and in his embodying of a nurturing and caring man, respectively

(Hollows, 2003b, p. 232). On the one hand, Jamie, for instance, fits with the image of

the “new lad” in his use of youthful language and slang such as “pukka,” “funky,” and

“wicked” to describe recipes and ingredients. The cooking show footage shows Jamie at leisure, zipping around London on an Italian Vespa, drinking with his friends, and playing football. On the other hand, Jamie portrays the “new man” in his domestic

cooking, affection towards “his missus” and promotion of parental responsibilities, such

as teaching children to cook. Nonetheless, Hollows (2003b) points out that Jamie

distances masculine cooking from the type of domestic cooking traditionally associated

with women. He does not express the anxiety typically felt by women in feeding others;

instead, Jamie shows cooking as a creative outlet and is at play in the kitchen, engaging in such antics as “sliding down the banisters” (Hollows, 2003b, p. 239). The male hosts in this study are also shown at leisure, such as playing basketball (Bobby Deen) and playing pool (Guy Fieri), and being affectionate to their family, such as cooking their wife’s favorite dishes (e.g. Bobby Flay making his Texan (ex)-wife’s favorite southern biscuits).

Andrews (2003) also explored the range of anxieties in relation to the pleasures of eating, gendered identity formation, and domesticity expressed on television cooking shows. Like Hollows, Andrew’s (2003) analyzes Nigella Lawson’s Nigella Bites and

Jamie Oliver’s The Naked Chef, and investigates the meanings of perceived cultural boundaries such as “public” and “private,” “male,” and “female,” and the significance of domesticity to them. She argues that the anxieties over boundaries of both masculinity and femininity, and the private and the public are displaced onto sexuality: “Thus these programmes [The Naked Chef and Nigella Bites] do not merely explore cookery within a continuum between domesticity and sexual eating: they present a sexualised version of cookery” (Andrews, 2003, p. 195). She proposed that the inclusion of carnivalesque feasting, tasting and nibbling of food, sensual visual style, and sexual double entendre in the titles are all associated with sexualized entertainment programs rather than educational genres with which cooking shows are usually associated. For the present study’s analysis, instructional cooking shows on Food Network tend to be more conservative and modest. The few shows with sexual innuendos are between husband- and-wife hosted shows, such as Down Home with the Neelys and Extra Virgin on the

Cooking Channel.

From the United States, studies identify Food Network as an important site that articulates discourses about gender and cooking. Swenson (2009) argued that the popular food channel still constructs cooking as gendered work and protects the traditional understanding of masculinity and femininity. Swenson (2009) noted two major programming blocks, daytime and evening, which determined what kind of shows are shown:

Within daytime ‘in the kitchen’ programs, two themes were prominent in shows featuring men as hosts: cooking as a way to flex professional muscles and cooking as leisurely entertainment. Conversely, female hosts tend to portray cooking as domestic work done for family and friends. During the evening ‘way more than cooking’ programs hosts construct cooking as competitive contest and cooking as a journey. (italics in original, p. 41)

The time and setting of the show and the gender of the show host relate to what

type of cooking is demonstrated: in the daytime, male hosts are shown as professionals

or hobbyists and female as domestic cooks, while in the evening, shows are

competitions or travel-oriented. This present study draws on cooking shows primarily

shown during the daytime with exceptions such as Alton Brown’s Good Eats and Guy

Fieri’s Guy’s Big Bite, which are shown during prime time.

A long-running series daytime cooking show is Rachael Ray’s 30 Minute Meals,

which Nathanson (2009) proposes is an example of the many media discourses

available that circulate messages about how women are expected to negotiate the

private and public spheres. The article argued that contemporary women’s anxieties of

time coincide with the nostalgia for an imagined past with women’s endless amounts of

time. The kitchen on Rachael’s set is designed in the postwar aesthetics with the reds,

greens, yellow colors from the 1950s Technicolor films and a 1951 antique stove.

Cooking in the kitchen provides a space to escape from the constraints of time and

retreat into the past of memory and nostalgia. Nathanson (2009) concluded that, “like television in the 1950s, 30 Minute Meals represents domestic work as a complex mixture of leisure and labor” (p. 327). Nathanson’s study provides a “televisual

discourse” (p. 319) that demonstrates the repetition and eternity in the cooking show.

That is, the close-ups of Rachael’s repeated cooking actions (e.g. chopping, stirring)

and the structure of the show are the same in every episode. This study also examines

the movements of the cooking show presenters but in the context of how the motions

contribute to the overall narrative of the show and to the discourse.

Hewer and Brownlie (2013) extend the studies on celebrity chefs beyond their

performance on tv to an analysis of their discourse on multimedia platforms. Their study

examines the brand created by Nigella Lawson and its online Food Forum of

Nigella.com. Describing forums as sites of “communal self-consciousness,” Hewer and

Brownlie (2013) claim that the posts open up space for “collective storytelling” and make

possible forms of exchange and validation for women (p. 56). Hewer and Brownlie

(2013) suggest that online forums are a medium for the integration of celebrity brands

within people’s lives and that they are a “space for hope, enlivenment and

entanglement” (p. 56). While this study does not address the social media platforms of

the celebrity chefs, it would be a rewarding future study.

This brief overview of studies on media discourse analysis highlights different

ways to analyze celebrities and their role in the media. Celebrity chefs, notably Martha

Stewart and Rachael Ray of the U.S., and Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson of the U.K.,

are influential and prominent figures in the food media and have been the focus of the

majority of studies examining its content. Some of these studies (Hewer & Brownlie,

2013; Hollows, 2003a, 2003b; Nathanson, 2009; Swenson, 2009, etc.) originated from a media and cultural studies perspective and were centered on celebrity culinary brands, gender, and domesticity. Other studies (Chiaro, 2013; Davies, 2003; Smith, 2010,

Tominc, 2014, etc.) focused on language and politeness strategies of lifestyle celebrities and shows. Although such studies have been insightful with different perspectives about the appeal of celebrities and lifestyle television shows, none have focused on the construction of celebrity chefs as experts nor the narrative structure of cooking shows nor its multimodality.

1.4 Purpose of the study

By integrating theories of discourse, narrative, and multimodality, the present

study aims to compare and contrast how cooking show hosts are portrayed as experts

and legitimized as authorities of food and lifestyle in the U.S. In so doing, the study

reveals that the performance of expert is carefully constructed through a complex

multimodal discourse. It also identifies elements of narrative in cooking shows and

legitimation strategies used by celebrity chefs.

This study examines a corpus of television cooking shows on Food Network and

Cooking Channel from 2010 to 2015. The study takes a Discourse Analysis approach

that differs from other frameworks of discourse analysis in that it not only centers on

textual and linguistic analysis, but goes further to incorporate the social and cultural

context that surrounds text. Therefore, drawing on Labov’s (1972) narrative framework and Goffman’s (1959, 1981) concept of performance of self, this study analyzes the discourse structure of cooking shows, which includes linguistic strategies, and, drawing on Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (1996) approach to multimodality, multimodality and the elements of production, which involve other communicative modes (e.g. body posture,

environment of the action, editing, voiceover), to link discourse to context. A model of legitimation proposed by Van Leeuwen (2008), specifically that of legitimation strategies, contributes to an in-depth analysis on the discourse used to legitimize celebrity chefs as experts. This cross-disciplinary analysis of media discourse that integrates the verbal discourse with multimodality should articulate a better understanding of the examined media.

1.5 Research Questions

This study’s research questions address how celebrity chefs on television cooking shows discursively construct themselves as experts. Relying on discourse analysis, narrative, and multimodal theories, this discourse is investigated in three ways: discursively, by analyzing politeness strategies, topics, and synthetic personalization; structurally, by analyzing the types of discourse (for example, trademark opening, introduction of the dish for the day, side narrative, procedural discourse, assessment discourse); and multimodally by analyzing the visual, sound, gesture, and spatial effects. Further, the study explores the sociocultural context to provide an explanation of discourse as it pertains to society.

Specifically, the main research questions of the present study are as follows:

1. How is multimodal discourse used to construct celebrity chefs as an expert?

2. What values and food practices do celebrity chefs promote?

Supporting these overarching questions are the following sub-questions that address them systematically through a sociocultural and media analysis:

1. What is the narrative structure of a cooking show, and how does it contribute to the discursive construction of the celebrity chef as an expert?

2. Do different shows have any format/structures in common? (for example, 90-second opening, introduction of the dish for the day, side narrative, procedural discourse, assessment discourse)

3. How do chefs differ with respect to their enactment of the format, such as side narratives?

4. What linguistic strategies, such as fresh talk and politeness, are used in the discourse of the cooking shows? What is its communicative effect?

5. What kind of legitimation strategies are drawn on by celebrity chefs? How so and why? What do celebrity chefs establish as the new American cuisine?

1.6 Significance of the study

By integrating theories of discourse analysis, narrative, and multimodality, the present study makes an important contribution to the growing literature on contemporary discourse in the media. The study is an investigation of the communicative and multimodal dynamics inherent in television, especially in the public discourse of contemporary television cooking shows.

What this study adds is multifaceted. It is the first study, to my best knowledge, to identify the discourse structure of an entire cooking show, both in its entirety and of its sub-genres, such as “performance of food talk,” “recipe telling,” and “storytelling.” This study proposes that cooking shows have an overall story about a presenter who transforms ingredients into a dish that gives the show a sense of progression with the beginning of cooking to the end with a cooked and plated dish. It expands on Labov’s

(1967 with Waletzky; 1972) analysis of narrative (which is described in detail in Chapter

2) with multimodality in order to provide a more refined analysis of cooking shows.

While I provide a detailed analysis in Chapter 4, I describe here in brief how the present study builds on Labov’s narrative scheme and demonstrates that the narrative is built through discourse and through multimodality. The orientation consists of the

show’s trademark music, a short sequence of scenes of the celebrity chef, and the title.

It is consistent for each episode, which creates familiarity and recognition. Viewers are

not only drawn in by the music and scenes but also are able to understand the narrative

that unfolds. The abstract is specific to each show with the celebrity chef’s voice over

accompanying a series of food images to be cooked in the show. Recipe telling consists

of a progression in the cooking sequence noted visually and auditorily through the

cooking and its sounds (e.g. bubbling of hot water, whirring of stand mixer, etc.) and

through the temporal discourse by the presenter (e.g. “next,” “moving forward,” “now,”

“then,” etc.). Storytelling adds to the overall narrative of the framework with discourse

that supports the recipe telling and overall story of the cooking show episode.

Storytelling also is in itself a mini-narrative with the essential components that make up

a story: a beginning, middle, and end (Labov, 1972, p. 363) and an evaluation (Labov,

1972, p. 366). The assessment and evaluation occur throughout the cooking show,

especially during and following tastings. Closing scenes are visually marked by

production attributes and the diminishing of music. Further, the presenter cues the

ending with a closure, such as a personal goodbye to viewers and positive evaluation of

the dish.

The incorporation of narrative elements and multimodal approach in the analysis

of cooking shows reinforces the importance of context in the interpretation of discourse

and meaning. The multiple modes of meaning such as visual, sound, gesture, and

design are employed to create meaning. Van Leeuwen (2013) states “that

communication is multimodal, that spoken language as it is actually used cannot be

adequately understood without taking nonverbal communication into account” (p. 1417).

This study demonstrates the application of multimodal analysis to an analysis of

discourse, resulting in the integration of new perspectives that extend multimodal

analysis including analysis of television cooking shows.

Second, in studying media language from a linguistics perspective, the present

study adds to the little work done by American scholars. Cotter (2001) observes that

British scholars lead the development of media studies, so this study would provide

representative work by Americans and on American data. Further, Cotter (2001) notes that the work on media by linguistics is ideologically oriented; that is, studies examine the extent to which language is used to support a particular bias in the media. This study also orients the analysis around identifying ideology, using a structural and analytical approach to examine the established ways of speaking about particular topics, and in the context of a cooking show.

Third, the incorporation of linguistics in food-related genres has only recently prompted a few edited compilations of linguistic-oriented volumes (see Gerhardt et al.,

2013; Jurafsky, 2014; Szatrowski, 2014). Approaches taken include historical linguistics, teaching English as a foreign language, semiotics, and linguistic landscape (see

Gerhardt et al., 2013). Within the field of linguistics, the present study is situated in narrative and interactional sociolinguistics, focusing on the structure and talk of cooking shows. Linguistic features such as directives, hedges, politeness strategies, presuppositions, and openings and closings of narrative segments come into focus.

Fourth, this study is not about food preparation and consumption, per se, rather it is about the discourse in food television and what it suggests about contemporary

American culture. By drawing on Food Network and Cooking Channel, the study

examines a corpus of traditional cooking shows that reach 75% of U.S. households

(according to 2013 Census figures) (ctd in Gagliardi, 2014), and more through its paraphernalia, such as cookbooks, magazines, and products. Cooking shows have a dialectical relationship with society and thus what is represented is helpful in understanding society today.

In sum, the present study adds to media discourse analysis an integrated framework of multimodality, narrative, and interactional sociolinguistics in the study of tv cooking shows.

1.7 Dissertation Layout

This Chapter 1 laid out the overall objectives and situated the study within

academic studies on media discourse analysis. The following provides an overview of

the remaining chapters.

Chapter 2 discusses the Theoretical Framework and the two main approaches used for the analysis of television discourse: Discourse Analysis and Multimodality.

Within Discourse Analysis, Narrative is from a Labovian framework and Interactional

Sociolinguistics departs from Goffman’s key concepts on the performance of self and face. I incorporate politeness studies from Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework and synthetic personalization from Fairclough’s (1989) approach. I provide an overview of

Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation strategies, specifically four major categories of legitimation: Authorization, Moral Evaluation, Rationalization, and Mythopoesis. Then, I develop the second main approach—Multimodality—with a discussion of five semiotic systems: linguistic, visual, auditory, gestural, and spatial. I draw on Kress and Van

Leeuwen’s (1996) “grammar of visual design” and supplement it with Anstey and Bull’s

(2006) multiliteracies pedagogical approach.

Chapter 3 consists of the data and method of analysis. I explain the data selection, data collection, and transcribing method. I provide an overview of the cooking shows and celebrity chefs analyzed in the study followed by a discussion of the limitations of the study. The chapter concludes with four Appendices that provide detailed information with an extended biography of the celebrity chefs, listings of cooking shows and episodes analyzed, and two example television schedules, one of

Food Network and one of Cooking Channel.

Chapter 4 is the main textual analysis with two central parts: Discourse Structure and Discourse Performance. Discourse Structure is informed by Labov’s narrative and

is expanded to include Multimodality in the analysis of cooking shows. I demonstrate

how multimodality is used to indicate transitions in the cooking show sequences, such

as openings/closings indicated by visual changes or changes in music soundtracks.

Further, I highlight production techniques that position the celebrity chef as expert, such

as the use of voiceover narrations and camera editing. Discourse Performance focuses

specifically on fresh talk (Goffman, 1981), storytelling, synthetic personalization

(Fairclough, 1989), and politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Chaney’s

(2002) concept of “ordinariness” and Van Leeuwen’s (2008) category of legitimation

strategy “mythopoesis” guide the analysis on storytelling.

Chapter 5 expands on the insights from Chapter 4 about the structure of cooking

shows and performance of the celebrity chef with an analysis of how celebrity chefs are

constructed as an expert. Specifically, I draw upon Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation

strategies to identify how and in what ways celebrity chefs establish themselves as

authorities of a new American cuisine. I build on three of Van Leeuwen’s strategies:

Authorization, Moral Evaluation, and Rationalization, and demonstrate how references to tradition, alignment with other experts, budget and time constraints, and discourses about “good” and “healthy” food construct a platform from which celebrity chefs are able

to exert influence over society.

Chapter 6 concludes the study with a summary of its linguistic findings and the

main factors that legitimize celebrity chefs as experts. I evaluate the theoretical

framework and indicate the contributions of the study. Finally, I provide suggestions for

future study.

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Overview

The present chapter lays out the theoretical framework for this study. I introduce

the two main approaches used for the analysis: Discourse Analysis and Multimodality,

and describe how they are appropriate for the multimodal discourse that characterizes

television cooking shows.

While Discourse Analysis takes many forms (Schiffrin, 2007), two approaches

taken here are Narrative and Interactional Sociolinguistics. Specifically, I elaborate on

Labov’s (1972) narrative framework by explicating the six components of a narrative: 1)

abstract, 2) orientation, 3) complicating action, 4) resolution, 5) coda, and 6) evaluation.

Then, I discuss Goffman’s (1959, 1981) performance of self, fresh talk, and face. I connect performance of self with Fairclough’s (1989) synthetic personalization. I

describe how fresh talk strategies contribute to the construction of “normal” scripted

speech. Also, I draw on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory that is derived from Goffman. Then, I use Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation framework to discuss four major categories of legitimation: Authorization, Moral Evaluation, Rationalization, and

Mythopoesis.

In Multimodality, I draw on Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) to discuss the various modes or “grammars” of texts, including images and sound that are processed simultaneously in order to construct meaning. Four semiotic systems are considered in detail: visual, auditory, gestural, and spatial.

2.2 Discourse Analysis- Narrative

This study connects Labov’s (1972) concept of narrative to narrative features in the discourse of cooking shows. Scholars recognize Labov’s work as foundational and have since expanded on it (e.g. Tolson, 2006, in spoken discourse in television and radio; Norrick, 2011, 2013, in conversational narrative; Cotter, 2001, in cookbooks).

Labov’s two seminal essays on narrative—”Narrative analysis: Oral versions of

personal experience” with Waletzky (1967) and “The transformation of experience in

narrative” (1972)—identify and relate formal linguistic properties of narrative to their

functions in order to show how discourse structuring in the genre of narrative not only

recounts but refashions experience. The six-part components include: 1) abstract, 2)

orientation, 3) complicating actions, 4) resolution, 5) coda, and 6) evaluation. There are

complex chainings and embeddings of these elements, but not all of these are

necessary for a story. Yet, evaluation is essential to explaining the purpose and the “so

what?” of the telling (Labov, 1972, p. 370). Furthermore, a story typically has a minimum of two clauses, such as the complicating action and resolution (Thornborrow & Coates,

2005, p. 4). Narratives typically have a linear structure and are comprised of these six elements that present different kinds of information.

The teller must first work to convince the audience that the story is “tellable”

(Sacks, 1974) or “reportable” (Labov, 1972, p. 371) in order to control the upcoming multi-unit turns. While there is no inherent absolute as to what makes a story tellable, two factors are involved: the content and contextual relevance to the participants involved. Cooking shows’ degree of tellability depends on the content and quality of the recipe and its interest to viewers.

Stories begin with some type of announcement and are frequently realized in the abstract. Abstracts, or prefaces, (e.g. “have you ever had Irish soda bread?”) are a way for speakers to assess the interest of their audience and gain permission to dominate the floor for the duration of the upcoming story. There can be a sequence of abstracts, such as when the speaker gives one abstract and follows it with another after the listener’s question, or when the speaker finds it necessary to rephrase or augment the abstract.

Following the abstract, stories have an orientation that sets the scene and provides background details. It identifies the time, place, persons, and the activity or the situation (e.g. “a month ago”). Some information may be already available in the abstract. Common syntactic properties are past progressive clauses (e.g. “was cooking”) that outline what was occurring before the first event of the narrative or during the entire episode. In an analysis of recipe telling in conversational talk, Norrick (2011) indicates that the recipe telling orientation may consist of a short background narrative about the origin of the dish.

Third, complicating actions propel the story ahead, typically as a set of ordered clauses describing a sequence of past events. With the abstract and orientation being optional elements, most of the representational work and dialogue occurs in the complication action. Labov (1972) notes that the order of the clauses is important in the semantic interpretation. Narrative clauses are typically retold in the order that matches the past experience; if reversed, the cause-and-effect relationship may be altered.

In cooking shows, the complicating action is comprised of procedural discourse that transforms raw ingredients into a composed dish. The narrative structure resembles

that of fairy tales (cf. e.g. Propp, 1968) in which the celebrity chef is like an ordinary person who faces a problem, in this case, what to cook and how, but also who is like a hero who at the end of this “discovery journey” (Bettleheim, 1976) has learned new skills and shares them. The recipe telling necessarily follows a sequence of steps in the preparation of food according to a written recipe (Norrick, 2011). Thus, many features of written recipe language are prevalent in oral recipe telling, such as culinary jargon (e.g.

“pre-heat the oven;” “measure 1 cup of flour;” “knead the dough”) and grammatical structures like second person null imperatives (e.g. “[you] add the basil”) and transitive verbs with a null object (e.g. “chop the parsley and scatter [it] over the pasta”). The correct order of the narrative in the directions is necessary for a successful outcome of the recipe; however, in cooking shows, the use of preview and replay in the show enables more flexibility in the sequence of the telling. The host may already show a finished product in the beginning and then proceed to narrate the cooking or may start simultaneously several dishes and finish them at different times.

Fourth, resolution is the ending of the story. The narrative is suspended at the focus of the evaluation before it releases with the resolution. The questions of what finally happened or how the protagonists resolved their conflicts are answered. The resolution may also be a way to indicate the end of the narrative and one’s turn in conversation. Norrick (2011) notes that closings may end with an all-purpose closing

(e.g. “and that’s it”) that indicates the end of the teller’s turn in the conversation. Even more characteristic of recipe tellings is to end with a positive assessment of the recipe’s product, such as “it was delicious” (Norrick, 2011, p. 2743). As there is more to a good recipe than a series of instructions, recipe telling also contains suggestions of how

these should be interpreted, or the preferred hearing. This positive evaluation or reference to the quality of the food is a sequentially logical ending to a narrative about a recipe.

Fifth, coda is the final comment and returns the listener to the present time. It signals the person has finished telling the story and closes off the complicating actions.

The narrative events are pushed away and sealed off, hence “disjunctive” codas

(Labov, 1972). Further, the coda brings the narrator and listener back to the point at which they entered the narrative. Goffman (1981) describes in his essay “The Lecturer”

the importance of closing comments in the shift in relations between the lecturer-

storyteller who was a protagonist in the narrative to someone who stands before his

listeners:

As part of this down-gearing [the coda], the speaker may, of course, shift into the intimacies and informalities of question and answer, through which some members of the audience are allowed to come into direct conversational contact with him [sic], symbolizing that in effect he and all members of the audience are now on changed terms. (p. 176)

The storyteller falls back from his narrated self into one that is intimately

responsive to the current situation, bringing himself back to the audience as merely

another member of it. A cooking show host similarly holds the dual roles of a lecturer

(culinary instructor) and storyteller; a coda signals the shift from these roles to a more

equal plane with viewers. Coda may appear to be similar to the resolution, but the

general function of a “good” coda is to leave the audience with a feeling of satisfaction

and completeness that matters have been accounted for.

Sixth, evaluation draws attention to the most unusual aspect of the story, and as

Labov (1972) argues, is the most important aspect of narrative:

That is what we term the evaluation of the narrative: the means used by the narrator to indicate the point of the narrative, its raison d’etre: why it was told and what the narrator is getting at. There are many ways to tell the same story, to make very different points, or to make no point at all. Pointless stories are met (in English) with the withering rejoinder, ‘so what?’ Every good narrator is continually warding off this question. (p. 366)

Besides justifying the telling, evaluations indicate the personal perspective of the teller. As Cheshire and Ziebland (2005) suggest, evaluations are an “affective strand” where narrators reveal their feelings about the events they are recounting (p. 21).

Narrators construct certain aspects of their identity by using different linguistic choices, such as register, style, and reported speech. In a study of personal life stories of

American professionals, Linde (1993) describes that “narrative is a presentation of the self, and the evaluative component in particular establishes the kind of self that is presented” (p. 81). Further, Linde (1993) claims that “narrative is among the most

important social resources for creating and maintaining personal identity” (p. 98). Also

looking into narrative as definitive of an individual, Johnston (1995; 1996) analyzed

public speech styles of prominent Texas women (1995) and participants at an academic

conference (1996). Johnston describes how each person is a “linguistic individual”

defined by self-expression (1996, p. 56) that speakers create by drawing on regional

and social models of phonology, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics (1995, p. 183).

Sets of syntactic and pragmatic devices in telling the narrative include:

intensifiers, comparators, correlatives, and explicatives (Labov, 1972), that function to

not only recap but refashion the experience. Intensifiers include non-verbal gestures

(e.g. forceful movements), expressive pronunciation, and repetition. Further,

comparators compare events that occur with those that did not; correlatives correlate or

combine events into single accounts; explicatives explain complications inherent in the

narrative. These linguistic features are some of the means by which the experience, in telling of it, is transformed when it is performed.

The core concepts of Labov’s (1972) structural analysis of narrative have been used effectively in other social settings. Bell’s (1991) analysis of newspaper stories builds on Labov’s analysis and compares the evaluation to the lead of the news story that is found in the first paragraph. For news narrative, linear chronology is not as important as perceived newsworthiness. For cooking shows, linear chronology of recipe telling is important for a successful outcome, which in turn makes the recipe newsworthy or worthy to repeat and share. Further, as was suggested in Chapter 1, celebrity has become one of the principal ways in which information is distributed, including information about food, health, and family. According to Bonner (2005), the

“trivial,” intimate relationships of celebrities are judged more “newsworthy” than the reporting of significant issues and events (p. 92). Thus, while stories about celebrities may appear, and indeed may be, trivial at first, studying them systematically reveals social values and beliefs. As discussed more in depth in Chapter 5, the cooking shows in this study show promote values of tradition, resourcefulness, indulgence, and pleasure in cooking, among others.

Edwards (1997) also builds on Labov’s structural analysis but argues that such a rigid schema has a limiting effect on the analysis. For Edwards (1997), there is a high degree of idealization in categories such as complicating action and evaluation. For instance, orientation may provide relevant information about the recounted events in addition to scene-setting details. Further, evaluation may occur throughout entire narrative episodes, rather than a limited number of clauses that make up the narrative.

Rather, Edwards (1997) seeks a schema that accounts for the interactional intricacy of narratives and focuses on the step-by-step account, consistent with the tenets of

Conversational Analysis. Even as Edwards (1997) points out the limitations of bringing any pre-formed category system to discourse analysis, he admits to the usefulness of

Labov’s schema in making a generalization about typical narrative structure.

Narrative realizes and fulfills multiple communicative goals and functions simultaneously—provide information, build relations, and construct one’s identity—in multilayers. Labov’s structural analysis of narrative that includes the six elements of narrative and the syntactic and pragmatic devices offers a template and some of the means by which experience, in the telling of it, is animated and performed. Thus, understanding the discourse produced by television cooking shows must take into account how the general structure of a narrative affects the production of discourse. It also must consider the sociocultural context in a society.

2.3 Discourse Analysis- Interactional Sociolinguistics

In this section, I present an interactional sociolinguistic approach to studying the discourse of television cooking show hosts. Specifically, I describe five main analytic tools: 1) performance of talk, 2) fresh talk, 3) synthetic personalization, 4) politeness, and 5) legitimation.

2.3.1 Performance of talk

According to Goffman (1959), social interaction may be likened to a theater and people in everyday life to actors on a stage, each playing a variety of roles. The speaker or listener is an “actor,” and interaction is a type of “performance,” the talk or behavior.

Through this performance, individuals give meaning to themselves, to others, and to their situation. The audience consists of other individuals who observe the role play and

react to the performances, contributing to the interaction, knowingly or unknowingly to the actor. Identities are constructed based on these impressions and interactions with the audience. In social interaction, like in theatrical performances, there is a front region where actors are on stage in front of an audience. There is also a back region, or backstage, where individuals can be themselves and alter their role or identity that they play in front of others.

Goffman (1967) introduces the term “face” to refer to one’s public image or persona that is “managed” in everyday interaction. The concept “face” itself suggests masks that people select and wear to produce specific images and effects. Identities are constructed based on these impressions and interactions with others. The felicitous nature of social interaction depends on a person’s willingness to abide by social norms that promote one’s own face as well as help others perform theirs. Brown and Levinson

(1987) extend Goffman’s notion of face and relate it to social relationships in a system of politeness strategies; this is discussed in the Politeness section (2.3.4).

In the media, talk is a public performance in that it is always heard and watched by others. The talk is always oriented to an “overhearing audience” whether or not a studio audience is present (Tolson, 2001a). In talk shows, Haarman (2001) describes that hosts are responsible for the flow of the performance. Hosts introduce topics, present guests and experts, and direct proceedings, handling technical aspects such as interruptions for commercials. Their power and control are manifested through their mobility around the set and exerted through linguistic patterns typical of media hosts: they open, frame and close the talk, select the topic, allocate turns, solicit and guide

interventions through questions, interruptions, and formulations (Haarman, 2001, pp.

31-32).

The performance of television talk is developed and organized around a central persona. Langer (1981) proposes that whereas the cinema has established a “star system,” television has a “personality system,” which “works directly to construct and foreground intimacy and immediacy” (p. 354). Langer (1981) observes that television brings the actors’ personalities into viewers’ homes, both in terms of their physical distance on the screen and in real life, which differs from movie stars. Each show authenticates a “genuine” personality with subsequent installments that provide new information about the presenter’s personal life to viewers (Langer, 1981). Chaney

(2002) also distinguishes between stars and celebrities; both acquire an authority based on their presence in public; yet, “lacking the extraordinary personae of stardom, celebrities work at the dramatization of mundaneity” (p. 113). Cooking shows continually emphasize how much celebrities are similar to the audience in terms of lifestyle through the setting and discourse. Typically recorded in domestic-style kitchens, cooking shows appear to be in authentic locales, often the presenter’s home kitchen. Watching the presenter on a weekly basis in a familiar domestic setting further encourages a break in the screen’s aesthetic distance.

Goffman (1981) indicates that the success of the performance lies in the performer’s ability to convince the audience that they are not only privileged to have access to the text, but also that they have access to the presenter’s innate nature (pp.

186-195). Strategies that relax the distance of status are fresh talk, or natural-sounding speech.

2.3.2 Fresh talk

In Forms of Talk (1981), Goffman describes naturally sounding speech or unscripted talk as “fresh talk.” Goffman describes three types of fresh talk strategies: high style, hypersmooth delivery, and parenthetical embroidery. High style frames the speaker as authoritative because it appears that the speaker’s intelligence is applied

directly to the presentation of the text for this particular audience. Types of high style

exhibit “elegance of language,” such as metaphors, parallel structures, and aphoristic

formulations (Goffman, 1981, p. 189). Hypersmooth delivery is speech that has been

formulated to prevent any “hitches” that would interfere with the clarity of the message.

Minor disruptions typical of conversational talk—hesitations, repetitions, restarts—are avoided (Goffman, 1981, pp. 188-189). Such fluent delivery validates the speaker’s

claim to authority. On the other hand, “parenthetical embroidery,” or elaborated sides,

makes the speaker appear undemanding of his/her authority by politely declining to the

deference of the audience (Goffman, 1981, pp. 191-193). Tannen (1993) notes that in

parenthetical embroidery, the speaker-as-animator speaks both as lecturer and on

behalf of the audience. All participants in the current performance are “appreciators” of

the text or content (Tannen, 1993, p. 151).

Chiaro (2013) identifies various types of fresh talk strategies in television cooking

shows. Hosts use fillers (“yeah,” “right”), vague language (“things like,” “kind of”),

informal language (“excuse me darling,” “Barry, me old mate”) and emotion-charged

language (groaning) (Chiaro, 2013). These side comments are specific for the context,

but as Goffman notes, the self must be designed for the context too. The whole

package of the presenter—age, gender, socioeconomic status, office—maps onto the

local settings (Goffman, 1981, pp. 193-194). Cooking show hosts construct a particular identity in the locality of the cooking show set through the use of particular language.

Television hosts prepare and rehearse their scripts beforehand, yet they

demonstrate spontaneous behavior that makes their discourse seem natural. Gustatory

expressions such as “mmm” or “wow!” function as expressions of emotions or

“expressive behavior” (Goffman, 1959). Such expressions following a tasting of the food

may be likened to Goffman’s (1978) “response cries:” exclamatory interjections that are

a “natural overflowing, a flooding up of previously contained feeling, a bursting of normal

restraints, a case of being caught off-guard” (p. 800). The tasting expressions are

necessarily situational in that they have no meaning in themselves and arise

impulsively. O’Keeffe (2006) also notes response tokens in media discourse in addition

to the gustatory vocalizations (“mmm”), such as short utterances (“yeah,” “really”), adverbs indicating agreement (“exactly,” “absolutely,” “lovely”), expressions of surprise

(“you’re not serious!”), of shock (“I don’t believe it!”), and empathy (“how awful!”) that occur between the host and their guests (O’Keeffe, 2006, pp. 111-112).

2.3.3 Synthetic Personalization

Intimacy and familiarity tend to emerge between television hosts and viewers, particularly for any television genre centering on a personality (Haarman, 2001, p. 33).

This close, virtual relationship, referred to as a “para-social” relationship, describes the way that viewers relate to the media personalities as if they actually know them, “in somewhat the same way they know their chosen friends: through direct observation and interpretation of appearance, gestures and voice, conversation and conduct in a variety of situations” (Horton & Wohl, 1956, cited in Haarman, 2001, p. 33). Through repeated

and frequent exposure of a television presenter, viewers identify with the host as normal, accessible, and relatable.

This construction of the celebrity as ordinary contributes to Fairclough’s (2001

[1989]) “synthetic personalization” or “the simulation of private face-to-face discourse in public mass-audience discourse” (p. 98). Television show hosts display an appearance of direct concern for the individual en masse, using popular speech that has resulted in a “conversationalisation of public discourse” (Fairclough, 2010). This increase of informal language reflects a wider change in late-modern culture:

Conversationalisation can, I [Fairclough] think, be seen as a discursive part of social and cultural changes associated at some levels at least with increased openness and democracy, in relations between professionals and clients for instance, and greater individualism. (Fairclough, 2010, p. 136)

The increased informality and greater person-to-person interaction create a more

symmetrical relationship, contrasting with the hierarchical and traditional institutional

discourse. Examples of Fairclough’s “conversationalization of public discourse” include

greetings and partings such as “morning to you,” “hiya,” “bye,” and “see you tomorrow,”

all typical expressions that Moores (1997) found to be practiced by British daytime

television presenters (p. 234). Cooking show hosts also use such greetings and partings

to begin and end shows and commercial breaks.

O’Keeffe (2006) also notes the simulation of intimacy between strangers in media

discourse, calling it a “pseudo-relationship” since the participants do not normally know

each other, and if they do, it is only at the level of public persona pp. 97-100). O’Keeffe

(2006) identifies specific lexico-grammatical features more commonly associated with

everyday conversations that create and sustain pseudo-relationships: inclusive

pronouns, vocatives, and pragmatic markers. Her work on Irish radio programs

indicates that the frequency distribution of pronouns such as “I,” “you,” “we,” and “us” is

similar to casual conversation (O’Keeffe, 2006). This is consistent with Montgomery

(1986) who notes that DJ radio monologue frequently uses first and second person.

Cooking show monologues are an interesting focus of study for pronoun use. The

cooking show host must assume non-present participants and single-handedly create a

sense of commonality with viewers. Exceptions include cooking shows that feature a

live audience such as Emeril Lagasse’s Emeril Live! (1997-2008) and Paula Deen’s

Paula’s Party (2006-2008).

Vocatives are a second linguistic feature used in media discourse that are

normally used in casual conversation between real friends and intimates (O’Keeffe,

2006). Vocatives are forms of address that project a relationship between speaker and

addressee. Vocatives can take many forms: endearments (e.g. “honey”), kinship terms

(e.g. “Daddy”), first name familiarized (e.g. “Toddy”) to more formal terms of address

such as title and surname (e.g. “Dr. Wehmeyer”) and honorifics (e.g. “Sir”). Choice of

vocative forms provides an index of the assumed relationship between speaker and

addressee, and as a result, they play a key role in creating an illusion of intimacy (or

distance) within media interactions.

Apart from inclusive pronouns and vocatives, pragmatic markers are also

important features typical of casual conversation that suggest pseudo-intimacy

(O’Keeffe, 2006). Pragmatic markers are a grouping of discourse items that encode speakers’ intentions and interpersonal meanings. Tag questions such as “isn’t it,” “ok?”

and “right?” and hedges such as “sort of” and “you know” are ways that reduce the

distance between speaker and listener (Holmes, 1995). Discourse markers organize the

discourse through many commonly-used words and phrases; adverbs and adjectives such as “anyways,” “well,” and “right,” or phrases and clauses including “as I was

saying,” “you know,” and “you see” can make conversation interactive and lively

(O’Keeffe, 2006, pp. 119-124). Discourse markers may indicate humor and irony,

especially when followed by laughter (e.g. “you know what I mean” [laughter]) (O’Keeffe,

2006).

These types of discourse: fresh talk, pronouns, vocatives, and pragmatic markers

contribute to the construction of the show host as normal and relatable. The informal

language in the media establishes a “democratization” of talk and links conversational

discourse from the private domain into institutional domains (Fairclough, 1989, p. 98).

Cooking shows and other lifestyle shows (e.g. home improvement shows) feature

conversational discourse alongside technical discourse in an institutional setting.

Hedges, modals, and minimizations also contribute to the construction of an

interpersonal relationship and are discussed below in relation to politeness.

2.3.4 Politeness

The most influential approach to politeness in linguistics is Brown and Levinson’s

politeness theory (1987). Brown and Levinson postulate that politeness in language use

is governed by the need to preserve “face,” as described above in reference to

Goffman. Face refers to one’s public image, and through “face-work” a person’s

standing and integrity are ‘managed’ in everyday interaction (Goffman, 1967). Brown

and Levinson identify two types of face: negative face and positive face. (These terms

differ from the lay use of negative and positive as adjectives and do not carry value

judgments in linguistic studies such as the one conducted here.) Negative face is seen

as freedom from imposition in the pursuit of one’s goals, and positive face is the desire to be liked and is associated with solidarity.

People aim to preserve the positive and negative face of themselves and of their addressee. Politeness can be a strategic way to avoid damaging someone’s face, either

one’s own face, such as in thanking, confessing, and accepting compliments, or of the

addressee’s face through complaints, criticism, or requests. In each request, there is a

potential to damage either the listener’s or the speaker’s face by acting in imposition to

the other’s wants. There are various politeness strategies that can be used to avoid

damaging face, such as non-directive language as a way to mitigate the imposition.

Examples include modals (e.g. “you can add the eggs now”), hedges (e.g. “I’m pretty sure”), minimizations (e.g. “just a moment”), and inclusive language (e.g. “let’s get going”). Compliments and advice are ways to “disarm any threat by showing that one does indeed care about the other’s face” (Coates, 1996, p. 85). Promises such as “this is the best” and exclamations like “how fabulous!” are further strategies that show hosts can use to connect with viewers and persuade them of their enthusiasm and expertise.

2.3.5 Legitimation

Van Leeuwen (2008) provides a framework to analyze the construction of legitimation in discourse. To answer the questions: “why should we do this?” or “why should we do this in this way?” Van Leeuwen (2008) identified four major categories:

Authorization, Moral Evaluation, Rationalization, and Mythopoesis (p. 105).

Authorization is legitimation by reference to people, tradition, or institutions of authority. The subject can be personal, e.g. “because I say so,” and impersonal, e.g.

“according to the law.” Subjects can be media celebrities or public leaders and exert a legitimation, which Van Leeuwen (2008) labels as Role Model Authority. Two additional

types of Authorization: Authority of Tradition and Authority of Conformity, are rules continued and enforced by everyone in the sense that “because this is what we always do” and “because that’s what everybody does” (Van Leeuwen, 2008, pp. 108-109).

The second type, Moral Evaluation, are values and norms of the society in

question. Moral evaluation is asserted with terms such as “good,” “bad,” “clean,”

“healthy,” and “natural.” Van Leeuwen (2008) notes the limitations of moral evaluations, warning that such discourses are not made explicit and are debatable: “such adjectives are then the tip of a submerged iceberg” and “are detached from the system of

interpretation from they which derive, at least at the conscious level” (p. 110). The values and beliefs that guide morality are hidden and remain below the surface. Van

Leeuwen (2008) concedes to the limitations of discourse analysis and concludes that

“historical discourse research has to take over” (p. 110), which I understand as connecting a certain system of values to its cultural context. This study will bridge this analytical gap by adding the social and cultural context to the identification of legitimation strategies used by celebrity chefs. This study’s data is situated in a contemporary American context and assumes Western values, including a desire for high standard of living and taste.

The third type, Rationalization, legitimizes practices by references to their goals, uses, and effects. Expressions such as “it is useful” and formulas like “I do x in order to do (or be, or have) y” and “I achieve doing (or being, or having) y by x-ing” are examples of “instrumental rationalization” (Van Leeuwen, 2008, pp. 114-115). The outcome of actions may be the reason for the initiated actions and are indicated by result clauses such as “so that” and “that way.”

The fourth type, Mythopoesis, stresses legitimation obtained through narrative, myths (tales), or storytelling. In “moral tales,” a category of mythopoesis, stories convey morals and acceptable behavior through the symbolic actions of their protagonists (Van

Leeuwen, 2008, p. 117). Legitimate behavior is rewarded; non-legitimate behavior is punished. On the other hand, “cautionary tales,” another category of mythopoesis, reveals what happens if one does not follow the norms of social practices (Van

Leeuwen, 2008, p. 118). Moreover, stories can be told visually, such as in comic strips, and multimodally, such as in movies and in this case, television shows. For example,

Bobby Flay of BBQ Addiction points out scars on his hands from cooking mistakes as a way to warn viewers to practice safe cooking methods.

Van Leeuwen’s (2008) four categories of legitimation: Authorization, Moral

Evaluation, Rationalization, and Mythopoesis, provide a basis to investigate the

legitimation strategies used by cooking show hosts to establish themselves as experts

in cooking and lifestyle.

2.4 Multimodality

In this section, I add a third dimension to this study’s theoretical framework:

Multimodality. Five semiotic systems constitute design elements in the meaning-making

process (Bull & Anstey, 2006): 1) linguistic (oral and written language, such as words,

paragraphs, grammar), 2) visual (still and moving images, such as viewpoint and use of

colors, screen formats, page layouts), 3) auditory (music and sound effects, such as

volume and rhythm), 4) gestural (facial expression and body language, such as speed

of movement and stillness), and 5) spatial (layout organization of objects and space,

such as direction and position).

The New London Group (1996) notes the significance of a sixth element 6) multimodal that relates the first five modes of meaning to each other. Considering only one semiotic system neglects its interrelationship with the other semiotic systems. A cooking show is an example of a contemporary multimodal text. Periodically, written text flashes on the cooking show screen with culinary tips or a list of ingredients accompanying the spoken discourse of the show host (linguistics). A cooking show contains pictures, stills (pre and post shots of the dish) as well as moving pictures, such as the show host’s movements (visual). The show host’s body language (gestural) around the kitchen (spatial) adds additional semiotic dimensions. Dialogue and additional noises accompany the visual screen (auditory). Such a multimodal reading considers the convergence of these semiotic modes together in cooking shows and provides analytic tools for a comprehensive analysis.

This next section consists of a discussion of four semiotic systems that contribute to a multimodal analysis of discourse: visual, auditory, gestural, and spatial. The fifth system, linguistic, was discussed above from the perspectives of Narrative and

Interactional Sociolinguistic studies.

2.4.1 Visual

Visual semiotics provide a way to uncover how images are used on television

and what meanings are conveyed. Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) argue for a

“grammar of visual design” that focuses on the way depicted elements (people, places,

things) are combined in visual statements. The visual semiotic system provides the

basis of television with elements of still and moving images that are influenced by

production and editing techniques such as camera movement. Motion and speed of

camera and character movement affect what viewers see and how so.

In Reading Images (1996), Kress and Van Leeuwen link three dimensions of interpersonal relations: distance, rapport, and power, and three formal aspects of image making: closeness of shot, frontal/oblique angle, and high/low angle. The table below

(Table 2-1. Representations of images) connects the relationships observed by Kress and Van Leeuwen between the visual perspective of an image and its effect on the interpersonal relations between the viewer and the represented.

Table 2-1. Representations of images Visual perspective Social distance Close shot Intimate/personal Medium shot Social Long shot Impersonal Frontal angle Involvement Oblique angle Detachment High angle Viewer power Eye-level angle Equality Low-angle Represented participant power

A semiotic mode that creates relations between what is being presented and the

viewer is zoom in/out. Zoom in and out creates a certain distance between viewer and

the show host through size of frame, such as the close shot, the medium shot, and the

long shot, which corresponds to seeing head and shoulders, to a little less than the

whole figure, and the whole figure with space around him or her, relatively (Van

Leeuwen, 2006, p. 179). In this way, zoom in or “close shots position viewers in a

relation of imaginary intimacy with what is represented, while medium shots create more

formal kinds of imaginary relations, and long shots portray people as though they fall

outside the viewer’s social orbit...” (italics original, Van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 180).

Television cooking show hosts tend to be shown through close and medium shots,

which convey degrees of intimacy and informality. Perspective creates vertical angles

and horizontal angles, with the latter being the most common in cooking shows.

Horizontal angles can be frontal, confronting viewers directly, and involve them with what is represented (Van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 180).

Camera movement is another way to establish the relationship between the subject and the viewer: in a pan shot, the camera gives a panoramic view of the scene and situates the viewer within the scene’s environment and also follows the movement of characters across the screen (Silverblatt, 2009). For example, a cooking show that exploits camera movement is competition cooking show Iron Chef, in which, as

Gallagher (2004) points out, the high-angle shots give viewers an overview of the chefs and their sous-chefs in action, much like watching a sports game from the stadium, and contribute to the aesthetics of mobility and immediacy. Moreover, close-up views of the gourmet foods, such as the low-angle shots of the chefs at the cutting board, offer a

“vegetable’s-eye view” of the action and whet the appetite of viewers (Gallagher, 2004, p. 181). To provide visual coherence, the judged cooking program concludes with still photographs of each chef’s set of prepared dishes (Gallagher, 2004).

A category of movement in media presentations is camera speed. Cooking

shows have a certain visual “rhythm” determined by the speed at which sequences of shots are shown, affecting the overall mood. Editing of shots can be characterized as

“music of the image,” in that a sequence of short shots is much faster than a grouping of shots long in duration (Silverblatt et al., 2009, p. 231). Rapidly changing shots create a frantic, stressful, tense, and rushed atmosphere in contrast to long takes that impart a tranquil and unhurried atmosphere (Silverblatt et al., 2009). Again, in reference to Iron

Chef, Gallagher notes (2004) how the show’s rapid editing, shifting camera views, and

slow-motion replays, alongside the repeated asides from judges and commentators, adhere to a pattern more common to televised sports than to cooking shows. Because the cooking sequences are fast-paced, viewers are unable to cook in tandem with the chefs, but rather watch for entertainment or inspiration for their own cooking (Gallagher,

2004). The first cooking shows were static with one frontal perspective; today’s cooking shows are much more varied in screen perspective, letting viewers see much more of the food and cooking.

By altering the rate at which events are depicted on-screen, the filmmaker is able to send a desired message to the viewer (Silverblatt, 2009). Fast motion speeds up and condenses time and is often used for comedic effect; slow motion dramatizes the scene and can create a romantic or poetic mood (Silverblatt, 2009). The techniques of fast and slow motion allow viewers to comprehend events that happen too quickly or too slowly under normal time. The viewer is not interested in really watching a cake bake for thirty minutes, so editing eliminates any dead air time. As Silverblatt (1995) observes, “the principle of movement reduces the distance between illusion and reality and, in the process, also narrows the distinction between media and reality” (p. 105). Through the combination of mechanical camera movements, media producers work to convey an energy level appropriate to each show. Traditional cooking shows are expected to have a much slower camera movement than competition shows because of the relaxed, unhurried nature of the show.

The visual social semiotic system provides tools to studying the visual representation in television, specifically of visual angle, shot length, zoom in/out, camera movement, and camera speed.

2.4.2 Auditory

The auditory semiotic system has an impact on how the audience absorbs information and what particular aspects of the narrative to focus on. Film theorists John

Ellis (1982) and Rick Altman (1986) argue that television sound, such as speech, music, and sound effects, dominates the image and tells viewers when to look at the screen.

Cues such as the program theme music, speech announcement by the host, and applause indicates to viewers the starting and ending of a sequence, which as Altman

(1986) notes, draws viewers’ attention away from “surrounding objects of attention” (p.

50). Altman (1986) claims that the television sound “serves a value-laden editing

function, identifying better than the image itself the parts of the image that are

sufficiently spectacular to merit closer attention on the part of the intermittent viewer” (p.

47). Such “intermittent viewers” are able to follow the television program through sound,

even if engaged in other activities and/or not visually watching the show.

Sound occurs in three different forms in television: dialogue, background sounds,

and music (Silverblatt et al., 2009). The show host provides the principal sound with the

dialogue, or the script. Hearing what the show host says, or “literal sounds,” directly

connects the visual and auditory together, lending authenticity and realism (Silverblatt et

al., 2009, p. 273). How the host talks, such as inflections, tone, and pitch, contributes to

the literal message of the discourse. A part of speech is the relative amount of silence,

or in musical terms, “beats on which speech do not occur,” in Scollon’s (1982) definition

(p. 339). There are “useful silences” that allow for speaker interchange or hearer processing (Scollon, 1982, p. 339). In this study, background music functions as “useful music silences;” that is, silences are useful for instructional and storytelling shifts and gives time for viewers to digest the information.

Dialogue on television frequently consists of the use of voice-over, also known as off-camera or off-stage commentary, where the script is read and spoken by someone

(usually the host). The voice-over is typically pre-recorded and placed over the top of a video and commonly provides additional information for the viewers at home. Voice- over is a technique that establishes the presenter as an expert by giving more detailed information (Smith, 2010). In cooking shows, the voice-over may provide more details about the recipes, such as the exact measurements and preparatory work needed, and is accompanied by shots of cooking.

Background sounds contribute to the realness of the television show. As Altman

(1986) notes, “no matter how live the image, the sound continues to serve as presentation, as commentary—in short, as audience to the image” (p. 47). Particularly

true to this assertion are background sounds, or noises that normally occur within the

given setting. Banging of pots on the counter, the sizzle of the frying pan, or the beeping

of a microwave during the cooking show make the cooking instruction more real.

Music further supports visual and linguistic modes with added meaning, often

used to produce a certain response from viewers (Silverblatt et al., 2009). In semiotic

terms, a musical phrase is a signifier and the emotion it generates is the signified

(Berger, 2005). Music helps create a sense of realism in television shows and functions

as “cues” that indicate to viewers what they should feel while watching a program

(Berger, 2005). As cues, music and sound establish the ambience or “emotional

temperature” of the scene (Van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 184).

In sum, audio semiotic systems provide at least three different ways to analyze

the sound on television: dialogue, including voice-over, background sounds, and music.

2.4.3 Gestural

The gestural semiotic system explores the relationship between gestures and speech. Facial expressions and body movements can be linked with particular emotional states, yet Price (2012) cautions against reading human emotions out of context. In isolation, expressive features can be vague; a smile can signal pleasure, humor, ridicule, friendliness, doubt, acceptance, equality, superiority, subordination, etc.

(Price, 2012).

Several classifications of gesture include deictic gestures, symbolic gestures

(emblems), iconic gestures, and metaphoric gestures (Price, 2012). Deictic gestures are pointing movements, which are prototypically performed with the pointing finger, that indicate real, implied or imaginary person, objects, directions, etc. (McNeill, 1992).

Symbolic gestures are highly conventional and lexicalized, such as the thumbs up gesture meaning “good” or “well done.” Iconic gestures are visual representations of referential meaning, e.g. rapid hand movement up and down may indicate the action of chopping ginger. Metaphorical gestures are visual representations of abstract ideas and categories, e.g. displaying an empty palm hand may indicate presenting a problem

(Price, 2012).

Non-verbal expressions have specific communicative functions. Goffman (1959) describes how the “expressive equipment” of language is employed intentionally or unwittingly by a person during a performance of self (pp. 14-15). Besides the setting of the interaction, parts of the “expressive equipment” consist of what Goffman (1959) calls one’s “personal front” (p. 14). Size, looks, clothes, postures, and gestures are aspects of ‘personal front’ that are intimately identifiable with the person themselves. Facial

expressions are also a type of personal front but are more mobile and transitory in nature.

In a Conversational Analysis of Greek television interviews, Koutsombogera and

Papageorgiou (2009) examine facial, hand, and body gestures and their respective communicative function in terms of feedback and turn management. Koutsombogera and Papageorgiou (2009) identify a common behavior by the interviewees; when asked a question, they reflect on the question, and during this time, have an unfocused gaze

(eyes fixed up/down, sometimes head turned away from the interviewer). When ready to respond, the interviewees gaze towards the host and move their hands or torso. To hold the turn, the interviewees reinforce their speech with repeated hand gestures or eyebrows raising while using mostly their eyes to watch the responsiveness of the host.

They complete their turn either by gazing down, or by staring at the host. On solo cooking shows, presenters are also expected to use facial, hand, and body gestures for specific communicative functions.

Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) consider the role of the gaze in visual representations of social actors. They distinguish between demand and offer images.

Demand involves the represented social actor “looking” at the viewer in the form of

direct address through gaze. Demand images acknowledge the viewer, creating a

relationship or “pseudo-social bond” between the represented social actor and the

viewer (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 118). The represented participants require a

symbolic or emotional response from the viewer, cued by facial expressions such as a

smile that invites friendship or a stare that creates distance. On the other hand, in

offering images, represented social actors avert their gaze from the viewer, not

demanding or expecting a response. The viewer acts as an “invisible onlooker,” contemplating the image and social actor dispassionately and impersonally (Kress &

Van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 119).

Understanding nonverbal communication can lead to insight in how cooking show hosts present a certain identity. According to Mehrabian (1981), a researcher on communication, what people remember is the “7-38-55 rule”: 7 percent content (words),

38 percent tone of voice, 55 percent body language (e.g., facial expressions). While the exact numbers may be disputable, most studies agree that nonverbal communication dominates verbal (Navarro & Karlins, 2009). For effective communication, the elements must support each other, or be “congruent.” Otherwise, people will rely on the two nonverbal elements the most in order to understand the speaker’s attitude towards what they are saying. Other ways to read relational cues besides facial expressions include looking at the person’s posture. For instance, tightly crossed arms are usually a sign of resistance and low receptivity to another person, because they signal that a person is mentally, emotionally, and physically closing themselves off from another person.

Conversely, an open stance (shoulders back, hands open) signals receptivity. Other emotions can be indicated through body language as well; for instance, pride can be signaled with a small smile, a backward tilted head, or hands on the hips, and embarrassment with eyes averted or turning of the head (Greene & Burleson, 2003).

In sum, multimodal expressions are used to reinforce speech and express emotions through the use of multiple body features, such as facial characteristics (gaze, eyebrows, nods, etc.), hand gestures (single or both hands, fingers, shoulders, etc.) and body posture (leaning forward and backward). As a live text, cooking show hosts use

gestures to demonstrate cooking as part of the television cooking show. Gesture is used to convey emotion (e.g. enthusiasm, optimism) through body position (e.g. upright posture) and facial expression (e.g. mouth turned up and eyes directed at viewers).

2.4.4 Spatial

The spatial semiotic system provides a way to analyze how spaces are constructed from the layout or placement of objects. Television channels use positioning, props, and backdrop to organize the physical space and overall movement of the actors. The location of the program inscribes a show host’s personality (Strange,

1998); for example, an instructional cooking show recorded in the private, enclosed, secure setting of the domestic kitchen serves as an extension of the host’s warm, friendly personality. Like the interior setting, the exterior setting contributes to the ambience and evokes different emotions from viewers. For instance, cliffs and the ocean in the backdrop may evoke energy and liberation—values that coincide with a cooking show of fresh, vibrant California cuisine, such as is the case in Giada at Home.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Swenson (2009) finds that Food Network divides programming into two major blocks: daytime “in the kitchen” and evening “way more than cooking” programs. The daytime shows typically feature private kitchen settings of female hosts while the evening programs feature competitions and travel by male hosts, suggesting that cooking is still “gendered work” (Swenson, 2009). The present study examines only daytime programs but also notes how gender is related to the type of show. That is, the male celebrity chefs tend to have specialty shows, such as grilling

(BBQ Addiction), brunch (Brunch @ Bobby’s), science (Good Eats) and “ultimate”

(Tyler’s Ultimate) versions of cooking; the female celebrity chefs have shows that are

more everyday and budget- and time-conscious (Ten Dollar Dinners; 30 Minute Meals;

Sandra Lee’s Semi-Homemade Cooking).

In reference again to the competition cooking show, Iron Chef, Gallagher (2004)

points out how the show’s set simulates a sporting event not only with its pattern of shot

selection, editing, and dialogue, but also with its aggrandized set, the “Kitchen Stadium,”

that heightens the drama and intensity of the timed cooking event. Like Japanese game

shows, the abundant pomp with martial music, a backdrop of flaming torches and raw

vegetables, and an unveiling of the “theme ingredient” at the center table produce a

spectacle and create a cultural display, encouraging viewers to regard food as a

“gateway to a full cultural experience” (Gallagher, 2004, p. 181). Thus, spatial properties of cooking shows create an environment ranging from earthbound and instructional to melodrama and performativity.

Furthermore, spatial semiotics consider how and where the space unfolds, with architectural details and commercial signs signifying the flow of people and culture

(Krase & Shortell, 2011, p. 367). Television has become integrated into the public

environment, as it is now exhibited in a wide range of locations, such as lobbies, malls,

airports, sports stadiums, and concert halls, often assuming the function of an electronic

billboard (McCarthy, 2001, p. 111). Even grocery stores have installed televisions to

increase brand visibility and influence consumer behavior with cooking show

demonstrations featuring specific products. The new geography of the television set

alters the manner of television viewing and television’s social and cultural effects.

McCarthy (2001) regards such implementation of television screens in public space as a

negotiation of “commerce and community” with television linking spectatorship, location,

and consumption. Cooking shows aired on public screens contribute a shared experience to the immediate surroundings of the viewers, whether they are at a local grocery store watching a show about how to use Chobani Greek yogurt in a dip, or at a baseball game waiting in the hot dog line and watching a tv commercial for French’s

Dijon mustard.

Multimodality takes into account how individual television shots are a text made of a combination of signs. Having an awareness of the stylistic components, which include editing, composition, point of view, angle, color, lighting, sound, and so on increases our appreciation for media content and raises our awareness of media messages. Through various production elements, media communicators create an experience for the audience, rather than just an understanding, of messages (Silverblatt et al., 2009). The very nature of the camera and lens frame delineates viewing, serving as a form of “invisible editing” (Chandler, 2007). What viewers see and hear in cooking shows has been filtered through various intermediaries, from the technological level to the ideological.

2.5 Summary

In conclusion, the present study brings together insights from Discourse Analysis, specifically from Narrative and Interactional Sociolinguistics, and Multimodality in order to analyze the ways in which identity is constructed discursively in the case of cooking shows. Using these frameworks enables a comprehensive analysis of spoken text on a multimodal medium. Narrative studies provide concepts to identify how cooking shows are a genre of narrative, with a clear beginning, middle, and end, and how stories are embedded within television shows. Interactional Sociolinguistics emphasizes the social aspect of language, such as the performance of talk and politeness strategies.

Legitimation refers to the exertion of power by one person, group, or political body over another and is often taken for granted. Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation framework provides a systematic way to identify four types of legitimation: authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis. Furthermore, multimodal concepts address the visual, aural, gestural, and spatial dimensions that add to the linguistic system of television cooking shows. Set in a specific social and cultural context, cooking shows are a rich multimodal genre with linguistic, gestural, audio, visual, and spatial meanings coming together in the discursive construction of a television cooking show host as an expert on how to cook and prepare food.

CHAPTER 3 DATA AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS

3.1 Overview

This chapter lays out the methodology and data used for the present research. A

description of the data sources, data collection, transcribing method, and method of

analysis is provided. An overview of each cooking show and celebrity chef is included

and followed by a more detailed description in the four appendices provided at the end

of the study: 1) biography of the celebrity chefs, 2) listing of cooking shows analyzed, 3)

sample Food Network tv schedule, and 4) sample Cooking Channel tv schedule.

3.2 Design of the Study

3.2.1 Data sources

While different types of tv cooking shows exist (e.g. competition, travel, documentary, talk show), traditional how-to-cook cooking shows are of particular interest to this current study for several reasons: 1) traditional cooking shows have the longest tradition (e.g. Dione Lucas, James Beard, Julia Child, from the 1950-60s), 2) they constitute the majority of tv cooking shows, thus providing the largest body of data, the most common discourse circulated, and the most viewed shows by the general populace, and 3) their focus (both in the amount of script and in the camera footage) is on the presenter who is usually alone and cooking in a controlled setting. Thus, the variables are minimized and allow for a tighter analysis and consistent data selection of cooking shows.

The data consists of traditional cooking shows from Food Network and its sister site Cooking Channel. Launched in 1996, Food Network is a “unique lifestyle network, website, and magazine” that teaches, inspires, and empowers viewers about the power

of food through its expert celebrity chefs (Food Network website, “About”). The 24-hour network is distributed to 112 million U.S. households and has a growing international presence with programming in more than 150 countries, including Great Britain, Asia,

Africa, and India. Scripps Networks Interactive owns and operates Food Network as well as Cooking Channel. Complementing Food Network, Cooking Channel is an

“entertainment brand” for “food people,” people passionate about food and cooking

(Cooking Channel website, “About”). Also a 24-hour network, Cooking Channel serves over 61 million homes and is “one of cable’s most upscale networks and attracts bright, social, dynamic consumers” (Scripps Networks Digital media kit). Cooking Channel hosts offer viewers unconventional instruction, global cuisine, international travel, and hidden gems. Older shows or “classic favorites” from Food Network are also replayed on Cooking Channel. The audience profile of these tv cooking show channels includes statistics such as: 58% prepared dinners at home the past seven days, 77% are grocery decision makers, and 32% are interested in gourmet cooking (Scripps Networks Digital media kit, based on surveys from Oct-Dec 2014).

I have been watching and researching television cooking shows since the start of

Food Network in 1996. Since 2010, I have conducted various analyses of Food Network and Cooking Channel programs for graduate courses, conference presentations, and journal publications. Perspectives taken include discourse analysis, media literacy, pragmatics, language learning, and postmodernism, which have broadened and enhanced my understanding of discourse and cooking shows.

3.2.2 Data collection

The data discussed in this study consist of a corpus of recordings from, and selective transcription of, over 500 episodes of fifty American contemporary how-to-

cook cooking shows. Each of the shows has distinctive features and styles but all follow a similar narrative with a single host and domestic kitchen set, either in a staged tv set or in the home of the host. The cooking shows analyzed in detail offer a broad sampling of traditional cooking shows available to viewers. The cooking on the episodes ranges from breakfast to vegetables to grilling meats to baking, which entails different cooking techniques and narratives. Each episode averages 20-22 minutes (30 minutes on television, 20-22 minutes streamed online without commercials).

The study analyzed twenty celebrity chefs: eleven females (Aarti Sequeira, Ellie

Krieger, Giada de Laurentiis, Ina Garten, Kelsey Nixon, Melissa d’Arabian, Rachael

Ray, Ree Drummond, Sandra Lee, Sunny Anderson, Trisha Yearwood) and nine males

(Alton Brown, Bobby Deen, Bobby Flay, Guy Fieri, Jamie Deen, Jeff Mauro, Michael

Chiarello, Michael Symon, Tyler Florence). These celebrity chefs represent a range of culinary training backgrounds (self-taught, culinary school, on-the-job), gender (female, male), ethnicity (Caucasian, African-American), food-related background (food blogger, caterer, restaurant chef, restaurant owner), type of food (grilling, family meals, entertaining, restaurant-style, everyday, science-based, budget-minded) and region

(Midwest, East Coast, West Coast, South, New York City). They are among the most popular contemporary celebrity chefs featured by Food Network and Cooking Channel

(Collins, 2009; Swenson, 2009). It is important to note that the network hosts examined here are predominantly White and middle-to-upper class.

Scripps Networks Digital identifies five different programming blocks: Daytime

(Mon-Fri, 9:30am-3pm), Prime Access (Mon-Fri, 6pm-8pm), Prime (Mon-Sun, 8pm-

12am), Weekend (Sat-Sun, 7am-8pm), and Fringe (Mon-Fri, 3pm-6pm) (Scripps media

kit materials to potential advertisers). Daytime and Fringe programming blocks primarily consist of a traditional cooking show format with a female host cooking in the kitchen

(with a few male exceptions) while Prime Access and Prime feature only competition and travel shows. Weekend blocks consist of traditional cooking shows in the mornings followed by travel and competition shows starting in the early afternoon into the evening. Of particular interest to this study are the shows programmed during Daytime and Fringe blocks, in which traditional cooking shows are aired. The time of day that the shows run may indicate what type of viewers are watching the shows. Cooking shows aired during the day are aimed at women who are more likely to be at home and watch them. The evening shows target a broader range of viewers.

Appendix C is an example of the tv schedule and programming blocks from Food

Network’s 3rd Quarter 2015 TV Schedule, June 29- September 27, 2015. Appendix D is an example of the tv schedule and programming blocks from Cooking Channel’s 3rd

Quarter 2015 TV Schedule, June 29 - September 28, 2015.

3.2.3 Data transcribing method

Selective transcribing of the television episodes follow conventions established by Norrick (2003; 1993) and are summarized in Table 3-1. The video archives on Food

Network and Cooking Channel websites have videos available from the start of the networks, so the data is not limited by current programming times but extends to earlier shows to the present and allowed for replaying. Screen shots were also taken of particular scenes of the episodes when the visual aspect contributed significantly to the discourse.

3.3 Overview of Celebrity Chefs and Cooking Shows

The following section provides a brief overview of each celebrity chef and

cooking show chosen for analysis. The chefs are ordered alphabetically by their first

name, as the hosts are known as such.

Aarti Sequeira, Indian host of Aarti Party, cooks American dishes enhanced with

Indian spices and techniques in her colorful kitchen and is known for her trademark flower tucked behind her ear.

Alton Brown blends pop culture and kitchen science for “plain good eating” in

Good Eats. The food historian, scientist chef is also a knowledgeable commentator on competition cooking shows: Iron Chef America, Cutthroat Kitchen, Next Iron Chef, and

Next Food Network Star.

Bobby Deen, host of Not My Mama’s Meals, cooks lighter renditions of Southern food made famous by his mother Paula Deen, a former Food Network star. The cooking show is set in his New York City loft where he cooks and entertains friends and features local food artisans and restaurant owners.

Bobby Flay is one of the original Food Network celebrity chefs with his debut in

1994. He demonstrates an impressive range of culinary skills from outdoor grilling on

BBQ Addiction to savory and sweet brunch dishes and cocktails on Brunch @ Bobby’s.

He is known for his Southwestern style of cooking.

Ellie Krieger, host of Healthy Appetite, cooks wholesome, fast, and simple meals from her city kitchen. As a nutritionist, Ellie frequently highlights the nutritional benefits of each ingredient and shares strategies for eating healthier.

Giada De Laurentiis cooks fresh California-style, Italian-American food from her

California home on her shows, Giada at Home and Everyday Italian. The shows often

feature Giada with her family and friends at the beach or backyard with a pool and view of the ocean.

Jamie Deen, host of Home for Dinner with Jamie Deen, cooks family-style

Southern meals for his wife and two children from his home in Savannah, Georgia.

Jamie frequently invites his younger brother Bobby Deen and mother Paula Deen on the show.

Guy Fieri, host of Guy’s Big Bite, long-running travel show Diners, Drive-ins, and

Dives, and competition show Guy’s Grocery Games, attracts more male viewers than

any other on the network. His cooking is diverse with a mixture of bold flavors and

cuisines. His how-to-cook cooking show is filmed at his home in Santa Rosa, California,

and occasionally features his two sons, wife, parents, and friends. Guy is known for his

bleach-blonde spiked hair, humor, and unique expressions.

Ina Garten, host of Barefoot Contessa, also the name of her original specialty

food store, teaches how to style, entertain, and cook French country and New England

inspired food at her home in the Hamptons.

Jeff Mauro, host of Sandwich King, creates sandwiches from his Chicago-based kitchen, which he often shares with his son and wife. The former comedian’s humor and likable persona are focal points of his cooking show. He is also one of five co-hosts on

Food Network’s The Kitchen, a talk show with cooking tips.

Kelsey Nixon, host of Kelsey’s Essentials, cooks fast, fun, and affordable meals in a New York City apartment kitchen.

Melissa D’Arabian cooks family-style and shares money-saving strategies on Ten

Dollar Dinners. Her French husband and four young daughters are guests on her show sometimes.

Michael Chiarello, host of Easy Entertaining with Michael Chiarello, cooks gourmet, Italian meals on location at his home in Napa Valley and Trefethen Winery.

Michael Symon hosts Symon’s Suppers and teaches viewers how to make restaurant-quality meals from home. His cooking inspirations are Greek and Midwestern with meat-centered recipes.

Rachael Ray hosts how-to-cook shows: 30 Minute Meals and Rachael Ray’s

Week in a Day, travel shows: Rachael Ray’s Tasty Travels and $40 A Day, and competition shows: Rachael vs. Guy: Celebrity Cook-Off and Rachael vs. Guy: Kid’s

Cook-Off. Her most well-known and longest-running show 30 Minute Meals focuses on quick and easy three-course meals that can be cooked under thirty minutes.

Ree Drummond, host of The Pioneer Woman, describes herself as an

“accidental country girl” who lives on a cattle ranch in Oklahoma and cooks recipes that have to approved by “cowboys, hungry kids, and me” (introduction to her show). Dishes are hearty and homespun with inspirations from family recipes.

Sandra Lee’s cooking on Semi-Homemade uses 70 percent pre-packaged products and 30 percent fresh ingredients and features kitchen and table decorations, or “tablescapes,” that match the theme of the meal or season. Sandra also hosts

Sandra’s Money Saving Meals, which helps viewers make budget-conscious meals,

Sandra’s Restaurant Remakes, and Sandra Lee’s Taverns, Lounges & Clubs, which is about making signature drinks.

Sunny Anderson, an African-American host of Cooking for Real, cooks down-to-

earth, classic comfort recipes from an urban studio apartment. She is also one of five

co-hosts on Food Network’s The Kitchen, a talk show with cooking tips.

Trisha Yearwood, country music singer and host of Trisha’s Southern Kitchen,

cooks family-inspired, Southern recipes in her home in Oklahoma. Her sister and family

are frequent guests on her show, along with other country music stars such as her

husband Garth Brooks.

Tyler Florence, host of Tyler’s Ultimate, cooks “ultimate” versions of favorite dishes such as grilled ribeye, huevos rancheros, paella, and country ribs in a professional-grade kitchen set. He also hosts the competition show The Great Food

Truck Race.

3.4 Method of Analysis

The present study uses a qualitative method for data analysis and asks two main questions: 1) How do celebrity chefs construct themselves as experts?, and 2) What values and food practices do celebrity chefs promote?

To answer these questions, this study examined the narrative structure of cooking shows and the discourse of celebrity chefs through a framework comprised of three areas: narrative, interactional sociolinguistics, and multimodality. Narrative analysis explicates how cooking shows are structured and ordered with small, internal units that are related sequentially and thematically. Interactional sociolinguistics addresses the interpretation from particular sequences, such as in a taste-evaluation sequence, the chef tastes a dish, of which viewers expect an evaluation. Multimodality concerns the visual and auditory aspects of cooking shows, from the cooking sounds and props to the body and facial movements, and how they contribute to the

construction of a given message and a particular identity. Cultural and media studies contribute to an understanding of the text in its sociocultural and historical context.

Table 3-1. Transcription notes Example Verbal effect She’s out. Period shows falling tone in preceding element.

Oh yeah? Question mark shows rising tone in preceding element.

Nine, ten Comma indicates a level, continuous intonation.

Ouch Italics show heavy stress.

Bu-but A single dash indicates a cut off.

Says “Oh” Double quotes mark speech set off by speaker’s voice.

[sigh] Brackets enclose editorial comments and untranscribable elements.

CHAPTER 4 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

4.1 Overview

The present chapter provides the analysis and findings for this study. The analysis is guided by the theoretical framework described in Chapter 2, relying on

Discourse Analysis and Multimodality. In this study, Discourse Analysis consists of two approaches: Narrative and Interactional Sociolinguistics. This chapter focuses on two main elements of television cooking shows: the discourse structure and discourse performance.

The first part of Discourse Analysis, Narrative, addresses the Discourse Structure or overall narrative structure, of television cooking shows. I identify six main components typical of a traditional cooking show: 1) trademark opening, 2) introduction of the episode, 3) procedural discourse, 4) side narratives, 5) assessment discourse, and 6) closing scene. Building on Labov’s (1972) framework, this study presents a general framework for the analysis of cooking show narrative, which shows how linguistic techniques and multimodal effects are used to narrate and evaluate experiences.

The second part of Discourse Analysis, Interactional Sociolinguistics, focuses on the Discourse Performance or the performance of talk by the celebrity chefs. Key concepts elaborated on include fresh talk, storytelling, synthetic personalization, and politeness. Comparing cooking show narratives to “moral tales” and “cautionary tales,” two categories of Van Leeuwen’s (2008) Mythopoesis strategy of legitimation, celebrity chefs are portrayed not only as teachers but also heroes. They overcome kitchen dilemmas and restore order for the home cook.

Multimodality is integrated in the analysis to demonstrate how certain production techniques, such as voiceover, close-up camera shots, on-screen text, and the physical set of the show work with the discourse to enhance the celebrity chef’s expertise.

4.2 Discourse Structure

I propose that television cooking shows can be seen as a form of televisual storytelling with a structure that follows a narrative arc: the cooking show host transforms ingredients into a dish, using verbal skills and multimodality (i.e. visual, aural, spatial, gestural). The plot of the show develops and follows the general character of narrative and matches the natural progression of cooking. That is, the purpose of the cooking, such as who it is for and why, accompanies the sequence of cooking, as the food is prepared, cooked, served, and eaten.

The analysis and findings of the study indicate that there is a common structure across a traditional cooking show format. Table 4-1 illustrates the components of a cooking show, including its sequence, narrative element, and multimodality.

While all components are not necessary to characterize a cooking show, most of these elements are present in some degree or another. Some shows have a lengthy introduction (30-90 seconds) while others start the episode almost immediately. There is always a recipe telling and usually a storytelling, but the latter varies in elaboration and frequency according to the individual celebrity chef. Assessments are critical, but vary in duration and manner. Codas are consistently at the end. Following is a detailed analysis with examples of how this multimodal narrative framework is enacted in cooking shows.

4.2.1 Trademark Opening (Orientation)

The title of television programs provides a first impression of the show and an indication of the host’s personality, reinforcing his/her credibility as a cooking expert.

The host’s name frequently lends the title to many tv cooking shows (e.g. Giada at

Home, Nigella Bites, Sara’s Secrets, Guy’s Big Bite, Bobby’s Brunch, etc.), implying that, as Strange (1998) notes, “they are judged to be of sufficient popularity to entice viewers familiar with them as personalities” (p. 304). The title alone is assumed to appeal to the viewer who has become accustomed to the show host’s mannerisms and expressions. Furthermore, the title indicates the type of cooking show it is, from competition (Chopped, Iron Chef, Cutthroat Kitchen) to budget and time conscious

(Sandra Lee’s Money-Saving Meals, Rachael Ray’s 30 Minute Meals) to the kind of food (Bobby Flay’s Bobby’s Brunch and BBQ Addiction). Hosts promise viewers a certain kind of culinary viewing experience, whether to learn “secrets” in baking (Sara’s

Secrets) to cooking and eating “big bites” (Guy’s Big Bite).

Cooking shows open with an initial segment composed of various scenes that are accompanied by music. Music engages viewers and distinguishes the commencement of the show from loud, clashing sounds and shouting voices typical of commercials. Furthermore, music aids recognition and memorability, often even more effectively than visual images (Huron, 1989). Country music with strumming guitars, fiddling, and the harmonica opens the cooking show, The Pioneer Woman; similarly, country music starts the episodes of Trisha’s Southern Kitchen and features soundtracks performed by the host and country singer Trisha Yearwood herself. In

Chuck’s Day Off, the chef’s favorite rock star musicians are featured and recognized visually by a small caption of the album on the bottom of the screen.

The orientation scenes show the presenter in action, such as shopping at a food market, chopping vegetables, grilling meats, and laughing with family and friends.

Close-ups of the food being cooked and plated are also shown, and immediately convey the host’s expertise with dishes that look appetizing (see Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2).

Figure 4-1. Opening scenes (Flay, 2011, Episode: QF0413H).

Figure 4-2. Opening scenes, cont’d (Flay, 2011, Episode: QF0413H).

The orientation ends with the softening or ending of music and with the display of

the show’s title such as in Figure 4-3. Thus, the music increases and decreases its

volume to match the mood of the narration and the images shown.

Figure 4-3. Orientation ends with the title (Krieger, 2006, Episode: EK0403).

The extent of spoken discourse in the orientation ranges from none to more extensive introductions (20-25 seconds). Examples of shows with no spoken discourse include Tyler’s Ultimate and Aarti Party. Instead, the shows begin immediately with the abstract of the upcoming episode and end with a single scene showing the title of the show. Other shows have a simple greeting, such as Barefoot Contessa. Ina introduces the show, saying “Hi! I’m Ina Garten.” Some shows have more extensive introductions

(20-25 seconds), such as The Pioneer Woman, Trisha’s Southern Kitchen, and Not My

Mama’s Meals. What the cooking shows have in common is the repetition in the

structure of each episode.

In the case of longer spoken narratives in the orientation, presenters introduce

themselves and the type of food they cook. In The Pioneer Woman, Ree narrates:

I’m Ree Drummond. I’m a writer, blogger, photographer, mother, and accidental country girl. I live on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. And all my recipes have to be approved by cowboys, hungry kids, and me. Here’s what’s happening on the ranch...[gives the narration of the episode ahead] Welcome to my frontier! (Drummond, 2011, Episode: WU1201H)

In Trisha’s Southern Kitchen, Trisha provides a similar introduction:

Hey, I’m Trisha Yearwood. Most of you know me as a singer, but what you might not know, that among family and friends, I’m equally known for my cooking. And being the good Southern girl that I am, I’m cooking up some amazing recipes that have been passed down for generations. So, pull up a front seat in my kitchen, where everything is easy to make and everything is home cooked. (Yearwood, 2014, Episode: YW0510H)

A scene closing the sequence shows a medium shot of each woman from the

mid-waist and smiling at viewers, a visual perspective that establishes a level of social

equality and intimacy (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996). Adding emphasis to her last line

(“Welcome to my frontier!”), Ree gestures with a raised open hand, further

communicating openness and trustworthiness.

In a third example, in Not My Mama’s Meals, Bobby Deen differentiates his show

from his mother’s cooking show, Paula Deen’s Paula’s Home Cooking.

I grew up here [photos of Savannah, Georgia], cooking this amazing food with my mom [images of Bobby cooking with Paula on her show, such as a donut-bun burger] ‘cream cheese…butter...mayonnaise. A stick of butter ya’ll!’ [voice from Paula, from previous episodes of Paula’s cooking show] And loving every minute of it [voiceover from Bobby; scenes of Bobby on Paula’s show; both are smiling and laughing] [scene shifts to New York City sidewalks]. Nowadays, I’ve got a different lifestyle [Bobby walking vigorously towards the camera]. I’ve come to the city to live [Bobby running in work-out clothes] and eat and learn as much as I can [Bobby walking down the street]. But I’m always going to crave my mom’s food. So my challenge? Recreating her dishes but making them fit my lifestyle, which is leaner, lighter, but still with all the flavor [close-ups of food]. What do you think, Ma? [close-up shot of Paula] ‘Good luck to you Sonny boy’ [scene ends with medium-shot of Paula, smiling]. (Deen, B., 2013, Episode: CCNMM-306H)

Longer narratives are similar in format and in content; they have a a) greeting, b) description of who they are, c) description of cooking style, and d) source of approval of their cooking. Of particular interest is that, for traditional cooking shows, the family is the source of approval for the expertise of the presenter. The recipes have to be approved

by “cowboys, hungry kids, and me” (The Pioneer Woman), “family and friends” (Trisha’s

Southern Kitchen), and “Ma” (Not My Mama’s Meals). In other cooking shows, such as competition shows, validation comes from ‘professional’ foodies, such as food writers, restaurant critics, cooking instructors, and chefs who taste and publicly assess the food.

4.2.2 Introduction of the Episode (Abstract)

Each cooking show has an introduction of the upcoming episode, or what I compare to Labov’s abstract but add how multimodal effects accompany the discourse.

Hosts narrate 1-2 minutes, whether voice-over or in real time, the upcoming episode,

and describe the dishes they will make and the occasion or theme of the show. The

camera cuts between scenes of the host working with the food and the finished dishes.

Viewers are provided with ‘teasers’ or glimpses that anticipate the end of the show.

The discourse of the abstract is like an advertisement, a promotion for the show

in which the presenter attempts to convince or entice viewers into watching the show

and making the recipes. These initial 60-90 seconds are critical moments in which viewers decide to continue watching or not, and the discourse is constructed so as to capture viewers’ attention. Presenters project enthusiasm with positive adjectives and superlatives, and they condense a lot of information about their cooking into this short sequence. They draw viewers in by telling them how easy and rewarding the dishes will be. Consider these abstracts: the first is from Ina Garten on her Barbecues and

Bouquets episode, and the second is with Bobby Flay and his Burgers, Fries, and

Shakes episode:

1) I’m whipping up easy gazpacho with goat cheese croutons to share with my friend Antonia who’s a perfumer and a florist. Then, I’m firing up the grill to make juicy, mustard-marinated flank steak, and fast and easy grilled Sicilian swordfish. And finally, Antonia is going to show me how to

make a wonderful, fresh flower bouquet. (Garten, 2014, Episode: BX1104H)

2) You know burgers are my favorite thing on the grill, so today I’m going to show you how to make the simplest, tastiest, juiciest, amazing burger. I’m just trying to dispel all your fears about making burgers. I mean, c’mon, we’re just making a burger. Where there’s burgers, there’s fries. We’re going to make some sweet potato fries with a dipping sauce. We’re going to keep it really, really simple. We’re going to make coleslaw with some Russian dressing. You know, people are going to be like ‘oh, coleslaw’ and then they’re going to taste yours and be like, ‘oh, this is a different kind of coleslaw.’ And you guessed it. We’re going to make a shake. We’re going to make a shake with peaches and browned butter. Nothing crazy fancy, just my backyard to yours. (Flay, 2014, Episode: QF0401H)

The abstracts detail the menu with multiple appetizing adjectives: “juicy,”

“simplest,” “tastiest,” and “amazing,” and restaurant-like discourse: “mustard-marinated” and “grilled Sicilian swordfish.” The technicality of the recipes are promised as “fast and easy,” “really, really simple,” and “nothing crazy fancy,” and something that can be

“whipped up” and in the viewers’ own backyard. Presenters try to tap into the perceived wants and needs of the audience for fast and delicious cooking that is impressive. The use of minimizations (“just”) and intensifiers (“really”) emphasize how doable the recipes are for viewers.

The trademark opening and the introduction of the episode may alternate in order. In Barefoot Contessa, the introduction about the episode is given first and then is followed by the trademark opening. In contrast, in The Pioneer Woman, Trisha’s

Southern Kitchen, and Not My Mama’s Meals for instance, the signature opening begins every show and then is followed by the introduction of the episode and overview of the recipes to be cooked. Similarly, in Labovian narrative, orientation and abstract are flexible components; they may be omitted or come in different sequences. The shift between the orientation and abstract may be explicit, such as in The Pioneer Woman.

Ree’s voice-over “Here’s what’s happening on the ranch” accompanies the scene show in Figure 4-4:

Figure 4-4. Scene precedes the abstract for Ree Drummond’s The Pioneer Woman (2015, Episode: WU1201H).

4.2.3 Complicating Action (Recipe Telling)

During any episode of a cooking show, at least one dish, usually more, is

prepared from a recipe. Heldke (1988) explains that “[a] recipe is a description or

explanation of how to do something—specifically, how to prepare a particular kind of

food” (p. 23). The recipe instruction and demonstration on television establish a goal, a

final product that the cook works towards achieving: completion of the recipe(s). Each

recipe becomes the script, then, to propel the show forward. Each provides a narrative

strategy that guides the show in a linear fashion: first one step is completed, then the

next, and so on until the dish is finished. Certainly this is true of most domestic shows,

such as Barefoot Contessa: Back to Basics and Giada De Laurentiis’ Everyday Italian.

Known for her precise recipe writing, Ina of Barefoot Contessa carefully measures

ingredients, even salt and pepper with teaspoons, rather than “a good pinch [of salt] and

a little dash [of pepper]” says Jamie Deen of Home for Dinner with Jamie Deen (2013,

Episode: JD0208H). Further, Ina starts and follows a recipe until completion and then plates it before starting a second dish. Ree also follows a linear pattern, frequently adding an explicit “I’ll keep moving forward” to signal the next cooking stage, and

Giada’s favorite is “next” and “now.” Music also provides continuity in a show, tying

together a sequence of visual images and narrative voice-overs. In Barefoot Contessa,

for instance, the same light jazz music cues transitions between recipes1.

Exceptions to this linear fashion are shows like Symon’s Suppers and BBQ

Addiction where Michael Symon and Bobby Flay of their respective shows perform multiple recipes at once, setting off several scripts that propel the show. They are especially skilled at cooking multiple dishes simultaneously: in one of Bobby’s episodes, whole ducks roast in a barbecue box, spring onions grill on the barbecue, and spices and pickling liquid thicken on the stove (Flay, 2013, Episode: QF0312H). Dead time or time waiting for food to cook is avoided as cooking continues with other dishes, but also the multiple on-going dishes demonstrate the hosts’ professional culinary training and years of cooking in restaurants. Bobby does not even pause to pick up tongs and instead uses his fingers to turn ciabatta bread on the grill, although he warns viewers to do otherwise:

Don’t try that [pick up bread on the grill with your hands] at home. Use a pair of tongs. But, y’know, I’ve been cooking for so long in my kitchens that I almost have no feelings in my fingertips (laughs). But don’t do that if you’re, uh, if you’re grilling at home. (Flay, 2013, Episode: QF0312H)

1 Music is a tool to portray and distinguish various styles. Music is such an integral part of Barefoot Contessa that Ina Garten provides information about the artists on her personal website. She answers a common question posted on her FAQ: Can I buy the music from Ina’s show? “Unfortunately, we had the music written specifically for the show, so it’s not commercially available. However, the music was inspired by CD’s that I like: Costes, La Suite, Bryan Ferry Taxi, Roxy Music Avalon, Cesaria Evora, Cafe Atlantico, and any of the Cafe Del Mar CD’s. You can get them all at Amazon.com.” http://www.barefootcontessa.com/faqs.aspx

The multi-tasking and constant movement create a complex, driving narrative that heightens the instructive and entertaining quality of contemporary cooking shows.

On camera, preparation of a dish from a recipe consists of both verbal descriptions or explanations and demonstrations. The camera cuts between shots of the presenter in the kitchen and close-ups of her/his hands working with the food. Recipe telling is like a set of instructions, influenced by written recipe texts with elements of expert talk and technical terms (Norrick, 2011). How thorough or detailed these are, however, varies from program to program and from episodes to episode of the same series, depending upon the recipe. The most accurate and complete explanation is not always relayed to viewers. Techniques, terms, and ingredients are not always explained. For example, Ina says, “use good olive oil” without further expounding on what qualifies as ‘good’ (Garten, 2011, Episode: BX0507H). Sometimes the flavor of an uncommon spice or ingredient is explained, such as curry leaves: “They’re so great, kinda lemony, kinda woodsy” or dried fenugreek: “It has a great really, really pungent aroma, almost maple-like,” says Aarti Sequeira of Aarti Party (2011, Episode:

ZA0212H). Sometimes the chef compares an unusual food to one that is more familiar

to viewers: “it [orzo] looks just like rice, but it’s actually pasta,” says Giada (De

Laurentiis, 2005, Episode: EI1F01).

Also, explanations inform viewers how to use the food. Aarti defines naan as “a

really pillowy flat bread that we use as, like another hand, you know, to pick up the

gravy,” simultaneously demonstrating with her right hand a scooping movement for

further clarification (Sequeira, 2011, Episode: ZA0311H). Some cooks are extremely

thorough in their explanations. For example, Alton Brown of Good Eats adds agave

nectar syrup to his margarita, because “it [agave] is mostly a fructose so it’s sweeter than an equal amount of sucrose, but unlike honey it’s relatively neutral in flavor and it’s highly soluble in liquids so it’s perfect for cocktails” (2010, Episode: EA1314H). Close- ups of Alton demonstrating how best to measure the ingredients complement his detailed step-by-step explanation. Other presenters also emphasize the importance of following the recipe exactly, especially when baking. Ina, for instance, makes Raspberry

Crumble Bars, saying, “Next I need three-quarters a cup of sugar. Just make sure you fill the cups accurately. Makes a big difference. Especially when you’re baking” (Garten,

2013, Episode: BX0805H).

Sometimes the amounts of ingredients for a recipe are not given. For example,

Bobby Flay prepares a ginger rub for chicken with “some ginger, some garlic, some fresh lime, some black mustard seeds, a little canola oil” (2011, Episode: QF0113H).

Instead, the shows are about watching the celebrity and picking up techniques. As

Rachel Ray says: “remember it’s a method you’re picking up here not necessarily a recipe” (2004, Episode: TM1E46). In making Brunswick Stew, Jamie Deen says: the recipes are passed down from generation to generation and everybody’s kinda got their own thing they like to do. And for me, it’s adding corn and lima beans” (2013, Episode:

JD0208H). Recipes help continue the linear flow of the program, yet their primary function is to provide a vehicle for the demonstration of cooking techniques and in how to alter classic recipes.

Another note about recipes is that the recipes on the cooking shows are frequently the same ones in the celebrities’ cookbooks. However, the celebrities do not explicitly market their cookbooks; rather the Food Network is given precedence, such as

telling viewers to go to the Food Network website to get the recipe. For example, Bobby

Flay announces during each episode that “if you didn’t get this, don’t worry; the recipes are available on foodnetwork.com backslash bbq addict” (Flay, 2011, Episode:

QF0113H). Promoting the Food Network is an indirect way for the celebrity chefs to promote themselves.

The progression of cooking is matched by the progression of the narrative of the episode. Cooking scenes are alternated with non-cooking scenes. For example, in her

Brunch Bunch episode, Ina makes hazelnut granola and narrates about her two friends, the “A team,” helping her (Garten, 2012, Episode: BX0608H). The process of cooking is intercut with scenes of her friends decorating the breakfast table; they pick out flowers, place bowls and coffee mugs on the table, take photos, and so on. Intercutting or cross- cutting the cooking and non-cooking scenes (also known as parallel editing) implies that they are happening simultaneously. Ina’s dialog, “I can’t wait to see what they’ve been up to,” further implies the simultaneous occurrence (Garten, 2012, Episode: BX0608H).

Although each scene is spatially and temporally unrelated, switching back and forth between them establishes a relationship. After both friends complete their tasks, they sit down with Ina to eat brunch with her. The producer could have shown each section in its entirety, i.e. Ina cooking followed by each friend performing their task. Yet, the

Barefoot Contessa show, like other shows, is not only about cooking, but about other food-related aspects as well such as entertaining, so the integration of the cooking and decorating segments flows naturally. In fact, intercutting provides movement to the narrative and a more natural sense of time and realness.

4.2.4 Side Narratives and Storytelling

Side narratives interweave throughout the procedural discourse when the presenters narrate about aspects not directly related to the instruction. For instance, side narratives include descriptions about the food itself, food-related information

(nutritional content or other variations of the recipe, for example), the origin of or source of inspiration for the recipe, or a story from the cook’s personal life. For example, Jamie narrates the history of the game Corn Hole played in the South while measuring ingredients for toffee bars (Deen, J., 2012, Episode: JD0105H). Another example is

Trisha telling about her twist on Julia Child’s potato pancakes (Yearwood, 2014,

Episode: YW0514H). The side narratives suggest that how-to cooking shows are not just about instructing; cooking shows also provide entertainment.

Transitions to side narratives are marked linguistically by various discursive strategies: prefaces, shifts in tense and pronouns, continuers such as “so,” transition markers like “ok,” “then,” “now,” and explicit announcements that a story is about to

commence (e.g. “let me tell you a story...;” “now, let me paint you a picture...”). A

preface helps the audience tune in and recognize the story mode. An evaluative

component (e.g. “a funny thing happened the other day...”) in the abstract helps the

audience anticipate what to listen for. The simultaneous orientation towards recipe telling and storytelling is marked with shifts from the procedural discourse of second person imperatives (e.g. “add the eggs...”) to first person past tense (e.g. “I once was a vegetarian”).

The use of voice-over also indicates shifts between side narratives and procedural discourse. Following a ‘live’ telling of anecdotes, it is common for hosts to give a voice-over narration for the recipe telling that is synchronized with scenes of

cooking. For instance, Ree narrates about how to make brownie pops as she drives to town (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU0905H).

Storytelling may be considered a special type of side narrative for its content and outside references. The story is not part of the procedural discourse and may be told at separate settings from the kitchen. For instance, Trisha tells a story from her front porch that introduces the theme and recipes to be prepared in the episode, such as this one about Football, Friends, and Comfort Foods:

Every year, football is a big deal here in Oklahoma. And I think I was the boy that my Dad never had. So, I grew up being a tomboy and lovin’ to do all the things with Dad that I could. He taught me to throw the perfect spiral. [personal photos of Trisha from her childhood and with her father]

So, it’s not just a game that I like to watch. It’s actually a game that I’ve been playing for a long time. My sister and I love football so much that when we found out you could actually be a water girl, we preferred that over being a cheerleader because the water girls got to wear overalls and they got to wear the team jersey and they got to run out on the field at every break and give the guys water and so we thought, that’s the job we want, that’s the cool job. [photo of Trisha as a water girl]

So, today it’s just the girls...[narrative shifts to the description about the food in the episode]. (Yearwood, 2013, Episode: YW0207H)

Images accompany the script, such as Figure 4-5, providing the viewer with glimpses of the presenter’s family photo album, adding a personal dimension to the celebrity and credibility to her story.

Figure 4-5. Celebrity-provided photo accompanying story (Yearwood, 2013, Episode: YW0207H).

Trisha references her personal past before seguing into the abstract for the

show. The story provides details about the location of the show’s story (Oklahoma) and

personal details about the presenter (her relationship with her father; her ability to play

football; her water girl job in high school). The shift to the present is marked by the transition “so” and the temporal deixis “today.”

More typical is the integration of stories and side narratives into the recipe telling,

such as in the example below. Show hosts use stories as strategic discursive

techniques to eliminate dead air time, such as while preparing ingredients—chopping,

mincing, and stirring. A story fills uncomfortable silence and keeps the viewer

entertained during potentially boring and repetitive cooking. Rarely are show hosts

simply talking to the audience or just cooking; they simultaneously talk and cook.

Here, Rachael Ray integrates storytelling and recipe telling while making pumpkin soup.

I’m adding about two cups of heavy cream here [pours in a jug of cream into a big pot]. That cream is of course a thickening agent too. So I’m just going to combine that. Let it hang out there a little bit. I almost forgot. My secret ingredient. How could I forget? [holds up jar of nutmeg cloves]

In my family, um, my mom’s side of the family (opens up the jar and shakes out a nutmeg) is Italian. My grandpa Emmanuel, whenever he used two things: cream or nice dark greens, he’d put a little bit of nutmeg in [taps nutmeg jar to show viewers].

Nice freshly grated nutmeg [grates nutmeg with a microplane into the soup]. It’s just the thing in the background that makes them go, ‘mmh, what is that’ [text pops up in lower left screen: freshly grated nutmeg packs more flavor than ground]. It’s slightly spicy and really earthy, and delicious with cream. So, I’m putting that in there also because it’s pumpkin soup of course, and cinnamon and nutmeg go great with pumpkin. I’m going to get my pumpkin into my soup though [grabs a can opener] because my liquids are bubbling up already.

Now I make pumpkin soup every year at Thanksgiving [opening up pumpkin can]. It’s kind of a new tradition because of my mom primarily. She tends to eat the centers out of the pumpkin pie. My mom doesn’t like pie. She just likes the pumpkin. So I thought, I got to keep her from ruining the desserts that people are bringing over, by making some pumpkin soup. Just giving her another place to find the pumpkin.

So I’m adding one can of cooked pumpkin puree [scooping opened can into the pot] to my soup, and Voila! Instant pumpkin soup. Excellent. (Ray, 2004, Episode: TMSP02H)

During the recipe telling of pumpkin soup, Rachael interweaves two stories, the first about her grandpa using nutmeg in cooking and the second about her mother’s habit of eating the centers out of pumpkin pie. In the first story, the preface, “I almost forgot,” alerts the viewer of a shift into the story mode; the adverbial temporal marker

“now” starts the second story. Both stories end with the main topic of the story (e.g. nutmeg, pumpkin) becoming the topic of the recipe telling; Rachael instructs how to use the nutmeg and when to add the pumpkin. Connectives (“so,” “because,” “but,” “and,”

“or”) further indicate entry into and out of stories and also provide coherence and structure to speech (Schegloff, 1984).

4.2.5 Assessment Discourse (Evaluation)

Presenters typically provide their own assessment, akin to Labov’s evaluation, of the completed recipe. The evaluation highlights the value of making the recipe. The tasting may be before plating, such as tasting a sauce to see whether more seasoning is needed. For instance, Ina makes gazpacho and comments, “and the good thing about this, the longer it sits, the better it tastes. So I’m going to make sure it’s starting out good” and grabs a spoon to taste it. The camera provides a tight mid-waist shot of Ina, as illustrated in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-6. Evaluative scene: Ina Garten tastes gazpacho (Garten, 2014, Episode: BX1104H).

After tasting the soup, Ina gives an evaluation, saying,

Oh, it’s delicious, you really taste the tomato, and the cucumber, and the scallions add a little heat. It’s going to be fabulous. So into the fridge. It’s going to get nice and cold, and it will be ready when Antonia gets here. (Garten, 2014, Episode: BX1104H)

The tasting adds to the story of the individual recipe with an evaluation of its

execution (“fabulous;” “delicious”). Details about the purpose for cooking the recipe (i.e.

sharing the meal with her friend Antonia) also add to the story of the recipe by flavoring

it with pleasant memories, and distinguishes the recipe from other recipes. The

evaluation also provides an opportunity for the presenter to highlight what ingredients were used as reminder to viewers of the recipe.

The assessment also appears in the closing scene, the coda. The difference lies in the narrative sequence; the formative discourse may happen several times throughout the show, e.g. after each individual recipe, while the summative discourse occurs with the coda and is at the end of the episode. The formative assessment typically is when the celebrity chef is solo in the kitchen while the summative usually occurs when the host shares the food with others. The formative discourse of a dish cooked in the middle of the show may occur even when the dish is not entirely complete, such as Ina’s gazpacho needing time to chill in the refrigerator (Garten, 2014,

Episode: BX1104H). In contrast, the summative of the coda is when the food is plated and composed on a dish, complete with garnishes (e.g. herbs, sauces). The discourse of the assessments is essentially the same though, whether in the middle of the show or at the end, with positive adjectives and enthusiastic approval of the food. The next section discusses more in depth the closing scene or coda.

4.2.6 Closing Scene (Coda)

Across the genre, the convention for the end of a cooking show is for chefs to present the dish on a composed plate. The shows sometimes end with a close-up of the prepared food to stress the aesthetics of the food and its presentation. Sometimes shows conclude with a mid-waist shot of the chef tasting the dish to emphasize the flavor of the food. Most summarize the program and thank viewers for watching, such as Tyler Florence who says “Thanks for watching Tyler’s Ultimate. I’ll see you guys later” in between bites of a pulled pork sandwich (2008, Episode: TU0509H).

100

Another ending involves eating the food after its presentation. It is rare if shows do not end this way. Those shows that feature an occasion often invite guests to share food with them at a table, or the host may pass food around to guest members, or both.

For example, in her Korean barbecue episode, Giada asks a friend to turn kabobs on the grill and then to taste them (De Laurentiis, 2014, Episode: GH0703H). After the friend samples the food, Giada solicits an evaluation, and his response is favorable and enthusiastic, as is typical of a traditional cooking show. Damaris Phillips of Southern at

Heart teaches a friend how to bake marshmallow-topped cupcakes who says “beautiful” and “oh it’s good!” (2013, Episode: ZD0101H). Helping himself, Bobby takes lobster tails just off the grill, saying, “I am going to taste the lobster, because [slight pause] I have to.

Wow. [shaking his head in admiration] Just a touch of smokiness out there and really buttery” (Flay, 2011, Episode: QF0105H). In The Pioneer Woman, final scenes involve

Ree serving her family. After accepting their plated dishes, Ree’s children always thank her, and after tasting the food, they always find it favorable. The youngest son is particularly expressive with claims like: “This is the best steak I’ve ever had in my life” during a Christmas dinner (Drummond, 2011, Episode: WUSP01H).

Shows usually end with the host repeating the context of the completed dishes.

For example, Kelsey Nixon recaps the desserts she prepared in her Summer Desserts episode: “My watermelon granita, my fresh fruit pizza, and my icebox cake are all perfect desserts to cool down with friends after dinner or even just nibble on your own”

(2011, Episode: CCKEL-202H). Wrapping up her Old School Retro Mix episode, Ina says, “My favorite recipes are the classics that have been updated to have more flavor.

So I hope that helps with your classic recipes. They are classics for a reason” (Garten,

101

2011, Episode: BX0405H). Chefs summarize again the theme of the episode; the strong

element of repetition throughout the cooking shows allow for viewers to comprehend at

any stage of the cooking show what is happening.

Another type of closing is to end with bloopers after the final cut of the show. This

adds humor and a glimpse of the ‘backstage’ of both the presenter’s natural demeanor

and what the filming entails. For example, the wrap-up of Trisha’s Barbecue with a

Master episode shows the filming crew giving the final cut and then Trisha joking with

her guest John Cash (Yearwood, 2014, Episode: YW0511H). The reality shots and

unscripted moments catch Trisha unguarded, suggesting moments when the host is

most natural. The audience appreciates the humorous bloopers and being privy to inside jokes.

More often though the entire process is taped from start to finish with no post production bloopers. Minor mistakes are usually edited, and intervals of waiting to bake, cook, etc., are shortened. Generally the pacing, which refers to the speed of the action on the screen and the speed of the editing, is slow, which helps to support the teaching function of the domestic cooking show.

The importance of these codas is unquestionable. Codas, as per Labov’s (1972)

definition of a “good coda,” not only solve the mechanical problem of ending a story (a

cooking show episode) but also seek to leave the listeners (the viewers) “with a feeling

of satisfaction and completeness that matters have been rounded off and accounted for”

(p. 366). Seeing the completed dish, witnessing the pleasure it derives to those tasting

it, and eavesdropping over the host’s private party provide a sense of closure for

viewers. The rolling of credits gives a final, movie-like flourish of an ending.

102

4.3 Discourse Performance

Accompanying the narrative structure of cooking shows is the performance of

talk by the host. The development of the cooking show and its multimodality (i.e., visual,

aural, gestural, and spatial) contribute to defining the cooking show genre. The

discourse also identifies the cooking show genre with its culinary jargon; yet, there is

still more to the talk. Cooking show hosts differentiate themselves from other celebrity

chefs through specific linguistic strategies such as fresh talk and storytelling. These

create an illusion of spontaneity and realness, or synthetic personalization. Politeness

and humor further the relationship between the host and viewer. A gendered

performance becomes evident when comparing specific hosts and cooking shows.

In the following, I discuss four strategies of multimodal discourse that is

performed on cooking shows: fresh talk, storytelling, synthetic personalization, and

politeness.

4.3.1 Fresh Talk

The majority of the script on cooking shows is prepared and rehearsed, yet hosts

work to successfully create an impression of “fresh talk,” that appears not scripted but

generated moment to moment (Goffman, 1981). I suggest that the hosts’ fresh talk has

certain linguistic strategies, and its pre-planned spontaneity extends to the multimodal medium of cooking shows. This section will address these two aspects of fresh talk: linguistic strategies and multimodal effects.

4.3.1.1 Fresh talk: linguistic strategies

Fresh talk distinguishes one cooking from another through the personality of the host and topics addressed. Informal addresses, such as “What’s up everybody?” and expressions such as “apples and pork go together like peas and carrots” (Deen, B),

103

“we’re going to hook up some white wine in this white wine sauce” (Anderson), and

“you’re a superstar!” (Burrell) are used to make the presenter more relatable.

Expressions of emotion, such as delight: “I’m in heaven!” (De Laurentiis), add to the

unrestrained moments of performance. Most of the discourse is smooth; it is rare to

have fillers (“uh;” “um”), restarts (e.g. “so, you-you just take...”), or missed ingredients,

yet these all happen on occasion.

Some chefs become known for their idiosyncratic language. Emeril Lagasse of

Essence of Emeril and Emeril Live is closely associated for his “Bam!” and “Let’s kick it up a notch!” and Rachael Ray of 30 Minute Meals for her “EVOO” and “Yum-O!”.

Rachael has developed so many ‘Rachael-isms’ that her website has a glossary for her coined terms: “‘EVOO’ is extra-virgin olive oil, ‘Yum-O!’ is for something that is so good that ‘yum’ is not enough of an exclamation; the accent is on the ‘O’ as in, ‘Oh! That is so good!’ and ‘Delish’ for extra Yum-O!” (Rachael Ray website). Another celebrity chef,

Guy Fieri, uses big, bold expressions that fit his cooking style: adjectives such as

“screamin’ hot” or “dynamite!” and expressions such as “This is out of bounds/Off the hook!”; “This is money”; “This is Gangsta”; “We’re riding the bus to Flavortown!”; “Killer,”

and “Righteous.”

In one of his discussions of footing, Goffman (1981) highlights the ability of some

platform speakers to perform acceptable “production shifts” or the “shifting say, from aloud reading to a variety of fresh talk, such as parenthetical elaboration, questions and answers, and so forth” (p. 229). Such production shifts are routine in some forms of broadcast talk, such as radio “DJ talk” where spontaneous utterances are inserted in scripted performance (Montgomery, 1986). In cooking shows, the host’s performance

104

also involves an alternation of footings in respect to their persona; the script constructs the host as both an expert in cooking and a relatable friend. Fresh talk helps hosts to create a smooth shift in footing of alignment, stance, and projected self, from that as a friend to also one that is oriented toward the audience as expert.

4.3.1.2 Fresh talk: multimodal effects

While all the cooking shows are edited, some recordings are included to suggest that the show is ‘live,’ happening in the present moment. The dialog and action are smooth-flowing and nearly flawless, unlike earlier cooking shows in which some of the mistakes, including unintentional speaking errors and cooking flubs, were left as they occurred naturally (Brost, 2000); yet, there still is an illusion of the cooking show’s liveness. The shooting of entire shows or entire segments live-to-tape furthers the appearance of ‘liveness’ or instantaneity, especially in shows like Rachael Ray’s 30

Minute Meals in which almost all of the cooking is done in real-time aesthetics.

The multimodal, transformative nature of cooking shows encourages spontaneous discourse. For instance, biting into a hot hoecake, Jamie Deen exclaims,

“Whoo!” (Deen, J., 2009, Episode: ED0307H). Jeff Mauro pops a just fried sweet potato in his mouth and exclaims, “so hot!” (Mauro, 2011, Episode: ZB0106H). Damaris Phillips adds melted butter to a streusel topping, and mixing it by hand, she exclaims: “Ooo, I hit a hot pocket!” (Phillips, 2014, Episode: ZD0305H). Bobby Flay prepares pancakes in his

Brunch@Bobby’s series and complains about his first batch of pancakes: “The second batch is always better than the first batch. Nobody knows why” (Flay, 2011, Episode:

CCBAB-209H). Bobby turns his “imperfect” pancakes into a teaching opportunity, saying: “I like my pancakes with a tiny bit of texture on the outside, you know, just a little bit crispy” (Flay, 2011, Episode: CCBAB-209H).

105

Hosts may take advantage of the built-in break with commercials and act in

surprise to the viewer who seems to have walked into the room again after the break.

For instance, Bobby makes carrot cake pancakes and is plating them just before the

show breaks for commercials. When the show commences again, Bobby says: “You

caught me going back to the well [while eating a forkful of carrot cake pancakes]. Those carrot cake pancakes are amazing [with a full-mouth]” (Flay, 2011, Episode: CCBAB-

209H).

Figure 4-7. Bobby Flay biting into carrot cake pancakes right after commercials (Flay, 2011, Episode: CCBAB-209H).

Mistakes while cooking may add humor and entertainment besides a sense of realness to the show and to the hosts. During a special Thanksgiving episode, Ina and

Bobby are preparing a kale, spinach, and wild rice salad, and Bobby almost forgets the rice.

[Bobby is busy tossing the salad]

Ina: And, is there rice in it?

Bobby: Oh! I forgot the rice [turns and grabs the sheet pan with the cooked wild rice]

[both laughing]

106

Bobby: See, that’s why I need you here.

Ina: That’s my job.

Bobby: Ah, man. Let’s have some rice. Why not wild rice?

Ina: I’m glad I have a job [laughing]. (Garten, 2015, Episode: BXSP03H)

Although these shows could be edited to produce a more flawless show, i.e.

Bobby not forgetting the wild rice, the live cooking reactions help create an impression

that these shows are in some sense unmediated, more real, and more believable than

many other programs.

4.3.2 Storytelling

Besides contributing to the cooking show narrative structure, storytelling is a

discursive performance that makes the host more relatable and legitimate. This section

draws on two central concepts: “ordinariness” (Chaney, 2002) and “mythopoesis” (Van

Leeuwen, 2008). Chaney’s (2002) analysis of celebrities argued that “ordinariness” is

cultivated to “minimize the differences in character and outlook between themselves

and their audiences” (p. 108); and Van Leeuwen (2008) identifies “mythopoesis” as a type of legitimation achieved through storytelling. In this section, two main themes of stories are explored: kitchen confessions, or stories about cooking mistakes, and personal past, or stories about the celebrity’s past. Transparency and honesty frame the celebrity chef as a trusted expert.

4.3.2.1 Storytelling: Kitchen confessions

Storytelling about cooking mistakes helps construct the celebrity chef as ordinary, and paradoxically, builds their authority. Confessing to their own cooking mistakes, celebrity chefs display an effort to help others avoid the same mistake. Hosts

107

may explain modifications to past recipes, such as in the excerpt below. Ina answers a

viewer’s question about why her vegetables burned despite following Ina’s recipe:

Kathe (fan of Ina): [Ina narrates email] Hi Ina. I recently cooked the best roast chicken that you prepare for Jeffrey [Ina smiles, looks up at the camera, and comments: I do]. And it turned out great but my fennel, onions, etc. burned. I used a good quality roasting pan. Any suggestions?

Ina: Kathe, that’s a great question. I’m so glad you asked me that. A few people have asked me that. It was in my first book and I didn’t know to write ‘have a roasting pan that’s just big enough to hold the chicken and the vegetables comfortably.’ If it’s too big, the vegetables do burn. And I’m really sorry. So from now on, you’ll have great chicken and you’ll also have great vegetables. (Garten, 2011, Episode: BX0405H)

The celebrity chef takes responsibility for the vague recipe with speech acts of excuse: “I didn’t know to write...” and apology: “I’m really sorry”. The host could have selected other viewers’ problems to solve that would not have exposed her error; yet, by addressing the question, Ina reframes the issue and projects herself positively. She presents clearly the facts (i.e. there was an important detail missing in the recipe) and provides a concrete solution that benefits the audience (i.e. use the proper pan size).

Learning how she develops and revises recipes, the audience trusts even more her recipes and consequently, her discourse and persona.

Other stories about past mistakes are told to explain the origin of the recipe and how it turned out to be a good mistake. For instance, Bobby Flay narrates to Ina Garten how his preferred method for cooking turkey started from an accident: “The smoked turkey idea, it started as a mistake. It was sorta like I had an extra turkey the day after

Thanksgiving a couple of years ago and so I threw it on the smoker, and honestly, I love it” (Garten, 2015, Episode: BXSP03H). In this story, the “mistake” of having an extra turkey after Thanksgiving turned into an opportunity to try a new type of cooking, i.e., wood smoking.

108

These stories of kitchen confessions are “cautionary tales,” a category of

mythopoesis, that according to Van Leeuwen (2008), “convey what will happen if you do

not conform to the norms of social practices” (p. 118). The protagonists of the story (in

this case, Ina and Bobby) engage in activities that could lead to unhappy endings, or

cooking disasters, but potentially “deviant activities” are inverted when the celebrity chef

realizes the mistake and finds a solution. In this way, celebrity chefs are like heroes of a

“moral tale” in which “protagonists are rewarded for engaging in legitimate social

practices or restoring the legitimate order” (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 117). Taking a path

similar to Joseph Campbell’s (1949) template of a “hero’s journey,” the celebrity chefs

venture into the unknown (i.e. untested recipes, new ingredients and cooking

techniques), encounter and overcome a crisis (i.e. burnt food, excess ingredients), and

return transformed with the power to bestow knowledge on their fans.

4.3.2.2 Storytelling: Personal past

Besides relaying accidents and mistakes, hosts tell stories that explain their past

as well as the source of inspiration to the food they are preparing. In one episode, while

preparing shrimp pot pies as part of her menu, Sunny tells of her adventures in the

United States Air Force as a radio disc jockey:

I’m not lying. I really did move to New Orleans after having one amazing meal. I visited there when I was in the Air Force doing a little [radio] story on some boxing of some guys in the military. Went out for dinner and said, ‘Oh my gosh, I’ve got to figure out a way to get back to the city.’ First stop as soon as I got out of the military [was New Orleans]. (Anderson, 2008, Episode: RE0104H)

Presupposing disbelief from the audience, Sunny emphasizes her authenticity:

“I’m not lying” and proceeds to tell a story that legitimizes her discourse and expertise by giving context and insight to the recipe. Listeners are able to appreciate the recipe

109

more and value the host more for her unique experiences. Listeners who share some

aspect of the story, whether the city of New Orleans, boxing, or the military, are able to

relate even more with the host and increase their loyalty to her.

Stories provide a way to chronicle the past, and food is a link to the present.

Cooking certain dishes conjure up memories, such as “spaghetti and meatballs are one

of my favorite comfort foods. They bring me right back to my childhood,” says Ellie

Krieger (2007, Episode: EK0201H). Another example that illustrates the interconnection

between food and stages of life is Ree’s episode Kitchen Confessional: Dinner Through

the Decades:

I’m confessing all about the history of my life in dinners: from a fabulous retro Beef Stroganoff that I loved as a child in the 70s to the Pasta ai Quattro Formaggi that defined my college years in L.A. I’m spilling the beans on the Crisp Chicken Nuggets I’ve been making since becoming a mom, and the fantastic Coconut Curry Shrimp that’s so very much me right now. It’s the story of my Dinner Through the Decades. And, I’m telling all. (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU1004H)

Here, the host is “confessing all” in a different sense to cooking mistakes. The show sets up a story that attaches food to different stages of life that at the same time suggests the host’s development of cooking skills and refinement in taste. A taste for

“fabulous retro” from the past is replaced by “scrumptious and spicy with international flavors and colors” of the here and now. Lengthy cooking time and preparation required in the Beef Stroganoff is replaced by Coconut Curry Shrimp, an “easy” dish that Ree can “whip up in a jif.” Singlehood in college with luxurious pasta is replaced by motherhood and Crisp Chicken Nuggets, finger-friendly, fast food with familiar flavors and ingredients that are appealing to children.

Storytelling, especially personal stories, confessions of mistakes, and nostalgic moments, contributes to the construction of celebrity chefs as relatable and authentic.

110

By “not lying,” “spilling the beans,” and “telling all,” celebrity chefs give viewers a

glimpse of their personal pasts, positioning themselves as vulnerable and normal. In a

study of talk-in-interaction among women, Cortes-Conde and Boxer (2010) find that

humorous self-disclosure builds a shared history. Through this sort of conversational

exchange, celebrities develop “relational identities,” which Boxer and Cortes-Conde

(1997) define as “negotiation of an identity with others and through others” (ctd. in

Cortes-Conde and Boxer, 2010, p. 75), with their viewers; as a result, celebrities exhibit

identity display and identity development. In their vulnerability, celebrity chefs gain the

trust of their viewers and strengthen their authority, because viewers are more likely to

believe and follow the advice of experts whom they trust.

4.3.3 Synthetic personalization

During each episode, hosts create “synthetic personalization,” or the illusion that

they are speaking directly to and engaging with the viewer in a face-to-face

conversation (Fairclough, 1989, p. 62). In a study of cooking shows, Brost (2000) finds a

narrative form of direct address in the use of “you” by hosts and compares it to theater,

an act known as “breaking” or “crossing the fourth wall” (pp. 127-128). This study adds

that this acknowledgment of viewers constructs synthetic personalization and is

accomplished through the use of not only second person pronoun (“you”) but also first

person (“I”) and inclusive pronouns (“we,” “us”). In using first person, hosts add personal insight; in the use of collective pronouns, hosts include viewers in the cooking process and create a conversation-like discourse. Further, multimodal techniques such as eye contact, close-up narrations, and an intimate scene are ways that celebrity chefs engage with the invisible audience. Both linguistic and multimodal techniques are discussed.

111

4.3.3.1 Synthetic personalization: The use of I, you, we, and us

Using direct and inclusive pronouns, hosts frame their instruction as if they were on equal terms with viewers; the hosts are sharing their tips with viewers rather than imposing on them. The use of “you” commonly refers to the audience as a whole, but its field of reference can be narrowed down by the use of an accompanying “identifier”

(Montgomery, 1986). “You” may be identified by event or circumstance, family status, region, food knowledge, as demonstrated in the following excerpts:

by event or circumstance:

A little tip, if you’re in a hurry, and you’re trying to thaw out your puff pastry, thaw it out on a metal surface. (Anderson, 2008, Episode: RE0104H)

You can host a great wedding shower without a lot of work. I’ll show you how. (De Laurentiis, 2005, Episode: CCEDI-707F)

by family status:

If your kids are making the sandwiches with you, go ahead and try some cookie cutters. (D’Arabian, Food Network Web Special)

by region:

This is a shout out to my people in the Carolinas. (Florence, 2008, Episode: TU0509H)

by food knowledge:

So, naan, if you’ve never heard of it, and for those of you who have...it is just one of the most delicious breads on the planet. (Sequeira, 2011, Episode: ZA0311H)

You know what saffron is. (Flay, 2013, Episode: QF0309H)

by cooking skill:

Now this is a mandolin...now, if you’re not, um, really proficient, at using a mandolin, I really recommend grabbing a guard just to save your fingertips. But, if you’re good at it, you can slice it, right, without any kind of risk. (Florence, 2008, Episode: TU0509H)

112

The field of reference of “you” is constantly shifting. While the use of identifiers may appear to single out specific addressees, the talk is always available to others that not directly named as addressees. In the cooking skill example above, for instance,

Tyler Florence addresses both beginners and advanced cooks in how to use the mandolin but both parties hear all of the discourse.

In addition to the use of pronouns, deixis of a spatial kind may be considered an extension of direct address (Montgomery, 1986). The presenter may make explicit the presence and/or absence of the viewers. Dipping a finger into a bowl of melted chocolate, Michael Chiarello looks at the camera and says: “Sorry about that, thought I was alone for a second” (2006, Episode: MO0802H). Bobby Flay says, “Don’t go anywhere” and “Welcome back!” to viewers before and after commercial breaks, suggesting that viewers had ‘left’ the show momentarily (2013, Episode: QF0312H).

And Bobby Deen says, “Ya’ll look at this [unpeeling the aluminum foil off the pork tenderloins]. Oooo, I wish you could smell that [lifts the pork towards the viewers to see]” (2012, Episode: CCNMM-210H).

Or, the presenter may expressly simulate the co-presence of the viewers, as

Giada says: “Now look at these tea cups. I’m going to bake these cupcakes in them....Look how cute that looks!” (De Laurentiis, 2012, Episode: GH0415H). In another example, Bobby Flay walks towards his grill, and says “Oh, you beat me!” implying that the viewers got to the grill before him (2011, Episode: QF0104H). The presenter makes references to the immediate environment (e.g. “this place,” “here”) as if the details were perceptible to the audience (e.g. “can you see that?”). These seem to be attempts to overcome the limitations of television—an exclusively visual and audio medium as if it

113

had an olfactory or gustatory dimension. It can also be understood as a device for closing the distance between the speaker and the audience. Assuming a common sensory field thereby implies a form of co-presence.

Visually, synthetic personalization is established through direct eye contact and facial features such as smiles. At the beginning of his Ultimate Jerk Chicken episode,

Tyler maintains eye contact with the camera, saying, “You and I are going on vacation.

It’s amazing flavors of humble, authentic Jamaican cooking today on Tyler’s Ultimate”

(Florence, 2009, Episode: TU0710H). Grinning and glancing up at the audience frequently, Rachael says, “Tiramisu, I don’t know if you know, but it means literally translated, ‘pick me up.’ Isn’t that cute?” (Ray, 2003, Episode: TM1B60). In each of these shows, hosts acknowledge the presence of viewers. This process of direct address attempts to persuade viewers that they are being addressed on a personal level and include them as subjects in the discourse.

In addition to “you,” hosts use “we” to create inclusivity. For instance, Tyler often addresses viewers as “you and I:” “Now you and I are going to make it [ribs] together,” making cooking seem like a team effort (Florence, 2009, Episode: TU0703H).

Emphasizing his viewers as his equal, Tyler seems anxious to avoid imposing his advice upon them. The use of “we” adds a conversational tone throughout the show, such as in these examples: Giada says, “Here we go” (De Laurentiis, 2012, Episode:

GH0511H); Bobby Flay says, “I mean, c’mon, we’re just making a burger” (2014,

Episode: QF0401H); Guy opens a show with “We’re going to kick off the menu with my grilled lamb sandwiches...” and then during cooking, “Here’s what we got—a fantastic leg of lamb” (Fieri, 2011, Episode: GISP04H).

114

Further, hosts introduce guests, creating an illusion of viewers present in the

conversation. For instance, Guy introduces two guests, gesturing with his tattooed arm,

as he looks back and forth from the camera to his friends: “This is Teddy Castro, my

driver, and this is Keith Breedlove, our chef from Tex Wasabi’s at Johnny Garlic’s”

(Fieri, 2011, Episode: GISP04H). It seems as if Guy is hosting a party and introducing

his guests; although not physically present, viewers ‘meet’ and learn briefly about his

two friends. This style of talk is similar to the way one would talk with a friend: casual,

friendly, easy, inclusive. It further reinforces the illusion of television as an interactive

medium, drawing the viewer into what appears to be a conversation although the viewer

has no immediate, direct way to communicate with the host.

4.3.3.2 Synthetic personalization: Framing techniques—up close and personal

There are also some scenes when the host is framed close-up, undistracted, and

talking directly to the viewer in an intimate way. In these scenes, the narrations are

typically pre-recorded and of the host sharing some personal aspect or experience about themselves. Bobby Flay for instance, as shown in Figure 4-8, is seated in the

kitchen and narrates: “Brunch is really one of my favorite meals of the week for me,

because it signals that it’s a day off for me, which is unusual. Working in the

restaurants, you know, all week long...” (2011, Episode: CCBAB-209H). The close-ups of the host create an illusion of a casual conversation with viewers.

115

Figure 4-8. Close-up of Bobby Flay (Flay, 2011, Episode: CCBAB-209H).

Another example is of Ree as she explains what comfort food means to her.

Figure 4-9 illustrates the accompanying visual of the discourse of Ree relaxing at her ranch.

Figure 4-9. Close-up of Ree Drummond (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU0806H).

I love comfort food. There is just nothing like it. Now, comfort food means different things to different people. To me, comfort food is feel-good food. Dishes that I’ve eaten throughout my life. Things that my grandma used to make for me. Things I’ve eaten at significant times of my life. I just love it. (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU0806H)

Hosts establish intimacy with viewers through the use of “you,” the use of “we,” and close-ups of the host who offers self-disclosure. Domestic settings, such as the

116

kitchen or living room, further couch the narrative as intimate, private, and confessional.

Despite most often its monologic aspect, the discourse of domestic cooking shows is inclusive and addresses the audience in a personalizing, familiar, even intimate manner.

In host talk, it is the construction and dramatization of the relationship of host and viewers that receives emphasis here.

These general strategies of cooking show discourse are opposite other public discourse that achieves different contextual functions and effects. For instance, in his analysis of official discourse, Van Dijk (2006) describes a discourse structure that emphasizes the superior position of the speaker and the inferior position of the recipients: “the powerful position of the speaker may be emphasized by a very formal setting, attire, tone of voice, lexical choice, and so on...The reliability of sources may be further enhanced by mentioning authoritative sources, using photographs, and so on…”

(p. 376). In contrast to official discourse, cooking show discourse does not draw a

Us/Them polarization, but an inclusive, collective We. The framing techniques of the cooking show achieve less a manipulative, inducing effect and more of a cooperative, congenial atmosphere. Thus, in cooking shows, recipients are not made more vulnerable as they are in official discourse; rather, they are empowered to cook.

4.3.4 Politeness

A fourth strategy of Discourse Performance that contributes to celebrity chefs’ performance of talk is politeness strategies. Hosts use a combination of positive and negative politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987), offering advice in a friendly way through hedges and modals to soften directives and indicate their concern about the viewer’s wants and needs. The talk is upbeat and positive, reinforcing a mood of friendship.

117

For instance, chefs frame instructions as advice/suggestions rather than as directives. Ina says, “And if you want really special mashed potatoes, add ½ cup of sour cream” (Garten, 2005, Episode: IG1C18), and Giada offers, in baking cookies, that “If you don’t put anything down [on the baking sheet], you’ll get a little bit of a crispier drier cookie. So it kinda depends on what you like” (De Laurentiis, 2015, Episode:

HN0105H). The conditional “if you want” and the hedge “kinda” mitigate the force of the suggestions. Similarly, Ellie offers alternatives in ingredients: “You can get frozen lobster tail, which works great here too....You could also use shrimp for this salad. It tastes fantastic with shrimp as well” (Krieger, 2008, Episode: EK0506).Through modals such as “can” and “could,” hosts indicate possibilities to viewers, encouraging viewers to experiment and use ingredients that are available or according to their personal preferences. In this way, celebrity chefs shows respect for the negative face of viewers by not rigidly imposing their own preferences.

Another politeness strategy, hosts employ positive politeness to establish solidarity with viewers. The hosts describe the recipes enthusiastically and give encouragement to home cook in their own recipe experimentation; cooking at home is

“great” because “you control all that [ingredients, cooking method],” says Rachael for her oven-baked corn dogs (Ray, 2006, Episode: TM1119); the lndian snack mix is “just as good” even if the home cook cannot find curry leaves, says Aarti (Sequeira, 2011,

Episode: ZA0212H).

Hosts may explicitly appeal for viewers to trust them, and by extension—their discourse and their recipes. This call for trust arises particularly during occasions when the recipe or technique is counterintuitive, as in Sunny Anderson’s discourse for baking

118

muffins: “It’s totally ok if you see a little bit of flour still left in the batter once you blend it, the heat of the oven is going to make everything moist. Trust me on that” (2008,

Episode: RE0209H). It may not seem like the flour will blend in the dough fully, but

Sunny reassures viewers that the recipe will work out.

Politeness strategies are integrated also in the side narratives. In the following excerpt, Ree attempts to convince viewers that her way of doing cinnamon toast is the best method but uses humor to make this point. The potential face-threatening act of imposing on viewers or creating disagreement is avoided in two ways: first, Ladd, her husband, represents the viewers in Ree’s story, and as a third party, he is the receiving end of the joke and criticism instead of viewers, which softens the directives. Second, the pseudo-shared laughter between viewers and Ree about her divulging of her marital conflict over cinnamon toast demonstrates to viewers that Ree intends to offer well- meaning, friendly advice in her appropriately titled episode: Confessional Comfort Food.

Ladd and the kids and I all love cinnamon toast. While we eat it for breakfast a lot of times we’ll have it as a snack in the middle of the day. Now I don’t do this very often, because I think everyone’s recipe is wonderful in their own way. But I always say there is only one right way to make cinnamon toast. And I’m going to show you how to do it.

I added two sticks of really soft butter to a bowl. And I’ll add a heaping cup of sugar and then, a good tablespoon of ground cinnamon. Now it’s just about mooshing this all together. Ok, now it’s about half-way combined. So I’ll pour in a couple of teaspoons of good vanilla. Really you’ll miss it if you don’t add the vanilla to this mixture. Just smoosh it together.

Shortly after Ladd and I were married, we had quite a conflict about cinnamon toast. I made cinnamon toast the right way, of course. And he looked at it and said, ‘This isn’t the way I eat my cinnamon toast.’ So we had a big debate about the pros and cons of each way. Over the years, I have finally brought him around to my side. He has seen the light. [laughs]

Ok, now this mixture is totally perfect. So I’ll grab four pieces of bread. Just set them on the pan. It really doesn’t matter what kind of bread you use for cinnamon toast. Soft bread, crusty bread. It just doesn’t matter. It

119

always turns out wonderful. Now it’s very, very important to get all the way out to the edge, so that none of the bread is exposed.

You might be tempted at this stage to stick it under the broiler. But, I like to bake my cinnamon toast in two stages. The first is to put it into a 350 degree oven for about 10 minutes to let the bread start to crisp. And after that, I’ll move on to the second stage. [10 mins timer shows on the screen with the oven in the background]

Ok, I’ll just turn the oven to broil. And I’ll just stand watch over the cinnamon toast until it’s done.

Now while it finishes up, let me show you the way Ladd used to make cinnamon toast. I don’t want you to make the same mistakes he did.

Just toast the bread in the toaster. Then spread softened butter on the warmed toast. After that, just sprinkle on a cinnamon-sugar mixture. And, you’ve got it all wrong. [music bongs and then continues as before]

There are so many things wrong with that method. They are just too numerous to list. The bread doesn’t have a chance to soak in the butter. The cinnamon sugar doesn’t have a chance to caramelize. Don’t waste your time making it that way. Make it this way. [pulls out pan with cinnamon toast from oven]

Ahh it looks perfect. That cinnamon-sugar mixture perfectly caramelized on top. The bottom is nice and crisp. Ahh, cinnamon toast does not get any better than this. Look at that [slicing bread in diagonal with a pizza wheel]. A childhood favorite that never gets old. (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU0806H)

Ree is presented as the expert through assumptions built into the personal narrative to assert her own extensive cooking experience. For example, she offers advice, starting with “I always say...” or “It always turns out...” which carry the presupposition that she has done this before and has resolved the matter satisfactorily, in this particular extract, the cinnamon toast matter. The detailed narration about the caramelized cinnamon sugar and crisp toast emphasizes Ree’s expertise and experience in cooking. The host includes warnings about what not do through the disclaimer that “I don’t usually do this, because I think everyone’s recipe is wonderful in

120

their own way...” and also through the example of Ladd’s (wrong) method to soften her advice. The medium-pitched, light music changes to a low-pitched, resonant sound at

“you’ve got it all wrong,” dramatizing the climax of the mini-narrative. Ree invites viewers to learn how to cook through demonstrating Ladd’s mistakes and provides her guidance.

Ree employs linguistic hedging to modify her assertions (“I think that”), making it appear that she is not being overly authoritative, but simultaneously acts as an assertion of her expertise. The accompanying visual images of the golden brown cinnamon toasts serve to reinforce Ree’s authoritative position, while she switches into the friendship frame through the use of colloquial language: “He [Ladd] has seen the light.” In the manner of Lorenzo-Dus’s (2006) concept of the television show host as

“mythical hero,” Ree rescues Ladd (and helpless home cook viewers) through her experience and knowledge. In doing so, Ree enhances her own positive conduct to viewers.

4.4 Summary

In sum, this Chapter 4 provided an analysis of the data gathered of contemporary traditional cooking shows through two main approaches: Discourse Analysis, which in this study consists of Narrative and Interactional Sociolinguistics, and Multimodality. The chapter focused on two central elements of television cooking shows: Discourse

Structure, which examined the structure of cooking shows, and Discourse Performance, which examined the celebrity chefs’ performance of talk. The study’s integration of multimodality—specifically visual, aural, gestural, and spatial semiotic systems—and how it contributes to the discourse structure and performance of talk in cooking shows added new findings to linguistics and media studies.

121

In the first part, I discussed six main components that I found to be consistent

across all traditional cooking shows: 1) trademark opening, 2) introduction of the

episode, 3) procedural discourse, 4) side narratives, 5) assessment discourse, and 6)

closing scene. The components were compared to Labov’s (1972) framework.

Specifically, the trademark opening is comparable to Labov’s orientation, the

introduction of the episode to abstract, the procedural discourse and side narratives to

complicating action, the assessments to evaluation, and the closing scene to coda. I

noted that the evaluations throughout the show and in the closing scenes constantly

reaffirm the host’s expertise. I described how multimodal effects contributed to each

narrative sequence, such as music volume cueing beginnings and endings and voice-

over indicating shifts between recipe telling and storytelling. I suggested a new way to

view a cooking show structure with multimodality and illustrated the model in Table 4-1.

In the second part of Chapter 4, I analyzed the discourse performance of the

celebrity chefs. I discussed four main concepts: fresh talk, storytelling, synthetic

personalization, and politeness, and indicated how multimodality enhanced each

communicative intent. Hosts tell personal experiences and share past cooking mistakes,

use inclusive pronouns, divulge in secrets, and use humor. Findings indicated that the

use of direct address (“you”), inclusive pronouns (“we,” “us,” “let’s”), temporal and spatial deictic markers, and close-up shots of the presenter are ways to construct a pseudo-relationship with the viewer.

Synthetic personalization is further constructed through fresh talk with expressive language (“ooo!” “sooo good!”) and idiosyncratic words and phrases (“How fab!” “Bam!”

“Boom!”). Positive politeness strategies emphasized common ground between hosts

122

and their audience. Alternatives to the recipes, modality and hedging, for instance,

serve to soften the directives. In addition, I found that different than other forms of

influence, the discourse of cooking shows enhances the credibility and power of the

speaker, but not to the expense or negativity of the other, through strategies, such as

framing techniques and stories, with the overall function to achieve solidarity between

the host and the audience. The use of stories draws on the audience’s perceived

values, interests, and needs. Hosts are able to both entertain and educate, maintaining

a simultaneous footing as friend and expert.

Concepts of multimodality were integrated in the analysis in order to capture the

multimodal medium of the televised form of data. Visually, camera close-ups and

medium-range shots position the presenter as an intimate, close friend. Close-ups of

the food and cooking illustrate the presenter’s expertise. Long-range shots show the kitchen and setting, providing a sense of orientation and capture the overall cooking.

Music is an essential part in distinguishing the presenter and the show from others, such as soothing ambient jazz, country music, and rock. Natural cooking sounds— sizzling pans, clanging pots, bubbling hot water—add to the show’s realness. Voice- over, spoken by the celebrity chef, lends expertise with the voice of authority and control over the scene. Spatially, scenes show the celebrity chef in his/her home environment, whether in the kitchen, truck or car, backyard or garden, and community, conveying that the celebrity is ordinary. Plots built around ordinary occasions, such as having “the guys” over for steak (Symon, 2012, Episode: CCCLC-102H), cooking for church

(Drummond, 2012, Episode: WU0207H), or baking cupcakes for a friend’s daughter’s

123

wedding shower (Yearwood, 2012, Episode: YW0208H) further suggest that the celebrities have friends and participate in the community just like the viewers.

In the next section, Chapter 5: Discussion, I develop further the concept of discourse as a performance, which I began here in this chapter, with a more detailed analysis of how the discourse constructs the celebrity chef as an expert. Building on

Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation framework, I expand on three strategies: authorization, moral evaluation, and rationalization, to explore how celebrity chefs legitimize their expertise in food and topics beyond the kitchen.

124

Table 4-1. Multimodal narrative framework of cooking shows Cooking show sequence Labov’s narrative element Multimodal effects Trademark opening Orientation Show title; music

Introduction of episode Abstract Celebrity chef voice over; sequenced with food and cooking images of upcoming episode

Procedural discourse Complicating action Cooking action; verbal (recipe telling); instructions; text with Transformation of ingredient quantities; extra ingredients tips not spoken by the show host

Side narratives Complicating action; Mini- Eye contact; speaker’s (storytelling) narratives tone; shift in topic; possible change of setting; additional non-cooking image scenes

Assessments Evaluations Tasting and plating of food; non-verbal sounds (gustatory expressions)

Closing scene Coda Production attributes; textual display of show’s URL for recipes; ending of music

125

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Overview

The overall goal of this study was to identify how a celebrity chef is constructed as an expert through the multimodal discourse of cooking shows. To carry this out, two aspects were considered: 1) the multimodal discourse structure and 2) the discourse performance. The analysis showed that the narrative structure of domestic cooking shows consists of six components: abstract, orientation, recipe telling, storytelling, evaluation, and coda. This follows a Labovian narrative framework but customizes it to tv cooking shows; for instance, orientation and abstract can alternate in order, the complicating action is constituted by two elements (recipe telling and storytelling), evaluations occur throughout and may be non-verbal, and the coda is a standard ending with production credits. Further, the multimodal narrative structure of the program, including visual, aural, gestural, and spatial effects, contributed to the identity of the segments and cued transitions between segments. Additionally, periodic evaluative remarks, voiceover narrations, appetizing food visuals, and camera editing strengthened the position of the celebrity chef as an expert.

The second part of the analysis identified a discourse performance of celebrity chefs through an analysis of fresh talk, storytelling, synthetic personalization, and politeness. These discursive strategies presented the host as relatable and friendly, characteristics that appeal to the trust of viewers. Multimodal effects such as close-up shots of the host further constructed a pseudo-relationship with viewers. Examples drew from a variety of instructional cooking shows from Food Network and Cooking Channel,

126

which indicates that no matter how different in culinary experience and background, cooking show hosts displayed a commonality in their performance of talk.

Now, I will address what legitimations or explanations are built into the discourse of the celebrity chef that entitle them to authorize specific social practices in cooking and beyond. As a theoretical approach, Discourse Analysis is open to different methods of analysis. I consider and further develop a set of Van Leeuwen’s (2008) legitimation strategies for a systematic analysis of the construction of legitimation in the study’s corpus of discourse from twenty celebrity chefs and the consequent presentation as expert in food and lifestyle. Three of Van Leeuwen’s (2008) major categories of legitimation: authorization, moral evaluation, and rationalization, will be the framework for the following critical analysis of the construction of legitimation and expertise in cooking show discourse. A fourth legitimation category of Van Leeuwen’s approach, mythopoesis (narratives that reward legitimate actions and restore order), was integrated in Chapter 4 in the storytelling analysis and will not be discussed here.

Legitimation strategies are usually intertwined in specific texts, in this case, television cooking shows, and multiple legitimation is often the most effective form of authorization.

5.2 Legitimation in the Multimodal Discourse of Cooking Shows

In the multimodality context of Discourse Analysis, there are very few examples of analysis of such legitimation strategies. Elsewhere, studies examined strategies of legitimation in written texts such as government communications (Rojo & Van Dijk,

1997), textbooks and materials for education (Fairclough, 2003), and cookbooks

(Tominc, 2014), and of spoken discourse in politics (Reyes, 2011; Van Leeuwen &

127

Wodak, 1999). But, besides Mackay’s (2015) study of a Scottish political video, few if any other studies have examined multimodal legitimation strategies of a media text.

In the next section, this study expands on these strategies, proposes new ones, and correlates them with specific linguistic and multimodal realizations to illustrate how they legitimize the expertise of celebrity chefs..

5.2.1 Authorization

According to Van Leeuwen (2008), Authorization is “legitimation by reference to the authority of tradition, custom, law, and/or persons in whom institutional authority of some kind is vested” (p. 105). The questions who can exercise this authority? and how? are addressed in Van Leeuwen’s (2008) subtypes of Authorization that include:

Personal Authority, Expert Authority, Role Model Authority, Authority of Tradition, and

Authority of Conformity. The following is a discussion of how these five subtypes of

Authorization are used by celebrity chefs to frame themselves as experts.

5.2.1.1 Personal authority

Personal Authority refers to the status or role of people in society that gives them legitimate authority, such as parents and children. Van Leeuwen (2008) observes that personal authority frequently takes the form of a “verbal process” (Halliday, 1985, p.

129, ctd in Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 106). Examples of verbal processes are forms of say, state, tell, report, warn, argue, praise, express, and complain. An example of a verbal process being used to invoke personal authority is evident in this recipe for

Chicken Curry Salad from Jamie Deen’s Home For Dinner with Jamie Deen: “My mama always says, you take a recipe, you prepare it the way that it’s stated the first time and after that, change it and make it your own” (2013, Episode: JD0213H). The host’s

“mama” Paula Deen has legitimate authority for her role as a mother but also as her

128

own celebrity status as a cooking show host on the Food Network (Paula’s Home

Cooking; Paula’s Best Dishes; Paula’s Party), cookbook author, and successful business woman. Invoking people with inherent status (e.g. parents) as well as societal status (e.g. celebrity, expert figure) are ways to legitimize the discourse and behavior of the speaker himself.

The multimodal form of television cooking shows doubles the effect of personal authority when the invoked authority figure is made visible somehow, whether physically on the set as a guest, visually with images shown on the screen, or aurally by way of phone call.

A particularly key example of how multimodality works with personal authority is on Bobby Deen’s show. Jamie’s younger brother, Bobby also has his own show and similarly invokes the personal authority of his mother Paula. His show Not My Mama’s

Meals explicitly draws on her maternal and celebrity status for legitimation. Each episode always starts and ends with a recorded telephone call between Bobby and

Paula: at the beginning, Paula listens and gives her evaluation on Bobby’s plan to transform her classic Southern comfort food into lighter dishes, and at the end of the show, she tastes the dishes and gives her verdict.

129

Figure 5-1. Bobby Deen calls his mother Paula (2012, Episode: CCNMM-207H).

Figure 5-2. Paula Deen regularly tastes Bobby’s dishes on his show (Deen, B., 2012, Episode: CCNMM-207H).

Replays of Paula cooking and narrating the specific dish from her own show,

Paula’s Home Cooking, are shown and have text overlaid with calorie and fat counts

(Figure 5-3). As Paula laughs in the original video, “There is so much butter in that puff pastry (laughs), that it can hardly stay on that pan. I want that rich creamy sauce to kinda bubble up and adhere to that crust.”

130

Figure 5-3. Paula Deen’s Chicken Pot Pie with nutrition information (Deen, B., 2013, Episode: CCNMM-301H).

Then, the scene changes to an image of Bobby’s updated recipe (Figure 5-4).

Following is the display of the nutrition of Bobby’s dish with the voice-over of the updated, “better” recipe:

Figure 5-4. Bobby Deen’s remake of Chicken Pot Pie (Deen, B., 2013, Episode: CCNMM-301H).

Here we see that multimodality can be used to both upgrade and downgrade authority and can be done simultaneously—Paula’s authority is downgraded at the

131

same time that Bobby’s is upgraded. Paula is the bearer of home cooking who needs

“upgrading.” Her cooking is “delicious,” but at the same time it is not the “lighter” and

“fresher” cooking that her son promotes. Bobby balances his positive and critical evaluation as a legitimation strategy to appeal to both Paula’s viewers and to attract his

own viewers who seek a modern, urban approach to cooking. The nutritional numbers

give concrete, scientific evidence of how his recipes are superior in nutritional value.

Having appealed to the personal authority of their mother, the Deen brothers

seek to construct themselves as equal if not superior in authority of cooking as their

mother. While Jamie’s show is not explicitly designed to counter Paula’s, his narration and cooking model ways to adapt traditional recipes to modern tastes, such as the previously mentioned Curried Chicken Salad; he adds curry powder and substitutes yogurt for mayonnaise in the original recipe. Nevertheless, both brothers are careful to hedge their criticism with praise in order to appeal to Paula’s followers as well. This position enhances their position as experts of contemporary American cuisine which is, as Bobby Deen describes: “leaner” and “lighter.”

5.2.1.2 Expert authority

In Van Leeuwen’s (2008) second major category, Expert Authority, legitimacy is provided by expertise, rather than status from Personal Authority. The present study problematizes Van Leeuwen’s category by finding that Expert and Personal authority overlap. Further, the study modifies Van Leeuwen’s framework by dividing Expert

Authority into two subtypes: Multimodal Discourse and Celebrity Branding. Multimodal

Expert Authority is exercised through culinary jargon and cooking demonstration, explicit references to professional credentials, and representatively through the cooking show set and cookware. Celebrity Branding Expert Authority is exercised through

132

alignment with other celebrities and locations (e.g. sharing the same screen) and

through visible markers of the host’s line of cookware and cookbooks.

Expert authority: Multimodal discourse of legitimation. In Multimodal Expert

Authority, culinary expertise may be stated explicitly and accompanied by

demonstration. Verbally, celebrity chefs use culinary jargon, such as “medallions” to

indicate the cut size for eggplant (Mauro, 2012, Episode: ZB0201H); “mandoline,” a

kitchen tool (Florence, 2007, Episode: TU0208H); “lardons” for the cut size and type of

bacon (Flay, 2010, Episode: CCBAB-110H); “al forno, which basically means baked”

(Florence, 2003, Episode: TU1A09). Some hosts may make the jargon their own,

coining new ones, as in Guy Fieri’s unique expression, “on point,” a variation of “a point,” a French term used to describe food cooked just to the point of perfect doneness. The jargon creates a lexicon specific to the cooking setting, but it also signifies belonging and insider knowledge. Multimodally, culinary knowledge is demonstrated by action accompanying the discourse, such as the host using a kitchen torch to “flambé” or finely cutting basil into a ribbon-thin “chiffonade.” The visual

supports the verbal discourse of expertise with viewers seeing the chef in action.

Besides culinary-specific words and actions, expert authority discourse may be

stated with explicit references to professional credentials, such as culinary school and

professional food experiences. Stories are relayed about culinary training, restaurants,

and professional work with food. Images from the celebrity chef’s restaurants are

shown, such as Giada’s restaurant in Las Vegas in the episode Las Vegas Favorites

(2014, De Laurentiis, Episode: GH0702H).

133

Further, recipes on the show may be from the menu of the celebrity’s restaurant,

such as “Ahi Won Tacos” from Guy Fieri’s Johnny Garlic’s restaurant (Fieri, 2010,

Episode: GI0802H). Bobby Flay makes breakfast quesadillas with quail eggs inspired by

his Mesa Grill restaurant for his Brunch@ Bobby’s show (2010, Episode: CCBAB-

110H). Ina Garten tells stories from her days as a caterer and owner of a specialty food

store, Barefoot Contessa, the namesake of her show: “One of the things I learned from

Barefoot Contessa is that you can make the muffin mix the night before and then scoop

them and bake them the day of the party” (2004, Episode: IG1C12). Being able to run successful restaurants and food businesses position celebrity chefs as business experts.

Other markers of expert authority are signified multimodally by the cooking show set and the kitchen equipment. In Alton Brown’s Good Eats, the kitchen frequently resembles a science lab, a subject traditionally held in great esteem by Western society.

Alton uses beakers, scales, thermometers, and molecular illustrations to enhance viewers’ understanding behind the science of cooking, as shown in the image below:

Figure 5-5. Alton Brown and his lab-like cooking set (2009, Episode: EA1309H).

134

Alton describes the molecular background of pound cake:

Although the balanced scale hints at a symbiotic symmetry, to really understand the inner workings of a pound cake, one must look through the ingredients to the molecular mysteries within. Sugar is easy. It is 100% sucrose, the most common of kitchen disaccharides.... (Brown, 2009, Episode: EA1309H)

The visual props and accompanying discourse manifest the host’s culinary knowledge and understanding of the minutiae of cooking. Like Alton’s lab-like cooking equipment, Guy Fieri’s domestic equipment is equally impressive. For instance, Guy’s

Big Bite: Backyard is filmed at his home outdoor kitchen which features a Santa Maria- style barbecue (which can be raised or lowered over the heat), a commercial-grade brick oven pizza, a rotisserie that can slow-roast thirty-six chickens at once, and a ten- burner commercial gas range.

Figure 5-6. Guy Fieri cooking in his home professional-grade outdoor kitchen (2013, Episode: GI1313H).

Expert authority is also signified by sheer volume of discourse. As Kottholf (1997) notes, experts typically speak more, have lengthier turns, interrupt more, are asked questions, and instruct. Traditional cooking show hosts are typically alone and dominate the discourse with monologues. Compared to other lifestyle television programs (e.g.

135

person and property makeovers), cooking show hosts do not have to compete for a turn in the conversation. Nonetheless, even with guests, cooking show hosts maintain expert authority in the discourse. Cooking show hosts direct the discourse, give instructions in the cooking, and prompt stories from guests. Multimodally, hosts are usually the only ones to talk directly to the camera, as guests usually keep their attention on the host and only look at the host, not the camera. The next section explores more in-depth the function of (special) guests on cooking shows.

Expert authority: celebrity branding. In the second subtype of Expert

Authority, expert legitimation can be made through what I call Celebrity Branding.

Cooking shows feature the host with other celebrities, both food-related and not, and display symbols of their expertise with their cookbooks, food and cookware line, and high-grade cooking equipment on set.

Hosts may have highly acclaimed guests on their show, suggesting their alignment with them. Guests range from well-known restaurant chefs, such as Wolfgang

Puck, Suzanne Goin, and Jonathan Waxman, to celebrities of another platform, such as musicians Taylor Swift, Sammy Hagar, and Kelly Clarkson, actress Jennifer Garner, and movie producers Rob Marshall and John DeLuca (guests on cooking shows of Guy

Fieri, Trisha Yearwood, and Ina Garten). Other Food Network celebrity chefs are also often guests on each other’s shows. Ina, for instance, has a special series of episodes where she cooks with other Food Network hosts on her show, including Giada De

Laurentiis, Michael Symon, Tyler Florence, and Michael Chiarello (“Ina and Friends”).

Further, Cooking Channel is increasingly introducing new cooking shows that star

Hollywood celebrities as hosts of their own shows, such as actresses Tiffany Thiessen,

136

Valerie Bertinelli, and Tia Mowry; and on Food Network, the Olympian ice skater Brian

Boitano.

Celebrity chefs may also leave the traditional kitchen set to associate with other experts. Bobby Deen, for instance, frequents small restaurants and food shops in New

York City and asks the owners/chefs to demonstrate how to make their specialty, such as waffles, brownies, or pizza. Kelsey Nixon similarly goes to food specialty stores in the city and learns lessons from the experts. Also, Giada De Laurentiis in her one- season show Giada in Italy learns how to make pizza in Naples, pound cake in

Sorrento, and pasta in Torre Annunziata, Italy.

During the show, symbols and extensions of the celebrity chef’s brand are made with on-screen text and physical props. For instance, hosts tell viewers how to access the recipes from the Food Network or Cooking Channel websites, and the website URL typically flashes on the screen in accompaniment to the discourse.

Figure 5-7. Kelsey Nixon suggests viewers to go to the Cooking Channel website for her recipe (2012, Episode: CCKEL-403H).

Hosts may mention their new cookbook or have their cookbooks visible in the background, such as those on the kitchen counter of Sandra Lee’s set in Figure 5-8.

137

Figure 5-8. Sandra Lee’s set with her cookbooks on the counter (2010, Episode: SM0312H).

Celebrity chefs may use their own products in the show; e.g. Bobby Flay flavors his meats with his own line of sauces and spices in grilling episodes; Giada De

Laurentiis uses her modern, silver GDL cookware line (Figures 5-9, 5-10); Ina Garten uses bags and ribbons marked with her brand Barefoot Contessa; Rachael Ray cooks with her signature bold, brightly colored cookware; and Ree Drummond plates food on

The Pioneer Woman serving ware.

Figure 5-9. Giada De Laurentiis uses her GDL Cuisinart food processor (De Laurentiis, 2014, Episode: GH0709H).

138

Figure 5-10. Close-up shot of GDL-signature line Cuisinart food processor (De Laurentiis, 2014, Episode: GH0709H).

In sum, Expert Authority may be exercised through two main forms: Multimodal

Discourse with culinary and scientific terminology, references to professional cooking experience, and Celebrity Branding with celebrity guests and the display of the host’s brand via cookbooks, kitchenware, and food line.

5.2.1.3 Role model authority

Role model authority describes members of public influence, such as celebrities, who depend on the media to disseminate their authority to an audience through texts, such as television cooking shows. While such authorities need not give reasons for their behavior other than because of their personal opinion, Evans and Hesmondhalgh

(2005) suggest that “people can only achieve fame or become celebrities in the first place through the active construction and transmission of an image or persona that represents them” (p. 2). Increasingly, the desirable persona for a “popular” expert is one who is portrayed as “normal” (Lewis, 2008). As Turner (2009) describes, “one of the attributes of the television personality is the ability to appear to eliminate the distance between their performance and themselves” (p. 15).

139

While simply being on television could be enough to legitimize the celebrity chef,

I suggest that the celebrity must also work to present an ordinary persona. The majority of the filming takes place in the hosts’ home kitchen, a familiar and warm setting. During episodes, other social identities emerge, such as being a mother/father/in-law/sibling that help construct the show host as normal and relatable. Episodes may have themes such as “Sister time,” “Kids in the kitchen,” or “Backyard feast with friends.” Hosts seem to have an ordinary life with family and community responsibilities, and may be shown volunteering at the local school, bringing food to local firemen, or doing similar service- based acts. They engage with local cashiers, shop owners, and neighbors, and perform routine activities, such as driving and food shopping. The participant-presenter interactions and daily chores position the hosts as sharing a space of mundanity with regular people and lessen the distance between their private and public identities.

Further, I suggest that role model authority in one area can then be transferred to legitimize other social identities and activities. For instance, cooking show hosts role model their relationships. In making brownies, Ina narrates about how she baked them for her then-boyfriend and now husband of forty years Jeffrey when they were first dating (Garten, 2007, Episode: IG0904H). Ree shares a similar story about chocolate cake and her husband Ladd of twenty years (Drummond, 2013, Episode: WU0405H).

These stories represent not just their own relationships, but suggest that others too can express their love by baking and cooking. The more seamless the performance between personal and professional lives, the stronger the authority as role models.

5.2.1.4 Authority of tradition

Authority of Tradition may be invoked through key words such as “tradition,”

“custom,” “practice,” and “habit” (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 108). The assumption is that,

140

since it worked for the past, it will work for the present and goes unchallenged. While celebrity chefs explicitly reference tradition, they also give social and cultural references to invoke authority of tradition. Further, I find that celebrity chefs may invoke tradition but also challenge it and ultimately reject it in order to validate their own cooking and style. In the following, I discuss this paradoxical relationship of invoking and inverting authority of tradition in three sub-headings: traditional cooking, maternal figures, and tradition upgraded.

Authority of tradition: traditional cooking. In cooking shows, Authority of

Tradition is invoked through references to long-standing practices, old recipes, and influential culinary styles. The discourse consists of words like “traditional,” “old-school,”

“all-American,” and “classic” and high-frequency modality such as “always.” Cooking show hosts invoke terminology of tradition to convey enduring, trustworthy recipes and dishes. For instance, when making bread rolls, Bobby Flay narrates: “Now we’re going to make some Parker House Rolls, and the Parker House Rolls are an old-school, all-

American, pillowy, yeasty-flavored, butter roll. Just the perfect dinner roll” (2005,

Episode: GL0501). When making turkey for Thanksgiving, Ree narrates: “I always do a twenty pound turkey because we have a lot of people to feed, but also because that’s what I’ve always made. So I do it the same way every year” (Drummond, 2012,

Episode: WU0401H).

Authority of Tradition is invoked through references to culinary cuisines that symbolize tradition, such as Old World cuisine. Italian and French foods are held in particularly high regard in American culture, so cooking in these styles confers Authority of Tradition. For instance, Rachael Ray legitimizes her expertise in pizza in her

141

reference to Italy: “Now in topping my pizza, one of my favorite pizzas to have in Italy is a ham and arugula pizza,” and later, “Now I’m going to top it a classic Italian way. It’s one of my favorite street pizzas to order when I’m wandering around Rome” (Ray, 2003,

Episode: TM1D11). In another example, when making cranberry sauce, Bobby Flay adds dried figs and balsamic vinegar. Tasting the sauce he remarks: “very nice if you’re having that Tuscan-style Thanksgiving. Hmm, [tasting it], the figs, the cranberries, a little balsamic vinegar, very heady Italian-style ingredients to flavor your Thanksgiving, works really well” (Flay, Food Network Thanksgiving Web Special). Ina Garten is known for her Provencal-style French food; Michael Symon is proud of his Greek and Italian heritage; Mario Batali exaggerates his Italian roots; Giada De Laurentiis’ cooking is

Italian-inspired and French-trained; and Michael Chiarello enjoyed a classic Italian upbringing by learning how to cook from his Italian parents.

Authority of tradition: maternal figures. Authority of Tradition continues with references to customs practiced by certain people. The legitimation vested in Paula

Deen discussed in the section above (Personal Authority) is based on her celebrity status; here references to people have a different function. Grandmothers, mothers, and mother-in-laws are invoked to legitimize the presented practices in the light of women, who have traditionally been the home cooks, symbolizing knowledge and wisdom. Men may also be invoked as authorities of home cooking, as Example 1 illustrates, but less so and usually second to women.

1) Mom and Dad are in the kitchen and as usual, I’m [Michael Symon] stealing my mom’s favorite recipe ideas. First up, one of her specialties. Italian braised beef with root vegetables and rigatoni. On the side Greek feta and cucumber salad. For dessert, another Greek classic, baklava. Nobody does these recipes better than my mom, although Dad’s getting

142

pretty darn close. Hanging with Mom and Dad in the kitchen comin’ up next. (Symon, 2012, Episode: CCCLC-211H)

2) This is the lasagna my [Ree’s] mom always made when I was growing up. And I call it the lasagna that elicits marriage proposals. I made it for Lad very early in our relationship and I think it had something to do with clinching the deal [giggles]. (Drummond, 2013, Episode: WU0406H)

3) This is really cool because this is a box of cake mix. My grandma [Trisha Yearwood’s] made everything from scratch, and so I was shocked when I found out that she actually had something with a cake mix. And I thought well, if it’s good enough for Grandma, it’s good enough for me. (Yearwood, 2012, Episode: YW0208H)

On one level, the older generation imparts wisdom and culinary knowledge:

Michael learns heritage recipes, Ree learns cowboy-pleasing dishes, and Trisha learns

that using a cake mix is valid. At another level, the maternal references represent

Authority of Tradition not only because of their advanced age but also because their

cooking represents what is constructed as traditional home cooking. None of the

references are professional chefs, which is arguably (and contradictorily) why invoking

mom’s cooking is that much more powerful and persuasive in a cooking show intended for home cooking. Viewers may believe more readily that they can cook the dish on the

show in knowing that the recipe is what other home cooks make, not what professionals

cook.

Authority of tradition: Upgraded. Hosts may use authority of tradition to

leverage their own recipes. Hosts typically first invoke tradition and make a traditional recipe, and then bestow its legitimation on their own recreation of it. In the abstract narrative for a show about Thanksgiving, Ree narrates:

All the family is coming for Thanksgiving and the spotlight is on stunning sides. I’m making one of my all-time favorites Broccoli Wild Rice Casserole. There’s Soul Sweet ‘Taters just like my mom and aunt used to make. It’s a classic that’s stood the test of time. The dressing is one of Ladd’s family recipes that I’ve made my own with roasted Brussels

143

sprouts, Butternut Squash. It is spectacular. (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU0904H)

Here the discourse of tradition (“a classic that’s stood the test of time”) and the discourse of tradition upgraded (“I’ve made my own”) are described with equal enthusiasm (“stunning,” “spectacular”).

Similarly, other hosts call upon tradition and offer ways to change it, modeling appropriate and new approaches to cooking and establishing food tastes.

1. We’re [Ina Garten and home viewers] going to do the classics but with the volume turned up. (Garten, 2015, Episode: BXSP03H) 2. I [Ellie Krieger] know I said I was leaving the old standbys in the dust, but this one I just had to bring along because it’s so good. I’m shaking it up a little, making it better for you, but keeping all the ooh and ahh factor. (Krieger, 2007, Episode: EK0309H) In this way, celebrity chefs promote themselves as experts of taste and prescribe a new cuisine that is flavorful (“volume turned up”), nutritious (“making it better for you”), and fresh. Hosts indicate a shift in eating attitudes, with a heightened preoccupation with taste, texture, and nutrition affecting their approach to cooking itself. Rather than diminishing a meal’s appeal, hosts emphasize the pleasures of taste to assure viewers that the new approach to cooking is better and more flavorful than “old standby” dishes.

In sum, the celebrity chefs use Authority of Tradition in references to “the classics” and maternal figures to support their own authority. Tradition represents security and a point of orientation, but the stress is on updating it with different flavors and improved techniques. Chefs align themselves with Authority of Tradition, as they also position themselves as equal experts.

5.2.1.5 Authority of conformity

Closely related to Authority of Tradition is Authority of Conformity. Both invoke customary habits and beliefs to establish authority legitimation, but in the case of

144

conformity, authority is based on conventions and socially acceptable behavior. As

Lakoff (1982) describes, persuasive discourse is the “attempt or intention of one

participant to change the behavior, feelings, intentions, or viewpoint of another by

communicative means” (p. 28). Examining the persuasive discourse in magazine food

advertising, Bouso (2012) identifies various presupposition triggers, chiefly the use of

comparative constructions (e.g. “greater muscles”), definite phrases (e.g. “your daily

doses of sunshine”), and change-of-state verbs (e.g. “get noticed”). These linguistic

elements are also used by celebrity chefs, but conformity legitimation is also realized

through other discursive means: plural uncountable pronouns (“all,” “everybody,”

“everyone”, “we”), high frequency modality (“always,” “the majority,” “many,” “a lot”), Wh- questions, and factive expressions.

1. Every carrot cake has walnuts. (Yearwood, 2014, Episode: YW0405H) 2. Everybody loves this [parmesan chicken]. (Garten, 2007, Episode: IG0907H) 3. Who doesn’t love pancakes? Everybody loves pancakes. (De Laurentiis, 2014, Episode: GH0709H) 4. Everybody should have this [chimney starter]. (Garten, 2015, Episode: BXSP03H) 5. I know, everything’s kale these days. (Garten, 2015, Episode: BXSP03H) 6. I’m just going to start with some corn flakes. I know you have some. (Sequeira, 2011, Episode: ZA0212H) 7. Now we’ve all had carrot cake before. (Flay, 2011, Episode: CCBAB-209H) In the examples above, hosts use presuppositions to make their discourse more persuasive and effective. That is, presuppositions are concise, an important element in a time-constrained setting such as cooking shows, and polite. The celebrities avoid directly telling their audience to do something because this idea would threaten their face and make them feel uncomfortable. Instead, the ideas and instructions are given with presuppositions and validated because “everybody” is doing it.

Celebrity chefs can also use presuppositions to their advantage in encouraging the opposite behavior. That is, the host may reference a certain practice and general

145

belief and then refute it; accordingly, their own tastes are presented as the preferred

cooking method. In the examples below, the hosts show that common beliefs about a

certain food or technique are false.

1. But you know, I think that a lot of people think they’ll just leave French Onion soup to the restaurants. They don’t realize how easy it is to make at home. (Drummond, 2014, Episode: WU0902H) 2. I love Brussels sprouts. They get a bad rap. But if they’re cooked properly they can really have a great flavor. (Yearwood, 2014, Episode: YW0505H) 3. Now today it’s party time but that doesn’t mean that it has to take all day to prepare for it. (Ray, 2003, Episode: TM1C56F) Through hedging and qualifying statements, celebrity chefs introduce their ideas

to dispel myths about certain foods and convince people to try a new food or cooking

technique. From their position of authority, celebrity chefs negate commonly held

beliefs; e.g. French Onion soup is easy and can be made at home, Brussels sprouts are

delicious, cooking for parties can be done quickly, etc. This discursive strategy—

approval, disapproval, and then instruction—is practiced in both the Authority of

Tradition and in the Authority of Conformity. While the celebrity’s status makes it

possible for them to critique convention, the actual practice is a way to exercise their

authority and further solidify their construction as an expert.

5.2.2 Moral Evaluation

Moral evaluation is a second way that expertise is legitimized by invoking the

values and norms of society, normally made implicitly through strategies such as

evaluations, abstractions, and analogies (Van Leeuwen, 2008). Nevertheless, moral

values can be recognized based on an understanding of “good” and “bad,” and

“healthy,” “natural,” and so on when placed in its discourse-historical context. In cooking

shows, hosts interject evaluative remarks about quality, taste, and health as ways to

legitimate their expertise. As Leech (1966) notes in his study of advertising English,

146

many adjectives are both “designative” and “attributive” in that they describe a state of

the object or action and ascribe certain values. Favored adjectives of celebrity chefs are

“good,” “fresh,” and “natural,” among others. The following examines the discourse

surrounding “good” food, in terms of quality and taste, and “healthy” food, two recurring

and frequent concepts in the analyzed corpus that produce and circulate ideologies in

the discourse of food and cooking.

5.2.2.1 Evaluation: “Good” food

Celebrity chefs call for the use of “good” ingredients that are defined by specific

types or grades, quality (high), state (preferably fresh), taste (flavorful), and sourcing

(preferably local and in-season). Each aspect is expanded upon and provided below

with examples from the programming on Food Network.

Specific types or grades of ingredients may be specified. Bobby Flay makes

margaritas and tells viewers to use “good” tequila (i.e. silver) (2012, Episode: CCBAB-

110H); Michael Chiarello makes chocolate sauce for ice cream and suggests viewers to

“use the good stuff, none of that crud” (2006, Episode: CCEEC-302FH); Giada De

Laurentiis makes truffles and informs viewers about good chocolate: “I’m using dark

chocolate: [chopping a bar of chocolate] 70% dark chocolate and about 9 ounces of it.

And since I’m huge on desserts and chocolate, nothing’s better than this” (2015,

Episode: HN0101H). The multimodal medium of cooking shows makes implicit

comparisons clear to viewers when they watch the hosts thinly chop “good” chocolate

from a chocolate bar instead of using “crud” or chocolate morsels and/or candy bars.

Good food is defined by high-quality ingredients. Ina Garten acknowledges that she is known for her insistence on using “good” ingredients: “I know I’m always talking about good ingredients, but why add bad ingredients? It’s not going to get any better”

147

(2014, Episode: BX1104H). Although the host does not explicitly answer or describe what makes “good” ingredients, her rhetorical question communicates the logic that good food starts with good ingredients.

The state of good food is characterized by fresh ingredients. Alton Brown of

Good Eats is known for his personal habit of carrying nutmeg and a kosher salt container with his key chain. References to fresh foods are made frequently in the show; in making lemon meringue pie, Alton states to add: “a half cup of freshly squeezed lemon juice, and yes, fresh matters” (Brown, 2004, Episode: EA1G15).

Teaching viewers what makes “good eats,” celebrity chefs model what is important and instill values about food and cooking, such as using fresh ingredients.

Exceptions to the fresh food rule are made legitimate when the host offers some explanation. For instance, if cooking with frozen foods, hosts often elaborate on its superiority over fresh food:

I [Ellie Krieger] love frozen fruit. It’s one of those great standbys and since it’s picked and frozen at its peak ripeness, it’s actually comparable in nutrition to fresh. And I actually prefer frozen in this recipe because it makes my smoothie really frothy. (Krieger, 2008, Episode: EK0408)

Leveraging her expertise in nutrition and in taste, Ellie justifies using frozen fruit for its high nutritional value and for its textural improvement in the smoothie. Her double use of the adverb “actually” emphasizes how surprising it is that something frozen would be better than fresh, which further differentiates the two states of food.

Moral evaluation is also made through analogy. In a Thanksgiving special, two celebrity chefs Bobby Flay and Ina Garten host an episode together on Barefoot

Contessa. The celebrity chefs passionately agree on what makes good food:

Ina: Bobby and I agree on a lot of things. But one of the things is that everything has to have unbelievable flavor.

148

Bobby: Yes.

Ina: Otherwise they’re not worth eating.

Bobby: There is no room for bland food in the kitchen. Zero.

Ina: Hate it! Hate it!

Bobby: Exactly. (Garten, 2015, Episode: BXSP03H)

Explicit comparisons are made between good food and bad food; good food has

“unbelievable flavor” in comparison to “bland food” that is “not worth eating.” In this unusual incidence of having two celebrity chefs on the same show, the discourse about

“good” food is doubly legitimized with the integration of legitimation of authorization. The celebrity chefs bring authority and strengthen their own and each other’s position.

Further, in making qualifications about “good” food, the presenter may make comments beyond the immediate kitchen context, reaching other food-related topics such as eating locally and in season. In the episode Going Local, Ina features recipes with ingredients grown locally in the East Hamptons. When making a peach cake, Ina narrates:

These eggs are from the local farm. Aren’t they just amazing? How gorgeous that beautiful egg is? So, I need two eggs. I always crack them into a bowl. Ahh! Look at how gorgeous that is! (as she cracks the egg in the bowl). A dark yellow. I wonder what this one is? (holding the second egg) Look at that. You can tell when an egg is really fresh, the yolk really stands up. (Garten, 2011, Episode: BX0402H)

Most of the programs viewed for this study featured some reference to home gardens or showed hosts traveling to their local town to purchase produce, seafood, or meat for that day’s menu. In some cases, such as Easy Entertaining with Michael

Chiarello and Barefoot Contessa, the hosts are shown going to their vineyard or backyard to pick herbs, figs, and/or citrus. Hosts may be depicted tending to their home

149

gardens, such as The Pioneer Woman and Giada at Home (see Figure 5-11). The image of the hosts actively practicing the value of sustainability helps to legitimize the discourse of “good” food.

Figure 5-11. Giada tends to her herb garden in her California backyard (De Laurentiis, 2010, Episode: GH0238H).

In sum, celebrity chefs teach viewers not only how to cook but also what constitutes “good” food. While not exhaustive, the findings suggest that good food consists of certain grades, is high quality, has “unbelievable” flavor, and is preferably fresh, locally grown, and in season. The celebrity chefs teach that eating delicious food also benefits the community and the environment.

5.2.2.2 Evaluation: “healthy” food

Second, hosts use evaluations of “healthy” food to legitimate and promote ideologies about food and cooking. Three celebrity chefs are particularly known for their campaign towards healthy foods: Bobby Deen whose trademark is teaching how to cook and eat “leaner and lighter” (introduction to Not My Mama’s Meals), Giada De

Laurentiis whose recent cookbook (Giada’s Feel Good Food, 2013) and episodes feature “feel good foods,” as suggested by their titles: Feel Good Food (2014, Episode:

150

GH0618H), Garden Spa Day (2015, Episode: GH0713H), Healthy and Hearty (2014,

Episode: GH0611H), etc., and Ellie Krieger, a certified nutritionist, and host of her

appropriately titled show Healthy Appetite. While these chefs talk about “healthy” food

more than others, the overall discourse around “healthy” food is one that is described

with positive adjectives and connotations, and consists of less sugar, healthy fats, and

lighter foods. The use of nutritional terms, hedging, and multimodality are ways that

chefs are able to talk about “healthy” foods whether they are experts or not in nutrition.

The most explicit discourse about “healthy” food is through the use of lexical items such as nutritional terms. Ellie’s discourse has a proliferation of scientific terms such as “carrots are a great source of Beta-Carotene which turns into Vitamin A in your body and Vitamin A is essential for good vision” (Krieger, 2008, Episode: EK0303). The explicit references and knowledgeable tone legitimate her authority on healthy food.

While not nutritionists, other celebrity chefs may also explicitly use nutritional

terms in describing ingredients. However, the comments about nutrition may be framed

as a way to legitimize other behavior, such as eating richer foods. This is especially true

if the host is not known for his/her position on cooking lighter foods. For instance,

Michael Symon is known for his meat-centric cooking and restaurants and frames his discourse about healthy food in the context of eating meats. In a grilling episode,

Michael visits a butcher shop for pork chops and says:

If you’re going to eat a lot of pork, like Tim [his butcher guest] and I do, um, kale is probably the healthiest of the leafy green vegetables. It has tons of iron in it. It’s incredibly good for you and it lowers your cholesterol which is good because I’m going to whack a couple of pork chops today. (Symon, 2012, Episode: CCCLC-106H)

The praise for kale appears to be contradictory, coming from a meat-lover, yet is made valid through its justification of eating an excess of meat. In this case, health is

151

invoked to rationalize indulgence. Further, as a male celebrity chef, Michael’s validates his comments about liking kale—a more “feminine” food—with his priority for meat. His image as a masculine male is maintained.

Besides specific jargon, several discursive strategies are used in the discourse about health, specifically hedging. For instance, Bobby Flay uses hedges in his discourse about healthy food for a buckwheat noodle salad: “We have some soba, some buckwheat noodles, and you know that they’re healthy for you, that’s because they tell me they are” (2010, Episode: GT0302H). His reference to an abstract source of authority “they” validates his discourse about nutrition, and his cooking represents what is believed and constructed as common knowledge on nutrition.

Similarly, hedging and references to abstract, vague figures of authority are used by Ree Drummond in her comments about nutrition. In making chocolate-dipped bars,

Ree uses wheat germ for its texture but mentions its nutritional benefit: “Then I’ll add a cup of wheat germ. And it just adds a nice crunch, a nice flavor. Very very good for ya.

Or so I’ve heard” (Drummond, 2012, Episode: WU0307H). Invoking abstract authority figures (“they”), hedging, and minimizations (“just,” “or so I’ve heard”) allow the hosts to express their knowledge about nutrition, positioning themselves as an expert, but not violate the maxim of quality and thus not undermine their own authority nor contradict their approach to cooking, as a kind of shifting of credit to nutritional experts.

Further, the multimodal medium of cooking shows also relays messages about

“healthy” food. For instance, Rachael Ray tops pizza with arugula, as she narrates: “It’s like having a salad right on top of your pizza. Good food and good for you” (2003,

Episode: TM1D11). The visual complements the spoken discourse and supports the

152

host’s expertise about what is “good food and good for you.” Hosts introduce audiences to ingredients they might not be familiar with and demonstrate how to use them (e.g. celery root, fennel bulbs, jicama).

In sum, the celebrity chefs define “good” good as high quality, preferably fresh, always flavorful, and preferably locally sourced, and “healthy” food as nutritious.

Legitimation in the discourse is made through explicit culinary and scientific jargon, implicit through hedging and presuppositions, and multimodally through instruction and modeling.

5.2.3 Rationalization

Rationalization is legitimation by reference to goals and uses of institutionalized actions. Reyes (2011) understands rationalization as related to decisions made based on research and identifies that this strategy of legitimation is made through clauses and verbs denoting mental and verbal processes (e.g. “After exploring the options”). Agents rationalize an action as a means to an end; in cooking shows, money and time rationalize certain cooking practices and require specific kinds of expertise and knowledge.

5.2.3.1 Rationalization: money

In addition to being considered reliable sources, celebrity chefs can display indicators of “precision and exactness such as numbers” (Van Dijk, 1988, p. 84). Exact numbers can support the authority of the celebrity chefs and is realized most frequently in the discourse of two hosts who are particularly known for their budget-conscious cooking, Melissa D’Arabian and Sandra Lee.

Melissa promises on her show Ten Dollar Dinners how to cook dinner for four with only ten dollars. Throughout the show, Melissa uses discourse that rationalizes her

153

recipes and ingredient picks, creating guidelines on when to use cheaper ingredients

that would otherwise sacrifice the taste and quality of the recipe. In the excerpt below,

Melissa provides a “recipe rule” for the case of blue cheese dressing for salad:

Now, I have what I call the recipe rule for blue cheese, which is, if the blue cheese is going into a recipe, get the cheapest blue cheese you can find. All you really need is that characteristic, pungent strong taste of the blue cheese. [adding the blue cheese to a bowl] Your palate won’t really notice the difference between a cheap blue cheese or you know a finer blue cheese. So, remember the recipe rule when you’re buying blue cheese. This whole platter of salad for four people is just about three dollars, so really inexpensive. (D’Arabian, 2011, Episode: MN0503H)

While cheaper ingredients typically means inferior quality, Melissa rationalizes

the practice because “your palate won’t really notice the difference” and because of her

end goal of saving money (“this whole platter of salad for four people is just three

dollars, so really inexpensive”).

Similarly, Sandra Lee has the goal of saving money in her show Sandra’s Money

Saving Meals. She rationalizes ingredients through explicit discourse about money,

which is enhanced by visual effects. Dollar signs, numbers, and price comparisons are

shown on the screen in accompaniment to Sandra’s discourse. For example, for

“Million-Dollar Tango Steak,” Sandra narrates: “By the way, you might normally think

about skirt for this, but that is $7.99 a pound. My flat iron steak is only $4.49 a pound.

So I am saving $3.50 a pound, or by the way 44%” (Lee, 2010, Episode: SM0306H).

The comparative prices of meat are displayed in synchrony with her discourse on the screen: “Skirt steak: $7.99. Flat iron steak: $4.49. Savings: $3.50” (see Figure. 5-11)

(Lee, 2010, Episode: SM0306H). Like Melissa, Sandra uses rationalization to legitimize her cooking practices in reference to the goal of saving money.

154

Figure 5-12. Visual display of money savings validates Sandra Lee’s verbal discourse (Lee, 2010, Episode: SM0306H).

While Melissa and Sandra have money-saving tricks as the focus of their shows,

other celebrity chefs similarly acknowledge that their viewers may be on a budget. For

instance, Sunny praises frozen spinach as being “the best buy in the grocery store.

Hands down....And the reason it’s such a great buy is that this is equal to about four huge bags of spinach and all we’re doing is buying one container” (Anderson, 2010,

Episode: RE0604H). The comparison of quantity between frozen and fresh spinach

makes it a “great buy,” a virtue that Sunny repeats.

However, rationalization of money may be flouted, such as the combination of

expensive and inexpensive ingredients. Famous for this high-low combination is Ina

Garten, as illustrated in (a) Truffled Popcorn and (b) Roast Turkey with Truffle Butter.

(a) You do butter with popcorn. Why not truffle butter? I love this high and low thing, y’know, kind of like caviar and potatoes. (Garten, 2012, Episode: BX0610H)

(b) When I want to make a difference in a recipe, I can change the cooking process, but sometimes I can just change the ingredient. Say something that has butter in it, I love white truffle butter. It is surprisingly inexpensive. It’s like six to eight dollars. (Garten, 2012, Episode: BX0605H)

155

Ina explains that the use of high ingredients gives “such a luxurious twist” to a common food or classic dish, e.g. popcorn and roast turkey, respectively. At the same, she rationalizes that “I love this high and low thing;” “I love white truffle butter,” and “it

[white truffle butter] is surprisingly inexpensive. It’s like six to eight dollars.” Her discourse strategies legitimize not only personal taste preferences, that may be more open to debate, but also expertise and objective knowledge.

5.2.3.2 Rationalization: time

Time is a second frequently-invoked goal in rationalizing a cooking show host’s cooking style and even may become the host’s trademark, as is the case for Sandra

Lee and Rachael Ray.

Like her Money-Saving Meals, Sandra Lee uses rationalization to legitimize her first show Semi-Homemade Cooking. Besides money, Sandra also emphasizes time and convenience in her combination of 30% fresh and 70% semi-homemade ingredients to make “mouthwatering meals and desserts, prepared in minutes, that taste like they were made from scratch” (Food Network website). A typical recipe may be grilled salmon brushed with store bought orange marmalade and orange juice (Lee,

2007, Episode: SH0811H) or cinnamon roll bread pudding with instant vanilla pudding mix, evaporated milk cans, store-bought cinnamon rolls, combined with raisins, dates, and butter (Lee, 2008, Episode: SH1012H).

Another host well-known for her time-saving recipes is from Rachael Ray and her show 30 Minute Meals. The show differentiates itself from other cooking shows through the use of real-time aesthetics. Each show begins with the narrative: “In the time it takes you to watch this show I’ll have made a delicious and healthy meal from start to finish”

(introduction to 30 Minute Meals). For the next thirty minutes (really 20 minutes with 10

156

minutes of commercials), Rachael cooks and chats until she has made a “delicious and healthy meal.”

In sum, rationality includes means orientation: cooking with a means to an end

(e.g. cooking with carefully selected ingredients to save money or time) and explanation

(e.g. combining high-low brow ingredients to add luxury to a dish). Hosts legitimize practices by reference to their goals, uses, and effects (e.g. only spend ten dollars, use semi-homemade products, cook under thirty minutes, etc.).

The economic disparity between the celebrities and the average viewer must be noted. While celebrities purposefully choose to cook within a limited budget for the show, average viewers are careful with their grocery allotment out of necessity, not typically by choice. As Van Leeuwen (2008) points out,

Generally, the greater the power of a particular role in a social practice, the more often the agents who fulfill that role will be represented as intentional, as people who can decide to act on the world and succeed in this. (p. 114)

When rationalizing about money and time, hosts construct their discourse intentionally to provide budget-and-time-friendly recipes, even though they themselves do not necessarily need to practice their modeled cooking behavior.

5.3 Summary

The aim of the present chapter has been to investigate how celebrity chefs legitimize their expertise. This study provided a discursive analysis complemented with a multimodal analysis that contributes to existing research. The three legitimation strategies discussed above: Authorization, Moral Evaluation, and Rationalization (Van

Leeuwen, 2008) and the sub-categories, legitimize the cooking expert discourse and

157

social actions in the cooking show context. They are effective because the host and audience share certain values and the same world view.

Identifying legitimation strategies in the multimodal discourse on cooking shows provides an understanding of how and in what ways celebrity chefs construct their expertise. While merely appearing in the media may give celebrities authority (e.g. role model authority), this study showed that in order for the celebrity chefs to extend their influence to areas beyond cooking, such as food quality, taste, ingredients, budget, time, consumption, and health, they relied on multiple legitimation strategies that were linguistically realized in various ways such as presuppositions, politeness, lexicon, and numbers. The multimodal medium strengthened the discourse through visual proof of the celebrity chef performing certain actions, such as tending the garden or interacting with family and community members.

This study has proposed that celebrity chefs’ discourse is contradictory in two ways: first, they praise traditional American cuisine at the same that they advocate reinventing it, making the dishes lighter and fresher. Second, they exploit conformity by relying on shared beliefs at the same time that they challenge accepted practices. Both conflicting approaches project celebrity chefs as experts and authorities on food and cooking. The promotion of their cooking does not replace authorities of tradition and contemporary taste; rather, their discourse connects pre-established tastes with new tastes, presenting themselves as a certain new expert of contemporary taste, including values, ideas, and tastes.

The next chapter, Chapter 6, integrates the findings from the analysis from

Chapters 4 and 5, and provides suggestions for further study.

158

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

6.1 Overview

Discourse Analysis analyzes ways that language is used to perform particular social functions, such as the construction of expertise. As a way to identify what these functions are and how they are performed, this study conducted a linguistic and multimodal textual analysis. Through an integration of Discourse Analysis and

Multimodality, this study identifies particular communicative patterns within the context of media discourse in popular contemporary American food television channels.

This study drew on various theoretical approaches to analyze verbal and nonverbal discourse in cooking shows: narrative (Labov, 1972), interactional sociolinguistics, (Goffman 1959, 1967, 1974, 1981; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Van

Leeuwen, 2008), and multimodality (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996). This framework takes account of the complexity of television cooking shows through an identification of its narrative structure, the performance of talk, including politeness and legitimation strategies, and its multimodal medium. The study examined how multimodal elements— language, image, sound, space, gesture—contribute to the discourse of cooking shows.

Within this textual analysis frame, the study was motivated to explicate the findings and identify the values promoted. Celebrity chefs exercise influence as top cooking show hosts on Food Network and Cooking Channel, two major Food Network television channels in the U.S. With access to the media and public discourse, hosts are able to confirm and reproduce their authority as experts of a preferred American cuisine.

An analysis of the discourse structure and the discourse performance of the networks’ most popular cooking shows gives insight into how social actors’ authority is legitimized.

159

With references to authority, tradition, and values, celebrity chefs circulate discourses

about what constitutes “good” and “healthy” food. Hosts provide information, instruction,

and entertainment to present themselves as “ordinary” and “authentic,” which paradoxically reaffirms their position as experts and relatable.

In the following, I discuss the theoretical contributions of the present study. I situate the study’s findings in the academic scholarship on narrative and television studies and show ways that this study contributes. I conclude the study with its limitations and provide suggestions for future research in media discourse analysis.

6.2 Theoretical Contributions

The present study used Discourse Analysis and Multimodality, specifically from the approaches of narrative, interactional sociolinguistics, and legitimation, to explain media discourse in cooking shows. Within this frame, this study has sought to describe the processes through which meaning-making occurs and is disseminated through food’s presence on television. That is, the study aimed to clarify our understanding of food and lifestyle as presented on television. The analysis assessed the construction of the expert in the media through an account of verbal and nonverbal elements.

6.2.1 Narrative Contributions

This study began with a narrative analysis by identifying the structural and multimodal components of cooking shows. Labov’s (1972) narrative framework was helpful for identifying the overall narrative arc in cooking shows as well as the embedded storytelling; however, the framework was limited in its account of only spoken discourse. Other media discourse studies similarly focus predominantly on spoken text (Drew & Chilton, 2000; Scannell, 1998), giving detailed explanations of the conversations but do not or only lightly address the non-verbal elements of

160

communication. When analysis did include non-verbal elements, such as in

Koutsombogera and Papageorgiou’s (2009) study of Greek television interviews, it addressed facial features in analysis but did not address how the multimodal expressions were used together.

Further, no studies, to my knowledge, combine a narrative and multimodal analysis to identify the narrative structure of a media text. Filling this gap, this study identified and interpreted both the discourse and multimodal features that critically contribute to the narrative structure and to the participants’ performance, or conversational behavior in television cooking shows. Several findings include: image and sound cue openings and endings of segments, voiceover cues procedural discourse and adds authority and a continued presence of the celebrity chef, cooking action propels the episode forward, gestures and facial expressions acknowledge and include the audience, among other findings. Given the superfluity of television cooking shows and the daily role they have in meaning-making, it is surprising how few linguistic studies there are on cooking shows.

This study identified that cooking shows have an overall story structure comparable to other lifestyle programs. Moseley (2000) argues that the defining characteristic of makeover shows is the “moment of revelation” in which the beneficiary is shown seeing her/his transformation for the first time (p. 303). For cooking shows, this

“moment of revelation” could be characterized with the final plating of the dish. The transformation of raw ingredients to a completely new, aesthetically appealing composition both fascinates and rewards viewers whose interest and anticipation find relief and a sense of closure. The ultimate closure rests in the (almost always) positive

161

assessment of the food. Since guests are occasional, cooking show hosts are frequently alone and thus validate their own cooking skills. Moreover, even when guests are present, hosts have the primary responsible for producing the dish and naturally become the final taster of the recipe: they have “tasting rights” for the dish, just as the recipe teller has “telling rights” for the recipe, noted by Norrick (2011, p. 2742).

Traditional cooking shows are distinct from other types of cooking shows, such as competition and travel, and makeover shows in which validation comes from other sources, such as judges on cooking competitions and real estate agents on property shows who confirm and underline the status of the expert host. Instead, here, validation of the cooking on traditional cooking shows comes from the discourse of the hosts themselves.

Procedural discourse or recipe telling emerged as an essential component to the narrative structure. This study suggested that recipe telling constituted the complicating action for two narratives, the larger narrative of the entire cooking show and the smaller narrative of the dish being cooked. While Norrick’s (2011) study examined recipe telling within the context of natural conversation, it was limited to only verbal elements.

Instead, cooking shows present a richer form of recipe telling with their multimodality.

Televised recipe telling allows for non-verbal telling that can enhance and/or replace verbal telling. For instance, hosts can give instructions synchronous to their cooking demonstration, or hosts can point out a visual attribute of the cooking process such as

“this is what it should look like” instead of explicitly describing it.

As Norrick (2011) observes, recipe tellings may segue into and out of conversational narrative. Shifts in tense and person from first person past of narrative to

162

second person present imperative and characteristic openings and closings are ways

for the teller to mark off the recipe portion (Norrick, 2011). These language

characteristics of recipe telling found by Norrick (2011) in conversations between

individuals were also found to be true in the present study’s data of cooking show

monologues. This suggests that the host constructs a pseudo-conversation with the

viewers. Further, the present study identified additional linguistic features such as

adverbial markers (e.g. “now”) and connectives (e.g. “so,” “because,” “but,” “and,” “or”)

that indicated entry into and out of recipe telling and storytelling. This study also adds

that multimodal features of cooking shows cue transitions into recipe tellings such as

the textual display of the recipe title on the screen or the use of voiceover. In these

cases, pre-recorded scenes of the cooking are shown while the unseen host gives a

voiceover narration of the process. Further, this study adds that the host’s actual tasting

also cues the ending of the cooking and recipe telling.

Music can be used as a narrative device and can convey subtle messages to the

audience about the narrative and type of cooking on the show. Taking a multimodal and

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach, Mackay (2015) analyzes the features of a

Scottish political advertisement video and identifies that music conveys certain moods;

e.g. “sad, slow, halting, piano music” accompanies scenes for negative other- presentation (p. 339). While insightful, Mackay’s (2015) study falls short in identifying how the sound contributes to the overall narrative structure of the video. Other research examines the effects of music in commercials and suggests that music arouses consumer’s emotional state and can be used as a persuasive tool (Morris & Boone,

1998; Stout & Leckenby, 1988). In the present study, the analysis demonstrated how

163

music for day-time cooking shows performed various narrative and emotive functions: theme music creates familiarity and brand recognition, background music simulates the rhythm of the host’s casual, medium-paced conversation and establishes an upbeat, positive ambience. While the cooking shows are not overtly selling a specific product like commercials, future research could investigate sound and how it stimulates viewers and what emotions are aroused.

Moreover, music and sound are particularly effective with regard to the positioning of listeners. In reference to Van Leeuwen’s (1999) terms of the “figure” (the focal point of attention) and the “ground” (background), sound creates different degrees of social distance between the hosts and the audience, from the intimacy of soft music or silence to the increased formality of louder music (pp. 15-16). Especially dramatic is the conjunction of silence with the host’s tasting to emphasize the performance of the host. As an example, in tasting her completed dishes, Giada De Laurentiis seems to have a special relationship with both the food and the camera. The music pauses, demands the audience’s attention, and emphasizes Giada’s “gustatory mmm” expression which Wiggins (2002) describes as an “embodied sense of pleasure” (p.

311). In her analysis of mealtime conversations, Wiggins (2002) observes that expressions of pleasure, while seemingly spontaneous, are recipient-oriented and structured in conversation. I suggest too that the cooking show gustatory expressions are planned; similar to a “turn” in the conversation (Sacks et al., 1974), gustatory expressions such as “so delicious” and groaning indicate the happy ending of the discourse and closes the recipe’s story.

164

While cooking shows must have recipe tellings, they are just as likely to also have storytelling. This study identified storytelling as part of the narrative structure of cooking shows, suggesting that its inclusion adds context to the cooking show, and importantly, adds entertainment. De Solier (2005) identifies that contemporary cooking shows challenge the traditional distinction in television between factual and entertainment programming, describing the hybrid form as “culinary edutainment” (p.

467). This study draws attention to storytelling as evidence for this change in traditional cooking shows. The Food Network explicitly relates storytelling to its programming in its media kit:

Food Network’s programming is built around authentic storytelling that’s as much about what’s going on in people’s lives as what they’re eating. It’s dramatic true stories of people in the food business, whether we’re watching them save a restaurant, find a job, or even compete for their own Food Network show. It’s a look at how some of our favorite personalities live, and what they like to serve to family and friends. And all of our shows create emotional connections and build loyalty. (Food Network website)

The traditional cooking shows examined in this study are the “favorite personalities” with their recipes showing “what they like to serve to family and friends” and stories that “create emotional connections and build loyalty.” Future research on storytelling used in other cooking show genres, such as the reality shows of “dramatic true stories of people in the food business” indicated by the Food Network media kit, would be interesting as the stories would likely realize different effects, such as evoke high emotive responses from the viewer.

6.2.2 Discourse Analysis Contributions

The second portion of Chapter 4 examined the discourse performance of celebrity chefs, specifically in four areas: fresh talk, storytelling, synthetic personalization, and politeness. Goffman’s concept of “fresh talk” (1981) was helpful in

165

recognizing why and how the scripted talk of cooking shows seems natural and spontaneous. However, Goffman does not identify specific pragmatic features that make up fresh talk. In a study of two British celebrity chefs, Chiaro (2013) identifies a series of linguistic features adopted by each which she describes as simulation of fresh talk, including fillers, vagueness, and displays of emotion. The present study adds that the impression of fresh talk was created through at least four different ways verbally: informal addresses (“what’s up everybody?”), idiosyncracies (e.g. “Bam!” for Emeril

Lagasse; “Righteous!” for Guy Fieri, etc.), restarts (“ju-just”), fillers (“um, uh”), and gustatory expressions (e.g. “mmm, so delicious!”). The present study also identified multimodal effects that stimulated fresh talk such as purposefully unedited bloopers, food too hot or cold to the touch, and working kitchen equipment.

The present study examined two additional discourse performances: storytelling and synthetic personalization, and found that both contribute to the construction of the celebrity chef as more relatable. Chaney’s (2002) concept of “ordinariness” and

Fairclough’s (1989) “synthetic personalization” recognize a shift in media discourse; public figures try to close the distance from viewers by appearing normal and ‘ordinary’ to viewers. Similarly, O’Keefe (2006) suggests that radio call-in presenters construct a

“pseudo-intimate” and “pseudo-familiar” relationship with their audience based on their presentation as ordinary friends with ordinary lives. The present study identified that storytelling, particularly the personal and confessional types of narrative, framed the celebrity chef as a trusted friend. Stories about cooking mistakes and disclosing of private information share characteristics of women’s talk; Tannen (1991) describes men’s talk as “report talk,” which emphasizes relaying of information versus women’s

166

talk as “rapport talk,” which emphasizes intimacy. Linguistic features such as “telling secrets” (Tannen, 1991, p. 80) and the use of hedges, minimal responses and collaborative talk, according to Coates (1996), are ways to build solidarity. While these may be common features found in women’s talk, this study finds that these features are also present in the discourse of male celebrity chefs. Instead of attributing the language features to the gender of the host, this study’s analysis places these characteristics as part of synthetic personalization. Television cooking show narrative as informal, intimate talk between celebrity chef hosts and viewers establishes both individual identity and cultivates friendship, demonstrating shared practices and interests.

Pronouns are another strategy that foster the perception of a personal relationship with the viewer. Celebrity chefs frequently addressed viewers directly through “you” and created inclusivity with collective pronouns “we” and “us.” The multimodal medium of television further created an illusion of intimacy with close-ups of the host, direct eye gaze, and the domestic setting. In her analysis of the rhetorical techniques employed by Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO), Smith (2000) argues that the rhetoric produces subject positions for its (mostly) female audience.

That is, MSLO attempts to define its audience and shape them into three audience types: the disciplined subject, the therapeutic subject, and the consumer subject (Smith,

2000, pp. 342-343). While Martha Stewart’s didactic role and image of perfection create an inequitable power relationship, this present study suggests that the cooking show hosts are not presented as authoritarian. Rather, the discourse is not so much coercive as it is persuasive in encouraging viewers to follow a certain food and lifestyle practice.

The audience is asked to identify with the host’s point of view in cooking, and by

167

extension, a prescribed way of shopping, serving, and eating food. Rather than giving orders, hosts achieve power by trying to convince others—persuading them—to see things as they do and act as they do; it is a more complex and subtle, yet more effective method. Taken together, storytelling and pronouns produce an equitable power relationship, while creating the illusion of a personal relationship with the hosts.

Politeness, as informed by Brown and Levinson (1987), provided another way to examine how the celebrity chefs constructed an interpersonal relationship with viewers.

This study showed that, while cooking shows are typically monologues and hosts are cooking by themselves, hosts were still attentive to their (absent) viewers’ face needs.

Politeness strategies were used to avoid imposing on their viewers’ wants and needs but also to gain their favor and approval. Pronoun use—especially first person plural

“we”—is significant in that it implies in-group membership and unity between the speaker and the audience. Pronouns not only contribute to producing solidarity and consensus, they also influence the audience, albeit indirectly. For instance, Ina’s use of

“we” is central to the process of establishing and maintaining a sense of commonality

(“we can solve this problem...”). This use of pronouns combined with “markers of shared information” such as “you know,” also called markers of “pseudo-intimacy” by O’Keefe

(2006, p. 97), function to create commonality and build trust with the audience. Hosts aim to come across as authentic, ordinary, and honest, which is expressed not the least in their stories. What storytelling and pronouns seem to share is a strategic orientation to participants’ “face,” a key element in maintaining public self-image.

Further, cooking show hosts obey conversational maxims formulated by Grice

(1975) with discourse that is truthful, relevant, relatively complete, and clearly

168

expressed. Stories about the food are inspired by food experiences, kitchen confessions, memories of childhood, and stages of life. Hosts’ discourse of recipe telling is geared towards efficient understanding by various means. For instance, more distinct, slower pronunciation, less complex syntax with conditionals and hedges, the use of basic lexical items, and a topic that the audience is familiar with all facilitate understanding of the cooking instructions. Like the verbal discourse, this study suggests that the visual discourse also must follow maxims to aid comprehension. Editing techniques are employed to ensure that the audience clearly receives the intended messages in television shows (Silverblatt, 2008), like cooking shows. The camera movement must be relevant and closely connected to the discourse structure of the cooking show. The proximity of the camera at key moments reinforces the recipe telling and story-telling and shapes the interest level of the audience. Close-up shots of the hosts reminiscing on a childhood memory create the illusion that viewers know the host well, and inspire public confidence, suggesting that they have nothing to hide, following the maxim of being truthful. The choreography of host’s comments with images of cooking is partly to entertain and partly to provide editorial context. Thus, how the content is communicated—performed—and received can be enhanced through editorial techniques.

In sum, Chapter 4 illustrated that cooking shows position the audience as equals.

In this way, cooking shows are distinct from other public “official” discourses that position speakers high in power. Instead of establishing an expert/learner hierarchy, celebrity chefs create an inclusive “we” with their followers. The domestic frame and the interpersonal discourse strategies—fresh talk, storytelling, personal pronouns, and

169

politeness strategies—of cooking shows are ways that celebrity chefs relate to and

empower home cooks to have confidence in the kitchen.

6.2.3 Legitimation Strategies Contributions

In Chapter 5, this study drew on Van Leeuwen’s (2008) framework of legitimation

strategies to systematically analyze the discourse of celebrity chefs that legitimized their

authority. Legitimation strategies include Authorization, Moral Evaluation, and

Rationalization, and Mythopoesis, which was discussed in Chapter 4. In the case of

Authorization, legitimate authority is vested in subcategories: Personal Authority, Expert

Authority, Role Model Authority, Authority of Tradition, and Authority of Conformity. In

the subcategories, additional themes were identified, such as references to maternal

figures and cooking classic dishes, all in turn to facilitate the construction of the celebrity

as the friendly expert.

Being on television, cooking show hosts exercised Personal Authority as

celebrities and as recognized experts on cooking. The occasional presence of other

celebrity guests, primarily other Food Network stars, on the host’s show further gave the

host legitimate status as a celebrity chef. Van Leeuwen (2008) notes that personal

authority legitimation typically takes the form of “verbal process” clauses which he

draws on from Halliday’s (1985) description of English semantics. While verbal clauses

(e.g. “she says...”; “they tell...”) are used by celebrity chefs, especially in reporting the speech of others, this study finds that personal authority was more frequently exercised through mental processes, which as Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) describe, “are concerned with our experience of the world of our own consciousness” (p. 197). Mental

process clauses were more evident in cooking shows with verbs serving as process of

sensing, such as perceptive (e.g. see, hear, feel, taste, smell), cognitive (e.g. think,

170

believe, know, understand, realize, guess, forget, remember, surprise, occur to),

desiderative (e.g. want, wish, decide, hope), and emotive (e.g. like, love, adore, dislike,

enjoy) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2013 [1985], p. 257). These verbs of perception indicate

the celebrity chef’s cognition and understanding about food and overall world frame.

The present study’s analysis observed a second legitimation strategy, Expert

Authority, and examined its discursive construction in the multimodal discourse and celebrity brand. The use of culinary terms has been noted to convey expertise, particularly in studies on the written form of recipes, such as cookbooks (Cotter, 1997;

Muhlesien, 2003; Tomlinson, 1986) and food blogs (Diemer & Frobenius, 2013). Less so has been observed that cooking show discourse also relies on culinary jargon that has the same effect in displaying the speaker’s expertise and knowledge. Besides using technical language, cooking show hosts demonstrate their skill in their cooking techniques such as advanced knife skills and perfect sear marks in grilling meats.

Further, this study suggests that the cooking show set may signal expertise; professional-grade equipment (e.g. Guy Fieri’s Guy’s Big Bite) and science-like beakers

(e.g. Alton Brown’s Good Eats) index expertise. Swenson (2009) observes that some male cooking shows mark their professionalism by wearing traditional white chef jackets

(p. 42), and I add that some female cooking show hosts mark their domesticity with aprons (e.g. Sara Moulton); however, I note that these observations are dated as these shows are older and were shown in the early 2000s. More common now in domestic cooking shows is that hosts wear their own style of clothing that enhances their celebrity brand. The wearing of professional cooking apparel occurs more frequently on cooking

171

competitions, such as Chopped and Cutthroat Kitchen on Food Network where four chefs battle against each other.

This study analyzed how celebrity chefs exemplify Role Model Authority, a legitimation inherent to their celebrity status and public performances on television. As media and cultural scholars have observed, celebrities, and by extension their role model authority, play an increasingly important role in lifestyle media (Hewer &

Brownlie, 2013; Lewis, 2008). Van Leeuwen (2008) notes that role model authority can be conveyed visually, because many celebrities are visually recognizable. Simply showing the celebrity chefs engaged in certain behavior, such as shopping at local markets, legitimizes the action. In this regard, the visual mode could be given priority over spoken discourse. Few studies have considered a multimodal hierarchy, besides

Mackay (2015), who suggests that while modal forms can be used simultaneously, one mode may be given higher priority over another mode (p. 332). Cases of modal hierarchy are occasionally evident in cooking shows, particularly when both the voiceover and images of cooking narrate the recipe and cooking steps; the former gives the details and the latter the emotional impact. But, I would argue that it is difficult to determine which mode is given the highest priority in cooking shows, as both verbal and nonverbal sounds are effective for evoking the intended mood and response from viewers (see the reference above about music and gustatory expressions). Further, one mode can bridge two other modes together. For instance, country music in the opening scenes of The Pioneer Woman can be seen as a bridging mode in connecting the visual scenery of the frontier with the text spoken by the host Ree Drummond.

172

In Authority of Tradition, celebrity chefs relied on shared understandings about

accepted social practices and either validated them or replaced them with new ideas to

suit contemporary society. In her study of amateur celebrity chef cookbooks, Tominc

(2014) finds that authority of tradition was used as a strategy to reinforce the image of

an idealized family but also to legitimize the presented practices of the celebrity chefs

(p. 326). Similarly, in cooking shows, this study found that references to traditional foods

and “mom’s cooking” were invoked to validate the recipe and the celebrity chef. This

study adds that the strategy of authority of tradition also worked to enhance the celebrity

chef’s appeal to home viewers. That is, the celebrity’s cooking draws more on home

cooking for inspiration and less so from the professional sphere. Indeed, when the

cooking is not from the home, it is made explicit, such as in Ina Garten’s episode

Restaurant Rules in which she shares a collection of restaurant-inspired dishes

(Barefoot Contessa). This distinction between home and professional cooking exemplifies the concept of alignment (Goffman, 1974). Celebrity chefs orient their conduct and discourse toward a positive portrayal of home cooking, appealing to their viewers for mutually shared values and beliefs, or schema, i.e. the “recognized and preferred ways of thinking, feeling and acting” (Stokes & Hewitt, 1976, p. 843). Knowing that their viewers are predominantly home cooks, celebrity chefs achieve what Bubel

(2011) describes as “conversational alignment” and “cultural alignment” in the discourse and affiliation with home cooking (pp. 230-235).

Like Authority of Tradition, Authority of Conformity relies on presuppositions to establish authority legitimation. The analysis identified various types of presuppositions built into the discourse: general subjects (e.g. we, everyone), high frequency modality

173

(e.g. always, a lot), WH-questions, lexical items, and factive expressions. In a study of

presuppositions and food magazine advertisements, Buoso (2012) identifies that

presuppositions were used to mitigate criticism about readers’ being overweight and

thus fulfill a “euphemistic” function (p. 29). While cooking shows do not address

sensitive issues like body weight, hosts use presuppositions for the same pragmatic

reason: tell viewers to do something that would otherwise threaten their face and

consequently make them feel uncomfortable. For instance, the celebrity may make a

negative reference to a store-bought ingredient, and instead of directly telling viewers

that they have poor taste, infer that the celebrity’s recipe is superior.

This study analyzed the construction of Moral Evaluation in cooking shows and

how it promotes, constructs, and/or reproduces meanings and dominant ideas about

food and cooking, specifically that of “good” food and “healthy” food. From an environmental and socially-concerned perspective, Cramer (2011) identified four themes of sustainability in Food Network daytime programming: civic agriculture,

seasonality, vegetarianism, and sensuality. References to home gardens and

preferences for seasonal foods were also evident in this study’s data with chefs shown shopping at local markets and tending to herb gardens. The show hosts encouraged meatless meals or adding vegetables, but as Cramer (2011) notes, the vegetarian meals are often compared to meat substitutes. Also finding a health discourse, this study observed that when the hosts invoked a health and nutrition discourse in their narrative, they used scientific terminology (e.g. “iron,” “lowers your cholesterol”) hedging

(e.g. “kinda”), and references to abstract sources of authority (e.g. “they”) to validate their discourse. This minimization of agency allowed celebrity chefs, none of whom are

174

doctors, to maintain their credibility in a society that long esteems traditional Western medicine.

This study found that one of most prioritized aspects of food given by celebrity chefs relates to sensuality, Cramer’s (2011) fourth identified theme. Sensuality refers to the host’s pleasure in taste and appreciation for food’s aesthetics. Through its multimodal analysis, this study identified that close-ups of the chef tasting the food added to the discourse of appreciation. Noting the discrepancy between the rise in cooking shows and fall in home cooking, Adema (2000) critiques the heightened sensuality in cooking shows:

Food Network offers vicarious pleasure for the arm chair cook and the couch potato alike. It epitomizes the culture of visual and psychological consumption: of cooking, of tasting, of hunger, of passion, of the familiar and the exotic, and of the television viewer’s willingness to be entertained by someone performing in the kitchen. (p. 114)

Yet this “vicarious” viewing should not imply that viewers are simply passively watching food being cooked. The audience must be convinced to accept the messages conveyed about the preferred taste and lifestyle. Instead of simply being entertaining, this study suggests that cooking shows themselves are forms of advertisements. The

Food Network and Cooking Channel attract large numbers of viewers who enjoy the merchandising of products. In addition to the sponsors of the food programming, the entertainment content itself is advertising—the cooking shows provide exposure for celebrity chefs, promoting chefs’ cookbooks, products, and restaurants.

The last section of Chapter 5, Rationalization, considered how celebrity chefs rationalized their cooking by their ultimate goals. The study found that time and money were top priorities in cooking shows with programs dedicated to teaching viewers strategies on how to manage the scarcity of either or both of them. Text on screen with

175

cost comparisons was found to be one way that further legitimized the celebrity chefs’ discourse. Sharing concerns for scarcity of time and money, hosts come into viewers’ homes and lives as understanding friends, and remain as welcome guests because of the honesty and grace with which they present themselves. The text with dollar signs in addition to the calorie differences offers an objective and clear measure of evaluation, which provides a counter-balance to the emotive appeals. A related strategy is the projection of the chefs as ‘real’ people that lends authenticity and credibility to the cooking show. The more normal the hosts’ performance (i.e. having concerns of daily life), the more the audience may identify with them and believe their discourse.

In this study, I have demonstrated that an intersection of discourse analysis and multimodality provides a useful approach to investigate media discourse, specifically contemporary cooking shows. The framework recognizes the complexity of the construction of contemporary celebrity experts, which links the performance to various strategies of authority of legitimation. It analyzes the visual, aural, spatial, and verbal cues in cooking shows that create cohesion across the narrative segments. Accordingly, this study fills an analytical gap identified by Herman and Page (2010) who call for a rich interdisciplinary dialogue in analyzing narrative and multimodality and by Murray (2013) who identifies a sparse body of research on food and television, and on food and media more broadly despite the history and recent meteoric rise in popularity of television food shows. Further, the study answers the call by Van Leeuwen (2008) that legitimation by moral values be brought to the surface and identified salient values promoted by the celebrity chefs.

176

6.3 Celebrity Chefs as the Expert

This study proposes that cooking shows are produced and purposefully created for particular effects and for strategic reasons. The multimodal discourse and legitimation strategies frameworks that underlie this analysis of traditional cooking shows position celebrity chefs as experts in food, cooking, and by extension, culture.

Whether the celebrity chefs were talking about tradition or the present, personal or professional experiences, fast or cheap, healthy or indulgent, the celebrity chefs were consistently framed as experts. The celebrity chef’s performance is even more convincing through the use of interpersonal strategies such as storytelling, politeness, and fresh talk that created impressions of friendship and connectedness with the viewer.

Examining the word choice furnished perspective into the themes that the celebrities in this study decided to emphasize. Silverblatt’s (2008) study on political communications identifies connotative words—words that carry associations or meanings in addition to the literal definition—that fall into several categories, one being

“traditional vernacular” (p. 367). As applied to television cooking shows, these terms like

“home” and “family” respond to viewers’ desire for stability, meaning, and connection with others. As such, these terms are primary topics of celebrities’ stories. For instance, promoting membership in a group (e.g. “we always have Sunday brunch,” Brunch

@Bobby’s), unites common audience habits. In establishing standards of behavior— how to cook and eat, how to act, how to talk, how to look—cooking shows have become a part of viewers’ lifestyle and their meaning of family.

The second component of celebrity construction, the nonverbal discourse, in cooking shows and in contemporary culture at large, is a primary means of media

177

discourse. Another of Silverblatt’s (2008) categories for connotative images in communication, “primary personal experiences” show celebrity chefs at home and play, surrounded by family and friends (p. 370). The message is that the host is a good family man/woman who cares about family values. Also, “bonding images” (Silverblatt, 2008, p. 371) consist of scenes the celebrities positioned within the community among ordinary people, e.g. attending church, local parades, grocery shopping, in order to become symbolic members of the group. The images send the message that the celebrities are like viewers, share their concerns, support them, and now want to be supported. Also, hosts make frequent use of “competency symbols” (Silverblatt, 2008, p. 371) that indicate their professionalism, such as their own kitchen products. Hosts in the kitchen are often surrounded by impressive-looking appliances and cookbook volumes. The implication is that the hosts have actually cooked with them and even written these books, and are experienced, expert people.

The boom of television cooking show has transformed the American celebrity chef phenomenon. Continuous media exposure gives hosts unprecedented access to the general public and the platform to influence and shape public attitudes and behaviors. However, the unchallenging format of cooking shows may conceal information and mislead the audience. Consequently, viewers may believe what is presented without testing or questioning what is true. An understanding of media discourse can empower individuals to make independent choices based upon a critical awareness of the messages conveyed in the media. How hosts communicate both verbally and visually can have great impact on their audience.

178

6.4 Study Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This study’s analysis and findings are limited by several factors. First, the television cooking shows in this study’s data are all popular contemporary American food television shows, which offer accessible and plentiful material; yet, given the abundance of food shows today, there are innumerable programs in need of research.

For instance, there is a need for further exploration of cooking shows on public channels such as PBS and ABC or cooking channels produced and shown in different cultures

(e.g. Asian, Hispanic, Indian), because it would broaden understanding of media discourse. Second, the study investigated the traditional instructional format, but the proliferation of food-related competition, talk, game, and reality television demands study too. Thus, academic work that addresses food television’s different formats and genres would help delineate more specific categories from the current broad term of

“cooking show.” Also, this study only lightly considered the food television audience, yet investigations of reception, such as the when, where, why, and how of people watching food television are open for research. Further, research that examines identity construction within kitchen culture such as the presentation of masculinity and femininity would be enlightening. Finally, this study focused on the celebrity’s platform on television, a major public platform, yet the study of discourse performance may benefit from other mediums.

The following is a sampling of questions to prompt future studies of media discourse and food television.

• How is television food production and operation created, branded, and circulated nationally and internationally?

• How do the various channels differ in terms of the mechanics, marketing, and reception?

179

• What is the effect of globalization on food television?

• What intercultural (mis)perceptions are produced on food television?

• How do discourse and multimodality work together in different food television genres, such as competition, talk, game and reality shows? And more broadly, in different television genres such as news, sports, reality shows, game shows, and drama series?

• How are celebrity chefs understood by audiences in their everyday lives? How do viewers obtain and interpret discourses about food from television?

• How does a multimodal form of discourse affect viewers? Does non-verbal discourse have more impact than words, such as generating certain moods and feelings of viewers?

• Social media is an interactive multimodal medium that allows people to create, share, and respond to others in a virtual space. How do celebrity chefs create a following and maintain a connection with their fans? And reciprocally, how do fans create a community in social media on the celebrity’s platform?

• What would a comparison of mediums, such as print vs digital vs television, reveal in regards to the process by which the construction of expertise is exercised?

180

APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHY OF CELEBRITY CHEFS

The following section provides a more extensive biography about each celebrity chef and cooking show. Factors influencing their culinary training and rise to fame are highlighted. Like the overview above, the chefs are ordered alphabetically by their first name, as the hosts are known as such by the media and by viewers.

Aarti Sequeira. Aarti is an Indian chef, cookbook author, television personality, wife, and mother. Born in Mumbai, but raised in Dubai, Aarti has traveled and lived around the world. She graduated from Northwestern University in Journalism and worked for CNN before moving to Los Angeles as a newlywed. In 2007, she attended

New School of Cooking in Culver City and started an online cooking variety show. In

2010, she won Season 6 of Next Food Network Star and hosted Aarti Party for three seasons with reruns shown on Cooking Channel. Aarti continues to contribute to Food

Network as a judge and guest on other cooking shows, such as Guy’s Grocery Games.

In Aarti Party, she shares easy ways to cook American favorite dishes enhanced by

Indian spices and techniques. The kitchen set is colorful and bright with pink flower prints, complementing the trademark flower that Aarti tucks behind one ear.

Alton Brown. Alton is a cinematographer and video director who decided to switch to the food industry after working a decade and finding the cooking shows he watched during shoots to be dull. Convinced that he could do better, Alton pursued his cooking passion and attended culinary school. Soon after, Alton tapped into all his training and personal interests to create Good Eats, a food show that blends pop culture, kitchen science, and common sense for plain good eating. Premiered in 1999,

181

Good Eats aired for fourteen seasons on Food Network and began airing on Cooking

Channel in 2011. Alton is food historian, scientist, and commentator on Food Network series Iron Chef America and Cutthroat Kitchen, both competition cooking shows, and host on Next Iron Chef, Next Food Network Star, and holiday specials (e.g.

Thanksgiving Live!).

Bobby Deen. Bobby is a self-proclaimed “Georgia Boy” and worked with his older brother Jamie in their mother Paula’s kitchen at age eighteen. Bobby, along with

Jamie and their mom, founded a small Savannah catering business, which grew into one of Savannah’s most-loved restaurants, The Lady & Sons. As a frequent guest on

Paula’s Food Network show, Paula’s Home Cooking, Bobby became comfortable on television and soon garnered his own audience. In 2006, Bobby and Jamie co-hosted their first cooking show together Road Tasted, a travel show that ran two seasons.

Bobby also hosts Holiday Baking Championship and Spring Baking Championship, both on Food Network. In 2012, Bobby started his own show Not My Mama’s Meals, which continues to air on Cooking Channel. In the show, Bobby shows viewers how to recreate his mother’s meals made famous for the enormous amount of butter and grease but in a “leaner, lighter” way that suits his current life in New York City.

Bobby Flay. Bobby is a celebrity chef, restaurateur, cookbook author, and media personality. Bobby attended the French Culinary Institute, graduated in 1984, and quickly worked up the restaurant chain, currently owning 24 restaurants. Since his debut on Food Network in 1994, Bobby has hosted thirteen cooking shows, eight of which continue to run, including a competition show called Beat Bobby Flay. One of his how-to cooking shows, BBQ Addiction takes outdoor grilling to a whole new level with a variety

182

of grills (e.g. Argentinian grill, rotisserie spit, smoker, gas grill, charcoal, Chinese box), and ingredients (e.g. halibut, peaches, lamb, pizza, lobster, burgers). BBQ Addiction began in 2011 and continues to show on Food Network. His second how-to cook show,

Brunch @Bobby’s, is indoors where Bobby prepares savory and sweet brunch dishes and cocktails. The show started in 2010 and continues to show on Cooking Channel.

Ellie Krieger. Ellie is host of Food Network’s Healthy Appetite. Her warmth and charisma make her the leading nutritionist in the media today. As a fashion model during her late teens and early 20s, Ellie became conscientious of what she was eating and consequently changed her eating habits to be healthier. A registered dietitian, Ellie has a master’s degree in nutrition from Columbia University and completed her undergraduate degree at Cornell University. She was an adjunct professor at New York

University in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health. Ellie has been at the forefront of First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign and has done extensive work in the media, contributing a regular column for The Washington

Post, USA Today and USA Weekend, writing for countless health magazines, and has made guest expert appearances on many television programs including Dr. Oz, Good

Morning America, The CBS Early Show, and CNN. In her cooking show Healthy

Appetite, Ellie creates fast, simple, and healthy recipes and offers strategies for eating well in order to have more energy and feel great.

Giada De Laurentiis. Giada is an Italian-born American chef, cooking show host, restaurateur, Emmy Award winner, correspondent on NBC’s Today Show, and author of bestselling cookbooks and children’s adventure books. A graduate from Le

Cordon Bleu in Paris, Giada worked at several restaurants in Los Angeles and founded

183

a catering company. In July 2014, she opened her first restaurant GIADA inside the

Cromwell in Las Vegas. Giada began her career on Food Network in 2002 with

Everyday Italian, followed with Giada’s Weekend Getaways in 2007. She currently is a

judge, host, and mentor of the highly popular series Next Food Network Star, and stars

in and directs her own show Giada at Home, which premiered in 2008. This study

analyzes Everyday Italian and Giada at Home, which feature Giada cooking in her

California home kitchen for friends and family. Her style blends authentic Italian cuisine

with California freshness.

Jamie Deen. Jamie is the oldest son of Food Network former host Paula Deen and began making regular appearances on her cooking shows. Soon after, Jamie and his younger brother Bobby launched a travel show, Road Tested, on Food Network where they explored America in search of comfort cooking. The success of the program began to draw younger people and a new audience to the number of Deen family fans.

Together the brothers published four cookbooks, expanded a line of spices, barbecue sauces, and T-shirts, and currently run Paula’s restaurant, The Lady & Sons, in

Georgia. This study analyzes Jamie’s domestic cooking show, Home for Dinner with

Jamie Deen, where he creates family meals for his wife and their two children in

Savannah, Georgia.

Guy Fieri. Guy charged onto Food Network after winning Season 2 of Next Food

Network Star in 2006. This “culinary rock star” premiered his first show, Guy’s Big Bite,

the domestic cooking show of particular interest in this study. Now, Fieri headlines

Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives with twenty-three seasons and returning, in which he

travels throughout the country, visiting viewer-recommended ‘joints,’ talking to people,

184

and tasting their specialties. He has written three cookbooks; two feature his “triple D”

(Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives) show. The likable, laid-back Californian with his

trademark bleached-blond, spiked hair began cooking at the age of ten selling pretzels

from a bicycle cart. Several years later, he studied abroad in France where he gained

appreciation for international cuisine. Fieri co-owns five restaurants and launched his own line of sauces, salsas, food products, and clothing apparel. He started CWK

(Cooking With Kids), a program that encourages developing healthy eating habits and empowers parents to include their children in the kitchen. Guy also headlines competition show Guy’s Grocery Games and costars with Food Network star, Rachael

Ray, Rachael vs Guy: Celebrity Cook-Off and Rachael vs Guy: Kids Cook-Off. Fieri brings an element of rowdiness to American food television, and his prime-time shows attract more male viewers than any others on the network.

Ina Garten. Ina is a bestselling cookbook author, successful business woman, and former staff member of the White House Office of Management and Budget. She is not formally trained in cooking but is self-taught with the aid of French (e.g. Julia Child) and New England (e.g. Sarah Leah Chase) cookbooks. She began her career in food as an owner of a specialty food shop named Barefoot Contessa in the Hamptons, New

York, from 1978-1996. After selling the store, she wrote her first cookbook Barefoot

Contessa Cookbook (1999), which was an immediate bestseller. In 2002, by the time she had written three cookbooks, all bestsellers, Food Network asked her to host her own cooking show Barefoot Contessa. The show continues to run and is filmed at Ina’s home in the Hamptons where she cooks and hosts dinner parties for her husband

Jeffrey and intimate friends. Ina explains that Barefoot Contessa means ‘earthy and

185

elegant,’ which reflects her style of fresh ingredients, time-saving tips, home entertaining, and ‘fool-proof’ recipes.

Jeff Mauro. Jeff won Season 7 of Next Food Network Star in 2011 and now hosts Food Network’s Sandwich King. In his Emmy-nominated series, Sandwich King,

Jeff combines his humor and likable persona, which he developed as a professional comedian in Chicago and Hollywood, with his specialty in sandwiches, which he crafted as co-owner of a deli with his cousin. Jeff attended Le Cordon Bleu culinary school and returned to his hometown of Chicago where he taught cooking lessons, worked as a private chef, and performed during weekends. He lives in Chicago with his wife, Sarah, and their five year-old son, Lorenzo, who are frequent guests on Sandwich King. The show begins its sixth season in 2015 and features the art of sandwich-making, or as Jeff is fond of saying, “You can make any meal into a sandwich, and any sandwich into a meal.” Jeff, known for being a “ham on a roll,” also hosts the culinary talk show The

Kitchen with five other Food Network celebrity chefs.

Kelsey Nixon. Kelsey is an Emmy-nominated cooking show host, cookbook author, wife, and mother. She entered the food media industry with Kelsey’s Kitchen, a college cooking show at Brigham Young University that emphasized fast, fun, and affordable meals for college students. After graduating with a degree in Broadcast

Journalism, Kelsey attended Le Cordon Bleu-Hollywood and received further training from the French Culinary Institute in New York City. She worked on NBC’s The Martha

Stewart Show and Food Network’s Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee. In

2011, she was a finalist on Season 4 on Next Food Network Star, and currently hosts

Kelsey’s Essentials on Cooking Channel, which is executive produced by Bobby Flay.

186

Kelsey teaches tips and techniques for the home cook from the show’s New York City

apartment-style kitchen.

Melissa D’Arabian. Melissa is a best-selling cookbook author and winner of

Season 5 Next Food Network Star. She graduated from the University of Vermont with a

degree in Political Science and, after a period working as part of the entertainment staff

on cruise ships, Melissa earned an MBA from Georgetown University. While working in

finance in Euro Disney, she met and married a French man. Following the birth of her

four daughters, she decided to become a stay-at-home mom and developed her niche

for creating meals that were budget-friendly and still satisfying. A video made for local

moms on making homemade yogurt landed her an audition spot on the Next Food

Network Star. Despite having no formal training, Melissa won and continues to share

her budget techniques and cooking on her show Ten Dollar Dinners. A natural

extension of her show is her first cookbook, Ten Dollar Dinners: 140 Recipes and Tips

to Elevate Simple, Fresh Meals Any Night of the Week (2012), followed by her second,

Supermarket Healthy: Recipes and Know-How for Eating Without Spending a Lot

(2014). She is also a judge on Guy Fieri’s Guy’s Grocery Games.

Michael Chiarello. Michael is an acclaimed chef, vintner, culinary and lifestyle trends pioneer, cookbook author, businessman, and owner of several award-winning

Napa Valley restaurants. He is a graduate from the Culinary Institute of America.

Michael has been a national television host for more than a decade on PBS, Food

Network, and Cooking Channel. His Emmy Award-winning show Easy Entertaining with

Michael Chiarello is a casual entertaining cooking show shot on location in Napa Valley

187

and Trefethen Winery. The show ran ten seasons, from 2003-2007. Michael’s cooking is

gourmet and Italian-inspired.

Michael Symon. Michael is a much-loved celebrity chef known for his outgoing,

friendly personality, signature bald head, and muscles. A graduate from the Culinary

Institute of America in 1990, Michael quickly became recognized for his cooking in

Cleveland and developed a fan base. With his wife Liz, he runs two restaurants in his

hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. Previously on Food Network, Michael has hosted more

than 100 episodes of The Melting Pot, in addition to appearing on episodes of Sara’s

Secrets with Sara Moulton, Ready, Set, Cook, and Food Nation with Bobby Flay. In

2007, Michael won a much-respected spot as Iron Chef on Iron Chef America. He

hosted two seasons in 2012 of his own how-to cook series, Symon’s Suppers, which

teaches viewers how to make home-cooked recipes that look like restaurant-quality

meals. Michael visits with family members and chef friends to share stories and recipes.

Rachael Ray. Rachael is an iconic Food Network television personality,

bestselling cookbook author of twenty-one cookbooks, editor-in-chief of her own lifestyle

magazine, and business woman with her own product line of kitchen products, food,

and animal food. In the fall of 2007, she launched her syndicated daytime program,

Rachael Ray, and has won three Daytime Emmy Awards. Rachael has hosted many

Food Network series: 30 Minute Meals, Rachael Ray’s Tasty Travels, Rachael Ray’s

Week in a Day, Rachael vs. Guy: Celebrity Cook-Off, and Rachael vs. Guy: Kid’s Cook-

Off. She grew up around the food industry; the Ray family owned several restaurants on

Cape Cod and later, her mother worked as the food supervisor for a restaurant chain in upstate New York. Rachael has worked in all capacities in the food service industry. As

188

a sales representative for a gourmet market, she created a series of cooking classes that were discovered by CBS and ultimately Food Network. Rachael’s show 30 Minute

Meals ran an incredible length of 27 series from 2001-2012 and focuses on quick and easy recipes.

Ree Drummond. Ree is a #1 New York Times bestselling author, photographer, ranch wife, and mother of four. Her rise to fame started with her food blog The Pioneer

Woman, which she began in May 2006. On May 2011, Ree’s blog reportedly received

23.3 million page views per month and 4.4 million unique visitors. Ree writes about topics such as ranch life, homeschooling, and food. She has no professional culinary training but gained experience and skill cooking for her family and the ranch help. This study analyzes Ree’s cooking show The Pioneer Woman, which premiered in 2011 and documents Ree and her family’s daily life on a working cattle ranch outside of

Pawhuska, Oklahoma. The setting is in her home kitchen and also features scenes of the family riding horses and working with the cattle.

Sandra Lee. Sandra is a businesswoman, cookbook author, and veteran cooking show host on Food Network. She attended Le Cordon Bleu in Ottawa, Canada. Sandra won an Emmy Award for her long-running show, Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra

Lee, which premiered on Food Network in 2003. Each episode features kitchen and table decorations which she calls “tablescapes” that match the theme of the meal or season. Her cooking uses 70 percent pre-packaged products and 30 percent fresh ingredients. She also hosts Food Network’s Sandra’s Money Saving Meals, which helps viewers make budget-conscious meals using fresh ingredients and HGTV’s Sandra Lee

Celebrates, a series of holiday prime-time specials. Sandra also stars in two new shows

189

on Food Network: Sandra’s Restaurant Remakes and Sandra Lee’s Taverns, Lounges

& Clubs, as she is also known for making signature drinks.

Sunny Anderson. Sunny grew up in an Army family and entered the Air Force herself, working as a radio DJ, culminating in her dream job in New York at a No. 1 rated radio station. There, she began cooking for friends in the entertainment business and turned her hobby and growing client business into a catering company. That led to a guest appearance on Emeril Live! in 2005. Since then, Sunny has had several shows on Food Network: Gotta Get It, How’d That Get On My Plate, Home Made in America with Sunny Anderson, Cooking for Real, and most recently, culinary talk show The

Kitchen. This study analyzes Sunny’s traditional cooking show Cooking for Real where the single-host combines her approach to classic comfort food with her passion for unique flavors, promising to cook “real food for real life.”

Trisha Yearwood. Trisha is a country music star who has won three Grammy

Awards, two Academy of Country Music Awards, three Country Music Association honors, and had 19 top 10 singles. She co-authored two best-selling cookbooks with her sister and her mother in 2008 and 2010. She is host of Trisha’s Southern Kitchen and cooks family-inspired, Southern recipes in her home in Oklahoma. Her sister and family are frequent guests on her show, along with other country music stars.

Tyler Florence. Tyler is a chef, restaurateur, cookbook author, retail kitchen store owner, and television host of several Food Network shows: Globe Trekker, Food

911, How to Boil Water, Tyler’s Ultimate, and The Great Food Truck Race. He graduated from the prestigious culinary program at Johnson & Wales University and worked his way up top restaurants in New York City. Tyler currently manages and owns

190

several of his own restaurants in Napa Valley, California. One of the first celebrity chefs on the Food Network, Tyler has been with the network for the past fifteen years. This study analyzes his program, Tyler’s Ultimate, which features Tyler making the “ultimate” versions of popular or common dishes in a professional-grade kitchen, such as Ultimate

Chicken and Dumplings. The show ran eight seasons from 2004-2010. Tyler currently hosts The Great Food Truck Race, a competition-based show in its sixth season, where seven food truck teams hit the road for a chance to win $50,000.

191

APPENDIX B COOKING SHOWS ANALYZED

Anderson, S. (2008-2011). Cooking for Real. M. Dissin (Producer). Food Network. 113 episodes.

---. (2008). Noshin N’Awlins. In M. Dissin (Producer), Cooking for Real. Food Network. Episode: RE0104H.

---. (2008). Sunday in the Park with Sunny. In M. Dissin (Producer), Cooking for Real. Food Network. Episode: RE0209H.

---. (2010). Sticky Bones, Empty Plate. In M. Dissin (Producer), Cooking for Real. Food Network. Episode: RE0604H.

Brown, A. (1999-2011). Good Eats. A. Brown (Producer). Food Network. 254 episodes.

---. (2004). I Pie. In A. Brown (Producer), Good Eats. Food Network. Episode: EA1G15.

---. (2009). American Classics V: A Pound of Cake. In A. Brown (Producer), Good Eats. Food Network. Episode: EA1309H.

---. (2010). Raising the Bar. In A. Brown (Producer), Good Eats. Food Network. Episode: EA1314H.

Chiarello, M. (2003-2010). Easy Entertaining with Michael Chiarello. M. Chiarello (Producer). Food Network. 64 episodes.

---. (2006). Ice Cream Lawn Party. In Easy Entertaining with Michael Chiarello. Food Network. Episode: MO0802H.

D’Arabian, M. (2009-2012). Ten Dollar Dinners. M. Dissin (Producer). Food Network. 84 episodes.

---. (2011). Burger Bliss. In M. Dissin (Producer), Ten Dollar Dinners. Food Network. Episode: MN0503H.

De Laurentiis, G. (2003-2011). Everyday Italian. J. D’Annibale (Producer). Food Network.166 episodes.

---. (2009-2015). Giada at Home. A. Fox (Producer). Food Network. 246 episodes.

---. (2005). Wedding Shower. In J. D’Annibale (Producer), Everyday Italian. Food Network. Episode: CCEDI-707F.

---. (2005). Beach Party. In J. D’Annibale (Producer), Everyday Italian. Food Network. Episode: El1F01.

192

---. (2010). No Stress Party. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0238H.

---. (2012). Jade Turns 3. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0415H.

---. (2012). Share the Amore. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0511H.

---. (2014). Feel Good Food. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0618H.

---. (2014). Giada’s Korean Barbecue. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0703H.

---. (2014). Giada’s Vegas Favorites. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0702H.

---. (2014). Healthy and Hearty. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0611H.

---. (2014). Slumber Party with Alie and Georgia. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. GH0709H.

---. (2015). Garden Spa Day. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada at Home. Food Network. Episode: GH0713H.

---. (2015). Holiday Desserts. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada’s Holiday Handbook. Food Network. Episode: HN0105H.

---. (2015). ‘Tis the Season Open House. In A. Fox (Producer), Giada’s Holiday Handbook. Food Network. Episode: HN0101H.

Deen, B. (2012-2013). Not My Mama’s Meals. A. Wyman (Producer). Cooking Channel. 49 episodes.

---. (2012). Say Cheese. In A. Wyman (Producer), Not My Mama’s Meals. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCNMM-207H.

---. (2012). Smoke ‘Em if You Got ‘Em. In A. Wyman (Producer), Not My Mama’s Meals. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCNMM-210H.

---. (2013). Junk-Less Food. In A. Wyman (Producer), Not My Mama’s Meals. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCNMM-306H.

---. (2013). Quick and Easy. In A. Wyman (Producer), Not My Mama’s Meals. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCNMM-301H.

193

Deen, J. (2012-2013). Home for Dinner with Jamie Deen. A. Wyman (Producer). Food Network. 23 episodes.

---. (2009). Side by Side. In B. Tuschman (Producer), Best Thing I Ever Ate. Food Network. Episode: ED0307H.

---. (2012). Backyard BBQ. In A. Wyman (Producer), Home for Dinner with Jamie Deen. Food Network. Episode: JD0105H.

---. (2013). Win or Lose, You Gotta Eat. In A. Wyman (Producer), Home for Dinner with Jamie Deen. Food Network. Episode: JD0208H.

---. (2013). Bag Lady Reunion. In A. Wyman (Producer), Home for Dinner with Jamie Deen. Food Network. Episode: JD0213H.

Drummond, R. (2011-2016).The Pioneer Woman. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. 157 episodes.

---. (2011). Christmas. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WUSP01H.

---. (2012). Horsing Around. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0307H.

---. (2012). Potluck Sunday. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0207H.

---. (2012). Thanksgiving. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0401H.

---. (2013). Cowboy Tailgating. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0406H.

---. (2013). Ten Things I love. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0405H.

---. (2014). Herbalicious. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0902H.

---. (2014). Kitchen Confessional: Comfort Food. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0806H.

---. (2014). Office Warming Party. In S. Bateup (Director), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: YU0905H.

---. (2014). The Secret’s in the Sides. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU0904H.

194

---. (2015). Dorm Room Dining. In G. Sherringham (Producer), The Pioneer Woman. Food Network. Episode: WU1201H.

Fieri, G. (2006-2013). Guy’s Big Bite. G. Campbell (Director). Food Network. 255 episodes.

---. (2010). Ragin’ Rock ‘Tail Party. In G. Campbell (Director), Guy’s Big Bite. Food Network. Episode: GI0802H.

---. (2011). Guy’s Big Backyard Bites: Grilled Lamb Sandwiches. In G. Campbell (Director), Guy’s Big Bite. Food Network. Episode: GISP04H.

---. (2013). Creamy and Comforting Classics. In G. Campbell (Director), Guy’s Big Bite. Food Network. Episode: GI1313H.

Flay, B. (2002-2011). Boy Meets Grill with Bobby Flay. L. Deen (Producer). Food Network.109 episodes.

---. (2005). All American. In L. Deen (Producer), Boy Meets Grill with Bobby Flay. Food Network. Episode: GL0501.

---. (2008-2010). Grill It with Bobby Flay. E. Schenk (Producer). Food Network. 53 episodes.

---. (2010) Salmon Anyone? In E. Schenk (Producer), Grill It with Bobby Flay. Food Network. Episode: GT0302H.

---. (2011-2014). Bobby Flay’s BBQ Addiction. B. Lerch (Producer). Food Network. 54 episodes.

---. (2010-2016). Brunch @Bobby’s. B. Lerch (Producer). Cooking Channel. 75 episodes.

---. (2012). Bite Size Brunch. In B. Lerch (Producer), Brunch @Bobby’s. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCBAB-110H.

---. (2011). Brunch American. In B. Lerch (Producer), Brunch @Bobby’s. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCBAB-209H.

---. (2011). Grilled Taco Party. In J. Gibbs (Producer), BBQ Addiction. Food Network. Episode: QF0413H.

---. (2011). Don’t Mess with Texas BBQ. In J. Gibbs (Producer), BBQ Addiction. Food Network. Episode: QF0104H.

---. (2011). New England Barbecue Extreme. In J. Gibbs (Producer), BBQ Addiction. Food Network. Episode: QF0105H.

195

---. (2011). Smoky and Spicy Indian Barbecue. In J. Gibbs (Producer). BBQ Addiction. Food Network. Episode: QF0113H.

---. (2013). Barbecue Block Party. In B. Lerch (Producer), BBQ Addiction. Food Network. Episode: QF0312H.

---. (2013). Moroccan Grill Magic. In B. Lerch (Producer), BBQ Addiction. Food Network. Episode: QF0309H.

---. (2014). Bobby’s Basics: Burgers, Fries, and Shakes. In B. Lerch (Producer), BBQ Addiction. Food Network. Episode: QF0401H.

Florence, T. (2007-2010). Tyler’s Ultimate. G. Campbell (Producer). Food Network. 25 episodes.

---. (2003). Meat Balls. In J. Cianciulli (Producer). Tyler’s Ultimate. Food Network. Episode: TU1A09.

---. (2007). Ultimate Bistro. In G. Campbell (Producer), Tyler’s Ultimate. Food Network. Episode: TU0208H.

---. (2008). Ultimate Pulled Pork. In G. Campbell (Producer), Tyler’s Ultimate. Food Network. Episode: TU0509H.

---. (2009). Ultimate Jerk Chicken. In G. Campbell (Producer), Tyler’s Ultimate. Food Network. Episode: TU0710H.

---. (2009). Ultimate Country Ribs. In G. Campbell (Producer), Tyler’s Ultimate. Food Network. Episode: TU0703H.

Garten, I. (2002-2016). Barefoot Contessa. O. Ball (Producer). Food Network. 251 episodes.

---. (2004). Saturday Night Sunday Brunch. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: IG1C12.

---. (2005). Sweet Home Supper. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: IG1C18.

---. (2007). Memory Lane. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: IG0904H.

---. (2007). Mystery Guest. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: IG0907H.

---. (2011). BC Burger Joint. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX05077H.

196

---. (2011). Going Local. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX0402H.

---. (2011). Old School Retro Mix. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX0405H.

---. (2012). Baby’s First Bash. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX0610H.

---. (2012). Brunch Bunch. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX0608H.

---. (2012). Dare to Be Different. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX0605H.

---. (2013). Dinner in Napa. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX0805H.

---. (2014). Bouquets and Barbecues. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BX1104H.

---. (2015). A Barefoot Thanksgiving. In O. Ball (Producer), Barefoot Contessa. Food Network. Episode: BXSP03H.

Krieger, E. (2007-2011). Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger. O. Ball (Producer). Food Network. 54 episodes.

---. (2007). Good Comfort. In O. Ball (Producer), Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger. Food Network. Episode: EK0201H.

---. (2007). Get the Party Started. In O. Ball (Producer), Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger. Food Network. Episode: EK0309H.

---. (2008). Full on Thanksgiving. In O. Ball (Producer), Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger. Food Network. Episode: EK0303.

---.(2008). Myth Busting. In O. Ball (Producer), Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger. Food Network. Episode: EK0408.

---. (2008). Treat Yourself Good. In O. Ball (Producer), Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger. Food Network. Episode: EK0506H.

Lee, S. (2003-2011). Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee. S. Green (Producer). Food Network. 224 episodes.

---. (2007). Serene Spa. In S. Green (Producer), Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee. Food Network. Episode: SH0811H.

197

---. (2008). Easy Elegance. In S. Green (Producer), Semi-Homemade Cooking with Sandra Lee. Food Network. Episode: SH1012H.

---. (2009-2012). Sandra’s Money Saving Meals. S. Lee (Producer). Food Network. 65 episodes.

---. (2010). Minute Meals. In S. Lee (Producer), Sandra’s Money Saving Meals. Food Network. Episode: SM0312H.

---. (2010). Thrifty Tapas. In S. Lee (Producer), Sandra’s Money Saving Meals. Food Network. Episode: SM0306H.

Mauro, J. (2011-2014). Sandwich King. M. Dissin (Producer). Food Network. 58 episodes.

---. (2011). Beer Battered Code Sliders. In M. Dissin (Producer), Sandwich King. Food Network. Episode: ZB0106H.

---. (2012). Italiano. In M. Dissin (Producer), Sandwich King. Food Network. Episode: ZB0201H.

Nixon, K. (2010-2013). Kelsey’s Essentials. T. Nelson (Producer). Cooking Channel. 65 episodes.

---. (2011). Summer Desserts. In T. Nelson (Producer), Kelsey’s Essentials. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCKEL-202H.

---. (2012). New NY Favorite. In T. Nelson (Producer), Kelsey’s Essentials. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCKEL-403H.

Phillips, D. (2013-2016). Southern at Heart. K. Lezak (Producer). Food Network. 55 episodes.

---. (2013). Southern Sweets. In K. Lezak (Producer), Southern at Heart. Food Network. Episode: ZD0101H.

---. (2014). Friends-giving Leftovers. In K. Lezak (Producer), Southern at Heart. Food Network. Episode: ZD0305H.

Ray, R. (2002-2012). 30 Minute Meals. B. Tuschman (Producer). Food Network. 232 episodes.

---. (2003). 30 Minute Nosh Menu. In B. Tuschman (Producer), 30 Minute Meals. Food Network. Episode: TM1D11.

---. (2003). 30 Minute Party Essentials. In B. Tuschman (Producer), 30 Minute Meals. Food Network. Episode: TM1C56F.

198

---. (2003). Exquisitely Simple, Supermarket Fancy. Food Network. In B. Tuschman (Producer), 30 Minute Meals. Food Network. Episode: TMI1B60.

---. (2004). Too Busy to Cook. In B. Tuschman (Producer), 30 Minute Meals. Food Network. Episode: TM1E46.

---. (2004). Rachael Ray’s Thanksgiving in 60. In B. Tuschman (Producer), 30 Minute Meals. Food Network. Episode: TMSP02H.

---.. (2006). Boardwalk Bites. In B. Tuschman (Producer), 30 Minute Meals. Food Network. Episode: TM1119.

Sequeira, A. (2010-2011). Aarti Party. J. Zimmerman (Producer). Food Network. 31 episodes.

---. (2011). Beer Snacks. In J. Zimmerman (Producer), Aarti Party. Food Network. Episode: ZA0212H.

---. (2011). Bollywood Nights. In J. Zimmerman (Producer), Aarti Party. Food Network. Episode: ZA0311H.

Symon, M. (2012-2013). Symon’s Suppers. G. Campbell (Producer). Cooking Channel. 21 episodes.

---. (2012). Grilling. In G. Campbell (Producer), Symon’s Suppers. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCCLC-106H.

---. (2012). Steak Night. In G. Campbell (Producer), Symon’s Suppers. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCCLC-102H.

---. (2012). Mom’s Recipes. In G. Campbell (Producer), Symon’s Suppers. Cooking Channel. Episode: CCCLC-211H.

Yearwood, T. (2012-2016). Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. P. McPartland Jr. (Producer). Food Network. 83 episodes.

---. (2012). A Wedding Shower to Remember. In P. McPartland, Jr. (Producer), Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. Food Network. Episode: YW0208H.

---. (2013). Football, Friends, and Comfort Food. In P. McPartland, Jr. (Producer), Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. Food Network. Episode: YW0207H.

---. (2014). Big Family Thanksgiving. In P. McPartland, Jr. (Producer), Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. Food Network. Episode: YW0505H.

---. (2014). Southern Basics with a Twist. In P. McPartland, Jr. (Producer), Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. Food Network. Episode: YW0501H.

199

---. (2014). Homage to Julia Child. In P. McPartland, Jr. (Producer), Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. Food Network. Episode: YW0514H.

---. (2014). Barbecue with a Master. In P. McPartland, Jr. (Producer), Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. Food Network. Episode: YW0511H.

---. (2014). Healthy Twist. In P. McPartland, Jr. (Producer), Trisha’s Southern Kitchen. Food Network. Episode: YW0405H.

200

APPENDIX C FOOD NETWORK TV SCHEDULE

201

APPENDIX D COOKING CHANNEL TV SCHEDULE

202

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adema, P. (2000). Vicarious consumption: Food, television and the ambiguity of modernity. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 23(3), 113-123.

Altman, R. (1986). Television/Sound. In T. Modleski (Ed.), Studies in Entertainment: Critical Approaches to Mass Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Andrews, M. (2003). Nigella bites the naked chef: The sexual and the sensual in television cookery programs. In J. Floyd (Ed.) The recipe reader: Narratives, contexts, traditions. (pp.187-204). University of Nebraska Press.

Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language and Society, 13(2), 145- 204.

Bell, A. (1982). Radio: The style of news language. Journal of Communication, 32, 150- 64.

Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. Oxford: Blackwell.

Berger, A.A. (2005). Media analysis techniques (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bettleheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Hardmondsworth: Penguin.

Bonner, F. (2005). The celebrity in the text. In J. Evans, & D. Hesmondhalgh (Eds.), Understanding media: Inside celebrity (pp. 57-97). New York: Open University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste, trans. R. Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brost, L. (2000). Television cooking shows: Defining the genre. (Doctoral dissertation, UMI Number: 9981055). Indiana University.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press.

Brownlie, D. & Hewer, P. (2007). Prime beef cuts: Culinary images for thinking men. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 10(3), 229-250.

Brunsdon, C. (2003). Lifestyling Britain: The 8-9 slot on British television. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(1), 5-23.

203

Bubel, C. (2011). Relationship impression formation: How viewers know people on the screen are friends. In R. Piazza, M. Bednarek, & F. Rossi (Eds.), Telecinematic discourse: Approaches to the language of films and television series (pp. 225- 247). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bull, G. & Anstey, M. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. International Reading Association.

Bouso, T. (2012). Presupposition, persuasion, and mag food advertising: A preliminary study. Odisea, 13, 19-47.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: Sage Publications.

Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton University Press.

Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics. Routledge.

Chaney, D. (2001). From ways of life to lifestyle: Rethinking culture as ideology and sensibility. In J. Lull (Ed.) Culture in the communication age (pp. 75-88). London: Routledge.

Chaney, D. (2002). Cultural change and everyday life. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Cheshire, J. & Ziebland, S. (2005). Narrative as a resource in accounts of the experience of illness. In J. Thornborrow and J. Coates (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of narrative (pp. 17-40). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Chiaro, D. (2013). Passionate about food: Jamie and Nigella and the performance of food-talk. In C. Gerhardt, M. Frobenius, & S. Ley (Eds.), Culinary linguistics (pp. 83-102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Cortes-Conde, F. & Boxer, D. (2010). Humorous self disclosures as resistance to socially imposed gender roles. Gender and Language, 4(1), 73-97.

Cotter, C. (1997). Claiming a piece of the pie: How the language of recipes defines community. In A. Bower (Ed.), Recipes for reading community cookbooks, stories, histories (pp.51-71). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Cramer, J. (2011). Discourses of consumption and sustainability on the Food Network. In C. Greene & J. Cramer (Eds.), Food as communication: Communication as food (pp. 317-333). New York: Peter Lang.

Davies, C. (2000). Martha Stewart’s linguistic presentation of self. Texas Linguistic Forum, 44(1), 73-89.

204

Davies, C. (2003). Language and American ‘good taste’: Martha Stewart as mass- media role model. In J. Aitchison & D. Lewis (Eds.), New Media Language (pp. 146-156). Routledge.

De Solier, I. (2005). TV dinners: Culinary television, education and distinction. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 19(4), 465-481.

Diemer, S., & Frobenius, M. (2013). When making pie, all ingredients must be chilled; Including you. In C. Gerhardt, M. Frobenius, S. Ley (Eds.), Culinary linguistics: The chef’s special (pp. 53-82). John Benjamins.

Drew, P. & Chilton, K. (2000). Calling just to keep in touch: regular and habitual telephone calls as an environment for small talk.’ In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 137-162). London: Longman.

Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.

Ellis, J. (1982). Visible fictions: Cinema, television, video. London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2001 [1989]). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis of social research. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.

Finkelstein, J. (1999). Foodatainment. Performance Research, 4, 19-27.

Food Network Media Kit. About our programming. Retrieved August 20, 2015 from www.foodnetworkadsales.com/Programming/Overview.aspx

Gagliardi, N. (2014, November 17). Is the Food Network still relevant? Retrieved from Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancygagliardi/2014/11/17/is-the-foodnetwork-still-relevant/.

Gallager, M. (2004). What’s so funny about Iron Chef? Journal of Popular Film and Television, 31(4), 176-184.

Gerhardt, C., Frobenius, M., & Ley, S. (Eds.) (2013). Culinary linguistics: The chef’s special. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Giles, D. (2000). Illusions of immortality: A psychology of fame and celebrity. New York. Palgrave McMillan.

205

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garolen City, NY: Anchor.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Greene, J. O., & Burleson, B. R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Psychology Press.

Haarman, L. (2001). Performing talk. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle (pp. 31-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. (2013 [1985]). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.

Halliday, M.A.K,, & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. Cassell.

Herman, D. & Page, R. (2010). Eighteen questions for the study of narrative and multimodality. In R. Page (Ed.), New perspectives on narrative and multimodality (Ch 15, pp. 217-220). New York: Routledge.

Hewer, P., & Brownlie, D. (2013). Spaces of hope, enlivenment and entanglement: Explorations in the spatial logic of celebrity culinary brands. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(1), 46-63.

Hanke, R. (1989). Mass media and lifestyle differentiation: An analysis of the public discourse about food. Communication, 10, 221-239.

Hollows, J. (2003a). Feeling like a domestic goddess: Postfeminism and cooking. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, 179-202.

Hollows, J. (2003b). Oliver’s twist: Leisure, labour and domestic masculinity in The Naked Chef. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6, 229-248.

Holmes, Janet. (1995). Women, men, and politeness. London and New York: Longman.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.

Huron, D. (1989). Music in advertising: An analytic paradigm. The Musical Quarterly, 73, 557-574.

206

Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (Eds.) (2006). The Discourse reader (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Johnstone, B. (1995). Sociolinguistic resources, individual identities, and public speech styles of Texas women. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 5(2), 183-202.

Johnstone, B. (1996). The linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jurafsky, D. (2014). The language of food: A linguist reads the menu. New York City: W.S. Norton & Company.

Kottholf, H. (1997). The interactiSonal achievement of expert status: creating asymmetries by ‘teaching conversational lectures’ in TV discussion. In H. Kottholf & R. Wodak (Eds.), Communicating gender in context (pp. 139-178). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Koutsombogera, M. & Papageorgiou, H. (2009). Multimodality issues in Conversation Analysis of Greek TV interviews. In A. Esposito et al. (Eds.), Multimodal signals (pp. 40-46). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Krase, J. & Shortell, T. (2011). Spatial semiotics of vernacular landscapes in global cities. Visual Communication, 10, 367-400.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.

Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular (pp. 354-396). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W. & Waletzsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 214-226). London: Routledge.

Lakoff, R. (1982). Persuasive discourse and ordinary conversation with examples from advertising. In. D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 25-42). Georgetown University Press.

Langer, J. (1981). Television’s ‘personality system.’ Media, culture, & society, 3(4): 351- 366.

Leech, G. (1966). English in advertising: A linguistic study of advertisement in Great Britain. London: Longmans.

207

Lewis, T. (2008). Smart living: Lifestyle media and popular expertise. New York: Peter Lang.

Linde, C. (1993). Life stories: The creation of coherence. New York: Oxford University Press

Livingston, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.

Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2006). Buying and selling: Mediating persuasion in British property shows. Media, culture, & society, 28(5), 739-61.

Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2009). Television discourse: Analysing language in the media. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Mackay, R. (2015). Multimodal legitimation: Selling Scottish independence. Discourse & Society, 26(3), 323-348.

Marranca, B. (Ed.). (2003). A slice of life: Contemporary writers on food. New York: Overlook Duckworth.

Matwick, K, & Matwick, K. (2014). Storytelling and synthetic personalization on television cooking shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 151-159.

McCarthy, A. (2001). Ambient television: Visual culture and public space. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Meister, M. (2001). Cultural feeding, good life science, and the TV Food Network. Mass Communication & Society, 4, 165-182.

Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Montgomery, M. (1986). DJ talk. Media, culture and society, 8, 421-440.

Montgomery, M. (2001). Defining ‘authentic talk.’ Discourse Studies, 3(4), 397-405.

Morgan, P. & Edwards. C. (2011). Influences of celebrity chefs on cruise fine dining experiences. Cruise Sector Challenges.

Morris, J., & Boone, M.A. (1998). The effects of music on emotional response, brand attitude, and purchase intent in an emotional advertising condition. In J. W. Alba & J.W. Hutchinson (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 25, (pp. 518-526), Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research. Retrieved on Jan 30, 2016, from: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8207/volumes/v25/NA-25

208

Moseley, R. (2000). Makeover takeover on British television. Screen, 41(3), 299-314.

Muhleisen, S. (2003). Globalized tongues: The cultural semantics of food names. In S. Muhlesen, M. Heide, & T. Doring (Eds.), Eating culture: The poetics and politics of food (pp. 71-88). Universitatsverlag Winter.

Murray, S. (2013). Food and television. In K. Albala (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of food studies (pp. 187-197). Routledge.

Nathanson, E. (2009). As easy as pie: Cooking shows, domestic efficiency, and postfeminist temporality. Television & New Media, 10, 311-330.

Navarro, J. & Karlins, M. (2009). What every BODY is saying. William Morrow Paperbacks.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1).

Norrick, N. (1993). Conversational joking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Norrick, N. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1333- 1359.

Norrick, N. (2011). Conversational recipe telling. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2740-2761.

Norrick, N. (2013). Narratives of vicarious experience in conversation. Language in Society, 42, 385-406.

O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge.

O’Keeffe, A. (2013). Media and discourse analysis. In J.P. Gee and M. Handford (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 441-454). Routledge.

Price, S. (2012). Gesture. MODE. Retrieved from https://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com

Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of folk tale. London: Sage.

Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimation in political discourse: From words to action. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781-807.

Rojo, L., & van Dijk, T. (1997). ‘There was a problem, it was solved!:’ Legitimating the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8, 523-566.

Rousseau, S. (2012). Food media: Celebrity chefs and the politics of everyday interference. London and New York: Berg.

209

Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling. In R. Bauman & J. Scherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H. (1984). On doing ‘Being Ordinary’. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversational Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-765.

Scannell, P. (1998). Media—language—world. In A. Bell & P. Garret (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 251-267). Oxford: Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 54-69).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Language in Society, 25, 167-203.

Schiffrin, D. (2007 [1994]). Approaches to discourse (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Silverblatt, A., Ferry, J. & Finan, B. (2009). Approaches to media literacy: A handbook (2nd ed.). London: M.E. Sharpe.

Silverblatt, A. (1995). Media literacy: Keys to interpreting media messages. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Silverblatt, A. (2008). Media literacy: Keys to interpreting media messages (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Smith, A. (2010). Lifestyle television programmes and the construction of the expert host. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(2), 191-205.

Stokes, R., & Hewitt, J. (1976). Aligning actions. American Sociological Review, 41, 838-849.

Stout, P. A., & Leckenby, J. D. (1988). Let the music play: music as a nonverbal element in television commercials. In S. Hecker & D. W. Stewart (Eds.), Nonverbal communication in advertising (pp. 207-233). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

210

Strange, N. (1998). Perform, educate, entertain: Ingredients of the cooking programme genre. In C. Geraghty & D. Lusted (Eds.), The television studies book (pp. 301- 312). London: Arnold.

Swenson, R. (2009). Domestic divo? Televised treatments of masculinity, femininity and food. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 36-53.

Szatrowski, P. (Ed.). (2014). Language and food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences. John Benjamins.

Tannen, D. (1991). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford University Press.

Thornborrow, J., & Coates, J. (2005). The sociolinguistics of narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Thornborrow, J. & Haarman, L. (2012). Backstage activities as frontstage news. European Journal of Communication, 27(4), 376-394.

Tolson, A. (1991). Televised chat and the synthetic personality. In P. Scannell (Ed.), Broadcast talk (pp. 178-200). London: Sage.

Tolson, A. (2001a). Television talk shows: Discourse, performance, spectacle. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tolson, A. (2001b). Being yourself: The pursuit of authentic celebrity. Discourse Studies, 3, 443-457.

Tolson, A. (2006). Media talk: Spoken discourse on TV and radio. Edinburgh University Press.

Tominc, A. (2014). Legitimising amateur celebrity chefs’ advice and the discursive transformation of the Slovene national culinary identity. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(3), 316-337.

Tomlinson, G. (1986). Thought for food: A study of written instructions. Symbolic Interaction, 9, 201-216.

Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2008). A Discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 985-993.

Van Dijk, T. (1988). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, sound, music. Palgrave Macmillan.

211

Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Sound in perspective. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (2nd ed.), (pp. 179-193). London: Routledge. (Reprinted from Speech, music, sound, 1999. Basingstoke: Macmillan).

Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse- historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83-118.

Vettel, P. (2015, August 27). ‘Sandwich King’ Jeff Mauro opening Bucktown restaurant. The Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/ct-sandwich-king- jeff-mauro-opening-bucktown-restaurant-20150827-story.html

Wiggins, S. (2002). Talking with your mouth full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 311-336.

212

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Keri Matwick received her doctoral degree in Philosophy from the University of

Florida in the spring of 2016. Her dissertation, Celebrity Chefs Performing the Expert: A

Linguistic and Multimodal Analysis of TV Cooking Shows, was supervised by Dr. Ann

Wehmeyer. Keri specialized in discourse analysis and media and cultural studies. She is a “Double Domer” with two degrees from the University of Notre Dame: a Bachelor of

Arts, summa cum laude, in Spanish (2005), and a Master of Arts in Spanish (2010). In between degrees, she served in the United States Air Force as a personnel officer in

Anchorage, Alaska, 2005-2008. Following her return to Notre Dame, Keri continued her language study in Linguistics at the University of Florida in fall 2010. She earned her

Master of Arts in linguistics from the University of Florida in 2013. Throughout her graduate studies, she taught a variety of undergraduate courses, including beginning

Spanish, Introduction to Linguistics, and Professional Writing, including rhetoric, persuasion, and professional communication.

213