VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS Birutė Jurkšaitė

VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS HUMANITARINIŲ MOKSLŲ FAKULTETAS ANGLŲ FILOLOGIJOS KATEDRA

Birutė Jurkšaitė

ŽANRINĖ IR KALBINĖ CNN IR BBC POKALBIŲ LAIDŲ LYGINAMOJI ANALIZĖ

Magistro baigiamasis darbas

Taikomosios anglų kalbotyros studijų programa, valstybinis kodas 621Q30002 Filologijos studijų kryptis

Vadovė doc. dr. Dalia Masaitienė ______(parašas) (data)

Apginta doc. dr. R. Eidukevičienė ______(Fakulteto dekanė) (parašas) (data)

Kaunas, 2016

BBC and CNN talk shows from genre and language perspectives

By Birutė Jurkšaitė

Department of English Philology Vytautas Magnus University Master of Arts Thesis Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dalia Masaitienė 12 May 2016

CONTENTS SANTRAUKA ...... i SUMMARY ...... ii 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 TV TALK SHOWS AS A GENRE ...... 3 2.1 Definition of genre ...... 3 2.2 Genre analysis and steps in genre analysis ...... 4 2.3 Characteristics of a TV talk show...... 6 2.4 Features of spoken discourse ...... 10 2.5 Spoken discourse in relation to gender ...... 12 3 LANGUAGE AND GENDER ...... 15 3.1 The distinction between the terms gender and sex ...... 15 3.2 Early works and stereotypes in the field of language and gender studies ...... 17 3.3 The deficit, dominance, difference, and dynamic approaches ...... 20 3.3.1 The deficit approach ...... 20 3.3.2 The dominance approach ...... 21 3.3.3 The difference approach ...... 22 3.3.4 The dynamic approach...... 24 4 THE MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY ...... 26 5 A COMPARISON OF TWO TV TALK SHOWS AMANPOUR AND HARDTALK SITUATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 27 5.1 Analysis of TV talk shows Amanpour and HARDtalk ...... 27 5.2 Situational characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour ...... 28 5.3 Structural moves in the TV talk show Amanpour ...... 30 5.4 Situational characteristics of the TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 31 5.5 Structural moves in the TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 33 5.6 The similarities and differences of the Amanpour and HARDtalk TV talk shows ...... 34 6 LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TV TALK SHOW AMANPOUR ...... 35 6.1 The number of questions and turns ...... 36 6.2 Forms of address ...... 37 6.3 Lexical hedges and fillers ...... 38 6.4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers ...... 40 6.5 Interruptions ...... 42 6.6 Adjectives ...... 43 7 LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TV TALK SHOW HARDTALK ...... 45

7.1 The number of questions and turns ...... 46 7.2 Forms of address ...... 47 7.3 Lexical hedges and fillers ...... 48 7.4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers ...... 50 7.5 Interruptions ...... 51 7.6 Adjectives ...... 52 8 LINGUISTIC SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TV TALK SHOWS AMANPOUR AND HARDTALK ...... 54 9 CONCLUSIONS ...... 57 REFERENCES ...... 60 APPENDIX A: Situational characteristics of registers and genres (Biber 2009 :41)...... 64 APPENDIX B: The situational characteristics of two Amanpour transcripts ...... 65 APPENDIX C: The situational characteristics of two HARDtalk transcripts ...... 66 APPENDIX D: AMANPOUR. Transcript #1. Interview with Medina-Mora and Morris ...... 67 APPENDIX E: AMANPOUR. Transcript #2. Interview with Pillay and Norfolk ...... 73 APPENDIX F: HARDtalk. Transcript #1. Interview with Catherine McCartney ...... 78 APPENDIX G: HARDtalk. Transcript #2: Interview with Dimitris Avramopoulos ...... 83

List of tables

Table 2. 1 Bhatia’s (1993) 7 steps in genre analysis ...... 5 Table 2. 2 Biber and Conrad’s (2009) suggestions for genre analysis ...... 5 Table 2. 3 Characteristic features of talk shows (Ilie 2006) ...... 7 Table 2. 4 The main situational characteristics of TV talk shows ...... 8 Table 2. 5 Five criteria to identify and distinguish various talk shows formats (Ilie 2006) ...... 9 Table 2. 6 Typical and not typical characteristics of the spoken discourse based on Biber et al. (1999) ...... 10 Table 2. 7 Distribution of tag questions (based on Holmes 1984: 54, cited in Holmes 1995: 83) .. 14 Table 3. 1 Differences between men’s and women’s language (Maltz and Borker 1982: 418)…...22 Table 5. 1 Situational characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour……………………………..29 Table 5. 2 The situational characteristics of the TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 31 Table 5. 3 Differences of TV talk shows HARDtalk and Amanpour ...... 34 Table 6. 1 The number of questions and the number of turns in the TV talk show Amanpour…….36 Table 6. 2 Forms of address in the TV talk show Amanpour ...... 37 Table 6. 3 Lexical hedges or fillers in the TV talk show Amanpour ...... 39 Table 6. 4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers in TV talk show Amanpour ...... 41 Table 6. 5 Instances of interruptions in the TV talk show Amanpour...... 42 Table 6. 6 Adjectives in the TV talk show Amanpour ...... 44 Table 7. 1 Number of questions and number of turns in the TV talk show HARDtalk……………46 Table 7. 2 Forms of address in the TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 47 Table 7. 3 Hedges and fillers in the TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 49 Table 7. 4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers in TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 50 Table 7. 5 Instances of interruptions in the TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 51 Table 7. 6 Adjectives in the TV talk show HARtalk ...... 53

List of figures

Figure 5. 1 The structure of the TV talk show Amanpour ...... 30 Figure 5. 2 Structure of the TV talk show HARDtalk ...... 33

SANTRAUKA

Šio darbo tikslas - išanalizuoti bei palyginti dvi panašaus pobūdžio televizijos pokalbių laidas. CNN televizijos transliuojama publicistinė pokalbių laida Amanpour yra lyginama su BBC televizijos transliuojama laida HARDtalk. Šių televizijos pokalbių laidų analizė atliekama atsižvelgiant į du aspektus: laidų žanrą ir vyrų bei moterų kalbėseną. Darbe nagrinėjamos laidų situacinės ir struktūrinės ypatybės. Taip pat analizuojamos kalbinės ypatybės: kreipimosi formų, būdvardžių, pasakymų sušvelninimų ir sustiprinimų bei pokalbio pertraukimų vartosena moterų ir vyrų kalboje. Įvardijami šie darbo uždaviniai: transkribuoti dviejų HARDtalk laidų pokalbius; surasti dviejų Amanpour laidų pokalbių transkripcijas; palyginti abiejų pokalbių laidų situacines aplinkybes bei struktūrines savybes; ir palyginti lingvistinių charakteristikų vartosenos ypatumus vyrų ir moterų kalboje. Darbe analizuojamos šešios interviu: keturios interviu su Amanpour laidos vedėja ir dvi interviu su HARDtalk laidos vedėju. Pokalbių laidose dalyvavo ir moterys ir vyrai. Siekiant palyginti Amanpour ir HARDtalk pokalbių laidas bei moterų ir vyrų kalbą, šiame darbe pasirinktas lyginamasis metodas, aprašomasis metodas, žanrinė ir mokslinės literatūros šaltinių analizė. Informacija buvo renkama iš mokslinių šaltinių, pavyzdžiui, Bhatia’s (1993; 2004; 2008), Biberio ir Conrad (2009), Shattuc (2007), Illie (1999, 2006), Coates (1993; 1998; 2013), Holmes (1995; 2001; 2013), Lakoff (1975), Talbot (1998; 2003; 2010), Tannen (1990), Eckert and McConnel-Ginet (1992; 2003; 2013), Spender (1980), Bing and Bergvall (1996), West and Zimmermano (1975; 1977; 1987) bei kitų autorių darbų. Nustatyta, kad Amanpour ir HARDtalk pokalbių laidos atitinka bendrus TV pokalbių laidų bruožus, tačiau tarp laidų yra keletas akivaizdžių skirtumų. Šie skirtumai pastebimi analizuojant laidų struktūrines savybes ir dalyvaujančių pašnekovių skaičių. Nepaisant šių skirtumų, panašumai tarp abiejų laidų pastebimi analizuojant beveik visas situacines aplinkybes. Analizuojant kalbėsenos ypatimus vyrų ir moterų kalboje buvo nustatyta, kad lingvistinių charakteristikų vartosena tiek vyrų, tiek moterų kalboje yra panaši, tačiau taip pat pastebėta, kad yra keletas vartosenos skirtumų. Ir vyrai, ir moterys savo kalboje dažnai vartoja būdvardžius ir yra linkę sušvelninti arba susistiprinti savo pasakymus, tačiau į savo pašnekovą vardu dažniau kreipiasi moterys. Kita vertus, buvo pastebėta, kad vyrai žymiai dažniau pertraukia vienas kitą, o moterys stengiasi nepertraukti savo pašnekovų.

SUMMARY

Over the last few decades, genre analysis has gained a great popularity in linguistics due to the need of detailed analyses of language variation in particular contexts and for particular purposes. Scholars have carried out extensive research on different types of discourse, though plenty of newly appearing specific texts have not yet been discussed from genre analysis perspective. For example, the field of TV talk shows is so dynamic that various new sub-genres of shows appear each season on TV. As a result, different studies in this field can be carried out as well. Nowadays, TV talk shows are especially popular source for language variation based on gender studies because this genre provides a great variety of speech acts between men and women that in a way reflect language of the contemporary society. Thus, this thesis analyzes the CNN Amanpour and the BBC HARDtalk TV talk shows from genre and language perspectives. The aim of the work is to analyse these two TV talk shows with respect to genre and language characteristics. Specifically the thesis seeks to evaluate to what extent these shows correspond to the typical format of the TV talk show and evaluate them from language and gender perspective. In order to achieve the posed aim, several objectives were raised: to collect a corpus of both TV talk shows, to analyse and compare situational and structural characteristics, and to analyse and compare language specificities between men’s and women’s speech. The analysis is based on descriptive and comparative analysis methods, and findings are supported by quantitative evidence. The thesis draws on the ideas of a number of linguists and sociolinguists. The main sources are the works of Bhatia (1993; 2004; 2008), Biber and Conrad (2009), Shattuc (2007), Illie’s (1999, 2006), Coates (1993; 1998; 2013), Holmes (1995; 2001; 2013), Lakoff (1975), Talbot (1998; 2003; 2010), Tannen (1990), Eckert and McConnel-Ginet (1992; 2003; 2013), Spender (1980), Bing and Bergvall (1996), West and Zimmerman (1975; 1977; 1987), Biber et al. (1999), and many others. The findings of the research indicate that both TV talk shows have typical features of a talk show, yet there are some noticeable differences. Amanpour and HARDtalk mainly differ in the structure and the number of participants per show. However, both shows are similar in the majority of situational characteristics. The results of the Amanpour and HARDtalk shows from language in relation to gender perspective reveal that there are differences as well as similarities between males’ and females’ speech. The main differences are found in the amount of speech, the number of questions and turns, interruptions, and addressing forms. On the other hand, the use of hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, and adjectives is similar among males’ and females’ speech regardless to the interlocutor’s gender.

1 INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of scientific interest in men’s and women’s language differences, the discussion that men’s and women’s speech differs continues to this day. Linguists have formulated four theories, namely, the deficit, dominance, difference, and dynamic approaches, and various numerous investigations were carried out on the subject. Nevertheless, the field of language and gender studies is very broad, beginning from the early works that focused on women’s language to the most recent studies on language used by gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people. The variety of directions for studies allows formulating different hypotheses and numerous aspects can be analysed with respect to the language variation based on gender. Television is an especially popular source for such studies because it provides a wide range of high quality programming, from news and current affairs to sitcoms, serials, game shows or talk shows that represent a great variety of speech acts. TV talk shows in particular are based on conversations and despite the fact that these conversations are shaped by producers, they still reflect speech of the contemporary society. As the field of TV talk shows is especially dynamic nowadays, various new formats and sub-genres of shows that appear each season on TV increase the interest for research as well. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the CNN TV talk show Amanpour and the BBC TV talk show HARDtalk with respect to genre and language characteristics. Specifically, the thesis seeks to evaluate to what extent these shows correspond to the typical format of the TV talk show and evaluate them from language and gender perspective. In order to achieve the posed aim, several objectives are raised: 1. to collect a representative corpus of both Amanpour and HARDtalk TV talk shows interviews; 2. to analyse and compare situational and structural characteristics of both TV talk shows; 3. to analyse and compare questions and turns, the use of address forms, lexical hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, interruptions, and adjectives in men’s and women’s speech in both TV talk shows. The collected data consists of two Amanpour (each of 30 minutes long) and two HARDtalk (each of 25 minutes long) shows. The Amanpour shows consists of four interviews that include around 4792 words (1289 words in the interview with Medina-Mora, 1116 words in the interview with Morris, 1150 words in the interview with Pillay, 1237 words in the interview with Norfolk) and HARDtalk shows consists of two interviews that include around 7335 words (3840 words in the interview with Catherine McCartney and 3495 words in the interview with Dimitris Avramopoulos). In order to secure and objective representation of both TV talk shows as a genre, transcripts of Amanpour were randomly selected from the source

www.edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ampr.html as well as audio recordings of HARDtalk were randomly selected from the source www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004t1so/episodes/downloads and transcribed while listening to the recordings. All transcripts of interviews are presented in Appendixes D, E, F, and G. The methods used in this thesis are descriptive and comparative, and findings are supported by quantitative evidence. The paper describes and compares particular genre and linguistic characteristics of TV talk shows Amanpour and HARDtalk. The main theoretical sources relevant to this research are the works of Bhatia (1993; 2004; 2008), Biber and Conrad (2009), Ilie (1999; 2006), and Shattuc (2007) that provide the material necessary to understand the concept of genre analysis and TV talk shows as well as the steps in genre analysis, and the works of Coates (1993; 1998; 2013), Holmes (1995; 2001; 2013), Lakoff (1975), Talbot (1998; 2003; 2010), Tannen (1990), Eckert and McConnel-Ginet (1992; 2003; 2013), Spender (1980), Bing and Bergvall (1996), and West and Zimmerman (1975; 1977; 1987). They discuss the very first and the recent investigations of language and gender studies and present the critique of research results. The paper consists of 9 chapters. Chapter 1 presents the aim, objectives, scope, and the methods of analysis. Chapter 2 introduces the material relevant for genre analysis and TV talk shows. Section 2.1 introduces with the definition of genre, and section 2.2 defines the concept of genre analysis and discusses the steps in genre analysis. Section 2.3 defines the general situational characteristics of TV talk shows. Section 2.4 enumerates and discusses the features of spoken discourse, and Section 2.5 discusses the features of spoken discourse related to gender. Chapter 3 defines the essential terms and the early stereotypes in language and gender studies. To be more specific, section 3.1 defines terms gender and sex as well as explains the difference between these two terms. Section 3.2 overviews the early stereotypes about men’s and women’s language. Section 3.3 introduces four approaches (the deficit, dominance, difference, approach, and dynamic approaches). Chapter 4 overviews the material and methodology. Chapter 5 analyses and compares structural and situational characteristics of TV talk shows Amanpour and HARDtalk. Chapters 6 and 7 analyse and compare linguistic features of TV talk shows Amanpour and HARDtalk, and Chapter 8 summarizes the results of linguistic analyses. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the main findings of the research and provides suggestions for future research.

2 TV TALK SHOWS AS A GENRE

This theoretical part of the thesis establishes the background necessary for genre analysis of the CNN Amanpour and BBC HARDtalk TV talk shows. The chapter defines concepts of genre, genre analysis, introduces the steps in genre analysis, and briefly overviews the term talk show. This part also dicusses the general characteristics of the spoken discourse.

2.1 Definition of genre

Various scholars who examine genre in applied linguistics, for example, Bhatia (1993), Jones (2012), Biber (2009), define the term genre drawing on the definition given by Swales (1990), since his work on genre theory is extremely influential. Swales provides the concept of genre as follows: A genre compromises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert member of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. (1990: 58)

This is a rather long and complex definition, but Renkema (2004: 74) summarizes it and states that “a genre is a class of communicative events with shared recognizable communicative purposes, and these purposes give rise to exploitable constraints concerning content and form”. The notion of a communicative event refers to spoken and written language which is used for communication, and the purpose answers the question “why we communicate”. For example, an article in a newspaper is a communicative event, and its purpose is to inform the reader about a particular event. The last aspect in Swales’ (1990) definition, constrains of a genre, means that a particular communicative event has its own conventions in the structuring and the content. A simple example of this may be a personal letter. The receiver expects a greeting at the beginning of a letter as well as standard letter writing conventions, otherwise the reader will be confused. Since Swales’ (1990) definition is mostly taken as a starting point by other linguists, Bhatia (1993) also provides a definition of genre and adds some argumentations. He states that a genre is: A recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purposes identified and mutually understood by members of the community in which it occurs. Most often it is highly structured and conventionalized with constraints on allowable contributions in terms of their intent, positioning, form and functional value. These constraints, however, are often exploited by expert members of the discourse community to achieve private intentions within the framework of the socially recognized purpose(s). (1993: 13)

In general, this definition does not differ greatly from Swales’ (1990) definition given above and says that “a genre is defined by its conventionalized communicative purposes shared by the discourse community of a given genre” (Johansen 1997: 214). However, Bhatia (2004) adds and emphasizes that conventions of a genre may be broken. He claims (2004: 25) that powerful and competent people tend to establish new forms of conventions. The breaking of norms causes a number of problems, for example, genres are constantly changing, private intentions or forms are occurring in genres, or one genre starts to include conventions of another (Bhatia 2004: 25). In addition, Bhatia (1993) also provides a practical model which helps to investigate any genre, and it will be presented in the section 2.2. In contrast to definitions provided by Swales (1990) and Bhatia (1993), Thornbury (2005) suggests definition of genre in other terms. He states that “certain register combinations become institutionalized and are called genres; genre meaning has been extended to mean any frequently occurring, culturally-embedded, social process which involves language” (2005: 94). In other words, Thornbury says that a text (spoken or written) becomes a genre when the use of its distinguishing features starts to increase, and eventually, the society accepts them as norms. An example of such developing genre may be blogging on the Internet. More and more often blogs are categorized according to their topics, thus blogs have particular conventions and are understood by particular members (Thornbury 2013). For example, food blogging has become so popular that it is often necessary to keep some specific rules which indicate that one is a food blogger. It is advisable to write once a week, add photos, pay attention to headlines and there are many other conventions.

2.2 Genre analysis and steps in genre analysis

Having defined the concept of genre, this paper further focuses on genre analysis. Genre analysis started to develop due to the need of more comprehensive explanations of the language use, and the main focus of the language use is context (Bhatia 2004: 9). This language use in context includes two “types”: the first one deals with the context that surrounds a text, and the second one considers why a particular text is possible in the specific context at all (Bhatia 2004: 9). According to Bhatia, genre analysis can be defined as “the study of situated linguistic behaviour in institutionalized or professional settings” (2008: 10). The aim of such study is to find out how people use language in various situations as well as why they use a particular language. In order to explain specific uses of language, genre analysis “goes beyond the context of situation and takes analysis beyond mere linguistic descriptions” (Bhatia et al. 2008: 10), and the main emphasis of genre analysis is conventions.

To analyse a particular genre in a comprehensive way, Bhatia (1993) and Biber and Conrad (2009) provide a number of steps necessary for genre analysis. Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 present what these steps are:

Table 2. 1 Bhatia’s (1993) 7 steps in genre analysis 1. 1. Placing the given genre-text in a situational context 2. Surveying existing literature 3.Refining the situational/ contextual analysis 4. Selecting corpus 5. Studying the institutional context 6. Levels of linguistic analysis 1 .Analysis of lexico – grammatical features 2. Analysis of text – patterning or textualization 3. Structural interpretation of the text - genre 7. Specialist information in genre analysis

The table above shows that genre analysis can be accomplished through seven steps. As Bhatia (1993) states, the first and very important step in genre analysis is the analysis of genre situational characteristics. Situational characteristics include one’s prior experience, the background knowledge, and the knowledge of communicative conventions associated with a particular genre (Bhatia 1993: 22). The following important steps are corpus collecting and the linguistic analysis which help to decide what features of the language are the most common and distinctive. The structural interpretation of text or, in other words, the analysis of language functions, can be considered as the final step in genre analysis. This stage helps to explain why particular linguistic features and discourse structures are associated with the situational characteristics (Biber 2009: 64). Biber and Conrad (2009) in the table below suggest a similar approach, but use slightly different terminology and the order of steps differs: Table 2. 2 Biber and Conrad’s (2009) suggestions for genre analysis 1. Situational analysis 2. Linguistic analysis of registers: 1. Comparative approach 2. Quantitative analysis 3. Representative sample of texts 3. Conducting of quantitative analysis 1. Classifying of linguistic features 2. Computing rates of occurrence 4. Deciding on linguistic features to investigate 5. Functional interpretation 6. Textual conventions: the genre perspective 7. Pervasive linguistic features that are not directly functional: the style perspective 8. Embedded registers and genre

Bhatia (1993) expands the situational context analysis in five steps, while Biber and Conrad (2009) present it as a single step and suggest seven situational characteristics of genre and registers (the table is given in Appendix A: Situational Characteristics of Registers and Genres). Biber and Conrad (2009) also suggest conducting of quantitative analysis, deciding on linguistic features to investigate, and functional interpretation, whereas Bhatia (1993) terms it as the analysis of lexico- grammatical features. Moreover, Biber and Conrad (2009) refer to the structural interpretation as to textual conventions. It is important to mention that these steps may not be followed in the given order or may overlap. According to Bhatia’s (1993) and Biber and Conrad’s (2009) suggestions for genre analysis, this paper focuses only on two steps in genre analysis, which include the analysis of genre’s situational characteristics and the analysis of structural peculiarities. In order to begin the analysis of the situational context and structural moves of the CNN Amanpour and BBC HARDtalk shows, the following section overviews the most salient characteristics of a TV talk show in general and discusses what is already known about this genre. The overview is based on several sources of information: on the observations and on academic literature (Ilie 1999a, 2006b, Shattuc 1997, Marshall and Werndly 2002).

2.3 Characteristics of a TV talk show

A TV talk show can be understood as a form of industrial entertainment which intention is to attract the viewer while offering interesting discussions on the recent events. As a result, there has to be features specific to TV talk shows which instantly inform the viewer about the programme’s genre. The history of TV talk shows dates back to 1930s when radio listeners were invited to share their opinions on a specific topic by a telephone (Ilie 2006: 489). Thus, the basic characteristics of TV talk shows were borrowed from radio, later from tabloids and women’s service magazines, and during the time, TV talk shows developed into various sub-genres from daytime issue-oriented to late-night entertainment talk shows (Shattuc 1997: 3). Ilie (2006) suggests some general key features that describe talk shows and these are summarized in the Table 2.3 below:

Table 2. 3 Characteristic features of talk shows (Ilie 2006) 1. As audience-oriented mediatized events, talk shows target simultaneously a multiple audience made up of the directly addressed audience of interlocutors, the on-looking studio audience, and the overhearing audience of TV-viewers. 2. Both experts and lay people are often present as show guests. Much of the program’s focus has to do with the interchange between them. 3. The show host, usually a media personality, is monitoring most of the discussion by stimulating, guiding, and facilitating the participant’s roles and contributions to the program. 4. Each episode of the program focuses on a particular topic of social, political, or personal concern. Confrontation and conflicting opinions are usually guaranteed by the selection of topics and of participants. 5. Personal experience and common sense have considerable status and increasingly appear as forms of knowledge that are opposed to expertise and to dominate discourses. 6. The discursive strategies of talk shows are: interview, narrative, debate, game, confession, testimony. 7. These programs are usually inexpensive to produce, particularly because they are not part of prime-time broadcasting. 8. Most programs are either broadcast live or recorded in real time with little editing.

Ilie (2006) clearly distinguishes eight key features that characterize TV talk shows. These features suggest that a TV talk show is an audience-oriented event made up of the direct interlocutor, the host, and the audience of the viewers; the guests of the show are experts and the program’s focus is the interchange between the host and the guest; the show host is usually a media personality who stimulates and guides the whole discussion; each episode of the talk show focuses on a specific topic that may be political, social, or personal; personal experience and common sense in talk shows have considerable status and may be opposed to the expertise; the strategies of talk shows may be interview, narrative, debate, or even game; TV talk shows are usually inexpensive to produce; and the most programs are broadcasted live (Ilie 2006: 490). The characteristics summarized above allow forming the basic perception about the TV talk shows, but in addition, Marshall and Werndly’s (2002) insights have to be mentioned as well. According to Marshall and Werndly (2002: 61), the language of television is largely spoken, but the main form of news, documentary, or factual programmes is a spontaneous talk, also described as a ‘live’ talk. The authors emphasize that ‘live’ talk has a direct address, that means us, and the form of ‘live’ talk is mostly the conversation (2002: 61). Since the speech in TV talk shows is spontaneous, there are also some conventions that determine the boundaries of conversations (2002: 61). For example, the host of a TV talk show knows the boundaries of the question it is possible to ask a certain authority that no offence would occur (2002: 65). In addition, Marshall and Werndly (2002) describe the studio set of current affairs interviews. They state that a host is seated behind the desk and a guest sits on the right or the left sides, also participants of the show are formally dressed to suggest a work-like atmosphere (2002: 66). The interruption between participants is treated as a polite way to redirect the conversation, and this is how the host may

control the cohesion and continuity of the discussion (2002: 68). Marshall and Werndly’s insights complement Ilie’s situational conventions. A short overview of Ilie’s (2006) and Marshall and Werndly’s (2002) insights presents the basic characteristics of TV talk shows, and despite the fact that TV talk shows develop and change on each season, there are still the main features of the talk shows that specifically define this genre. According to Ilie’s (2006) typical features of talk shows, Biber and Conrad’s (2009) and Paltridge’s (2006) suggestions for the analysis, a basic framework of the main characteristics is presented in the Table 2.4 below:

Table 2. 4 The main situational characteristics of TV talk shows The situational characteristics of TV talk shows Participants Addressor: single/ host Addressee: single/ plural: interlocutor / guests/ participants/ audience The relationship between Social roles: asymmetrical power relations: the host controls the participants discussion/ guests are entitled to ask and comment Purpose To get people to speak out/ to create public awareness about current problems Topic On current issues of social and/or personal interest Forms Interview, narrative, debate, game, confession, testimony Medium Face to face speech, streaming video Content Relevant topic to the host/ audience/ guests Level of formality Neutral level of formality Style Spontaneous speech: overlapping, pauses, pitch patterns, stress, contractions, repetition, crosstalk

The participants in this genre are an addressor and addressee(s). An addressor is mainly one person called a host while an addressee might be one individual as well as individuals. In fact, in a talk show a “visible” addressee is an interlocutor or interlocutors to whom the host is discussing, and at the same time an “invisible” addressee is the on-looking audience and viewers watching the show at home. However, the on-looking audience may also be absent it the talk show. The relations established between participants in a TV talk show are named as asymmetrical power relationships (Ilie 1999: 211). The show host has control over the question asking and guides all the conversation, yet guests and on-looking audience are also encouraged to ask or to comment (Ilie 1999: 211). Moreover, such an asymmetrical power relationship is considered as a positive because it often creates new and unpredictable forms of interaction (Ilie 1999: 211). Other characteristics to be analysed are the purpose and the topic of a TV talk show. Generally, aims of talk shows may be various, for example, to inform, to explain, to entertain, or to report, but to be more specific, the topic arises from the current problems or personal interests and

is discussed to create a public awareness (Ilie 1999: 217). The following situational characteristics are forms and the medium. Forms of TV talk shows indicate what a format of a show is, for example, it can be a debate or an interview. The choice of topics may influence the format of a TV talk show or vice versa. The speech in talk shows is usually a face to face conversation, but due to the distance problems, video streaming is also a popular form of conversation. The last characteristics to discuss are the content, level of formality, and style. The content of a TV talk show indicates the relevance of the topic to the host, guests, and the audience. The register of a talk show is mainly neutral because this level of formality allows familiar relations and creates friendly environment. Lastly, the style of speech is spontaneous due to the form of talk shows. This type of speech occurs in dialogues, interviews, or debates, and during the speech interlocutors may interrupt each other as well as can use pauses, repetition, contractions or other characteristics of a spontaneous speech. TV talk shows are constantly developing and the distinction between genres or sub-genres may be challenging sometimes. Ilie (2006) also suggests five major criteria to distinguish talk shows. These are presented in the table below:

Table 2. 5 Five criteria to identify and distinguish various talk shows formats (Ilie 2006) 1. Discussion topics (from contemporary political issues to social or moral problems) 2. Categories of participants, particularly in terms of social and popularity status (celebrities or ordinary members of the public) 3. Broadcasting time (early morning, daytime, or late night) 4. Organizational and interactional frameworks (staging conventions and seating configurations for show guests and audience 5. Ethical considerations (the producers’ and hosts’ moral concerns)

It is important to mention that not all of these criteria have to be taken into account while deciding on the sub-genre of a talk show. For example, Shattuc (1997: 3) provides another five characteristics which help to distinguish issue-oriented talk shows from other shows: 1. issue-oriented show (social problems or personal matters, e.g. drug use, rape, sex change) 2. active audience participation is central 3. moral authority and educated knowledge of a host and expert, who mediate between guests and audience 4. show constructed for a female audience 5. show produced by non-network companies for broadcast on network-affiliated stations.

Ilie (2006) and Shattuc’s (1997) characteristics are basically the same, but presented in a different terminology. The first characteristic means that the topic of issue-oriented talk shows rises from the current social issues and often is placed in a domestic context. The following characteristic emphasises the active participation of the audience and its role is to represent viewers who watch

the show at home (Shattuc 1997: 3). The third characteristic suggests that a host and expert control the discussion, since their knowledge is specialized (ibid.). The fourth characteristic of issue- oriented talk shows focuses on the female audience, because shows are often watched by women while they are at home during the daytime hours (ibid.). The last characteristic means that shows are independent from networks and this allows their variation in the content (ibid.). In addition, other characteristics, for example, time of scheduling, may be considered as well while deciding on the sub-genre (ibid.). After the discussion of genre, genre analysis, steps in genre analysis, and some characteristics of a TV talk show, this paper further briefly overviews the most typical features of the spoken discourse and the discussion of gender related linguistic features follows.

2.4 Features of spoken discourse

There are some typical interactional features of the spoken discourse that can be considered as more prevalent in speeches than in writings, though they are not considered as deviations from the written discourse (Biber et al. 1999: 1038). Biber et al. (1999) provide typical conversational grammar features based on quantitative findings. The table below presents typical and not typical grammatical features used in conversations: Table 2. 6 Typical and not typical characteristics of the spoken discourse based on Biber et al. (1999) Typical characteristics if the spoken discourse Not typical characteristics personal pronouns noun modifiers inserts (discourse markers) modal auxiliaries Prefaces verbs taking and infinitive complements Tags stance adverbs unembedded dependent clauses linking adverbs independent genitives relative clauses possessive pronouns oblique case form of interrogatives Particles adverbs, adverbial clauses,stance adverbials Articles interrogative forms familiarizers interjections predicative adjectives Hesitators negative contractions non-standard English language forms lexical bundles modal auxiliaries verbs taking that-clauses as complements the construction with there is/was followed by

First of all, Biber et al. indicate that conversations are highly marked with personal pronouns (especially I and you) and less by nouns (1999: 1042). Such high frequency of pronouns occurs because speakers share the same situational knowledge (ibid.). Pronouns, however, are often omitted and this shows that ellipsis or substitutions occurs instead of a grammatical item (for example, omission of pronouns or verbs). Due to omissions and substitutions, the speech may sound fragmented (ibid.). In addition, inserts, such as yeah, okay, sorry, prefaces, tags (Well, that little girl’s cute, isn’t she?), unembedded dependent clauses (if you don’t mind) also are highly used in conversations and their meaning depend on the immediate situational context (Biber et al. 1999: 1043). Another common conversational grammar features are independent genitives (mom’s), possessive pronouns (mine), verbs, particles, stance adverbials (thankfully, it stopped raining), adverbs (there, so, just, then, anyway), adverbial clauses (if, when, because), interrogative forms (could/would you), familiarizers (man), interjections (oh, ah, wow), predicative adjectives (the flower is blue), hesitators (er, um), negative contractions (isn’t, can’t), non-standard English language forms (ain’t) lexical bundles (do you know what), modal auxiliaries (will, can, would, could), verbs taking that-clauses as complements (think, say, know), the construction with there is/was followed by a plural noun phrase, and articles (Biber et al. 1999: 1044-1051). On the other hand, features, for example, attributive adjectives (happy people), noun modifiers, modal auxiliaries (must, might, shall, may), verbs taking and infinitive complements, stance adverbs, linking adverbs, oblique case form of interrogatives (whom), and relative clauses are not common in spoken discourse (ibid.). Biber et al., discuss that in the spoken discourse some features are so persuasive that can create dysfluency and errors in the speech (1999: 1052). The most common features include hesitations, repeats, grammatically incomplete utterances, and syntactic blends (Biber et al. 1999: 1053-1056). In general, hesitation is a period of silence while the speaker thinks of what to say next and it can be silent pause or filled pause (Biber et al. 1999: 1052). The latter is occupied by the vowel sound, for example, uh/um/er/erm (ibid.). Repetition in most cases occurs when speaker wants to re-begin the same piece of speech or to gain some time, and mostly one word or just a syllable is repeated (Biber et al. 1999: 1055). The occurrence of grammatically incomplete utterances means that the speaker starts something to say but fails to finish the utterance (Biber et al. 1999: 1063). The last feature, syntactic blends, indicates that the speaker finishes his/her sentence in a way that is “syntactically inconsistent” to the beginning of the sentence (Biber et al. 1999: 1064). As the overview of the spoken discourse and its characteristics shows, the spoken discourse has a large number of features that are specifically frequent in conversations. In general,

those features can be divided into grammatically simple and rather complex constructions, starting from pronouns and finishing with various types of clauses. The discussion of each characteristic can go further into details; however, the discussion is not wide because the focus is on the features related to gender.

2.5 Spoken discourse in relation to gender

Terms gender and discourse started to appear together in 1970s and 1980s when the dominance approach, showing that men dominate women in interactions, had emerged (Sunderland 2006: 53). The understanding of discourse as gender influenced language was prevalent at that time, and only the contemporary notion refers to men’s and women’s language differences as the result of differences in men’s and women’s social construction (ibid.). According to Coates (2013: 90), the field of language and gender studies has two directions: the first one developed as “a part of quantitative sociolinguistics” and the other focuses on discourse. The studies of quantitative sociolinguistics indicate that researchers analysed variations of language in relation to the social variables (for example, class, age, ethnicity), and this direction has now developed into the communities of practice approach (ibid.). The studies of language as a whole allowed researchers to understand that there is a relation between discourse and social contexts, and then the term sex was replaced by gender (ibid.). Since the first approach in the language and gender field appeared, the study of discourse and gender has enormously developed into many various directions, from the early focus on “women’s language” to the language of homosexuals (Coates 2013: 98). As the discourse and gender study has progressed so far, researchers came up to some conclusions (Kendall and Tannen 2001: 556). Kendall and Tannen (ibid.) present four the most widely accepted features and the most debatable issue that have emerged: 1. The social construction of gender. 2. The indirect relationship between gender and discourse. 3. Gendered discourse as resource. 4. Gendered discourse as a constraint. 5. Gender dualism (Kendall and Tannen 2001: 556). The first characteristic shows that ideas of the social constructivism in explaining language and gender differences prevail over the other approaches (ibid.). This means that researches agree that gender is influenced by various cultural, social, or ethnical aspects. The second characteristic suggests that discourse and gender are “sex-class linked rather than sex linked” (ibid.) That implies that speech differences are associated with “the class of women or the class of men in a given

society” and not with the every individual person (ibid.). For example, a person speaking in a way that is associated with a particular sex class may align him/herself to that class. The third feature explains that “speaking styles exist independently of the speaker” and the discourse provides a source for speakers so they can choose individual speaking styles and represent themselves in any way they want (ibid.). The fourth characteristic, gendered discourse as a constraint, explains that discourse is limited and constrained by the speaking community in which the speaker participate, thus speakers have to choose linguistic strategies that are acceptable and create alignments (ibid). Finally, the gender dualism issue focuses on the division of gender and sex. That means that men and women may not speak in ways according to their sex and can speak like the other sex. This issue is the most debatable in gender and discourse studies, however a number of studies, for example, Cameron’s (1998) or Bergvall’s (1996), showed that sex and gender based oppositions cannot be dismissed, because researchers were obliged to consider the sex of their speakers (Kendall and Tannen 2001: 559). While speaking about general conclusions of gender and discourse studies, the question of what are the linguistic features common to men’s and women’s speech now arises. The discipline of language use including syntax, morphology, phonology, pronunciation, social and cultural knowledge is termed communicative competence (Hymes 1972: 282). According to Hymes (ibid.), in order to communicate effectively a person has to know how to use language appropriately as well. Studies have revealed that men’s and women’s communicative competence differs and that men and women use different conversational strategies (Coates 2013: 86). Coates (2013) presents some strategies, namely, minimal responses, hedges, tag questions, questions, commands, directives, swear words, taboo words, and compliments that show how different men and women speak. The minimal responses are monosyllabic utterances, such as yeah, mhm, right, that are used both by men and women in conversations. However, as results of various studies show, for instance, Zimmerman and West’s (1975), Holmes’ (1995), women tend to use minimal responses more than men. Women use such responses to indicate that they listen and to show support for the speaker, whereas if men use minimal responses, they reinforce their dominance to the speaker and responses are often delayed (Coates 2013: 88). In addition, women use minimal responses in a skilful manner, that is, they do not interrupt or overlap the speaker (ibid.). As a result, women are considered to be more positively polite than men (Holmes 1995: 57). Hedges are the utterances indicating that the speaker wants to “reduce the strength or force of an utterance” rather than to impose negative politeness (Holmes 1995: 76). Such devices may be a fall-rise intonation, tag questions, modal verbs, lexical items (perhaps), and pragmatic particles such as I think, I’m sure, you know, sort of (ibid.). Lakoff (1975) claimed that use of hedges shows

women’s unassertiveness, lack of confidence, social insecurity as well as politeness, and Holmes (1995: 73) discussed that there is some truth in these claims. A few studies (Preisler 1986) have revealed that women indeed use more hedges in some situations, and other studies (Holmes 1987) emphasized that there are different functions of hedges and that the frequency of hedges usage may be similar in men’s and women’s speech, but their function is completely different. According to Holmes (1987: 64) there are two types of hedges, one that expresses confidence and certainty, and the other that expresses uncertainty. As results of Holmes (ibid.) analysis showed, women (56 out of 89) tend to use the hedge you know in order express confidence and use it more frequent than men (37 out of 87), while on the other hand, men (50 out of 87) tend to use the hedge you know to express uncertainty and use it more frequent than women (33 out of 89). However, in general the lower usage of hedges in men’s speech may be the result of topics that women discuss, for example, women often tend to choose sensitive topics, thus use hedges to soften the force of what is said (Coates, 2013: 90). The tag question is another characteristic of women’s speech that Lakoff (1975) suggested. Some researches (Siegler and Siegler 1976, Jones 1980) supported the claim that women use tag questions more frequent than men, while other studies disproved the assumption or revealed that tag questions have different meanings, hence the usage among men and women differs. Holmes (1984) carried out the research in New Zealand using 60,000 word corpus consisting the equal amount of female and male speech on question tags according to their meanings that are modal (expressing uncertainty), facilitative, and softening, (the latter two have affective meaning expressing the speaker’s attitude to the interlocutor). Table 2.7 below presents the results: Table 2. 7 Distribution of tag questions (based on Holmes 1984: 54, cited in Holmes 1995: 83) Percentage of tag questions Type of meaning Female Male Modal 35% 61% Facilitative 59% 25% Softening 6% 13%

As can be seen from the table, the usage of tag questions in general does not differ greatly among men and women. However, 59% percent of women used facilitative tag questions, while 61% of men used modal tag questions. Holmes (1995: 82) discusses that women have a tendency to adopt facilitative roles in conversations; as a result they are more likely to use facilitative tags, whereas men tend to use modal tag questions for reassurance or confirmation. In addition to the discussion of tag questions, Fishman’s (1980) study on questions and tag questions revealed that women ask more questions that men, and it suggests that this may reflect women’s weakness in interactions (as cited in Coates 2013: 93).

One more characteristic that Lakoff (1975) suggested is that women use weaker swear words than men, for example, oh dear, goodness, oh fudge versus shit, hell. Gomm (1981) have carried out the research on swear words usage among British teenagers and found out that there are no qualitative differences in the usage of swear words, but the main difference is in frequency between male and female usage (as cited in Coates 2013: 97). According to the results, male speakers swear more than female speakers, both male and female swear more in same-sex interactions, and male usage of swear words is lower in mixed-sex interactions (ibid.). Gomm’s findings were supported by later researches by Cheshire (1983), Coates (2003), and others. For example, Coates’ study showed that males in same-sex groups use a lot of taboo words, while female in same-sex groups use almost none, only a few examples of bloody (Coates 2013: 98). De Klerk (1997: 147) explains that the usage of “swear words have become associated with power and masculinity in Western culture” (as cited in Coates 2013: 98). Findings of various studies revealed that women tend to use minimal responses and question/ask more than men; the use of hedges and tag questions is common in both male and female speeches, only the functions and meanings of these strategies differ; and the frequency of swear words in male’s speech is higher than in women’s. The following chapter specifically focuses on the early works in the field of language and gender as well as overviews four theories that explain differences between men’s and women’s speech.

3 LANGUAGE AND GENDER

This chapter of the thesis focuses on three aspects: the distinction between terms gender and sex, the early interest in language and gender differences, and theories that explain speech differences between men and women. Section 3.1 explains the difference between terms gender and sex and discusses how various scholars define these terms. Section 3.2 presents the development of language and gender studies and overviews the first stereotypes and literary works of the field. Section 3.3 presents four theoretical approaches that emerged in order to explain men’s and women’s speech differences.

3.1 The distinction between the terms gender and sex

To define and understand the linguistic differences between men’s and women’s speech, the notion of gender and sex, as well as differences between these terms, are crucial in this research field. First of all, sociolinguists, as well as other social scientists, explain terms gender and sex as two distinct

concepts. According to Talbot (1998: 7), sex is only a matter of biology and genes; a person is either male or female. Bing and Bergvall (1996: 2) also claim that the term sex refers to the biological classification, and Little et al. (2014: 366) indicate that sex is “physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height and muscularity”. Gender, on the other hand, is characterized in completely different terms. Talbot (1998: 7) says that gender is constructed socially. In other words, people learn masculine or feminine behaviours from their society and sociolinguistics call it gender socialization (Ryle 2014: 109). The gender socialization begins at the birth and continues through the whole person’s life (ibid.). During the socialization a person learns gender norms of his/her society and develops the gender identity (Ryle 2014: 110). Bing and Bergvall (1996: 2) also discuss that gender is a socially acquired behaviour, and Little et al. (2014) state the same idea but in other words. It is explained that gender is associated with the social and cultural aspects and may vary across the different societies (2014: 367). For example, in many cultures it is feminine to wear a dress or a skirt while in the Middle Eastern, Asian, and African cultures such clothing can be considered as a masculine behaviour, and on the other hand, a Scottish man wearing a kilt is not behaving femininely (ibid.). Coates states that “learning to perform masculinity or femininity in our society means among other things learning to use gender-appropriate language” (2013: 169). She specifically relates this saying to the children language acquisition because they are socialised into the appropriate feminine or masculine behaviour mostly through language, and this leads to a conclusion that children learn to talk as adult men and women talk (Coates 1993: 38). It also can be added that people are expected to speak according to their gender (Talbot 2003: 468). However, language is not the only characteristic that affects gender differences. It also includes aspects such as clothing, behaviour, personal appearance and many others that depend on the specific culture one lives in. The study of gender differences and their possible causes in language because of social factors is one of the main sociolinguistics’ concerns. As a conclusion of the discussion, definitions of these terms can be provided according to the Bucholtz’s (2002) summary. Bucholtz’s (2002) definitions are based on the most common understandings about sex and gender in sociolinguistics. She defines sex and gender as follows: sex is “a social variable with two values: female and male and the biological differentiation of individuals into a dichotomy between female and male (in contrast to gender)” (2002: 37); gender is “the social differentiation of individuals within a continuum between feminine and masculine (in contrast to sex)” (2002: 37). It can be stated that these definitions are established on the basis of the key terms, such as biological versus social and male/female versus masculine/manly/feminine/womanly. The scholars

claim that the sex difference is determined by birth while gender differences between men and women result from the social and cultural contexts. The following section overviews the historical development of language and gender studies.

3.2 Early works and stereotypes in the field of language and gender studies

There is a tendency to assume that the early studies of differences in speech between men and women date from the second wave of the Women’s Movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s. However, various writings or, to be more precise, speculations related to language and gender were expressed before this movement. In 1922, Jespersen published a book Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin that included a chapter titled “The Woman” concerning women’s language. “The Woman” describes differences in women’s language compared to men’s. He claims: There can be no doubt that women exercise a great and universal influence on linguistic development through their instinctive shrinking from coarse and gross expression and their preference for refined and veiled and indirect expressions (Jespersen 1922: 246).

That means that women use euphemisms for unpleasant expressions and vulgarisms, for instance, women would say it’s very kind of you rather than it’s good of you or nice instead of fine (Jespersen 1922: 245). Jespersen also stated that women have a smaller vocabulary than men (1922: 248). The saying “men will often either coin new words or expressions <...> and are confirmed punsters” (Jespersen 1992: 248-249) suggests that only men tend to develop new words in their speech, whereas women’s speech “lacks intelligence and power” (Murphy 2010: 21). In addition, Jespersen explained that women speak more rapid, thus do not finish their sentences while men tend to think before they speak (Jespersen 1992: 250). However, Jespersen’s so-called evidences were based on proverbs, witticisms, and attitudes of fiction writers, or in other words, there were no solid evidences to prove such claims (Talbot 2003: 469). Popular stereotypes based on language and gender had also existed centuries earlier (Sunderland 2006: 2). Researchers (for example, Sunderland 2006, Coates 2013) give proverbs, quotations or sayings that show how men and women are expected to speak and how they actually as ‘folk-linguistic’ ideas. Coates (2013: 9) cites some proverbs that indicate women’s verbosity, for instance, ‘A woman’s tongue wags like a lamb’s tail.’, ‘The North Sea will be found wanting in water than a woman at a loss for a word.’, or ‘Foxes are all tail and women are all tongue’. Obviously, these proverbs suggest that women are talkative, or even talk too much, and will always have something to say. Folk-linguistic ideas can also be found in fiction writings, such as poems, novels, diaries, or letters since the authors may refer to some language and gender generalizations

(Coates 2013: 9). For instance, the saying “How hard it is for women to keep counsel!” (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, II.iv.9, as cited in Sunderland (2006)) can be interpreted as a reference to the women’s language. However, while analysing the utterances by fictional characters that may suggest some ideas of men’s or women’s language it is important to consider the situational context of the work (Sunderland 2006: 3). Although issues about gendered language have a long history, studies of the differences between men’s and women’s speech have developed into an independent field of research due to the feminist movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Weatherall 2002: 3). A number of writings raised questions about the nature and gender bias in language and the gender differences in the language use (ibid.). As can be expected, the movement activists specifically aimed at language claiming that the sexism is encoded in language, thus the English language itself ‘defines, degrades, and stereotypes’ women (Weatherall 2002: 4). For example, the use of generic he or man excludes women, although he or man is equally referred to men and women (Sunderland 2006: 10). Alongside the movement, a great number of investigations based on language and gender factors were also carried out. Well known sociolinguists, such as Labov (1966), Lakoff (1972, 1973, 1975), Trudgill (1972, 1978, 1988), West and Zimmermann (1977), and others made a significant contribution to the language and gender studies by analysing gender differences in language. The publication of Lakoff’s Language and Women’s Place (1975) is considered to be a very influential ‘pioneer work’ (Sunderland 2006: 14). Lakoff’s (1975) work is best known for its study of “the English language used by and about women” (Cameron 2006: 46). Lakoff (1975: 41) claimed that differences in men’s and women’s speech occur from the women’s subordinate social status. Lakoff observed that women use more precise colour terms than men (beige, ecru, aquamarine, lavender) (1975: 43), super polite forms (indirect requests, euphemisms and diminutives) (1975: 44), weaker swear words (oh dear, goodness, oh fudge versus shit, hell) (1975: 44), empty adjectives (adorable, charming, sweet) (1975: 45), tag questions (John is here? instead of John is here, isn’t he?) (1975: 48), intensifiers (so and just), hedges or fillers (you know, sort of, well you see) (1975:79), hypercorrect grammar and pronunciation, question intonation, and emphasise certain words (Lakoff 1975: 80). These features are based on Lakoff’s observations, and the lack of her study encouraged other researchers to investigate this hypothesis more broadly. Empirical studies confirmed as well as did not support some of Lakoff’s speculations. According to Talbot (1998: 44), it was likely that Lakoff’s hypothesis was based on women’s speech stereotypes. As Talbot (ibid.) indicates, the major problems with the hypothesis were that:  “it rested on identification of a set of linguistic features supposed to be typical of women’s language;

 it reinforced a deficit model of women’s language;  in accounting for gender differences in language use in terms of women’s deficiencies, it was implicitly setting up men’s ways of speaking as authentic, neutral language use” (Talbot 1998: 44). In general, O’Loughin (2001: 34) discusses that Lakoff’s claims were made on the basis of women’s subordinate social status and their female identity and no distinction between gender and sex was made. (As a matter of fact, terms gender and sex were not discussed in greater detail before 1980s (Bucholtz 2002: 34), and until 1950s gender and sex in the English language were not differentiated at all (Little et al. 2014: 368)). Despite all problems with the study, Lakoff’s speculations were very valuable and many later studies focused specifically on some of the features (for example, Holmes’ (1986) study on the hedge ‘you know’ and tag questions, Coates’ (1986) study on the hypercorrect grammar). Five years after the publication of Language and Women’s Place, another influential work, Man Made Language (1980) by Spender, was published. As Lakoff (1975), Spender (1980) also wrote about the gender differences in language and argued that English language is under male control and women are being silenced (Sunderland 2006: 14). It means that language reflects reality defined by men and “women have to use meanings that are man made” (Talbot 1993: 45). Penhallurick (2003: 146) discusses that Spender’s claims indicate the society that itself is organized in such a way that men are superior and women have no power. As a result, English language is “the product of patriarchy” (ibid.). Like Lakoff’s (1975) work, Spender’s (1980) book was also much criticized because of the English language representation as a “gender-biased system” as well as of the patriarchal view of language (Sunderland 2006: 16). For example, Talbot (1998: 45) discusses that Spender actually claimed that language itself is a man made and that men create reality through the language while women have do not have their language and have to use men’s perceptions of the reality. However, Spender herself in her work referred to new coinages and that suggests that new perceptions of reality can be provided (Talbot 1998: 46). The early stereotypes, folk-linguistic ideas, and observations of the differences in men’s and women’s speech expanded into an independent field of research. The first literary works indicated the language differences, but were criticized due to the lack in evidences or the view of language and gender differences. As the result, theories explaining men’s and women’s speech differences emerged, and the overview of these theoretical approaches is discussed in the following section.

3.3 The deficit, dominance, difference, and dynamic approaches

The early Lakoff’s (1975) and Spender’s (1980) claims about language and gender differences in a way created the four theories of gendered language that developed in a historical sequence, namely, the deficit, dominance, difference, and dynamic (or social constructionist) approaches (Coates 2013: 6). The deficit approach sees women’s language as inferior to men’s language; the dominance approach sees men as more dominant than women in mixed-sex interactions; the difference approach holds view that language differences result from the cultural differences; and dynamic approach sees gender identity as a socially constructed process. All these approaches are similar in a way that they all focus on gender related language issues and differ in some ways which are presented below.

3.3.1 The deficit approach

According to various scholars (Coates 1993; 1998; 2013, Sunderland 2006, Talbot 1998), the deficit approach developed from Lakoff’s Language and Women’s Place (1975) because the work represents one gender as deficient compared to the other. As was already mentioned above, Lakoff (1975) observed that the use of linguistic characteristics, such as hedges, empty adjectives, super polite forms, tag questions and others represent women as insecure, having a subordinate social status, and deficient (Lakoff 1975). Thus the deficient framework sees women’s language as a deviation from men’s language that is considered to be a norm (Talbot 1998: 131). It is important to mention that nowadays researchers see the deficit approach as outdated because of the problematic observations (Coates 2013: 7). Various investigations based on Lakoff’s observations were carried out as well. However, researchers often lacked linguistic understanding and their knowledge of linguistic features was limited (Talbot 1998: 41). As the result, some researchers confused forms and functions of the linguistic features, did not manage to classify them appropriately, and missed the essential point in the Lakoff’s work (Holmes 2013: 286). Lakoff (1975) provided features that have the same function; they express a lack of confidence. Hence other researchers in their investigations treated Lakoff’s features as precise differences (Holmes 2013: 286). Holmes discovered that the internal coherence of the features may be shown by dividing them into two groups of devices, boosting and hedging devices (ibid.). The first group includes features that “may be used for hedging or reducing the force of an utterance”, for example, fillers, tag questions, and rising intonation on declaratives (Holmes 2013: 387). The second group involves features that “may boost or intensify proposition’s force”, such as emphatic stress and intensifiers (ibid.). Despite that both hedging and boosting devices suggest that

a speaker lacks confidence and needs reassurance, the same devices can have other functions as well (ibid.). For example, in the saying “your essay is a real masterpiece”, the form real may function referentially as a synonym for actual (as if the work is really good), at the same time real may function as a booster intensifying a criticism. While deciding what the effect of an utterance is, the context has to be assessed at first.

3.3.2 The dominance approach

The following discussion presents the dominance approach. The earliest work related to this approach is Spender’s Man Made Language (1980) already mentioned above. Spender’s (1980) claims were based on the idea that English language itself is a man made language, thus the focus of dominance approach is “on examining the culture of male dominance and its effects on speech patterns” (Kramarae and Spender 2000: 1242), In order to dominate the partner in a conversation, speakers use conversational strategies that are called conversational dominance (Coates 2013: 111). The interruption strategy is the most obvious one since a person may achieve dominance in the conversation while interrupting his/her interlocutor (Coates 2013: 111). Conversational dominance includes strategies such as turn-taking, amount of talking time, non-cooperation, silences, and others. A variety of studies concerning the conversational dominance were carried out as well. The most widely used framework for analysing the turn-taking in natural occurring conversations was developed by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) (Coates 2013: 112). For example, West and Zimmerman applied the model in their research Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversations (1975). Findings of the research revealed that features of natural spontaneous speech, interruptions, silences, and turn taking, in mixed-sex interactions indicate power and control in conversations. According to the results, interruptions in the same-sex interactions were distributed more or less equally between speakers, while interruptions and overlaps in mixed-sex conversations were mostly made by men (96% and 100% respectively) (West and Zimmerman 1975: 115). Finding of silences distributions showed that females in the mixed-sex interactions were more likely to exhibit silences, whereas in same-sex interactions the distribution of silences was almost equal (West and Zimmerman 1975: 118). This research demonstrated that men and women do not have an equal status when it comes to the conversation. A few years later, West and Zimmerman in Women’s Place in Everyday Talk: Reflections on Parent-Child Interaction (1977) analysed the patterns of interactions in adults and children conversations and compared results to their earlier studies. Findings of this research presented that adults regularly interrupt children; 86% of interruptions were made by adults (West and Zimmerman 1977: 169). West and Zimmerman associate these results with the earlier proposed idea

by Goffman (1976) that women and children have limited rights to speak and interruptions are used in order to achieve dominance (ibid.). In addition to West and Zimmerman’s works (1975, 1977), there are other studies that focused on the conversational strategies, namely DeFrancisco’s (1991) study on the non-cooperation or Swann’s (1989) research on the amount of talk.

3.3.3 The difference approach

While the dominance approach suggests that men’s and women’s speech differences are related to power, the difference approach focuses on the notion that women and men belong to different subcultures (Coates 2013: 6). This means that boys and girls socialize in distinct subcultures, and thus acquire different interactional styles with different conventions (Talbot 2003: 475). According to Coates (1998: 413), this approach emerged not because the dominance approach represented the men’s dominance in mixed-sex conversations, but because feminist researchers disagreed with claims that women’s language is “weak, unassertive, tentative, and women were presented as losers, as victims” (ibid.). Coates emphasizes that the advantage of difference approach is that it helps to present the strengths of linguistic strategies used by men or women in the same-sex conversations, and the dominance approach is not very useful at this point (ibid.). The same-sex talks were not much analysed until Jones work Gossip: Notes on Women’s Oral Culture (1980) was published, and since then a variety of studies (for example, Tannen 1990, Cheshire 1982, Goodwin 1990) were carried out in this particular field (Coates 2013: 125). One of the first works explaining that misunderstandings between men and women result from the cultural differences was written by Maltz and Borker A Cultural Approach to Male- Female Miscommunication (1982) (Coates 1998: 414). The data of this work was based on the already written works by West and Zimmerman (1977), Fishman (1978), Hirscham (1973). Maltz and Borker summarized the five main differences of men’s and women’s communication (as presented in the table below) and provided possible explanations with respect to the different male and female subcultures why men’s and women’s speech differ (Maltz and Borker 1982: 417-418).

Table 3. 1 Differences between men’s and women’s language (Maltz and Borker 1982: 418) Women’s features Men’s features 1. Women ask questions more than men. Men are more likely to interrupt the speech of women. 2. Women maintain routine interaction more Men are more likely to challenge or dispute than men. their partners’ utterances. 3. Women use positive minimal responses more Men are more likely to ignore the comments than men. of the other speaker. 4. Women use a “silent protest” strategy more Men use more mechanisms for controlling than men. the topic of conversation than women. 5. Women use pronouns “you” and “we” more Men make more direct declarations of fact or than men. opinion than women.

Maltz and Borker (1982: 423) stated in their work that boys and girls learn to use language differently because they socialize in the same-sex contexts approximately from age 5 to 15, consequently, what children learn in the childhood they carry over it into the adulthood. This means that men and women as adults use different rules in mixed-sex interactions and, unfortunately, when those rules come into conflict the miscommunication occurs (Maltz and Borker 1982: 429). The notion of difference approach that miscommunication between men and women occurs due to the interactional difficulties became very popular, and it was evident when Tannen’s books That’s Not What I Meant (1986) and You Just Don’t Understand (1990) were sold very well (Coates 1998: 414). Tannen (1990) identified differences between men’s and women’s speech as a report-talk versus rapport-talk, metamessages, interruptions, and overlapping. Men’s and women’s speech styles were defined as the rapport-talk and report-talk (Tannen 1990: 77). Women’s rapport- talk means that the conversation for women is a way to establish intimacy and connections, and, in contrast, men use language mostly to convey information: For most men, talk is primarily a means to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order. This is done by exhibiting knowledge and skill, and by holding centre stage through verbal performance such as storytelling, joking, or imparting information (Tannen: 1990: 77).

Tannen (1990) criticized the previous notions of differences in interruptions and overlapping. She claimed that an interruption is a matter of a speaker’s rights and obligations, and in order to decide “whether a speaker is violating another speaker’s rights, you have to know a lot about both speakers and the situation” (Tannen 1990: 190). In addition, Tannen distinguished two styles of interruptions, high considerateness and high involvement (Tannen 1990: 196). That is, the first style speakers are concerned with being considerate of others, while the second style speakers give a priority to show the enthusiastic support; thus claiming that an interruption is a sign of dominance is vague (ibid.). According to Coates, what Tannen did in her work is that she “took Maltz and Borker’s argument to its logical extreme”, and as a result, the book received “the most critical reviews ever seen in the sociolinguistics world” (Coates 1998: 415). Tannen was criticized by scholars such as Cameron (1992), Freed (1992), and Troemel- Ploetz (1991). For example, Troemel-Ploetz, in her review Selling the Apolitical (1990) explains a number of problems found in the Tannen’s book. In brief, Troemel-Ploetz states that Tannen supports her whole work on the idea that “women’s and men’s conversation is cross-cultural communication” (1990: 447) which, first of all, is not even proven; she also avoids to discuss the feminist literature and works that focus on male dominance and their superiority; in some cases

Tannen fails to provide explanations to the given claim; some claims are even ridiculous, and so forth (Troemel-Ploetz 1990: 448-455). Tannen’s book (1990) greatly affected the view towards the difference approach; now it is seen as a really problematic one because “it is associated with a political stance which ignores male dominance” (Coates 1998: 415). Despite it, the difference approach allows to explain differences in the same-sex conversations (ibid.). Since investigations focusing on the same-sex talk started, findings showed that there are two dichotomies of the same-sex talk: women use a collaborative speech style, whereas men use a competitive style (Coates 2013: 126). While speaking in the collaborative style, women seek to maintain equal rights, to establish relation and to support each other as well as to show affection (ibid.). Such speaking style includes strategies/features namely, topic and topic development, minimal responses, hedges, questions, and the turn-taking (Coates 2013: 127-132). As a contrast, the competitive men’s speaking style includes “contest, battle, and gladiatorial” images (Coates 2013: 133). This style can be expressed through the topic choice, monologues and playing the expert, questions, verbal sparring, and the turn-taking (ibid.). These two dichotomies indicate that even though men and women use different speaking styles, they seek to create group solidarity, and exaggeration of such differences is “unwise” (Coates 2013: 143). The discussion of deficit, dominance, and difference approaches presented the development of approaches, main studies and works related to these approaches, also overviewed some critical aspects which emerged to indicate the problematic points in the deficit, dominance, and difference notions. The final section presents the most recent perspective towards men’s and women’s speech differences, the dynamic approach.

3.3.4 The dynamic approach

More contemporary works related to differences between men’s and women’s language introduce quite different ways of thinking. First of all, researches in this approach see gender as something that is done rather than given, and secondly, gender is a dynamic process (Coates 2013: 138). In other words, masculine or feminine behaviours are influenced by the factors such as class, religion, age, or ethnicity, and language in the same way is affected by these social factors (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2013: 44). According to Coates (2013: 138), “speakers are seen as ‘performing’ masculinity or femininity”. Works that discussed language as something that is done were produced by scholars such as Butler (1990), Crawford (1995), Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992, 1995, 1998, 2003), West and Zimmerman (1987). West and Zimmerman in their work Doing Gender (1987) introduced the notion that gender is an “accomplishment embedded in everyday interaction” (1987: 125). That is, people in their daily activities express their gender according to the situations, and different social

identities are created as well (Holmes and Meyerhoff 2003: 11). For example, a person acts completely different at work and at friends’ party. Speakers change their ‘selves’ because there are many alternatives to perform as masculine of feminine, but choices depend on “their cultural understanding and prevailing norms” (Coates 2013: 139). Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992) in their work discussed that people constantly create gender through the social interaction in the speech communities (Coates 1998: 45). Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992: 484) claimed that the previous theoretical frameworks of language and gender “suffer from too much abstraction”, and that in order to understand how language and gender interacts, analysis of language in social practices is needed. All categorizations of men’s and women’s speech differences were made “at different times and in different circumstances” and by researchers with different theories, thus linguistic and social behaviours are in a way removed from the communities in which they occur (1992: 485). Eckert and McConnell- Ginet proposed to relate already known categorizations of language and gender with the social and linguistic practices and introduced the term community of practice (ibid.). This term means that a particular speech community involves people who share same values, beliefs, do same things, speak in the same manner, work together and so forth (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992: 409). According to Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992: 492), the language differences between men’s and women’s speech in such communities are seen as constantly constructed rather than fixed. Though the social constructionist perception is rather new, researchers suggest one more notion in language and gender studies. Bing and Bergvall (1996: 506) criticized the deficit, dominance, and difference approaches claiming that all models “suggest dichotomies separated by clear boundaries”. This means that such gender polarization do not accept men’s and women’s differences, and Bing and Bergvall suggest that gender differences should be accepted as diversities (Bing and Bergvall: 1996: 505). However, examinations on this idea require new presuppositions, models, and speech communities that do not have already made prejudices about language and gender (Bing and Bergvall 1996: 506). As the discussion of deficit, dominance, difference, and dynamic approaches shows, the attitude towards differences between men’s and women language is still changing. Lakoff’s (1975) work was a starting point for the dominance approach to emerge, and as a response to it, the difference approach appeared. The dynamic approach and the notion of diversity instead of a dichotomy can be seen as examples of new perception in language and gender studies. It may be stated that notions of all approaches may overlap in some cases because there are no clear boundaries between them. While there is valuable empirical evidence providing support for the dominance, difference, and dynamic approaches, the new insights of the latter one requires empirical data.

4 THE MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter of the thesis describes the materials and the methods used in the study. In order to begin the analysis of genre differences and similarities between the two shows, first, the academic literature on genre analysis and TV talk shows is overiewed. The theoretical sources that provided the material necessary to understand the concept of genre analysis as well as the steps in genre analysis are the works of Bhatia (1993; 2004; 2008) and Biber and Conrad (2009). The works of Ilie 1999a, 2006b, Shattuc 1997, and Marshall and Werndly 2002 are used to discuss the most salient characteristics of a TV talk show in general. In order to find out similarities and differences between men and women’s speech in two TV talk shows, first, the theoretical material that discussed the very first and the recent ones investigations of language and gender studies as well as presented the critique of results is overviewed. The sources include the works of Coates (1993; 1998; 2013), Holmes (1995; 2001; 2013), Lakoff (1975), Talbot (1998; 2003; 2010), Tannen (1990), Eckert and McConnel-Ginet (1992; 2003; 2013), Spender (1980), Bing and Bergvall (1996), and West and Zimmerman (1975; 1977; 1987). Since this thesis describes and compares particular genre and linguistic characteristics of TV talk shows Amanpour and HARDtalk, the methods used in the paper are descriptive and comparative. The quantitative method is used in cases when certain linguistic features in the speech of the interlocutors are counted. For instance, the number of questions and turns, the frequency of forms of address, lexical hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, interruptions, and adjectives. The analysed material includes four transcribed TV talk shows: two Amanpour and two HARDtalk shows. The data of Amanpour shows consists of four interviews that include around 4792 words (1289 words in the interview with Medina-Mora, 1116 words in the interview with Morris, 1150 words in the interview with Pillay, 1237 words in the interview with Norfolk) and the data of HARDtalk shows consists of two interviews that include around 7335 words (3840 words in the interview with Catherine McCartney and 3495 words in the interview with Dimitris Avramopoulos).

5 A COMPARISON OF TWO TV TALK SHOWS AMANPOUR AND HARDTALK SITUATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS

This part of the research paper analyses and compares situational and structural peculiarities of two TV talk shows, namely, the CNN Amanpour and the BCC HARDtalk shows. Section 5.1 presents general information about the programmes, their hosts, and introduces personalities who were interviewed in selected shows for the further analysis. Section 5.2 analyses the situational characteristics of the Amanpour and section 5.3 seeks to find out the typical structural moves of the show. The following section 5.4 analyses situational characteristics of the HARDtalk show and 5.5 focuses on structural peculiarities. Section 5.5 compares the situational context and the move structure of both Amanpour and HARDtalk TV talk shows and presents the results.

5.1 Analysis of TV talk shows Amanpour and HARDtalk

The CNN programme Amanpour is hosted by a widely known broadcast journalist Christiane Amanpour who now works as the chief international correspondent for CNN (White 2016: 1). Amanpour began her career in 1983 as an assistant on CNN’s international desk in Atlanta and several years later she became a foreign correspondent for CNN (White 2016: 1). Amanpour’s reporting during the Persian Gulf War and her courage to be in the war zones gained her a global fame and then reports from various other conflict areas, such as Iraq, Sarajevo, Iran, or Somalia, followed (Ghose2015: 1). In 2009, Amanpour became the anchor of the TV talk show Amanpour and the CNN’s chief international correspondent (CNN 2016: 1). The programme Amanpour is based on global issues and the host interviews high-profile persons or political leaders. Amanpour has interviewed political leaders such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, or Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf (CNN 2016: 1). The show airs everyday on CNN International and the duration of the show is 30 minutes. The other analysed TV talk show, HARDtalk, is hosted by the journalist Stephen Sackur. His career in the BBC started in 1986 working as a trainee and in 1990 Sackur began working as a foreign correspondent (Wikina 2015: 1). Since then Sackur worked as the BBC Middle East correspondent, as the BBC Washington correspondent, and as the BBC Europe correspondent (BBC 2016: 1). While working as a foreign correspondent Sackur covered plenty of major events, for instance, the impeachment of President Clinton, the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister

Yitzhak Rabin, the September 11 attacks, the Gulf War, Madrid train bombings, and so forth (BBC 2016: 1). In 2004, Sackur became the host of HARDtalk and since then he has interviewed international personalities such as President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, President Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, or Burma’s military leader turned reformer President Thein Sein (BBC 2015: 1). The TV talk show HARDtalk airs four days a week, Monday to Thursday, on BBC News, and the duration of the show is 25 minutes. As in the Amanpour show, guests of HARDtalk are high- profile persons or politicians and the host interviews on global issues. For the following situational and structural analysis two Amanpour and HARDtalk shows are selected according to the guests’ gender and topics are selected randomly. Topics that are discussed in the show Amanpour are on ISIS actions in Syria, abuse of girls in the United Kingdom, the kidnapping of 43 teaching students in Mexico, and the historical photographs of World War I, while the topics of two HARDtalk shows are on the existence of IRA in Ireland and on the crisis of migration in Europe. Guests that Amanpour interviews are the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay (female), Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, Eduardo Medina-Mora (male), the chief investigative reporter of The London Times, Andrew Norfolk (male), and the photo editor, John G. Morris (male). Stephen’s guests are the campaigner for paramilitary victims, Catherine McCartney (female) and the EU commissioner for migration and home affairs, Dimitris Avramopoulos (male). The following sections present a detailed analysis of situational context and structural moves in Amanpour and HARDtalk TV talk shows. The analysis of Amanpour is based on two shows which include four interviews and the length of each show is 30 minutes. The analysis of HARDtalk show is also based on two shows which include two interviews, each of 25 minutes length.

5.2 Situational characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour

Since the general characteristics of TV talk shows have been described in section 2.3, this part seeks to discuss the main situational characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour as well as to analyse and compare two transcripts of the show in greater detail. The analysis is carried out on Ilie’s (2006), Biber and Conrad’s (2009), and Paltridge’s (2006) suggestions for the analysis of situational characteristics. The table below presents the situational characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour:

Table 5. 1 Situational characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour Situational characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour Participants Addressor: host: Christiane Amanpour Addressee: 2 individual interlocutors per show/political or cultural leaders The relationship Social roles: asymmetrical power relations: the host controls the between participants discussion Purpose To create public awareness about current problems Topic On current issues Medium Face to face, video streaming Form Interview Content Relevant topic to the host/audience/guests Level of formality Neutral level of formality Style Fluent speech Instances of spontaneous speech: overlapping, pauses, pitch patterns, stress, contractions, repetition, crosstalk

The host of the show, Christiane Amanpour, interviews two interlocutors per show individually and guests are political and cultural leaders or authorities in particular fields. During the show, the host mainly leads the discussion and interlocutors rarely have an opportunity to ask questions, thus, the host’s role is authoritative and the asymmetrical power distribution dominates. The purpose of Amanpour show does not differ from the general purpose of TV talk shows; it discusses present-day global issues and informs the viewers about them. The format of a discussion is the interview and participants have a face to face conversation as well as an interlocutor may be speaking through the video streaming. Table 4.2 which specifically focuses on two Amanpour transcripts and includes four interviews is given in Appendix B: Situational characteristics of two Amanpour transcripts. According to the table, there are three participants in one Amanpour show: the host and two interlocutors. In the first transcript both interlocutors have high level positions: Pillay is a High Commissioner and Norfolk is a chief investigative reporter. In the second transcript Medina-Mora is a political leader and Morris is a specialist in photo editing. Despite the fact that all interlocutors do not have equal positions they are still highly educated people, specialists, and have high-level positions. Furthermore, three interviews are in-person and one interview is a long-distance interview through the video streaming. Since the format of the show is an interview, the relationship among participants is clearly asymmetrical. The host always asks questions and leads the discussion, while guests answer and comments on them. The level of formality in shows is neutral and the speech is fluent. However, some instances of the spontaneous speech tend to occur, for example, informal words or expressions, contractions, crosstalk, pauses, emphasis, or repetition.

As the results of situational characteristics of two transcripts present, the Amanpour show corresponds to the main situational features of the TV talk show format, and the following section seeks to find out whether the structure of the talk show Amnapour is conventional and corresponds to the structural moves that are basically typical to all talk shows.

5.3 Structural moves in the TV talk show Amanpour

Since the situational context of the TV talk show Amanpour is discussed in the section above, further analysis focuses on structural moves. The goal of this analysis is to find out what structural moves of this particular genre are conventional or very typical for this show. The results of structural peculiarities that are found in two transcripts of the show are presented in the scheme below:

2. INTERVIEW #1 1.OPENING 2.1 Preview of the topic 1.1 Video introduction to 3. COMMERCIAL 2.2 Welcome the topics of the show BREAK 2.3 Question-answer 1.2 Greeting 2.4 Thanks

6. CLOSING-UP 4. INTERVIEW #2 1.1 Imagine the World 5. COMMERCIAL 2.1 Preview of the topic BREAK 2.2 Welcome

2.3 Question-answer 2.4 Thanks Figure 5. 1 The structure of the TV talk show Amanpour 2.

The Amanpour show can be generally divided into six parts: opening, the first interview, commercial break, the second interview, commercial break, and closing-up. The opening, interview, and closing-up parts can also be sub-divided into more detailed sections. The figure shows that the opening part of the show is sub-divided into two sections: the video clip which presents topics that will be discussed in the show and greeting. The show is started with the voice-over of the host and the video. While the video is shown for the audience, Amanpour introduces issues that will be discussed in the show. After the video clip, the greeting follows. Amanpour greets viewers, welcomes them to the program, and introduces herself. Immediately after the introduction, the first interview follows. This move is sub-divided into four sub-sections: preview of the topic, welcome, question-answer, and thanks sections. When the host presents the issue of the first topic, the video clip that represents the problem follows. The voice-over discusses the situation in greater detail, then introduces the first interlocutor, and explains how the guest is related to the issue. At this point the interview begins.

The following move of the show is a commercial break which is used to make a clear division between the interviews. When the commercial break finishes, the interview part is repeated with the second guest of the show, and the second commercial break appears. The last move in the TV talk show Amanpour is closing-up. During this move the host discusses a topic which may be related or not to the previously discussed ones. This part of the show is called Imagine the World and topics may vary. Topics of the analysed shows are Celebration of the very first time a spacecraft landed on a speeding comet and The shortest war in history. The analysis of situational and structural characteristics of the TV talk show Amanpour revealed that this interview programme has typical features of a TV talk show as well as the conventional structure. In order to find out differences and similarities between Amanpour and HARDtalk shows, the following sections analyse HARDtalk from the same situational and structural perspectives as now Amanpour was analysed.

5.4 Situational characteristics of the TV talk show HARDtalk

The analysis of situational context of the TV talk show HARDtalk is also carried out on Ilie’s (2006), Biber and Conrad’s (2009), and Paltridge’s (2006) suggestions for the analysis of situational characteristics. The table below presents the results of the TV talk show HARDtalk:

Table 5. 2 The situational characteristics of the TV talk show HARDtalk The situational characteristics of the TV talk show HARDtalk Participants Addressor: host: media personality, Stephen Sackur Addressee: 1 individual interlocutor per show (political, cultural, social figures, authorities) Overhearing audience of TV (viewers) The relationship Social roles: asymmetrical power relations: the host controls the between participants discussion by stimulating, guiding, and facilitating the participant’s role Purpose To create public awareness about current problems Topic On current issues Medium Face to face, video streaming Form Interview Content Relevant topic to the host/ audience/ guests Level of formality Neutral level of formality Style Fluent speech. Instances of spontaneous speech: overlapping, pauses, pitch patterns, stress, contractions, repetition, crosstalk

As the results show, the host interviews one interlocutor per show. During the show, the host mainly leads the discussion, while asking questions on the topic. The host also decides when to stop the response of his interlocutor if it takes too much time. The host’s role in the show is authoritative and asymmetrical power distribution dominates. The purpose of the HARDtalk show is to discuss

present-day global issues and to inform the viewers about them, however, the local issues of the United Kingdom in relation to the worldwide awareness may be discussed as well. The format of a discussion in HARDtalk is mainly the interview and participants have a face to face conversation. Due to a distance difficulty, the interview with a guest can be held through the video streaming as well. The analysis that discusses situational features of two HARDtalk shows in greater detail is based on the table which is given in Appendix C: Situational characteristics of two HARDtalk transcripts. According to the results, the host invites one guest per show, thus there are two participants in one HARDtalk show: the host and the interlocutor. Guests of the show are cultural, social, political figures or particular authorities. For example, the guest McCartney is a social figure because she leads a campaign for justice as a result of her brother’s death who was murdered by IRA members, whereas the other guest is an authority: Dimitris Avramopoulos is the EU commissioner for migration and home affairs. Both interviews are carried out in-person, sitting face to face around the table. However, in case of long distance difficulties, the discussion through the video streaming may be carried out in the show as well. For instance, the interview with Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, was carried out through the online video streaming. Since the format of the show is interview, the relationship among participants is clearly asymmetrical. The host always asks questions and leads the discussion, while an interlocutor answers and comments on them. In short, the host “determines where this conversation begins and ends” (Marshall and Werndly 2002: 66). The table also shows that topics of this programme are rhetorically formulated. For instance, The charge that the IRA hasn't gone away now threatens Northern Ireland's fragile political stability - but is it true?, What comes first for Europe, humanity or security? Hence, a purpose of the show is to comment on issues, such as IRA existence and on the migration, as well as to answer the questions stated in the topics, namely, is it true that IRA exists and what comes first, humanity or security, when considering migration crisis. Both topics are formulated on the current matters and the aim of the show is to create a public awareness on them. In the TV talk show HARDtalk the level of speech formality between the host and guests is neutral, and as characteristics of a TV talk show suggest, the speech is fluent. However, instances of a spontaneous speech that indicate neutral level of formality may occur as well. For example, interruptions, contractions such as you’ve (for you have), wanna (for want to), coz (for because), repetitions and reformulations of the idea tend to occur while speaking. The discussion of situational context of the TV talk show HARDtalk presents that this show corresponds to the main situational features of the TV talk show format and the following

section seeks to find out whether the structure of the talk show HARDtalk corresponds to the general characteristics that are basically common to all talk shows.

5.5 Structural moves in the TV talk show HARDtalk

The structuring of the TV talk show HARDtalk is another step in genre analysis which helps to determine what structural features of this particular show are conventional or the most typical. As was mentioned in Section 2.3, such analysis helps to associate structural features with the situational characteristics. The scheme below presents the structural moves that are found in two HARDtalk transcripts:

1. OPENING 2. INTERVIEW 1.1 Greeting 2.1 Welcome 1.2 Discussion of the topic 2.2 Question-answer 1.3 Introduction of the guest 2.3 Thanks 1.4 Rhetorical question

Figure 5. 2 Structure of the TV talk show HARDtalk

The figure shows that the TV talk show HARDtalk is divided into two parts that are opening and interview and each part can be sub-divided as well. As the figure indicates, the opening part of the show is sub-divided into four sub-parts: greeting, discussion of the topic, introduction of the guest, and rhetorical question, and interview part is sub-divided into three parts: welcome, question- answer, and thanks. In the greeting part, the host opens the show with a short typical phrase, Welcome to HARDtalk. I’m Stephen Sackur. The speech then continues to the introduction of the issue that is going to be the focus of the show, for example, saying such as Europe is still scrambling to find an effective response to the migration challenge and every day the problem gets bigger indicates that the topic of a show covers the crisis of migration. The presentation of the issue is followed by the guest’s introduction to the show and the opening part is finished with the rhetorically formulated questions. According to the figure, the interview part of the show includes three sub-parts, namely, welcome, question-answer, and thanks parts. When the host rhetorically presents the topic of the show, the guest welcoming follows. Typically, Stephen introduces his guests with phrases <…> welcome to HARDtalk or <…> joins me now. After the welcome part, the host moves to the interviewing. Finally, the last sub-part in the HARDtalk show is thanks. In this part, the host concludes the show with clichéd phrases, such as We have to end <…> thank you so much for being

on HARDtalk and tends to emphasize the necessity to end the show by saying we have to end now which reminds of the time limits. The analysis of situational and structural characteristics of the TV talk show HARDtalk revealed that this interview programme corresponds to the typical features of a TV talk show and has the conventional structure as well. The following section summarizes the similarities and differences of the Amanpour and HARDtalk structural and situational findings.

5.6 The similarities and differences of the Amanpour and HARDtalk TV talk shows

The aim of this section is to summarize the similarities and differences of the Amanpour and HARDtalk shows that are observed in the above discussed analyses of the situational context and structural moves. The main differences are found in the number of participants per show and the organization of a show. However, both shows are similar in the majority of situational characteristics, namely, in the relationship between participants, medium, purpose, topic, form, content, level of formality, and style. In both TV talk shows the relationship between the host and the guest is asymmetrical since the format of talk shows is based on the interview, thus Amanpour and Sackur lead the discussion and determine the boundaries of it. The purpose of both shows is also the same, to comment on the latest current affairs or events. Furthermore, the majority of interviews in both shows are face to face. The register of both shows is also neutral and the speech of the host or the guest is fluent. According to the findings of situational and structural characteristics, aspects that are different between the shows are summarized in the table 4.3 below: Table 5. 3 Differences of TV talk shows HARDtalk and Amanpour Differences Amanpour HARDtalk Number of participants per show 2 1 Number of structural moves 6 moves 2 moves Video clips Present - Commercials Present -

The TV talk shows Amapour and HARDtalk specifically differ in the number of participants per show, the number of structural moves, and the presence of video clips and commercials. There are three participants in one Amanpour show, the host and two interviewees, while in one HARDtalk show there are two participants, the host and one interviewee. In addition, during the Amanpour show two commercial breaks are shown. The first one appears after the first interview, and the second is shown after the second interview. These commercial breaks can be interpreted as marks

that indicate the end of interviews. In contrast to Amanpour, there are no commercial breaks in the HARDtalk show. One more difference between the two shows is the presence of video clips that are shown as additional or introducing sources of information for the discussion. According to the findings, there are no video clips in both HARDtalk shows, whereas the Amanpour show tends to include them. In the first analysed Amanpour show, six video clips are found, and in the second analysed show three videos are found. There is a tendency to introduce topics of a show with video clips as they are used before interviews and in the beginning of the show. Video clips are also used during interviews as additional sources of information to comment on. The Imagine the World part of the show uses video clips as well. As the results of structural moves present, the Amanpour show can be divided into six moves, namely, opening, the first interview, commercial break, the second interview, commercial break, and closing-up, while HARDtalk can be divided only into two parts, opening and interview. The opening, interview, and closing-up parts of Amanpour can also be sub-divided into more detailed moves as well as the opening and interview parts of HARDtalk. Despite the fact that both shows have similar moves, namely, opening, interview, and a short closing, the sub-moves of them tend to differ. On the other hand, the parts that are shared might be called obligatory, while the differences mostly concern the formal structuring of the shows. This indicates that there are possible variations within this strictly structured TV genre. The summary of differences and similarities of TV talk shows Amanpour and HARDtalk presents that these two shows have typical features of a talk show, yet there are some noticeable differences. Both shows mainly differ in the structure and the number of participants per show. The difference in the number of moves and sub-moves is influenced by the use of commercials breaks and video clips that are present in the Amanpour show. However, both shows are similar in the majority of situational characteristics.

6 LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TV TALK SHOW AMANPOUR

This part of the thesis analyses and compares language specificities in relation to gender in the TV talk show Amanpour. The analysis specifically focuses on the number of questions and turns, address forms, lexical hedges or fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, interruptions, and adjectives. The following sections analyse each feature according to this enumeration. The analysis is based on two transcripts of the show which include three interviews with female-male

interlocutors (Amanpour interviews Medina-Mora, Morris, and Norfolk), and one interview with female-female interlocutors (Amanpour interviews Pillay). The results of this analysis will be compared to the results of the TV talk show HARDtalk in order to find out differences and similarities between males’ and females’ language.

6.1 The number of questions and turns

This section of the analysis focuses on the number of questions and turns in the TV talk show Amanpour. The table below presents the findings of the number of questions per one interview, the number of turn takings between the host and the guest as well as their length, and the total length of interviews: Table 6. 1 The number of questions and turns in the TV talk show Amanpour Transcript No. 1 No. of questions No. of turns Length of turns Total length Amanpour 8 10 475 words 1289 Medina-Mora - 9 814 words Amanpour 4 14 414 words 1116 Morris - 14 702 words Transcript No. 2 Amanpour 6 10 375 words 1150 Pillay - 10 775 words Amanpour 5 6 346 words 1237 Norfolk - 5 891 words

As can be seen in the table, the number of questions that the host asks guests during female-female and female-male interviews tends to vary. The number of questions during the interview is clearly influenced by the structure of the interview which is organized with specific questions for the beginning, middle, and end. Differences in the number of questions between four interviews may also be affected by the number of turns and by types of adjacency pairs. For instance, the host asks Morris only four questions, but both Amanpour and Morris take 14 turns or, while interviewing Pillay, the host asks six questions and makes ten turns. This shows that interviewing does not only consist of the question-answer turn pairs and includes other types of turns as well. As the findings show, such turns are taken in order to comment on the guest’s statement, to introduce additional information about the issue, to express emotions, to thank for the interview or to welcome the guest. The total number of such cases is 17. In two out of 17 cases the host adds her own commentary and emphasizes the answer of the guest, in two cases Amanpour takes turns to express her emotional reactions, in four cases Amanpour thanks for the interview, in two cases Amanpour welcomes guests to the show, and in the majority of cases (7) Amanpour presents facts or additional information about the topic.

As can be expected, during the interview the host speaks less than her interlocutors. According to the results, the host speaks almost two times less or even more than her guests. During the interview with Medina-Mora and Morris the host approximately speaks 1,7 time less than the guests. While interviewing Pillay and Norfolk, Amanpour speaks approximately 2,3 times less. The asymmetrical amount of speech between the host and interviewees is typical in TV talk shows as the host formulates questions and guests comment on them explicitly. To conclude, the results show that there are no significant differences found in the number of questions and turns, and the total length of turns between same-sex and mixed-sex interviews. In both types of interviews the results vary suggesting that not the gender influences them but the genre of a TV talk show itself. The number of questions is influenced by the organization of an interview and the number of turns is influenced by their types suggesting that the host tends to follow the structure of question-answer turn pairs and instances of other types occur in all interviews regardless to the guest’s gender.

6.2 Forms of address

The following analysis focuses on the use of address forms between the host and guests in the TV talk show Amanpour. This analysis seeks to find out how frequent and what forms of addresses are used by Amanpour to address her guests as well as how guests address Amanpour during the interview. In general, there is a great number of addressing forms, such as the first or the name, nicknames, titles plus names, titles plus the last names, professional titles, and so forth. The use of a particular addressing form also varies, for instance, from showing familiarity, formality, friendliness, politeness, intimacy or respect to impoliteness or unfamiliarity. The table below presents the findings of addressing forms that are found in two transcripts of the show: Table 6. 2 Forms of address in the TV talk show Amanpour Transcript No. 1 Amanpour Medina-Mora Ambassador Medina-Mora (2), Christiane (4) Ambassador, Mr. Ambassador Amanpour Morris John Morris (2) - Forms of address Transcript No. 2 Amanpour Pillay Navi Pillay (2) Christiane (3) Amanpour Norfolk Andrew (2), Chief investigative reporter - Andrew Norfolk, Andrew Norfolk

As can be seen in the table, the forms of address that are used by Amanpour to address male guests and the female guest vary from the professional title and the last name to the first name of a guest. For instance, in the beginning and end of the show the host may address the guest with a professional title and a full name (Ambassador Medina-Mora) showing a high level of respect for the guest or may address with a full name (Andrew Norfolk, Navi Pillay, John Morris) suggesting politeness. Such addressing forms are also an essential move when introducing a person in formal social events, thus the host follows this manner as well. In order to finish the interview successfully, the host refers to guests again with a full name. In addition, the host may address guests with the first name (Andrew), and despite the fact that the first name is mostly used in casual settings to suggest familiarity or otherwise it signals impoliteness if interlocutors do not know each other, the use of the first name in this case may imply an authoritative position of the host or either shows friendliness to the guest as the interview follows. The analysis of addressing forms used by guests shows that in general male guests avoid addressing the host. Only one out of three male guests (Medina-Mora) addresses the host by the first name four times and the female guest Pillay addresses the host by the first name three times. In both cases addressing the host with the first name may indicate politeness and friendliness as well as unequal relations between the two. It can be summarized that the host tends to address guests with the full name in order to show politeness, with the first name to show friendliness, or with the professional title with the last name to show respect. However, the use of address forms between the host and guests is asymmetrical because guests address the host with the first name which may suggest that guests seek to minimize relations of power. The findings also revealed that females use addressing forms in same-sex and mixed-sex interviews more frequently than males.

6.3 Lexical hedges and fillers

The aim of this section is to find out the use of lexical hedges and fillers in the show Amanpour. Since Lakoff (1975) claimed that women tend to use hedges more than men in order to show unassertiveness, lack of confidence, social insecurity or politeness, the analysis specifically focuses on the frequency and kinds of hedges and fillers used between the host and the guests. In brief, the lexical hedging occurs when a person wants so soften his/her statement, or in other words, to make the statement less direct, whereas fillers are meaningless phrases, words or utterances but sometimes acting as hedges as well (Hale 2004: 105). The table below presents the results of hedges and fillers usage in the TV talk show Amanpour (letter H stands for hedges and letter F stands for fillers):

Table 6. 3 Lexical hedges or fillers in the TV talk show Amanpour Transcript No. 1 Amanpour Medina-Mora H: − H: well, might be, maybe F: you know (2), I mean, F: − actually, I guess Amanpour Morris H: I guess, little known H: well (3), maybe, a little F: I mean, really, you know crazy, could Hedges F: I think, see and fillers Transcript No. 2 Amanpour Pillay H: could not H: well, would, I feel, may be F: as we know F: − Amanpour Norfolk H: might, would, something, H: well, would (2), somehow, a like, sort of, could, seemingly bit F: you know F: I think, what

According to the findings, the total number of hedges and fillers used by Amanpour in two talk shows is 20, the total number of hedges and fillers said by male guests (Medina-Mora, Morris, and Norfolk) is 18 and five hedges and fillers are said by the female guest (Pillay). During interviews Amanpour relatively uses the same amount of hedges and fillers while speaking to male guests, whereas in the interview with the female guest only several instances are found. For example, in the discussion with Medina-Mora five instances of fillers are found, in the discussion with Morris six cases of hedges and fillers are found, and in the discussion with Norfolk seven cases are found, while during the interview with Pillay only three instances are found. In contrast to Amanpour’s use of hedges and fillers, the results show that each guest uses a different number of hedges and fillers during the interview. Medina-Mora says three hedges, Morris says nine, Pillay says five, and Norfolk says nine hedges and fillers. These findings suggest that the number of hedges and fillers used in male or female guests’ speeches may vary. However, to be more specific, the host in general uses more fillers than hedges in her speech, whereas hedges are used more by guests. These results may be affected by the different length of turns between the host and the guests and by the fact that hedghing helps to mitigate straight statements. As results also show, there is a great variety of lexical hedges and fillers used in interviews. In both analysed shows Amanpour uses several kinds of lexical hedges and fillers. The most frequent are modal expressions, such as could be, might be, would like, could happen, and ppragmatic particles, namely, you know (four instances), I mean (two instances), and I guess (two instances). Male guests use ten kinds of hedges and fillers and the most frequent are well (five instances) and modal expressions. The female guest uses four kinds of hedges and fillers: modal expressions may be, would benefit, a verb I feel, and a phrase of vague language well. In addition,

there are instances when Amanpour avoids using hedges in her speech as well as the guests do not use fillers. During the interview with Medina-Mora, Amanpour uses only fillers, while Medina- Mora and Pillay avoid using them. The usage of fillers in formal speeches suggests that a person lacks confidence in their statements, thus there are few instances of fillers said by the guests. The results of the analysis of hedges and fillers indicate that there is a tendency of both the host and guests to use these lexical features. The main observed difference is that the host tends to use more fillers than hedges in her speech, while guests use more hedges and avoid using fillers. The results may suggest that guests seek to minimize the use of phrases that carry little meaning and use hedging to reduce straight statements, while the host uses fillers spontaneously to fill the gaps in her speech.

6.4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers

This section presents the analysis of committers and intensifiers that are found in two Amanpour shows. Since Lakoff (1975) had claimed that intensifiers are very common in women’s speech indicating women’s lack of confidence, the goal of this analysis is to find out whether there are any differences in the use of intensifiers or intensifying committers between the host and guests. Intensifiers are also known as boosters that emphasize the meaning of an expression and intensifying committers are phrases that show the speaker’s confidence in what he/she says (Flowerdew 2013: 110). The table given below presents a list of intensifiers and committers used by Amanpour and her guests during two interviews (letter C stands for committers and letter I stands for intensifiers):

Table 6. 4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers in TV talk show Amanpour Transcript No. 1 Amanpour Medina-Mora C: clearly, I’m sure, obviously, C: of course (7) certainly (6) of course clearly Total number of committers (4) Total number of committers (14) I: really (2), too (2) more (2), I: very (5), every (2), very every (2), very very, much more, much, still, many more, totally, still, very much highly, the most, enough, Total number of intensifiers (12) much more Total number of intensifiers (15) Amanpour Morris C: − C: − I: really (3), still (2), the most I: very, almost, such, quite, Total number of intensifiers (6) totally, really Total number of intensifiers (6) Intensifying committers Transcript No. 2 and intensifiers Amanpour Pillay C: obviously (2) C: of course (2), obviously, Total number of committers (2) I’m sure I: very (2), more, mostly, fairly, Total number of committers (4) very much I: very (3), really, far more, Total number of intensifiers (6) supremely, still, deeply, so, almost, totally Total number of intensifiers (11) Amanpour Norfolk C: obviously (2) C: − Total number of committers (2) I: very (4), every (2), I: incredibly, really, very, even, incredibly, not even, quite, so much, barely such, really, very very, more, Total number of intensifiers (6) even, quite, so many Total number of intensifiers (16)

As the table shows, intensifying committers are used less frequent than intensifiers and their usage varies. They may be avoided during the conversation as well as may occur in a great number. For instance, the host tends to use committers in mixed-sex and in same-sex interviews as well as male and female guests tend to use them. The use of committers suggests that both the host and guests are highly confident in what they are saying and have no doubts. At the same time interlocutors put an emphasis on their statements. Findings of intensifiers use show that guests tend to use these lexical items in their speeches more than the host. The total number of intensifiers said by Amanpour is 30 and by the guests is 48. In general, the frequency of intensifiers varies from six to 16 instances per speech of one person. The most common intensifiers are very, really, every, much more, and very very. As the results show, in mixed-sex interviews guests use more intensifiers when the host, while the use of intensifiers by Amanpour is quite consistent regardless of the guest’s gender. The interview with Medina-Mora can be considered as an exception since there were 12 cases of intensifiers found in

Amanpour’s speech. However, this may be influenced by the length of Amanpour’s turns which were the longest with Medina-Mora in comparison with other interviews. Overall, the results of this analysis show that in female-male interviews both men and women tend to use committers and intensifiers, yet intensifiers tend to be used a bit more by men. In the female-female interview, committers and intensifiers are as frequent as in female-male interviews. An assumption can be made that both men and women in this show are more likely to intensify certain parts of their statements instead of expressing a strong commitment to their assertions.

6.5 Interruptions

The following analysis focuses on interruptions and their frequency between the host and the guests’ speeches. The analysis seeks to find out whether women tend to interrupt equally each other in same-sex conversations or whether men are more likely to interrupt women in mixed-sex conversations as was claimed by researchers West and Zimmerman (1975) and Maltz and Borker (1982). The results of interruptions between the host and the guests are presented in the table below: Table 6. 5 Instances of interruptions in the TV talk show Amanpour Transcript No. 1 Amanpour Medina-Mora Amanpour interrupts Medina- − Mora Amanpour Morris Interruptions Amanpour interrupts Morris − Transcript No. 2 Amanpour Pillay − − Amanpour Norfolk − −

As can be seen in the table, only several instances of interruptions are found in two Amanpour shows. These are made by Amanpour when the host interrupts male guests Medina-Mora and Morris, and neither of guests interrupts the host. In the interview with Medina-Mora, Amanpour interrupts the guest at the beginning of the speech stating a counterargument to what was previously said by the guest and asks a more specific question. Coates (2013: 111) has claimed that the interruption strategy is used when a person wants to achieve dominance in the conversation and this case clearly shows that Amanpour interrupts the guest in order to control the discussion because the guest avoids answering the question. On the other hand, in the interview with Morris, the host interrupts the guest at the end of his speech in order to add a comment which provides additional

information about the discussed picture. These instances show that the purpose of interruptions may vary from controlling the discussion to adding some extra information. Despite that there is a lack of interruptions between the host and guests, the results may suggest that the host is a bit more likely to interrupt male guests, whereas male and female guests avoid interrupting. The host’s purposes of interruptions suggest that the host seeks to control the conversation as well as interrupts in order to comment on the issue.

6.6 Adjectives

This section of the analysis discusses adjectives in the TV talk show Amanpour. The analysis specifically focuses on the frequency of adjectives and their use according to the semantic characteristics. The semantic grouping is based on Biber et al., (1999) classification of adjectives, which includes various semantic domains of adjectives. For this investigation, adjectives denoting size/extent/quantity/colors/time, evaluative, and emotive meanings were chosen to analyse. In the following analysis, adjectives that describe the appearance of a noun are termed as descriptive, adjectives denoting judgement of a noun are considered as evaluative, and adjectives having an emotional reaction are named as emotive. According to the results, the frequency of adjectives is unequal between the host and guests. The total number of adjectives that Amanpour uses in the interview with Medina-Mora is 10, while Medina-Mora uses 29; in the interview with Morris, Amanpour uses 16 adjectives and Morris says 11; in the interview with Pillay, Amanpour says 13 adjectives while the guest says 17, and in the interview with Norfolk, Amanpour uses 9 adjectives and Norfolk uses 24. In general, guests use more adjectives than the host during the interviewing, but the number of adjectives does not differ significantly, except the interview with Medina-Mora and Norfolk. These results can also be affected by the number and the length of turns which suggest that more adjectives can occur in longer turns that are taken by guests. The table below presents the results:

Table 6. 6 Adjectives in the TV talk show Amanpour Transcript No. 1 Amanpour Medina-Mora Descriptive: big, long (2) Descriptive: large, larger, deeper, Evaluative: terrible, difficult (2) big, small, fragmented (6) Adjectives Emotive: dramatic, shocking, cold- Evaluative: organized, strong, blooded, corrupt, brutal (2) (6) reliable, accountable, organized, Total number of adjectives (10) unacceptable, worse, the most important, clear (2), strong (3), different (2) (16) Emotive: unacceptable, brutal (2), dramatic (2), inhumane (3) (8) Total number of adjectives (29) Amanpour Morris Descriptive: young (3) (3) Descriptive: - Evaluative: famous, important, the Evaluative: lucky, courageous, most shocking, heroic, the most good, naked, ruined, crazy, the famous (2), amazing (2) (8) best, revolutionary, the greatest Emotive: great, amazingly, (9) incredible, wonderful, shocking (5) Emotive: ridiculous, terrible (2) Total number of adjectives (16) Total number of adjectives (11) Transcript No. 2 Amanpour Pillay Descriptive: - Descriptive: small, huge, large Evaluative: the latest, barbaric, (2) (4) proud, indiscriminate, chemical, Evaluative: chemical, displaced, colored angry, the longest, confident, correct, positive, accountable (3) (11) sympathetic, serious, great, Emotive: brutal, sensitive (2) accountable, vulnerable, serious Total number of adjectives (13) (11) Emotive: mass, disappointed (2) Total number of adjectives (17) Amanpour Norfolk Descriptive: long, white (2) Descriptive: small, large, the Evaluative: horrifying, independent, smallest, white (2) (5) endless, important (4) Evaluative: easy, similar, clear, Emotive: shocking, sensitive, unprepared, collective, concerned, extraordinary (3) sensitive, horrific, deep, guilty, Total number of adjectives (9) sizeable, important, hard, different (2) (14) Emotive: staggering, invisible, uncomfortable, voiceless, the most vulnerable (5) Total number of adjectives (24)

According to the table, the most common adjectives that Amanpour and guests use are adjectives having the evaluative meaning. Since the format of the show is to discuss a specific issue, it is obvious that interlocutors of the show tend to make evaluative expressions or judgements. The most popular evaluative adjectives are such as important, accountable, different, or strong. As the findings also show, there is a great variation of evaluative adjectives because only a few adjectives

out of all were repeated more than two times. Moreover, there is a tendency to use superlative degree adjectives more than comparative ones. Both the host and guests use superlative degree adjectives, for example, the most important, the most shocking, the best, the greatest, and so forth. Overall, evaluative adjectives are slightly more predominant in male guests’ speeches. Adjectives that occurred due to the emotional reaction are classified as emotive. The results of emotive adjectives show that these tend to occur in both males and females’ speeches. During the conversation with Medina-Mora, Amanpour uses emotive adjectives six times while guests use eight times; in the interview with Morris, the host uses five emotive adjectives and Morris uses two; during the conversation with Pillay both the host and the guest uses two emotive adjectives, and in the discussion with Norfolk, the host uses three emotive adjectives, while the guest uses five. The most frequent emotive adjectives are shocking, dramatic, and brutal. Since the frequency of emotive adjectives is similar between males and females speeches, it suggests that both males and females tend to express subjective emotional reactions. The results of descriptive adjectives show that such adjectives in the TV talk show Amanpour occur less frequent that evaluative or emotive. In females speeches they occur two or three times or are avoided at all, and in males speeches descriptive adjectives occur from five to six times or do not occur at all. According to the results, male guests use descriptive adjectives slightly more than females, and the most common adjectives are large, big, and small. The findings of this investigation indicate that on the whole, the frequency of adjectives is different in host and guests’ speeches and male guests use adjectives more than the host or the female guest. Regardless of the small difference in the frequency of adjectives, evaluative and descriptive adjectives tend to be used more by males. The results of emotive adjectives show that both men and women use this type of adjectives. It can also be stated that the variety of adjectives that the host and guests use in their speech is rich.

7 LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TV TALK SHOW HARDTALK

This part of the thesis focuses on the TV talk show HARDtalk. The following sections analyse as well as compare the use of linguistic characteristics in relation to gender. The analysis includes the same linguistic features as the TV talk show Amanpour was analysed in the latter part of the paper, namely, the number of questions and turns, address forms, lexical hedges and fillers, committers and intensifiers, interruptions and speech disfluencies, and adjectives. Each feature is analysed according to this enumeration. The analysis is based on two transcripts of the show: an interview

with the guest McCartney (female) and Avramopoulos (male). The results of this analysis will be compared to the results of the TV talk show Amanpour in order to find out whether there are any salient differences between males’ and females’ language.

7.1 The number of questions and turns

This section analyses and compares the number of questions and the number of turns between the host and guests of the show, the length of each interlocutor’s turns and the total length of each show. The table below presents the results: Table 7. 1 Number of questions and turns in the TV talk show HARDtalk Transcript No. 1 No. of questions No. of turns Length of turns Total length Sackur 23 32 1457 3810 McCartney - 31 2353 Transcript No. 2 Sackur 21 46 1437 3437 Avramopoulos - 46 2000

According to the findings, the number of questions that the host asks his guests during the interview is similar. During the interview with the guest McCartney the host asked 23 questions, and during the interview with the guest Avramopolous the host asked 21 questions. Regardless to the similar number of questions between the two interviews, the results of turn taking show that the number of turns between interviews varies. While interviewing McCartney the host takes 32 turns and the guest takes 31, whereas during the interview with Avramopolous, both the host and the guest take 46 turns. Obviously, this difference between the number of questions and the number of turns is influenced by types of adjacency pairs. The results show that interviewing does not only consist of the question-answer turn pairs and includes other types of turns as well. In the interview with McCartney, the host takes nine turns that are not questions and these are used in order to express an evaluation (four cases), to agree (one case), to introduce additional information (two cases), to welcome the guest (one case) or to thank for the interview (one case). In the interview with Avramopolous the host takes such turns even more and there are 25 cases found in total. Sackur states an evaluation in 12 cases, introduces additional information in nine cases, tries to interrupt the guest unsuccessfully in two cases, welcomes the guest in one case, and thanks for the interview in one case. Differences in the number of turns suggest that the length of turns also varies between the two interviews. In general the host speaks less than guests as is typical for TV talk shows. For instance, during the interview with McCartney, the host says 1457 words while the guest says 2353 words.

This means that the host speaks 1,6 time less than the guest. During the interview with Avramopolous the host speaks approximately 1,4 time less than the guest: the host says 1437 words, whereas the guest says 2000 words. To be more specific, the average length of Sackur’s turns during the interview with McCartney is 46 words, whereas in the interview with Avramopolous, it is about 31 words. The average length of the female guest’s turns is 75 words, while the male guest says about 43 words per one turn. Thus, the host tends to take longer turns while interviewing the female guest and allows the guest taking longer turns to answer. On the other hand, while interviewing the male guest, the host takes shorter turns and tends to control the length of the guest’s answer. All in all, the findings of this analysis show that the number of turns and their length differ according to the guest’s gender. While the interview with the female guest follows the structure of question-answer turns and only several instances of other types of turns are found, the interview with the male guest is more dynamic. While interviewing the male guest, the host tends to judge guest’s answers or to state additional facts about the discussed issue more than interviewing the female guest and this influences the whole structure of the conversation: there are quite a number of turns but their length is shorter.

7.2 Forms of address

The following discussion analyses the use of address forms between the host and guests in the TV talk show HARDtalk. This analysis seeks to find out how frequent and what forms of addresses are used by the host to address guests as well as how guests address the host during the interview. As was mentioned in section 6.2, there is a great number of addressing forms. These include the first or the last name, titles with names, titles with the last names, professional titles, and so forth. The purpose of a particular addressing form also varies. It may show familiarity, politeness, friendliness, respect or, contrarily, may suggest impoliteness, unfamiliarity or formality. The table below presents forms of address that were found in two HARDtalk transcripts: Table 7. 2 Forms of address in the TV talk show HARDtalk Transcript No. 1 Sackur McCartney Catherine McCartney (2) Stephen Forms of address Transcript No. 2 Sackur Avramopolous The EU Commissioner for Migration and Stephen (2) Home Affairs, Dimitris Avramopoulos Dimitris Avramopoulos (2)

According to the findings, the host uses several forms of address for guests and these include a full name and a professional title plus the full name. For instance, in the beginning of the show the host addresses the male guest with the professional title and a full name, The EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, Dimitris Avramopoulos, whereas the female guest is addressed by the full name, Catherine McCartney. At the end of the interview the host addresses guests with a full name, for example, Dimitris Avramopolous and Catherine McCartney. Since addressing with a professional title or a full name is an essential move when introducing a person in formal social events, the host follows this manner as well. In order to finish the interview successfully, the host refers to guests again with a full name. The use of such forms also show respect to guests and indicate politeness. The analysis of addressing forms used by guests shows that the host is addressed only with a first name by both guests. The female guest addresses the host with the first name, Stephen, for one time, and the male guest addresses two times. As the context of these instances suggests, Avramopolous uses the first name to show a negative face which results from what was previously said by the host in one out of two cases, and in other cases both guests use the first name to suggest a friendly tone. Overall, the use of address forms between the host and guests is asymmetrical because these are not at the same level of formality. The host uses professional titles and full names, whereas guests address the host with the first name. It may show that guests seek to minimize relations of power while addressing with the first name what indicates friendliness, however, the absence of less formal addressing forms by the host increase the difference of power between the host and guests. In addition, both male and female guests tend to address the host.

7.3 Lexical hedges and fillers

This section of the analysis seeks to find out the use of lexical hedges and fillers in the show HARDtalk, and specifically focuses on the frequency and kinds of hedges and fillers used between the host and guests. Since terms hedges and fillers are described in section 6.3, the table below presents the results (letter H stands for hedges and letter F stands for fillers):

Table 7. 3 Hedges and fillers in the TV talk show HARDtalk Transcript No. 1 Sackur McCartney H: would (2), could (2), may, H: would (17), wouldn’t (5), maybe could (9), sort of (5), I mean F: well (2), you know (2), okay (2), like to say, well something like, you know, somewhere, Hedges and fillers seems to, kind of F: well (10), you know (3), yeah Transcript No. 2 Sackur Avramopolous H: would (3), kind of (2), well, H: let me (8), would (5), something like, seem, maybe, something (2), could F: well (4), yeah, I mean F: well (2), you know, I mean

As the findings show, the total number of hedges found in the host’s speech with McCartney is six, and the total number of fillers is five, and in the interview with Avramopolous, the host uses nine hedges and six fillers. The total number of hedges used by the female guest is 44 and the total number of fillers is 14. In the male guest’s speech hedges occur 16 times and fillers occur four times. With respect to the guest’s gender, there is no great difference in the frequency of hedges as well as fillers used by the host. However, the use of these linguistic features differs between both guests’ speeches. According to the results, the male guest uses hedges and fillers almost three times less than the female guest. In general, the asymmetrical use of hedges and fillers shows that there is a tendency to use fillers less than hedges in the speech. These results may be affected by the fact that the use of fillers is considered as a non-professional way of speaking in formal speeches and hedging, on the other hand, helps to soften statements. As findings also show, there is a great variety of hedges and fillers that occurred in speeches. The most frequent hedges and fillers used in both interviews by the host are modal expressions, such as could, would, and pragmatic particles well or you know. The female and male guest mostly use modal expressions would, wouldn’t, could, let, and pragmatic particles sort of, I mean, well, and you know. Since the kind of most frequent hedges and fillers are almost the same in guests’ and the host’s speeches, there are no significant differences between the kinds of hedges or fillers that are used in men’s or women’s language. It can be stated that the use of fillers is influenced by the genre of a TV talk show itself because interlocutors tend to minimize the use of fillers in order to speak professionally without vague utterances. The hedging of phrases/statements, especially while using modal verbs, can also be expected in the discourse of television talk shows because it helps to reduce straight statements that may lack probability or threaten the interlocutor’s face. In addition, the results of lexical hedges and fillers suggest that women tend to use fillers and hedges more than men.

7.4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers

This section discusses the use of committers and intensifiers between the host and guests in two HARDtalk shows. The analysis seeks to find out whether intensifiers are more frequent in women’s speech as was claimed by Lakoff (1975) and whether there are any differences in the use of committers between the host and guests. The table given below presents a list of intensifiers and committers used by the host and guests during two interviews (letter C stands for committers and letter I stands for intensifiers): Table 7. 4 Intensifying committers and intensifiers in TV talk show HARDtalk Transcript No. 1 Sackur McCartney C: - C: obviously (4), certainly (3), I: still (8), very (2), even (2), Total number of committers (7) strongly, exactly, such, the most, I: still (5), very (4), even (3), quite, so much, enough quite (2), really, too, pretty Total number of intensifiers (19) much, very much, so many, Intensifying committers more, fairly, almost, every, and intensifiers ever, very many, many Total number of intensifiers (27) Transcript No. 2 Sackur Avramopolous C: of course, clearly, in fact C: of course Total number of committers (3) Total number of committers (1) I: still (4), even (2), every, I: very (15), even (2), really deeply, really, very, so, quite, so (2), very very, many, exactly much Total number of intensifiers (22) Total number of intensifiers (13)

According to the findings, intensifying committers are used less frequent than intensifiers in all four speeches. Usually, intensifying committers are used to show that the speaker feels very confident in what he/she says and phrases, such as of course, clearly, obviously, certainly indicate that. However, in formal speeches these may be avoided to retain objectivity, and the use of intensifiers increases. During interviews, committers in the female guest’s speech occur seven times, in the male guest’s speech occur one time, and the host uses committers three times only in the interview with the male guest. The most common intensifying committers are of course, certainly, and obviously. The results of intensifiers show that both the female and the male guest use intensifiers frequently, yet the female guest uses them a bit more in her speech. In Avramopolous’ speech intensifiers occur 22 times and in McCartney’s speech intensifiers occur 27 times. With respect to the guests’ gender, the use of intensifiers by the host is more frequent with the female guest than with the male guest. For instance, in the interview with McCartney intensifiers occur 19 times and

in the interview with Avramopolous, intensifiers occur 13 times. The most common intensifiers by the host and guests are still, very, and even. As the results show, it can be implied that in male-female conversations women tend to use committers frequently, whereas men avoid, and in male-male conversations both interlocutors may use phrases to show the confidence. The use of intensifiers suggest that both guests as well as the host tend to intensify certain parts of their statements, but in male-female interview, the female guests uses more intensifiers than the host, whereas in male-male interview, the host uses less intensifiers with the male guest than in the interview with the female.

7.5 Interruptions

The following analysis focuses on the frequency of interruptions between the host and the guests. The aim of this analysis is to find out whether men equally interrupt each other in same-sex conversations and whether men are more likely to interrupt women in mixed-sex conversations as was claimed by researchers West and Zimmerman (1975) and Maltz and Borker (1982). The analysis also seeks to find out the purposes of interruptions. The table below presents the results of interruptions between the host and the guests: Table 7. 5 Instances of interruptions in the TV talk show HARDtalk Transcript No. 1 Sackur McCartney Sackur interrupts McCartney - Interruptions (12) Transcript No. 2 Sackur Avramopolous Sackur interrupts Avramopolous Avramopolous interrupts (19) Sackur (15)

As can be seen in the table, interruptions between the host and guests in the TV talk show HARDtalk tend to occur frequently. The main difference of interruptions between the two interviews is that the female guest does not interrupt the host at all, while the host interrupts both guests, and the male guest almost equally interrupts the host. During the interview with McCartney, the host interrupts the guest 12 times, and during the interview with Avramopolous the host interrupts the guest 19 times, whereas the guest interrupts the host 15 times. According to the semantic meaning of interruptions, four kinds of interruptions used by the host and the guest can be distinguished. These include interruptions in order to ask a more specific question, interruptions to contradict the other speaker, interruptions to show an agreement, and interruptions to clarify a statement. During the interview with McCartney, the host interrupts the

guest to specify his question in five cases, to contradict with what was previously said by the guest in four cases, to agree with the response in one case, to clarify in one case, and one interruption is unsuccessful. During the interview with Avramopolous, the host mostly interrupts the guest to contradict with him (14 out of 19 cases). In other cases the host interrupts to clarify the statement (one case), to agree (one case), and in three cases the host fails to interrupt. Similarly to the host’s purposes, the male guest mostly interrupts the host to contradict with him (9 out of 15 cases). The guest also interrupts to agree with the host’s statement (four cases), to clarify some parts of the statement, and in one case the guest fails to interrupt the host. To summarize the findings of interruptions between the host and guests, it can be stated that in the male-female interview the host is more likely to interrupt the female guest, while the guest avoids interruptions. In the male-male interview, both the host and the guest tend to interrupt each other almost equally. The host’s purposes of interruptions with respect to the guest’s gender also tend to differ. While the host interrupts the female guest mostly to specify his question, the male guest is mostly interrupted because the host disagrees with the response. In addition, the frequency of interruptions suggests that both the host and the male guest seek to achieve dominance in the conversation.

7.6 Adjectives

This section of the analysis discusses the use of adjectives in the TV talk show HARDtalk. The analysis specifically focuses on the frequency of adjectives and their use according to the semantic characteristics. The semantic grouping is based on Biber et al., (1999) classification of adjectives, which includes various semantic domains of adjectives. Adjectives denoting size/ extent/ quantity/ colours/ time, evaluative, and emotive meanings are analysed in this investigation. Adjectives that describe the appearance of a noun are termed as descriptive, adjectives denoting judgement of a noun are considered as evaluative, and adjectives having an emotional reaction are termed as emotive. The following table presents adjectives that are found in two HARDtalk transcripts:

Table 7. 6 Adjectives in the TV talk show HARtalk Transcript No. 1 Sackur McCartney Descriptive: political (4), long, Descriptive: small (2), hard, dark (6) political, wide, young, big (7) Evaluative: sympathetic, Evaluative: normal (2), simple, fundamental, proper, divided, criminal, sympathetic, visible, disgusting (5) dangerous, supportive, easy (9) Adjectives Emotive: strange, strong (2) Emotive: honest, afraid, Total number of adjectives (13) reluctant, strong, difficult, hard (6) Total number of adjectives (22)

Transcript No. 2 Sackur Avramopolous Descriptive: long (5), new (3), Descriptive: political (7), big, humanitarian (2), different (2), large, tragic, small, sensitive small, coherent, ordinary, big (12) (16) Evaluative: the last (2), better Evaluative: the greatest (2), (2), right, phlegmatic, worse, serious (2), powerful (2), ready, easy, successful, manageable, appropriate, deeper, important, useful, bad, detrimental, frank, wrong, worse, better, public, great (15) political, capable, necessary, ill- Emotive: frank (2), populist, equipped, the last, coherent, real, unsupportive (4) united, massive, acceptable, Total number of adjectives (31) favourable, stupid, accountable (27) Emotive: total, absolute (2) Total number of adjectives (45)

The results show that the frequency of adjectives between the host and guests is unequal. During the interview with McCartney adjectives in the host’s speech occur 13 times, whereas in the interview with Avramopolous adjectives occur 45 times. In the female guest’s speech, 22 instances of adjectives are found, and in the male guest’s speech 31 instances. According to the results, in the mixed-sex conversation, the female guest tends to use more adjectives than the male and emotive adjectives occur more frequent in the female’s speech as well. In the male-male conversation, the use of adjectives increases in both interlocutors’ speeches and the most common adjectives that the host and the guest use are adjectives having the evaluative meaning. Since only several adjectives are repeated more than two times in speeches, the variety of adjectives used by the host and guests is rich. The most common descriptive adjectives in males’ and the female’s speeches are long, big, and small, whereas evaluative adjectives include such as the last, better, the greatest, great. In addition, the comparative degree adjectives occur only in male guests’ speeches, while the female guest avoids comparing.

The findings of this investigation show that the frequency of adjectives is different between same-sex and mixed-sex interviews. Male interlocutors use adjectives more frequent when speaking to each other, while during the conversation with the female guests, the use of adjectives is moderate. The results of emotive adjectives show that these tend to occur more in the female’s speech, yet evaluative and descriptive adjectives are frequent in both male and female speeches.

8 LINGUISTIC SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TV TALK SHOWS AMANPOUR AND HARDTALK

The aim of this chapter is to compare linguistics similarities and differences between men’s and women’s language in Amanpour and HARDtalk TV talk shows that are observed in the above discussed analyses. Specifically, the number of questions and turns, the use of address forms, lexical hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, interruptions, and adjectives are compared. The number of questions and turns differ noticeably between the two TV talk shows and these differences are mainly influenced by the different length of the interviews and turns. While Amanpour show is structured with two interviews per show, HARDtalk show is organized with one. Thus, interviews in Amanpour are shorter and include fewer questions for an interviewee than in the HARDtalk show. For instance, while the host of Amanpour show asks from five to eight questions, the host of HARDtalk asks from 21 to 23 questions. The number of questions also may be related to the length of turns and their types. For instance, if the host allows the guest to speak longer, it influences the number of questions. In addition, interviews do not only consist of the question- answer turn pairs and the host may take other types of turns as well. As a result, types of adjacency pairs also affect the number of questions during the interviews. The results of the number of questions and turns vary between three female-male interviews and one female-female interview in the Amanpour show suggesting that the number of questions and turns is not affected by the guest’s gender, and the host follows question-answer turn pairs regardless of the gender. On the other hand, the results of HARDtalk suggest that the number of turns differs according to the guest’s gender and, while the male-female interview follows the structure of question-answer turns, the male-male interview includes a variety of other turn types. The results of the analysis of address forms indicate that in both Amanpour and HARDtalk talk shows, forms of address among hosts and their guests are used asymmetrically. While both hosts address guests with professional titles plus last names or full names, the guests address hosts with the first name. In addition, females tend to address both female and male interlocutors during

the question-answer part of the interview, while males avoid addressing female interlocutors. Yet, forms of address between male interlocutors tend to occur frequently. The results of the analysis of hedges and fillers show that the frequency of hedges and fillers does not differ significantly between males’ and females’ speech. In general both males and females tend to use hedges as well as fillers frequently in same-sex or mixed-sex conversations. However, to be more specific, hedges tend to occur more in the guest’s speeches than in the host’s and such results may be affected by the length of turns and the discourse of TV talk shows. It can be expected that in public discourse speakers seeks to minimize the use of fillers in order to speak professionally without vague utterances, and the hedging of phrases/statements helps to reduce straight statements that may lack probability or threaten the interlocutor’s face. In addition, the most frequent hedges and fillers used in men’s and women’s speeches are modal expressions, such as could be, might be, would like and pragmatic particles well, sort of, I mean, you know. The findings of the anlysis of intensifying committers and intensifiers indicate that in mixed-sex and same-sex interviews the use of committers and intensifiers is consistent in both males’ and females’ speech. For instance, while intensifiers and intensifying committers in females’ speech may occur from two to 27 times, intensifiers and intensifying committers in males’ speech may also occur from three to 22 times. However, there are instances when in mixed-sex interviews intensifiers or intensifying committers are used slightly more by males than females and vice versa, but neither females nor males attempt to dominate over each other significantly. The most common intensifying committers among men and women are of course, certainly, clearly, and obviously, and the most common intensifiers are very, really, every, still, even, much more, or very very. The results of the analysis of interruptions reveal that in same-sex interviews males tend to interrupt each other almost equally, while females avoid interrupting. For example, in the male- male interview men interrupt each other from 15 to 19 times, and no instrances of interruptions are found in the female-female interviews. However, in mixed-sex interviews both female and male interlocutors may attempt to interrupt each other. The aim of interruptions among mixed-sex interlocutors is to comment on the issue or to specify the question, whereas in the male-male speech interruptions among interlocutors result from the disagreement with what is previously stated by the speaker. Finally, the results of the analysis of adjectives indicate that in general male and female interlocutors use adjectives frequently regardless of their interlocutor’s gender. Descriptive, evaluative, and emotive adjectives tend to occur constantly in mixed-sex and same-sex interviews in males’ as well as females’ speeches. The variety of adjectives also shows that males’ and females’ speech is rich with adjectives and the choices of particular adjectives do not show significant differences.

To conclude, the results of both analyses show that there are some differences as well as similarities between males’ and females’ speech. The main differences are found in the amount of speech, the number of questions, and the number of turns which result from slightly different organization of both shows. The results of the analysis of particular linguistic features indicate that the use of some features is consistent among males and females regardless to the interlocutor’s gender, for instance, the use of hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, adjectives. However, the use of addressing forms and attempts to interrupt differ between males’ and female’s speeches.

9 CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this thesis was to analyse the CNN TV talk show Amanpour and the BBC TV talk show HARDtalk with respect to genre and language characteristics. Specifically, the thesis investigated to what extent these shows correspond to the typical format of the TV talk show and evaluated them from language and gender perspective. The analysed material consisted of two Amanpour and two HARDtalk shows which included six interviews: four interviews of the Amanpour show and two interviews of the HARDtalk show. The total number of words is around 12127 words. The analysis was based on the descriptive and comparative methods. The quantitative method was used in order to support the findings of linguistic features. The analysis of the Amanpour and HARDtalk shows from genre perspective revealed that these two shows differ as well as are similar in some aspects of the situational context and structural moves. The main differences between the shows were found in:  the number of participants per show,  the number of structural moves,  the presence of video clips,  the presence of commercials. As the findings indicated, one Amanpour show includes three participants (the host and two interviewees), while one HARDtalk show includes two participants (the host and one interviewee). As a result, the number of structural moves between the two shows noticeably differs. As the findings of structural moves revealed, the Amanpour show can be divided into six moves: opening, the first interview, commercial break, the second interview, commercial break, and closing-up. On the other hand, the HARDtalk show can be divided only into two parts: opening and interview. The opening, interview, and closing-up parts of Amanpour can be sub-divided into more detailed moves as well as the opening and interview parts of HARDtalk. Despite the fact that both shows have similar moves, namely, the opening, the interview, and a short closing, the sub-moves tend to differ. On the other hand, the parts that are shared might be called obligatory, while the differences mostly concern the formal structuring of the shows. This indicates that there are possible variations within this strictly structured TV genre. As the results also showed, commercial breaks are present in the Amanpour show (during one show two commercial breaks are shown), while there are no commercial breaks in the HARDtalk show. In addition, while the Amanpour show tends to include video clips as additional or introducing sources of information for the discussion during the interviews, there are no video clips in HARDtalk show.

On the other hand, the analysis revealed that Amanpour and HARDtalk shows are similar in the majority of situational characteristics:  the relationship between participants, purpose, medium, form, content, topic, level of formality, and style. Since the format of talk shows is based on the interview, in both TV talk shows the relationship between the host and the guest is asymmetrical. Thus the hosts lead the discussion and determine the boundaries of it. The purpose of both shows is also the same, to comment on the latest current affairs or events. Furthermore, the majority of interviews in both shows are face to face. The register of both shows is also neutral and the speech of the host or the guest is fluent. It can be stated that both Amanpour and HARDtalk TV talk shows correspond to the typical features of a talk show, yet there are some noticeable differences. Both shows mainly differ in the structure and the number of participants per show. The difference in the number of moves and sub-moves is influenced by the use of commercials breaks and video clips that are present in the Amanpour show. However, both shows are similar in the majority of situational characteristics. The analysis of the Amanpour and HARDtalk shows from language in relation to gender perspective revealed that there are differences as well as similarities between males’ and females’ speech. The main differences were found in:  the amount of speech,  the number of questions and turns,  addressing forms,  interruptions. As the findings of the analysis of the number of questions and turns showed, these features differ noticeably between the two TV talk shows and the differences are mainly influenced by the different length of the interviews and turns. The Amanpour show is structured with two interviews per show, and each includes from 1120 to 1300 words, while HARDtalk is organized with one interview per show including around 3600 words. Thus, the interviews in Amanpour are shorter and include fewer questions for an interviewee in comparison to the HARDtalk show. The number of questions also may be related to the length of turns: if the host allows the guest to speak longer, it influences the number of questions. In addition, interviews do not only consist of the question- answer turn pairs and the host may take other types of turns as well. As a result, types of adjacency pairs also affect the number of questions during the interviews. The findings of the addressing forms revealed that they are used asymmetrically among hosts and their guests. Both hosts address guests with professional titles plus last names or full names, while the guests address hosts with the first name. The host address their guests with the full name in order to show politeness and with the professional title plus the last name to show respect.

On the other hand, the guests addressing with the first name may seek to minimize relations of power as well as show friendliness towards the host. The results of the addressing forms used considering the interlocutor’s gender showed that females tend to address both female and male interlocutors during the question-answer part of the interview, while males avoid addressing female interlocutors. The results of the analysis of interruptions showed that in same-sex interviews males tend to interrupt each other almost equally, while females avoid interrupting. However, in mixed-sex interviews both female and male interlocutors may attempt to interrupt each other. It can be also stated that the aim of interruptions among mixed-sex interlocutors is to comment on the issue or to specify the question, whereas in the male-male speech interruptions among interlocutors result from the disagreement with what is previously stated by the speaker. Despite the fact that men’s and women’s language tend to differ in some linguistic aspects, the analysis revealed that males’ and females’ speech can also have similarities. The main similarities were found in:  the use of hedges and fillers,  the use of intensifying committers and intesifiers,  adjectives. According to the findings, male and female interlocutors use hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, and adjectives in their speech regardless of their interlocutor’s gender. The results showed that the use of these features among men and women does not differ significantly. However, there are instances found when hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, and adjectives are used slightly more by males than females and vice versa, but neither females nor males attempt to dominate over each other significantly. The results of both analyses suggest that there are some differences as well as similarities between males’ and females’ speech. While the main differences were found in the amount of speech, the number of questions and turns, interruptions, and addressing forms, the use of hedges and fillers, intensifying committers and intensifiers, and adjectives is consistent among males and females regardless to the interlocutor’s gender. Further research on TV talk shows might include a larger number of different shows with the aim to find out to what extent this genre allows variations and differences. Another possibility could be a comparison of shows from time perspective in order to find out new tendencies in move organization and general format.

REFERENCES Bhatia, V. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London and New York: Longman.

Bhatia, V. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London and New York: Continuum.

Bhatia, V., Flowerdew, J. and H. Rodney. J. 2008. Advances in Discourse Studies. New York: Routledge.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. and G. Leech. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

Biber, D. and S. Conrad. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bing, J, M. and V. L. Bergvall. 1996. The Question of Questions: Beyond Binary Thinking. In Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice by Bing, J, M., V. L., Bergvall and A. F. Freed. New York: Routledge.

Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bucholtz, M. 2002. From “Sex Differences” to Gender Variation. In U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 8.3, pp. 33-45.

Cameron, D. 2006. On Language and Sexual Politics. New York: Routledge.

Coates, J. 1993. Women, Men, and Language. London: Longman.

Coates, J. 1998. Language and Gender. A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Coates, J. 2013. Women, Men, and Language – a Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

Crissel, A. 1997. An Introductory History of British Broadcasting. New York: Routledge. Eckert, P. and S. McConnel-Ginet. 2013. Language and Gender. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Communities of Practice: Where Language, Gender, and Power All Live. In Language and Gender. A Reader by Coates, J. Oxford: Blackwell.

Flowerdew, J. 2013. Discourse in English Language Education. New York. Routledge.

Ghose , A. 6 April 2015. “Guns and Roses: Christiane Amanpour on Conflict Zones and Tourist Spots”. In Vogue. (Accessed 3 March 2016)

Hale, B. S. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men, and Politeness. New York: Longman.

Holmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Holmes, J. 2013. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.

Holmes, J. and M. Meyerhoff. 2003. The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hymes, D. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In Sociolinguistics. Selective Readings by Pride J. B. and J. Holmes. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Ilie, C. 1999. Semi-institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows. In Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 33, pp. 209-254. Oxford: Elsevier.

Ilie, C. 2006. Talk Shows. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier.

Jespersen, O. 1922. Language. Its Nature, Development, and Origin. London: George Allen and Unwid.

Jones, H. R. 2012. Discourse Analysis: A Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge.

Johansen, W. 1997. The Purpose of Communicative Purpose. In Hermes, Journal Of Linguistics 19. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet.

Jones H. R. 2012. Discourse Analysis. A Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge.

Joyrich, L. 2009. The Magic of Television: Thinking Through Magical Realism in Recent TV. In Transformative Works and Cultures. Vol. 3.

Kendall, S. and D. Tannen. 2001. Discourse and Gender. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis by Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and H. E. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kramarae, C. and Spender, D. 2000. Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women – Global Women’s Issues and Knowledge. New York: Routledge.

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. In Language and Women’s Place: Text and Commentaries by Lakoff, R. New York: Oxford University Press.

Little, W. 2014. Introduction to Sociology: 1st Canadian Edition.

Maltz, D. N. and R. A. Borker. 1982. A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication. In Language and Gender. A Reader by Coates, J. Oxford: Blackwell.

Marshall, J. and A. Werndly. 2002. The Language of Television. London and New York: Routledge.

Murphy, B. 2010. Corpus and Sociolinguistics: Investigating Age and Gender in Female Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

O’Loughin, K. 2001. (En)gendering the TESOL Classroom. In An Australian Journal of TESOL. Vol. 16.2, pp. 33-44. Sydney: AMEP Research Centre.

Paltridge, B. 2006. Discourse Analysis. An Introduction. London: Continuum.

Paltridge, B. 2012. Discourse Analysis. London: Bloomsbury.

Penhallurick, R. 2003. Studying the English Language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Renkema, J. 2004. Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Richardson, K. and H. Meinhof. 1999. Worlds in Common? Television in Discourse in a Changing Europe. London and New York: Routledge.

Ryle, R. 2014. Questioning Gender: A Sociolinguistic Exploration. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

Shattuc, M. J. 1997. The Talking Cure. TV Talk Shows and Women. New York: Routledge.

Spender, D. 1980. Man Made Language. London: Pandora.

Sunderland, J. 2006. Language and Gender: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.

Swales, M. J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Talbot, M. 1998. Language and Gender: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Talbot, M. 2003. Gender Stereotypes: Reproduction and Challenge. In The Handbook of Language and Gender by Holmes, J. and M. Meyerhoff. Oxford: Blackwell.

Talbot, M. 2010. Language and Gender. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine.

Thornbury, S. 2005. Beyond the Sentence: Introducing Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Thornbury, S. 13 April 2013. “G is for Genre”. In Scott Thornbury Wordpress. (Accessed 4 November 2014)

Troemel-Ploetz, S. 1990. Selling the Apolitical. In Language and Gender. A Reader by Coates, J. Oxford: Blackwell.

Vallet, F., Essid, S., Carrive, J. and R. Gael. 2011. High-level TV Talk Show Structuring Centred on Speakers’ Interventions. In TV Content Analysis: Techniques and Applications by Kompatsiaris, Y., Merialdo, B. and S. Lian. New York: CRC Press.

Weatherall, A. 2002. Gender, Language and Discourse. New York: Routledge.

West, C. and Zimmerman, H. 1975. Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation. In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance by Thorne, B. and Henley, N. Massachusetts: Newbury House.

West, C. And Zimmerman, H. 1977. Women’s Place in Everyday Talk: Reflections on Parent-Child Interaction. In Social Problems. Vol. 24, pp. 521-529.

West, C. And Zimmerman, H. 1987. Doing Gender. In Gender and Society. Vol. 1.2, pp. 125-151. London: Sage Publications.

White, D. 16 February 2016. “Profile of Christiane Amanpour, ABC “This Week” Moderator”. In About News. (Accessed 4 March 2016)

Wikina, E. 17 March 2015. “Behind the HARD Talk: My Stroll with Stephen Sackur”. In Huffington Post. (Accessed 4 March 2016)

SOURCES OF DATA www.edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ampr.html (Accessed 20 October 2014) www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004t1s0/episodes/downloads (Accessed 03 October 2015) www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/3jnG4P3WMvmGk370qtJ3TJt/stephen-sackur (Accessed 30 November 2015) www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/QrrcWR1vSGDbwZ45JLhNg2/stephen-sackur (Accessed 04 March 2016) www.edition.cnn.com/profiles/christiane-amanpour-profile#about (Accessed 4 March 2016)

APPENDIX A: Situational characteristics of registers and genres (Biber 2009 :41) I. Participants A. Addressor(s) (i.e. speaker or author) 1. single / plural / institutional / unidentified 2. social characteristics: age, education, profession, etc. B. Addressees 1. single / plural / un-enumerated 2. self / other C. Are there on-lookers? II. Relations among participants A. Interactiveness B. Social roles: relative status or power C. Personal relationship: e.g., friends, colleagues, strangers D. Shared knowledge: personal and specialist III. Channel A. Mode: speech / writing / signing B. Specific Medium: Permanent: taped / transcribed / printed / handwritten / e-mail / etc. Transient speech: face-to-face / telephone / radio / TV / etc. IV. Production circumstances: real time / planned / scripted / revised and edited V. Setting A. Is the time and place of communication shared by participants? B. Place of communication 1. Private / public 2. Specific setting C. Time: contemporary, historical time period VI. Communicative purposes A. General purposes: narrate / report, describe, exposit / inform / explain, persuade, how-to / procedural, entertain, edify, reveal self B. Specific purposes: e.g., summarize information from numerous sources, describe methods, present new research findings, teach moral through personal story C. Factuality: factual, opinion, speculative, imaginative D. Expression of stance: epistemic, attitudinal, no overt stance VII. Topic A. General topical “domain”: e.g., domestic, daily activities, business / workplace, science, education / academic, government / legal / politics, religion, sports, art / entertainment, etc. B. Specific topic C. Social status of person being referred to

APPENDIX B: The situational characteristics of two Amanpour transcripts Situational characteristics of two transcripts Transcript No.1 Transcript No. 2 Participants Host: Christiane Amanpour Host: Christiane Amanpour Interlocutor 1: Navi Pillay. U.N. Interlocutor 1: Mexico's ambassador to High Commissioner for Human the United States, Eduardo Medina- Mora Rights Interlocutor 2: John G. Morris, photo Interlocutor 2: Andrew Norfolk, editor chief investigative reporter of "The London Times" Medium Interlocutor 1: face to face Interlocutor 1: face to face Interlocutor 2: video streaming Interlocutor 2: face to face The Social roles: asymmetrical power Social roles: asymmetrical power relationship relations: the host controls the relations: the host controls the discussion between discussion participants Purposes 1.To comment on ISIS brutal actions 1. To comment on the kidnapping of 43 2. To comment on the abuse of girls teaching students their murdering in the United Kingdom 2. To comment on the historical photos of World War I Topics 1. The Fight for Human Rights 1. Demanding Justice in Mexico 2. Scandal of the 1,400 Lost Girls 2. Bringing War Home Form Interview Interview Content Relevant topic to the host, audience, Relevant topic to the host, audience, interlocutors interlocutors Level of Neutral Neutral formality Style Fluent speech Fluent speech Instances of spontaneous speech: Instances of spontaneous speech: contractions, pauses, crosstalk, contractions, pauses, crosstalk, repetitions repetitions

APPENDIX C: The situational characteristics of two HARDtalk transcripts Situational characteristics of two transcripts Transcript No.1 Transcript No. 2 Participants Host: Stephen Sackur Host: Stephen Sackur Interlocutor: Catherine McCartney, Interlocutor: Dimitris Avramopoulos, the Campaigner for paramilitary victims EU commissioner for migration and home affairs Medium Interlocutor: face to face Interlocutor: face to face The Social roles: asymmetrical power Social roles: asymmetrical power relationship relations: the host controls the relations: the host controls the discussion between discussion participants Purposes To comment on IRA activities To comment on the migration issues Topics The charge - that the IRA hasn't gone What comes first for Europe, humanity or away - now threatens Northern security? Ireland's fragile political stability - but is it true? Form Interview Interview Content Relevant topic to the host, audience, Relevant topic to the host, audience, interlocutors interlocutors Level of Neutral Neutral formality Style Fluent speech Fluent speech Instances of spontaneous speech: Instances of spontaneous speech: contractions, pauses, crosstalk, contractions, pauses, crosstalk, repetitions repetitions

APPENDIX D: AMANPOUR. Transcript #1. Interview with Medina-Mora and Morris

Demanding Justice in Mexico; Bringing War Home; Imagine a World

Aired November 14, 2014 - 14:00:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST (voice-over): Tonight: fury on the streets of Mexico over 43 missing students. My exclusive with Mexico's ambassador to the United States. It is the first time the government has met the press on this brutal crisis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDUARDO MEDINA-MORA, MEXICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: This is a wakeup call, the reality is there. We have to face it. But we have the understanding, the map, the road map to actually do this and the political will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Plus in this week of week of remembrance, memories from the battlefield. The photo journalist who risked his life to capture the world's most difficult wartime invasion and the extraordinary man who got those pictures onto the front page, John G. Morris joins me in the studio.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to a special weekend edition of the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour. It has been called the massacre of the innocents and it has shocked and shamed Mexico: 43 student teachers kidnapped and brutally murdered by a criminal gang with close ties to local government officials.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): The fact that these gangs could act with impunity, seemingly in collusion with corrupt police and other officials, has provoked a furious reaction in Mexico and an acute political crisis for the country. In one city, firefighters had to tackle a blaze set by protesters at the headquarters of the ruling party. The international reaction has been no less outraged; even the pope weighing in at his weekly audience at the Vatican.

POPE FRANCIS (through translator): I wanted somehow to express my closest to the Mexicans who are here and those back home, in this painful time for an illegal disappearance. But we know it was a murder, a murder of the students. But the dramatic reality of all the crime that exists behind drug trafficking becomes evident.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Mexico's ambassador to the United States, Eduardo Medina- Mora, tells me that this is a wakeup call for his country. It's the first interview that a Mexican government official has given since this major crisis erupted two months ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Ambassador Medina-Mora, welcome to the program. MEDINA-MORA:Thank you very much, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: Very, very difficult times for you and for your country people and the fury continues to be felt on the streets and it is reverberating around the world. This is a big political crisis for the president, isn't it?

MEDINA-MORA: It is a big political crisis for Mexico. We are all outraged by these brutal events and the only feeling that we can have is to share this sorrow and pain from the parents of these students who are still missing.

AMANPOUR: And let me ask you because one of the things that no one can really understand is the state of crime and injustice in Mexico. First and foremost, why did it take 10 days for the federal authorities to launch an investigation?

MEDINA-MORA: Well, first of all, it didn't take that long. Federal authorities went into the scene right away to take

control of the security circumstance. We deployed federal forces in 15 municipalities of the State of Guerrero right away. And of course, Mexico is a federal system. You have to understand that we have different competencies, different areas of jurisdiction between the state and the federal. When this case were surrendered to the federal because it was linked with organized crime, then the formal investigation was started. But the federal prosecutor started cooperating with the local prosecutors of the State of Guerrero from day one.

AMANPOUR: Nonetheless, people watching think that it took too long, despite your various administrative issues. And clearly the parents think it's too long. And we have all sorts of pictures, which I'm sure you've seen as well, obviously, YouTube video taken of the parents during a meeting with the president, asking for more competence, more searches, you know, really wanting to see a much more dramatic involvement by the government. What are you telling the parents now? Because they say, listen, we saw our children alive and we want to get them back alive.

MEDINA-MORA: We have 10,000 people deployed on the terrain as we speak, searching for these students actively. We have a very clear path of investigation. We have a hypothesis that actually shows that it might be the case that they are there, that they have been killed. But we are not stopping the search here. The investigation is an open one. And we are actively searching for these students with 10,000 federal officers in that area as we speak. And of course, the parents are just entitled to get a response from authorities, both at the local, at the federal level and we are deploying every single means at our reach to do that.

AMANPOUR: Can I play for you something that is still shocking all these days later? The words of the attorney general of Mexico describing what he believes and what you have decided is the murder of these 43 students, the brutality of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESUS MURILLO KARAM, MEXICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL (through translator): Those detained pointed out that they deprived of their lives the students and then they threw them to the lower part of the dam and they buried the bodies and they spent their hours on the watch, throwing tires, wood, plastic and fuel for hours.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I mean, the cold-blooded, brutal murder of these 43 students. I guess, Ambassador, your reaction to that and also to -- you know, I ask myself, how can a country watch 43 students brutally murdered like this simply because they got in the way of the ambition of the wife of a local politician? How is it possible?

MEDINA-MORA: This is brutal. This is inhumane. This is unacceptable. We need, of course, to respond to this from the basic sentiment that we share with the parents. We certainly devote every single resource in our reach to face this. This is, of course, a circumstance that is very unacceptable in the State of Guerrero. We certainly face this with every single tool at our reach in order to impede this to happen again. And of course, to go after the perpetrators, we have so far detained 73 people, 36 local police officers, the mayor and his wife, the head of the criminal group and a few members of this group. We are still searching for many more. And these shall not remain impugned. And we will, of course, see that the full force of the law is faced by these people that perpetrated these crimes. This is unacceptable and we are certainly sharing the sentiment of the parents of these students.

AMANPOUR: Mr. Ambassador, I hear you loud and clear. You say you will use every tool at your disposal. But here's the problem. First of all, the people don't trust this. And I'm not sure why they should trust this because, by Mexico's own statistics -- and we have these statistics -- 93.8 percent of crimes in Mexico were unreported or uninvestigated in 2013, last year. So does President Pena Nieto have to change the way of accountability and the way of justice in Mexico?

MEDINA-MORA: Christiane, this is a wakeup call for all of us in the shortcomings of our institutional advancement, particularly in states like Guerrero. We have advanced a lot. But it is very clear that we are not yet where we need to be in terms of responding to the basic obligation of the state, which is to provide certainty to all the united citizens, to live lives in peace, in tranquillity with their families in what can be called normality. We are certainly not there, particularly in areas as Guerrero that are certainly facing these dramatic circumstances. And I can assure you that government, President Pena Nieto, is fully and personally committed. No one can stay really without a reaction to this. We are parents and we understand the circumstance. And we certainly understand the political responsibilities that we face. The president does. The government does. We do and we will, of course, face this with a very strong political action. AMANPOUR: Because of course, the parents will be asking, just as each and every one of us ask, every time there's a terrible crime like this in Mexico, and there have been many, how is it possible that the police, who are sworn to uphold the law, actually take these kids and hand them over to these brutal drug trafficking gangs?

MEDINA-MORA: It is totally unacceptable and --

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: But it's corrupt. How do we stop this corruption? It's at the heart of the matter.

MEDINA-MORA: It is -- we have to see if the institutional design behind having municipal police forces, which are highly fragmented and small in terms of numbers, are actually able to deal with these issues in these particular areas that are facing organized crime. We need to actually build up institutional strength. And a democratic state, Christiane, needs a very strong and large police force, at the end, in order not to use it. We have to develop very strong, reliable, accountable police institutions to respond to these challenges. And maybe the design that we have had to this date is not up to this task. We have to review this clearly, nationally, but now as for the most important element in the State of Guerrero and all those areas that are facing these dramatic circumstances, in which organized crime plays a role, our problem is not a drug trafficking problem, it's a security problem, which is made much worse by drug trafficking. We need to first build up the security forces that are institutionally strong enough to face these challenges and to provide certainty to our citizens, to have all territorial control in order to impede these groups to take control of them. This is a much more larger and deeper endeavour and task for all of us.

AMANPOUR: Ambassador Medina-Mora, thank you very much for your frankness. And thank you for being the first Mexican official to explain to us what happened and what you're going to try to do to fix this.

MEDINA-MORA: Thank you very much to you, Christiane.

(END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: And after a break, honouring the fallen: a final ceramic poppy was placed at the Tower of London on Tuesday, Armistice Day, to complete a poignant art installation that's captured the heart of a nation. Large crowds watched 13-year-old Army Cadet Harry Hayes place the last of more than 888,000 flowers, each representing a British or Colonial life lost in World War I. The young cadet's great-great-great uncle was one of them. Their stories of courage and sacrifice wouldn't have reached us without the brave photojournalists who documented the bloodshed. The world's most famous photo editor, who put history on the front page, when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program. It's 100 years since the end of World War I. Allies here and around the world and in the United States paused to remember the dead and the sacrifice of so many.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): The sacrifice of soldiers and also of war correspondents who put their lives on the line to bring the reality of battle to the millions back home. One of the greatest ever was Robert Capa, who, 70 years ago, snapped those legendary frames of the D-Day Normandy landings. His picture editor at the time was John Morris, now 98, he has seen it all and he's just published his own book of war photos. I asked him how the iconic images got onto the front pages and into our history books.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: John Morris, welcome to the program. It's great to see you again. And at this amazingly poignant time, 100 years since the First World War, we're right in the middle of Armistice and remembrance of fallen heroes. I want you to take me back to those incredible days: Normandy landing, D-Day 1944, where you were the editor, the photo editor, for young Robert Capa. These amazing pictures of soldiers disembarking onto those beaches on D-Day, how did Robert Capa manage to get so close?

JOHN G. MORRIS, PHOTO EDITOR: Well, he was partly lucky, but he was also very courageous. It took a lot of guts to do that. I was the London picture editor of "Life," and it was my job to get the pictures back to America in time for a deadline, which was Saturday afternoon in New York, when "Life" closed an issue every week. So we were in -- let's face it. We were all propagandists. We wanted an Allied victory.

AMANPOUR: And you wanted to get these -- I guess heroic pictures back to show the world.

MORRIS: We felt that was a war that had to be won, unlike many subsequent wars, which I have not believed in at all. Capa was stuck with his own reputation. He had -- he had, fortunately or unfortunately, built up a reputation as the greatest war photographer. So he was stuck with it. He almost had to land with the first wave -- and he did.

AMANPOUR: And yet you discovered that only a handful of about 106 frames that he had shot that day were usable.

MORRIS: We were under terrible deadline pressure. We rushed development. And the darkroom lab came rushing them out, saying, John, the films are ruined, you were in such a hurry. I put them in the cabinet to dry and hung them and they -- and the emulsion melted. I couldn't believe it, but I ran back to the darkroom with them. And on the fourth of four rolls, found 11 frames, which we told the story.

AMANPOUR: It still makes me sick to my stomach to think that that evidence may have been lost forever.

MORRIS: Well, it now seems that maybe there was nothing on the other three rolls to begin with. Experts recently have said you can't melt the emulsion off films like that. And he just never shot them. So I now believe that it's quite possible that Bob just bundled all his 35 together and just shipped it off back to London, knowing that on one of those rolls there would be the pictures he actually shot that morning. So we may not have lost anything at all that he had shot. That remains to be seen.

AMANPOUR: That's news.

MORRIS: That's new.

AMANPOUR: You called him the most famous war correspondent, war photographer of all time.

And you yourself became the most famous editor of all time. But one of the things that's little known until now is this book of your own pictures, that very same D-Day summer. How on Earth and why on Earth did you decide to go to Normandy?

MORRIS: Well, I was a little crazy. So for four weeks, I carried a camera. I never felt that I -- I never thought of myself as a photographer. After all, I'd worked with the best photographers in history. And you don't go around shooting pictures beside Cartier-Bresson if you're working with him. So anyway, but I shot the -- I just shot things that interested me. And the result is this book and an exhibition.

AMANPOUR: One of the things that I know affected you a lot and it's an amazing picture, really, is this young boy, at the very end of the book. And you say, "The Face of My Enemy."

MORRIS: One day, I was working near the front with Capa on the outskirts of Saint-Malo. And he took me across the street, inland, and the shots rang out. So I said, "Run for it when we go back," which I did. And more shots. An hour or so later, they've brought in a bunch of prisoners, including this kid. And when I looked at him, I thought, my God, he's - - he must be 15 years old. And I thought, that's my enemy. It's ridiculous. And I photographed him and wrote a piece about it, called, "The Face of My Enemy," because, see, I don't believe in war. I believe in peace.

AMANPOUR: And in fact, you did take that sentiment to your next editorship, when you were editor, picture editor at "The New York Times." And you put two of the most shocking war photos from the Vietnam War on the front cover, on the front page in "The New York Times," the famous shot of the execution.

MORRIS: One day in early 1968, the war in Vietnam had intensified. Lyndon Johnson was now sending thousands and thousands of troops to Vietnam. And I was totally opposed to that war. And when this picture by Eddie Adams of AP came over the wire in mid-afternoon, I was determined that it would be prominently played on page one. And that picture really shocked people to the point where it, I think, it had an influence. And the second picture that had such an influence was the picture of a naked girl --

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: The young -- the young girl with the napalm, running through the streets. Yes, I mean, it's shocking still to this day.

MORRIS: Right, exactly. I'll never forget the news editor discussing that page one with me, as he made it up and saying, it's a good thing that she's not showing.

AMANPOUR: That she hadn't reached puberty.

MORRIS: Exactly.

AMANPOUR: Because otherwise you wouldn't have put that on the front page of "The Times."

MORRIS: He would have been nervous about putting it on page one. Now we accept it, but it was -- it was revolutionary at that time.

AMANPOUR: And what did you hope that these pictures would achieve?

MORRIS: It was to build public pressure for peace.

AMANPOUR: Now you keep saying your judgment, your opinion. I wasn't, you know, for this. I was against this. By what right? Who voted you president?

MORRIS: I ain't president. I never fooled myself that I had the power to stop war. But all I had to do -- I had the compulsion to try to stop war. That's all. That is all I could try to do.

AMANPOUR: And you've been at it for all these decades. And we really, really appreciate you being here. It's a wonderful book, this, that shows the ordinary face of people caught up in war. And it's really important to remind everybody about that.

John Morris, thank you very much.

MORRIS: Thank you. It was my pleasure.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: After a break, an out-of-this-world story 300 million miles away. This week's space scientists everywhere celebrated the very first time a spacecraft landed on a speeding comet -- next.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, imagine a world of sheer breathtaking human ingenuity. Imagine a spacecraft the size of a washing machine landing on a speeding ball of ice 510 million kilometers away from Earth for the very first time. Today it happened, and Mission Control in Darmstadt, Germany, erupted into cheers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(APPLAUSE)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Now landing on a comet is major by any space standards.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Comets and their graceful tails shooting across the heavens have been observed since ancient times. But no one knows what secrets they hold. Anxiously awaiting touchdown, a top NASA scientist told our Fred Pleitgen why the spacecraft's mission is so vital.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES GREEN, DIRECTOR OF PLANETARY SCIENCE, NASA: These comets are made up of dust material, gases and ices in a combination that's been brought together at the very beginning of the solar system. In fact, these comets are older than the Earth itself, the first things that have formed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Comets are frozen capsules from the very beginning of our solar system and scientists hope this one will hold the answers to some of life's essential questions, like where do we come from? How is life possible? Ten years ago, the iPhone, Twitter and YouTube were all still distant dreams. But the Rosetta Spacecraft was already en route to

Comet 67P. Along the way, in 2007, it took this selfie with Mars. But the landing was fraught with tension. The comet is only a few kilometers wide, hardly bigger than Central London and it has barely any gravity. So rather than simply touch down like on the moon 45 years ago, this one had to anchor itself to the surface. And in our world of instant satellite communications, it took 28 minutes for the signal announcing the landing to reach us on Earth. And to deliver those answers about where we all began, it'll need to remain on the comet as it approaches the sun, melts and begins to disintegrate. Now on Greek mythology, Icarus' wings melted when he flew too close to the sun, but we can only hope that this winged messenger will survive and open up a whole new world of knowledge. And that's it for our program. Thanks for watching. You can always watch our show online at amanpour.com and always contact me on Facebook and Twitter. Good night from London.

END

APPENDIX E: AMANPOUR. Transcript #2. Interview with Pillay and Norfolk

The Fight for Human Rights; "Scandal of the 1,400 Lost Girls"; Imagine a World

Aired August 27, 2014 - 14:00:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST (voice-over): Tonight: is the world losing its moral compass? The top human rights commissioner tells me the battle never ends. And later we hear from the frontline defender, the journalist who uncovered staggering abuse right here in England while police turned a blind eye to thousands of young girls, gang-raped and sold into sex slavery.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): They knew so much about it and they just never did anything.

(MUSIC PLAYING) (END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour. As the West now weighs how to battle ISIS and eradicate the terrorist state that it's carved out of Iraq and Syria, the mother of another captive American journalist, Steven Sotloff today went public, begging the ISIS leader to spare her son's life.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHIRLEY SOTLOFF, MOTHER OF STEVEN SOTLOFF, JOURNALIST: I ask you to please release my child. As a mother I ask your justice to be merciful and not punish my son for matters he has no control over.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Sotloff appeared in the video which showed the brutal execution of journalist James Foley late last week. Meantime another opposition fighter in Syria, another group, has claimed to have captured Quneitra, a border crossing with Israel, as that country marks the first full day of a truce with Hamas in Gaza. In all of these conflicts and many others around the world, human rights are the first casualties. For the past six years, Navi Pillay has been a frontline human rights defender. As the United Nations High Commissioner on this issue, she's suffered the slings and arrows of all those who would rather trample than protect people's fundamental rights. And now just a few days before her term ends, she's issued yet another scathing report on Syria, condemning Bashar al-Assad and ISIS. And she continues to hold to account Israel, Hamas, China ,even the United States of America. From New York, she tells me that she has pushed her mandate to the very limit in what just might be the world's most thankless job.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Navi Pillay, welcome to the program.

NAVI PILLAY, U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: Your latest report could not be more timely with the reports about ISIS. You paint a very brutal picture of this group which, as we know, is barbaric and has beheaded in public an American journalist.

PILLAY: This group is committing huge atrocities against men, women and children, large number -- thousands of people killed and injured. I'm also concerned by the fact that children are being used in siege positions, that they may be very vulnerable to attacks, to be killed from the air; very concerned about the abduction of women and girls, reports that they are being sold into sexual slavery. What I want to say is that all actors, state and non-state actors, are accountable under international humanitarian law. But what I see here is neither side is taking measures to protect civilians.

AMANPOUR: And you actually do hold the Assad government also accountable for continued use, at least in the spring of this year, of chemical weapons despite now the removal of their official weapons of mass destruction.

PILLAY: Our recent report, which is being released today, Christiane, shows levels of mass atrocities that are over six months' period that have really deteriorated, increased to a large measure. And the commission's report also highlights this factual finding on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government.

AMANPOUR: And mostly chlorine gas, is that correct?

PILLAY: That is correct, yes.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you also then about Israel and the Palestinian group, Hamas; as you very well know, there's a truce in place now. And yet your commission has and will continue to hold both sides accountable for what you have called an indiscriminate series of attacks on civilians. Do you mean that about both sides or about one side in particular?

PILLAY: Well, I mean on both sides. But obviously the acts of the Israeli government and the Israeli Defense Forces have caused far more civilian deaths and injuries to people, damages to buildings as a result of the shelling. Umrah (ph) School head has given 35 warnings to the Israeli authorities that there are displaced people in those schools. And yet the schools were shelled. So these are all very serious activities, which show a disregard for international humanitarian law and human rights law, which requires necessity, proportionality to distinguish between civilians and combatants. And this is why I say in particular that the act of the Israeli Defense Forces amount to war crimes. On the other hand, the Hamas and other armed groups are placing civilians as shields. They are placing mortars and rockets within civilian densely populated areas. And those amount to violations of international humanitarian law as well, and disregard for civilians.

AMANPOUR: You obviously, the Israeli situation is massively sensitive; you obviously have received, as you yourself have said, a mountain of hate mail; Israeli officials have accused you of, quote, "failing dismally" to protect the human rights of Israelis. And they accuse you of being biased. How do you respond to that?

PILLAY: I invite the Israeli government to share their information with us. I've reached out to the government. And three years ago I went on mission to Israel. And of course I'm sympathetic to the human rights of all civilians, Israeli civilians, who are constantly under this barrage of rocket attacks. But so I hope that they will cooperate with this commission. It's an investigation. It would benefit all sides to know the truth of what is happening there.

AMANPOUR: What does it feel like to be doing this frontline work, trying to fight for the human rights of people all around the world, having to deal with government leaders, many of whom accost you, from what I have read, in a fairly angry manner; for instance, I said what the Israelis have said to you but also the Syrians. The U.N. ambassador called you a lunatic. Sri Lanka's media denounces you as a Tamil tigress. Are you proud of these attacks? Does it - does it mean you're doing your job properly? Or does it hamper you?

PILLAY: I am supremely confident that I speak with moral authority, with my knowledge of international law, who created these norms and standards. So these comments don't disturb me at all. There are still the other 190- odd countries who appreciate the work being done by my office because we assist them. They know the importance of investigating serious incidents. And so we continue with our work. The positions I adopt are, in fact, acknowledged as correct by those governments.

AMANPOUR: You never got to China and you never got to the United States of America. What would you have told the United States of America ,whose Constitution is based on upholding civil and human rights, but who you nonetheless criticized?

PILLAY: I was deeply disappointed that my various requests to visit United States has given rise to no response. No country -- and particularly the United States -- can claim to be exempt from the -- from complying with the international standards. And they also appointed the High Commissioner for Human Rights. They should let me do my job. They do champion human rights. But they have to look to their internal affairs as well. Issues such as addressing racism, racial discrimination and suppression of freedom of assembly, Guantanamo, the use of armed drones, the assassination contracts that have been issued, I feel that the United States is moving so far away from the standards that we require from other states, that the United States requires from other states. And this is what I would have reminded them about. And I also would have raised very pertinently the large number of executions that are being carried out in various states, in the United States at a time when almost 160 states are moving towards either abolition or a moratorium of the death penalty.

AMANPOUR: And finally, your experience, your life experience as a South African, as a -- as a colored woman in South Africa, did that shape your mandate as the longest serving commissioner for human rights? PILLAY: I'm sure it did in many ways, Christiane. Firstly, the experience of knowing what it is to be a victim and not seeing an end in sight and all the small actions we took in the country -- and we valued international support. We know that voices raised against apartheid in our struggle meant a great deal to us. And of course we then achieved success. My other experience is to be persistent and be totally positive that you will win one day. And this comes from the various battles we fought in the courtroom. It -- we won many; we lost many and won a few. And that continued to inspire us to keep going. And I think all of this influenced me, my approach, as High Commissioner for Human Rights.

AMANPOUR: Navi Pillay, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

PILLAY: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And you heard Ms. Pillay also tell me about the vital need to protect children, those who are recruited into wars, sexual slavery and other horrors. She was highlighting a recent protocol that allows children who have no other recourse to bring their complaints directly to an international body. Now it's a means of self-defense and self- preservation that might have spared hundreds of young girls right here in England, who were forced into a brutal sex trafficking ring that is now scandalizing this nation. The Rotherham horror when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program. Now when it comes to massive human rights abuses, there are the usual suspects, as we've just heard from the U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay. And then there are the unbelievably shocking abuses uncovered right here in a bastion of liberal democracy, the United Kingdom. In the town of Rotherham in Northern England, children as young as 11 were abducted, groomed, drugged, gang-raped and trafficked. For 16 years more than 1,400 children were abused. Damon Green has this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAMON GREEN, ITV NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Abuse, violence and cruelty on an overwhelming scale. Social services looked the other way and police ignored it. In just one town, too many victims to count.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The brutality was unspeakable. I can't describe it to you in detail because it may disturb some of your audience. But to think that children were treated in such a way within the last 16 years anywhere is appalling.

GREEN (voice-over): Today's report looked at allegations in the years between 1997 and 2013. Over that 16-year period it's estimated that 1,400 children were sexually exploited, though the true figure could be even higher. Those identified included some children who'd been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight and children who were threatened with guns and made to witness sexual assaults. The report also said this all happened in spite of three reports between 2002 and 2006, "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham." At 14, this girl was abused by a man 10 years older, too young to realize that she was being groomed and exploited. But her social workers did nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They knew how old he was. They knew he had been in prison. They knew that he could be a danger to other children as well. They knew full knowledge of it. They knew so much about it and they just never did anything.

GREEN (voice-over): Almost all the perpetrators, like these men jailed four years ago, were identified as being of Pakistani heritage. But for years Rotherham counsel, led by this man, Roger Stone, shied away from that fact, fearful of being labeled racist. Today Counselor Stone quit, but no counsel officer has ever been punished, disciplined or reprimanded. Many senior managers are now working elsewhere. By publishing the report I've made it possible for their current employers to read the report, consider its findings and to consider the role that employees may have played in the events as they unfolded.

GREEN: Tonight the victims of child sexual exploitation received an unreserved apology from South Yorkshire police and the promise that if they come forward, even now, they will be listened to. But as this report makes clear, no one knows even today just how many victims there were -- Damon Green, ITV News in Rotherham.

(END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Now none of this horrifying story would have come to light if not for the relentless work of "The London Times" and its chief investigative reporter, Andrew Norfolk, and he joins me now from Leeds. Welcome to the program, Andrew. Truly a shocking horror; we cannot believe it to be in the middle of our own country here. You had been reporting for a long time before it went to this public inquiry. Tell me how that came about.

ANDREW NORFOLK, "THE LONDON TIMES": This began for us four years ago in 2010. I'd been growing concerned for a number of years, based in the north of England as I am in Leeds about what seemed to be links between various small prosecutions that were taking place from towns and cities across the north. The fact that there seemed to be a very similar pattern in terms of the way men were going about grooming and then abusing girls and I couldn't help noticing that there was something about the names of the offenders that always seemed to be a problem, which is

that they were Muslim names. And we eventually decided that although it was an incredibly sensitive subject, we needed to carry out some in-depth research to discover whether this generally was a pattern that was not being acknowledged by the authorities.

AMANPOUR: And you came to the conclusion that it simply wasn't being acknowledged. Did racism or the fear of being accused of racism play a role in that?

NORFOLK: Well, initially, nobody in positions of authority would speak to me or "The Times" at all. And not even at government level, charities, police forces, social services, all the doors were closed. We did our research. We decided we were going to publish the story based on figures we produced. And eventually doors started to open. And the picture that began to emerge when people started trusting us frontline workers, to tell us of their frustrations and their stories was consistently, not just in Rotherham, but across the whole of the country for two decades, concern growing about what was happening to girls. For two decades, people whose job it was to protect children were instead regarding those children as worthy of nothing but contempt, as somehow to blame for what was happening to them. And the men who were committing quite horrific crimes were getting away with it because nobody wanted to prosecute them.

AMANPOUR: Do you -- they're getting away from it. Now you've made your report; there's been this independent inquiry. Certain perpetrators are out there and known now. Do you think that it spreads -- you've said you might -- it might be spreading elsewhere around England. How big a problem do you think this is?

NORFOLK: I have to admit to being unprepared for the staggering figure that was announced yesterday in terms of Rotherham, in terms of 1,400 children over a 16-year period. But what was happening in Rotherham is happening in every town and city in the -- in England that has a sizable Pakistani community. And for four years, we have been asking for the research to be carried out to understand why that is the case. There have been some very high- profile criminal prosecutions in the past couple of years because since we've started writing about this, there's been a real change in the way authorities have been approaching it and tackling it, trying to protect the victims, trying to bring offenders to account. But until we actually understand why this crime has put down such deep roots in various communities, we're never going to actually prevent it from happening.

AMANPOUR: Andrew, you are saying something that is incredibly sensitive and I would like to understand, you know, why you believe that this is sort of linked directly to the Pakistani community. Obviously we see the perpetrators are of Pakistani origin; the girls are all white. Obviously local community leaders say it's got nothing to do with our race or our culture. And this could happen anywhere. But it's really important to understand this. Do you have any notion yet about why?

NORFOLK: There are a number of theories. And it's really important, before we get into this, to make it clear that the vast majority of convicted child sex offenders in this country are white men, normally acting on their own. That pattern holds true for offenses against boys, for offenses against pre-pubescent children, institutional offending. This is a very, very different model. And there are reasons, I think -- and I've spoken to so many people in four years about this -- you have to look at attitudes towards the age of consent to begin with. The age of consent in this country is 16. The Kashmiri Pakistan, where the large proportion of the identified offenders have their family roots, whatever state law says, whether it's tradition and, more importantly, religious law, sharia, says that puberty is the age at which you can get married. Now puberty in this country, the average age of puberty for a girl is 11 years old. The fact that this is a collective crime, that these girls are being groomed and then shared around friends and work colleagues and relatives, has to mean there is not the same sense of shame to having sex with a 12-, 13-year-old girl as there would be if attitudes were different. There are issues to do with the fact that even now in this country so many Muslims, Pakistani Muslims, who have been born and brought up in Britain are marrying somebody who has been born and brought up from their home area in Kashmir, which means that one-half of every marriage is so often a bit disconnected in terms of building up a relationship with your wife. And equally -- and it's a very uncomfortable subject -- and this is not Islam we're talking about; it's a distorted street understanding of Islam -- there are attitudes to the non-Muslim at street level that say it's OK to deal heroin to kafir but not to fellow Muslims. And then in a similar way, does not regard white girls as being as worthy of respect as the respect that would be due and always shown to a Muslim girl.

AMANPOUR: OK. Very briefly, on the flip side, why do you think that not a single person in authority has been disciplined for failing to tackle this, even when they knew it was going over the last 16 years?

NORFOLK: That seems quite staggering to me. The scale of what was revealed in the report published yesterday and the knowledge that was held over so many years by so many people in positions of authority, who chose to look the other way, who placed, what, having an easy life above protecting the most vulnerable and invisible and voiceless children in society, that nobody has felt guilty of any offenses, of any lapses that merit even the smallest disciplinary action? It -- I think that's something that the people of Rotherham are finding very hard to believe.

AMANPOUR: Andrew Norfolk, thank you so much for joining us and congratulations on exposing this extraordinary

story and forcing the public inquiry into it. And the British home secretary is calling on the police chief to actually resign. And after a break, we'll turn from the seemingly endless war on human rights from Yorkshire to Gaza to an obscure colonial war that lasted barely more than half an hour. The road to Zanzibar when we return.

(MUSIC PLAYING) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, some wars, like the conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Gaza, Afghanistan seem to go on forever. Now imagine a world where one little known war lasted all of 38 minutes. A hundred and 18 years ago today, the shortest war in history began and ended just off the cost of modern-day Tanzania. It was the age of European colonialism and the British had installed their handpicked sultan, Hamad bin Thuwaini, to rule the island nation of Zanzibar. After only three years on the throne, Hamad died suddenly and his cousin, Khalid bin Bargash, who some suspended of poisoning him, claimed the throne. The British Lion roared its disapproval and demanded that Khalid step down. But when he defied the ultimatum, the fuse was lit. And on the morning of August 27th, 1896, at 9:00 am sharp, British warships began to bombard the sultan's palace. Within minutes, the wooden structure collapsed and Khalid fled through a back door, abandoning his 3,000 soldiers and servants to their fate. Thirty-eight minutes later the shelling stopped and Khalid's flag came down, leaving over 500 of his men dead or wounded in the rubble. A new sultan was quickly placed on the throne, one who was friendly to the Empire. As for Khalid, he was finally captured in 1916 and sent to St. Helena, the same island where a much more storied emperor was nonetheless exiled a century before -- Napoleon Bonaparte. And that's it for our program tonight. Remember you can always contact us at our website, amanpour.com, and follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

END

APPENDIX F: HARDtalk. Transcript #1. Interview with Catherine McCartney

S: Welcome to HARDtalk, I'm Stephen Sackur. In a world beset by conflict, we desperately want to believe in positive outcomes. And one of such was supposed to be Northern Ireland, finally at peace after decades of violence. Or is it? Well my guest today doesn't think so. Catherine McCartney's brother was murdered in 2005. She thinks the IRA was responsible, and that the Republican paramilitaries are still active to this day. The charge - that the IRA hasn't gone away - now threatens Northern Ireland's fragile political stability, but is it true? Catherine McCartney, welcome to HARDtalk.

C: Thank you.

S: The police service in Northern Ireland says that the IRA still exists. Still has a presence inside Northern Ireland. Now that's a message that you have been delivering for the best part of a decade. So do you today feel a sense of vindication?

C: Well, that's not a vindication search as a sense of relief, to be honest, that the reality is actually been taking on board at last by firstly the police which I believe is afraid to pose a step that they said that and that I’m on the table, coz in my believe, the people didn't know. Everyone knew that they hadn't gone away but just needed officialdom to come out and say it that they hadn't gone away.

S: And when you and I did talk of the IRA, what do you mean? Coz you know, in our minds it’s the idea of the provisional IRA, the paramilitaries who were involved to committing a long running war against the British presence in Northern Ireland whose objective was to fight for and win an united Ireland. Is that the IRA you are talking about today?

C: It's still the same IRA, and in terms of its objectives, I wouldn't say that its purpose is to pursuit British (x). and in terms of the political objectives, I would say that they have gone...

S: So what is its objective, today, in your view?

C: Well, for what I have gathered from the past 10 years and the activity on the crime was suggesting that their objective really is to maintain the control what they had within communities first and formals. Well the purpose of that would be, like any organization wants to do that, to (x) interest and profit, so it could be classed as criminal. The IRA today has just become nothing but a criminal gang but I wouldn't (x) that would be too simple explanation also because they are still pretty much same people who were very politically (x) on stage and has that all left, left I wouldn't think so.

S: Well, we will come back to that question of exactly what the IRA is, if indeed it's still meaningly exists today, but I want to take a step back now and talk through your own personal story. I wanna get a sense of McCartneys, your family, the family you were raised in. You, your four sisters, your brother Robert. You were raised in a very nationalist republican catholic part of Belfast Northern Ireland, now would you say that you were raised as a political family with an affiliation to republicanism?

C: No, not. My parents weren't political, we didn't discuss politics at home or anything like that, but we did come from what is called republican area with a strong hold of the IRA. Now there's only 3 thousand plus in this small area, but certainly the politics of it would be described as nationalist republican,

S: Were you sympathetic to the IRA?

C: I would say the majority, yes.

S. You were personally?

C: I would have to say, I was never sympathetic to the IRA because my experience of growing up as a child in Northern Ireland at that time was one of conflict, and people in the area were like to say the enemy was very much the British army and the police, it was not the IRA, and I was explained that there was relationship with the IRA and communities like that. The community supported the IRA because they regarded the IRA as the protectors against what was the British hostility to them as community. In terms of the abstract notion of the united Ireland, I would say that most people in those communities were not supporting the united Ireland, it was day to day what they saw day to day survival against hostile British,

S: More about protection of the community?

C: Yes.

S: Okay, well look, to remind people the sequence of events in the late nineties you had (x) in the political breakthrough and gradually over the following years you had the building up of the co census around a political settlement in which the IRA, eventually agreed to put down its weapons so to the protestant unionists paramilitaries, and both the republicans and the unionists agreed to take part in a political process. But then for you personally, in the midst of all the talk of peace, tragedy, your brother was murdered outside the pub. Tell me how you learned about what happened?

C: Well, I learned about it the next day and basically I got a phone call from a nan, to tell me that Robert was in hospital and that he had been hard to live. At the time I was living by thirty miles outside the Belfast so I had to travel up, by the time I got up, he passed away, but the first thing my sisters said to me when I went through the hospitals door, was the IRA did it. That was the first words she had said, she had been there during the night,

S: But had she seen that incident inside and then outside the pub when your brother was eventually stabbed to death?

C: No. What had happened was the family had been told by the police call to one of my older sisters, to tell her Robert had been injured in a fight so she then phoned the rest of the family, when they ended up to the hospital they said the doctors were working on Robert until 8 eight o’clock the next morning, he's brought in around midnight and right through 2 o’clock there was still hope that he'd survive it. But during the night friends were coming in, they had been in the pub, arrived to the hospital and were telling them what exactly had happened in the pub,

S: It is odd that you stressed that you figured out what had happened and you were told frankly that the IRA had done it by people who'd been there at the time, coz what is strange about this whole story is that when the police investigation began, nobody would talk. There were more than seventy people inside that strongly nationalist pub, who could have been vastnesses and all claimed that they'd been in the toilet at the time it happened. Why, do you think?

C: Well, fear, obviously, because of who was involved and that could be the only explanation for so many people and anybody can understand fear when something like that happens of coming forward and giving the information to the police when you're dealing with dangerous men, so you can understand people are over reluctant maybe to do that in normal circumstances, but when you bring in an organisation like the IRA on top of that, I mean, people are not gonna sacrifice their own lives to give information and specially not giving against the IRA, people won't do that,

S: Did the police in your view undertaken proper investigation of what happened?

C: In my view, they didn't. And it was very difficult at that time for us as a family because, on one hand, you're arguing strongly for people to come forward and you're trying to get republicans not to intimidate witnesses to try and let the information come forward to the police, and, on the other hand, I always sort of suspected the politics that was at the time. I could say that Robert was murdered because of the reaction to it in the community, you know, the community, at the community level people were discussing that Robert's murdered, and republicans were starting to lose (x) so this is a grid, and the time was useful. So I always knew that they didn't cast their net very wide.

S: You and your sisters, you know, your four sisters, you're all strong women, and you were all determined to try and fight for justice for your dead brother Robert. You undertook your own inquires and your own investigations. How did that go down inside your own community, the community that you'd been raised in?

C: Well, initially the community were very supportive for us, of us, and we held a rally in the Short Strand, in a small area, and we held that within weeks and it was two and a half weeks that Robert'd been murdered and we held placards that said "enough is enough and who is next?" and there were over three hundred people or even more from the local area supporting us. We then held another (x) in April outside the bar and by that stage a lot of people had sort of backed off, and it wasn't coz they didn't support us, it was because of the spring campaign had began, had started up against the family, we then became an anti-shame thing and to republican, we were being used by the British, so then that started that was sort of said to people if you align yourself to this family you're coming with conflict with us.

S: No, coz it, here you are facing the fundamental dilemma of a divided society, you'd demanding truth and justice and at the same time people closed to even friends. Community leaders whom you known all your life are beginning to see you as a traitor to your own side, your own tribe.

C: Yes, and for family in that situation when you're trying to fight for justice, you're cut off from using what normal politics would be maybe (x), for example, who in Northern Ireland then would be more visible proof that could be used against you. Even though in this democracy that would be a fairly generate thing to do, in Northern Ireland that becomes a weapon to diminish it, and to say, you know, this isn't about, justice is about them align with the enemy up against us and bring up obviously struggles of the communities up against the British when you hear how this (x) is crossed the line.

S: Did people say to your face and to your siblings' faces that you're a traitor, disgusting. What did they say to you?

C: Well, certainly we've got letters, through the post sent those types of things, and Paul, actually, she got most of the letters, because for some reasons that's for, you know, all the activities were centred on. There were, you know, sort of threats written on the walls, you know, about us being puppets, and even that's community level. When we went to America, I met with Pete King, the congressman,

S: Mhm,

C: he asked me I've tried (x) influence by the British, I answered congressman in America, so that was his attitude, you can imagine it was quite easy to (x) line in at the community level.

S: The thing is, your message to the outside world indeed took it to the White House. There was no justice for your family, but actually there was an attempt to justice for your family because one individual was accused of the murder of your brother. There was a trial, but the law took its cause and he was acquitted, but the fact is, the evidence has been tested, that was the law work.

C: Yes, Stephen, that's correct and I'd say the evidence that they put forward was tested. And my argument to that would be, I sat in that courtroom for three weeks, and that case should never been in that court room. A first year law student could tell that (x) evidence against that man, and I said when I came out of the court that I wouldn't (affected) him on that evidence and the thing for a member of family to say that "it's very strong". In my view, Robert's murder was used and capitalized upon to get the IRA to decommission that was one of the big political goals. And what they needed to do was get the media to back off our case, so you charge someone, the media (x), it comes into the background, then you have this big (x) of decommission two month later after the charges were brought, and June of two thousand and five - the trial wasn't into two thousand and eight, by that time it left public’s mind.

S: You talked of your sister Paula. Here is something Paula had said about her reflections of what's happened to your family. She says “North Ireland is a sick society. The tourists come here that told it's a nice, normal place but they don't look inside the sheds along the border, where will find the dead bodies".

C:Mhm.

S: It's a very dark view of where Northern Ireland is, even under this, so called, era of peace. Do you share Paula's view?

C: I do, and if she said that in two thousand and five (x) to 2007, and we have the murder of Paul Kwin, who unfortunately was along the border when that young man almost beaten with sticks so hard that every bone in body was broken, and that was two thousand and seven. So from 1994 if you look at the figure from the (x) there has been nearly over 40 men murdered. And these circumstances by the IRA,

S: But that's nothing like the thousands who died during the worst times of the conflict and also has to be said as you've said in this interview, the fact is for all of your (condemnation) of the IRA. The IRA decommissioned it's weapons, it was verified by an Independent Monitoring Commission and right now today Jerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, says "there is no such thing as the IRA and all the allegations that swirl around the place today that the IRA is still active, still has a presence, still has control, are in his view nothing but a political attack on Sinn Fein".

C: Well, first of all, the fact that Gerry Adams has said that do we not (x) with what the police are saying, so we could look at worldwide conspiracies and Gerry wants to perform it and we could say that the police are also have been (x)

difficult for Gerry Adams, or you can look at the evidence on the streets and you can look at the evidence of the man murdered by the IRA. So the IRA still exists, I don't believe that the IRA is sitting around the table targeting (x) and things like that but they certainly exists.

S: Did they, you said that IRA exists, there is no doubt the former members of the IRA exist, and all are dead we know that, but are you saying that they have a cash significant arsenal of weaponry, and that they still have a command structure with commanders at the top issuing orders?

C: I would say all of us still exists, yes, and I would [also],

S: [What's] your evidence?

C: Well, first of all, as have you listened to what I've said, and the political classes, no one ever told us that they went away. What they told us was that they went away for the purpose of military and political purposes, this is what they and I are saying. We just forgot to ask the right question have they gone completely, are they no longer exist? So the IMC, let’s look at the IMC, they didn't [say],

S: [(x)] commission

C: Yeah, the ones. They also said that they did keep weapons somewhere, so everyone know that they kept some weapons, everyone know that the IRA had gone away for military purposes and for political purposes, but no one said that they went away completely. The IRA said that they had left the stage but they didn't say that they've left the theatre. So you're getting a list of talk that we read and misinterpreted what was said in two thousand and five, so that's evidence,

S: Alright, so this is the context that the idea you have that the IRA never went away, this is the context in which you see the extraordinary events of this year which are connected to that case against which involved your brother murder in 2005, and thinking in particular of two murders, the murder first of Jock Davison who, you say, you alleged was innocence of mastermind of your brother's murder. Now, we can never know whether that's true or not because the man was murderer himself earlier this year. Few months after that the suspect who in the community was seen as possibly the most likely suspect who've murdered Jock Davison, was himself gun down. A man called Kevin McGuicen that is when the police said they believe that this was connected to the continued existence of the IRA. It's quite a complicated story but to you, does it represent the, in a sense, the vengeance taken against those who killed your brother? And did you feel, in a sense it was retribution that you could welcome? C: No, for me this strange thing about Jock murder and I've said it for few months as no one seems to know that Jock was killed. There is quite a lot theories, and I've said it also that he had very many enemies, so there could be a list of people ready to (x). Kevin (x) name was in the (x) because there was bad blood between them for many years so he was a suspect. Retribution for Robert's murder in any sense no, I don't think that (x) to do with Robert's murder because there is first of all, I don't know who would take that retribution on part of our family.

S: Now may I ask you, okay, maybe you don't see as retribution, was there a part of you that was happy when this man, Jock Davison, who you believe, masterminded your brother's murder was himself murdered?

C: Happy? No, I wouldn't say there was happy, but what I have said was, when Jock Davidson was murdered, in a sense it was as if in terms of pursuing (x). That was over for us. But you can pursue many more.

S: Did you see it as a form of ruff justice?

C: No. It was ruff justice on some ones part but not for Robert's. I mean, it didn't bring that sense of justice because I want to (x) it held what kind of he did to Robert. Not what he's done to other people in sense obviously want to (x) but there is no sense of justice in that ... that was balancing,

S: You are in this interview and elsewhere have said that what disappoints you so much about the last ten years is that the police and the politicians have consistently failed to even try to hold the IRA and its leaders who still exist to account. What strikes me is that you yourself had one opportunity to play small part in bringing at least a couple of alleged IRA chieftains to account, even this year because two of them they denied it but two of them which charged with being members of an illegal organization IRA you were called to be a witness because of things they had said to you back in two thousand and five, and you backed out, you refused in the end to give evidence that might have brought a limited sense of justice against two alleged IRA figures. Why did you back out?

C: You have to remember also I was the one who initially (x) against [the]

S: [Sure], but I'm asking you now why you backed out?

C: Why did I back out, because what I wanted is for, there was part of Robert's murder was the murder itself, and there was a cover up. And I believe that the IRA were involved in the cover up, I wanted the people who were involved in Robert's cover up, so these two men with the ones who've met with the IRA, who outlined their investigation to us and during that investigation they gave us very intimate details that they claimed happened that night, and they told us what happened to the murder weapon etc, etc. Okay? So what I wanted them was the police or the prosecution service to bring charges that were flaked the cover up. And then I addressed merely in the fact that those two men were members of the IRA.

S: Because they denied that they were...

C: They denied that they were, they said they weren't and again that,

S: So what are you saying is at the moment you have no faith in the system in Northern Ireland which is interesting because right now there is a deep political crisis in your home because the Unionists parties in the power sharing arrangement say that no longer prepared to work in that arrangement particularly in the executive alongside Sinn Fein, because Sinn Fein is covering up for this fact that the IRA, they say, is still a player in Northern Ireland. DO you support the Unionists in that position?

C: Well, you say for me, yes it's very difficult position for everyone because first of all I support the institutions and I would like to see it work. But you can't ignore as I said for ten years I've been arguing that there was a policy of turning the blind eye to IRA criminality. Which was result of murders, because if the police pursuit IRA people then it would might shake the republicans up? S: You know you fought for ten years against what you see the pervasive cover up of the IRA's continued activities in Northern Ireland. Some of your siblings have talked about a sickness in your country which makes them want to leave, to emigrate, to forget Northern Ireland and its sickness forever, are you committed to continuing the fight or do you have times thinking "you know what? I have had enough of this, I just wanna get out"?

C: Well, I have sometimes, I do think that yes I want to get out, I don’t know the place will ever be the same even if it works out, and I hope it works out for the people everyone else and for my children who live there, and will have a future where I hope it works out. But, obviously, my experience has I don’t think there is anything I can do that would make me feel towards the place what I felt towards it before two thousand and five anyway. But I do wish it the best, I do hope it works, but I say I don't think we can have it working with turned the blind eye to the criminality, you cannot do that at all. It's a job of the police to pursuit committed crime and that's all I want them to do.

S: Catherine McCartney, thank you for being on HARDtalk.

APPENDIX G: HARDtalk. Transcript #2: Interview with Dimitris Avramopoulos S: Welcome to HARDtalk I’m Stephen Sackur. Europe is still scrambling to find an effective response to the migration challenge and every day the problem gets bigger. Germany has now said to be preparing to receive up to 1.5 million asylum seekers this year, and while the Germans build reception centres, other EU governments focus on razor wire fences and gunboats in the Med. Well my guest is at the centre of the storm. The EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, Dimitris Avramopoulos. What comes first for Europe, humanity or security?

S: Dimitris Avramopoulos, welcome to Hardtalk.

D: The pleasure all mine to be with you.

S: Let's start with the scale of the migration challenge. We know that over half of million migrants and refugees have entered the EU from Mediterranean this year already. Is the flow increasing or decreasing?

D: For the moment, it's decreasing, but it will not stop increasing. First of all, it's about six hundred and fifty thousand people that have already submitted their obligations for asylum. But, as you know, it's not all the refugees, it's also the other part of the regular migrants. Most of them, they come from Italy. The political refugees come through Greece, but the number is very very big, and I can tell you from the very beginning that Europe was caught by surprise.

S: Yeah, well, that's the key to this, isn't it? Its surprise smacks of the Europe that didn't see this coming that was deeply complacent. We had known for years that there was that illuming problem of people desperate to reach the Europe. Europe ignored the problem for far too long.

D: Even before. I tell you from my own experience as a mayor of Athens. About 20 years ago we had the very first waves of immigrants coming to Europe, and even my country was also caught in surprise. Before the life of this commission there was sort of a phlegmatic policy, but from the very beginning of the life of this commission, we took the lead in six month time, we adopted, presented, and the parliament supported us very much, the Common European Agenda on Migration.

S: [But was],

D: [Yes, I agree with you, it] [was],

S: [they] talked about that, but when we're talking about the scale of the problem, winter is coming. Donald Tusk, the president of the EU Council, says that the greatest tide of migrants and refugees is yet to come. He said that just a few days ago. So, after all the complacency, are you now capable of dealing with the humanitarian challenge that is going to get worse as winter comes on?

D: This is our priority for Europe, but we shouldn't ignore the role the member states should play on that. We have given the guidelines. We provide all member states with our support and our help in order to face the situation. I fully agree with what you said before and with what president Tusk said that the situation will might get [worse].

S: [But] do you remember, you've said it's not ready, I mean, your own country Greece is still not providing the reception facilities on the Islands that are necessary to deal with the thousands that are coming across from Turkey every day.

D: That's not only Greece, many other [countries],

S: [No], let's focus on Greece, coz that's where actually a lot of a problem has been. And the Greek government, according to the EU NHER, it's still shamefully, shamefully ill-equipped to deal with numbers. But they know they're coming, but they haven't prepared for.

D: Well, I'm not here to talk on the half of Greek government, I'm European Commissioner, but I can tell you from my own experience and pulling the situation on the ground. First of all, I say once again that Greece, yes, in the beginning was not prepared, was caught by surprise, but situation in one week time, according to the assurances given to us by the Greek government that the house spots will put in place by the end of this month.

S: Why would you believe the assurances given by the Greek government has failed signally of the last few weeks and months?

D: As I said, the system was not prepared to welcome this influx of refugees. Let me tell you something Stephen. It was very easy for the Greek government, Greek authorities to intercept this influx, but they are not enemies, they are human beings, you know very well that beyond what we see today on television, thousands of lives have been rescued thanks to the operation "Poseidon" that works and operates in the Aegean sea. The same 'Triton" from the Italian side, but it is true what you've said, the beginning was not very success[ful].

S: [I, I]

D: [I believe], I believe that by the end of this week everything will be put in place and the authorities there will start deliberating according not only the commitments that were given, but to the fact that they must do their job.

S: The bottom line is Greece as a coastline, I think if you've counted all of, up something like fourteen thousand kilometres, [now],

D: [13676,5]

S: Is it really? Well, the east European leaders and I've just been in Budapest talking to the government there. They have no faith in Greece's ability to secure its own external border and they now demand that the EU in the coordinated fashion takes over from Greece in safe guarding Greece's external border.

D: Finger pointing and blame game does not lead anywhere. This is what I'm telling visiting all these countries.

S: But you have need securing borders. You accept that?

D: No doubt about it, [and],

S: [but] it doesn't have them.

D: It doesn't have for the moment, [as]

S: [So], (laugh) how long countries like Hungary and Slovakia, and Croatia, which have a migration problem at home today, how long are they supposed to wait while Greece, for example, gets its act together?

D: Yes, it is not only Greece, it is also other countries in the region, but let me tell you something. The countries you have mentioned before are not front line countries. Hungary refused our proposal to be qualified as a front line country in order to be helped, to be supported by us. This blame game does not lead anywhere. We are not here to defend one or the other country, but to defend and promote the European Migration Policy. I believe that after what we have experienced throughout the last months, we are in the beginning of managing the situation on the ground, as we intend to visit again Greece all in all with the president of the council of home affairs.

S: You talked to me about finding a coherent united EU policy on this. We have the Germans building reception centres as quickly as possible, because they now seem expecting a million, maybe even a million a half, asylum seekers this year. Just down the road we have the Hungarians and Croats building fences, razor wire fences, putting at new borders. Far from being united and coherent, Europe's policy is still a total mess.

D: It is not a mess, but I believe that the situation can be manageable very soon. I was in Germany so I want to comment on Germany. The German government adopted opening the doors to refugees mainly. I've visited also some reception centres - very well set up. I've visited also Hungary, some days before. I am in contact with the Hungarian authorities, but as far as the frictions in Croatia and Hungary are concerned. I come back to what I've said before, I mean, we cannot move ahead by blaming each other. The [European],

S: [You said] that at the same time the blame game continues, Hungarians just the other day talked about the moral imperialism coming from Berlin, the idea that we know Germany for demographic reasons needs hundreds of thousands new immigrants, new workers. Well, at the same time Hungary says “it's just acting as a magnet which gives them a massive headache coz people pass through Hungary”.

D: First of all, let me tell you that Europe will need migrants in the future. Europe is an aging continent and in some years from now, people really want to come to our Union and of course in legal ways, it will be useful to our economy, to our market, to our societies.

S: Have you ever talked to the Hungarians or the Slovaks, small countries which say they risk being overwhelmed and culturally their identity being buried by the scale of immigration that the Germans appear to regard as acceptable or even favourable.

D: This is a difference between how do we perceive our policy of migration and what certain member states do. Let me tell you, and I want to be frank with you, populism is a very bad guide for our future steps, and, unfortunately, a lot of populism around Europe is gaining ground in the last days, because of the migration issue. So we have to stop it as soon as possible, because it's detrimental to the European democracy and to the countries as well.

S: You are the commissioner who just a few days ago said to the leaders of Europe “you should behave more like commissioners and pay less EED to the voices of the people at home”. What kind of mentality is that? It's just reinforces the view of the EU commissioners. The commissioners out of touch, a Brussels’ machine which does not hold itself accountable for the [people].

D: [This is] the difference between the commissions before and now. This is a political commission, and what I've said they repeated now, I mean political leaderships should not calculate political cause because they want,

CROSSTALK

D: they are not born to be leaders. We must be frank and direct to our citizens. If we tried to gain political profit by adopting this populist political verb we do not help in order to solve this issue.

S: You are Greek. Do you not recognize the risk that the way you deal with this crisis, your absolute insistence that public opinion should not be the driver of how politicians behave, increase itself? You risk stoking up the fires of Golden Dawn with the attitude you have.

D: I don't agree with you that the way foster Golden Dawn's attitude and rhetoric’s. I'm talking now as a Greek citizen not as a politician, because, as I told you, I'm commissioner in the European Union, I'm not allowed to talk as a representative of Greeks for the moment.

S: It is not just about Greece that we can talk about Golden [Dawn]

D: [You say] about Greece

S: [no, but] we talk about [Hungary], we could talk about,

D: [exactly]

S: national front. I've just spoken to Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, the fact is that all of these different movements at the moment are gaining political traction because they say Brussels’ and the EU machine doesn't care about what ordinary people think. The worries they have about the scale of the migration that is coming into Europe today.

D: This does not mean that they are right if they say it. We are not afraid of [criticism],

S: [Does this] mean they should [be]

D: [they are] motivated by a purpose we have put ahead and as I've said before, we are a political commission; we are determined to take both political decisions and lead it the way as we do in the case of migration. Before there was no migration policy, now it exists. Member states should follow us. And I can tell you something, the European Parliament was very unsupportive to our initiative, to adopt and implement the migration policy because the European Parliament is a very sensitive democratic body. Now you can ask me now what Golden Dawn and other extremists’ powers in Europe are doing. Well let me be frank with you. If we start calculating our policy according to the populist movements we are going to fail. We defend that the democratic values of Europe and migration policy is based on these

democratic values, and I come back to the question you asked before, you take your chair whether if it's about humanity or about security?

S: Viktor Orban is the elected leader of Hungary, he's the prime minister of Hungary. He says that he will not stand for his country being overwhelmed by incoming Muslims who will destroy the balance of Hungarian communities. When you hear that kind of language, what do you think?

D: I think the questions should be asked to the Hungarian citizens. I don't wanna to be involved in the domestic politics of Hungary, but this far as the question you're asking before, I think the Hungarians should ask to answer this question,

S: I mean you, so [elected leaders]

D: [if, if]

S: [in your] opinion are getting it wrong? What about David Cameron here in the United Kingdom who says, of course he has the rights to opt out of the burden sharing that has been imposed on other member states, but he says on no account will he take any of the migrants and refugees who are currently in Europe, he will take twenty thousand. Twenty thousand over five years in to the UK from camps in the region in the Middle East region [itself]. What do you think? D: [This, this],

D: this opted prerogative of the United Kingdom is respected. It's not the very first [time],

S: [What] about the deeper principle of burden sharing? When you see a country, a big, powerful, economic power in Europe like the UK, saying it'll take twenty thousand over five years, well Germany is talking about one and a half million in a year, what [do you] say?

D: [Instead of] talking about burden sharing, it would be better faith if we talk about solidarity showing. I mean all member states of the European Union should share the burden as you said before of this reality we are confronted with, and I believe that the United Kingdom shouldn’t be excluded from that, as I said this opting is a prerogative.

S: You're saying that there should be some mechanism to force a greater sense of burden sharing upon the United Kingdom?

D: Not to impose, you cannot impose I mean, I've said before, I mean the opting privilege of the United Kingdom is respected, but what I would... give an answer, as an answer to Europe to your question, I think, the United Kingdom, a nation with the great tradition on migration, large part of the population of this nation is composed of foreigners, immigrants. So have excelled in all fields in journals, in politics, in economics, in letters, in everywhere. I mean this nation has the experience. Now we are all confronted as Europeans with this unprecedented situation, I believe that the United Kingdom should show also solidarity towards the other member states, and they do it. Of course, this 20 000 [people] is a small number.

S: [how would, how would]

S: So how would you propose the UK show this greatest sense of solidarity?

D: It is up to the United Kingdom to show it, believe [me]

S: [you think] there is a lack of humanity in David Cameron’s response?

D: I don't think so. I think David Cameron would like to contribute more. And the fact that the government, the United Kingdom, accepted to resettle twenty thousand people is opposed the forward that they have commented.

S: But you clearly like more.

D: Yes.

S: What number do you think would be appropriate [for]

D: [it's not] the question of numbers, it's question of principles.

S: Let's shift to a different powerful player in this effort to resolve Europe's migration crisis, and that is Turkey - country that wants to become an EU member state, but still a very long way from that. Right now, the EU looks as though it is eager to offer millions of, hundreds of millions of Euros, and other sweetness, and carrots to try and persuade the Turks to better police, the people smugglers, and its own borders to stop the flow of migrants to Greece and other parts of the EU. Do you think that's gonna work?

D: As you've said before, Turkey is a keep player in the region, and we really want to put Turkey on board, to engage Turkey to cooperate with us,

S: Why do you think Turkey hasn't cooperated? Coz we all know, there are people smugglers operating in the full glare of the sunlight on the coastal plains of Turkey and nobody in Turkey is stopping them. Why is Turkey allow this operation to continue for so long?

D: From the very first moment we declared the war against the smugglers, it was one of the action plans we adopted in the European commission. After the adoption the European agenda of migration, and as you said, I agree with you, Turkey is invited to play a role there. But Turkey right now is hosting approximately four million refugees, most of them are Syrians, were displaced in the [southern]

S: [2 million] Syrians we know.

D: Yes, spread around the country. Yes, smugglers are operating also from Turkey, and this is what we want to achieve,

S: How?

D: To engage Turkey in order to fight, to combat the smugglers together.

S: But Turkey says you're gonna have to give them some real sweetness here, you're gonna have to liberalise the visa rules for Turks. And more on [that] [they say],

D: [if it's, if it's not] [it's not been] put on this dialogue

S: But more than that the Turks say [something important], they say, if you

D: [yes,yes]

S: are serious in Europe, if you are serious about stopping this flow of people into your continent, you have to address the problem in Syria, you have to use your military power alongside maybe the United States [ ] to establish humanitarian corridors, and that is the only [way]

D: [It is not] the only way, it is one more way. There is no doubt that as long as this part of the Mediterranean is on fire, the influx will continue. Turkey right now has behaved quite well as far as hosting the refugees we have mentioned before. Recently, during the summit that took place in Brussels, it was decided Turkey to be supported and helped. One billion Euros have been already allocated and will be given to Turkey,

S: You gonna give them all?

D: It's not the question about giving money, [I]

S: [I] think you'll find the terms, thing it is they need a lot more money.

D: According to what I have heard so far, it's not the question of money. I think it is the question of better understanding between us. Now Turkey is confronted with this problem, Turkey is behaving quite well, Turkey must be engaged in order to fight smugglers and I believe at the end, Turkey is engaged and cooperates with us. And this could help for also for Greece as you've mentioned before, because this influx of refugees, mostly refugees, and only twenty percent of migrants they cross Turkey and come over to Greece.

S: Let's just end by thinking security. You're not just as the commissioner for migration, but also home affairs and security as well. Thomas Sanderson, a leading expert on security in the U.S of the CSIS in Washington DC, says there is a real threat here. ISIS, Islamic States so called, is not stupid and they are using the flow of refugees to send people back into Europe.

D: I don't share this point of view. I would advise all [this]

S: [you] don't share it, you just hope that it's not happening.

D: No no no. Let me tell my point of view. Well, so far we didn't have any sign that this is happening. And we shouldn't link refugees and migrant with terrorists. We are monitoring the situation, but we don't really believe that the ones who want to operate on the European soil, would have chosen to follow this deadly journeys in order to come to Europe?

S: Well, I think that they are so dedicated to the cause of continuing Jahad on western soil, it is quite possible and in fact, the EU counter terror official has said that in the past there has been evidence of radical groups using this sort of flow of people to infiltrate.

D: The tragic events in Paris, and the other ones in Brussels, they were all grown up terrorist from inside Europe. They were not migrants, they were not refugees. Just to give you three tangible exams since we have to comment on what this person should, but let me, let me, Stephen, if we make this up then we risk to lose the main objective of our policy, we talk about migration crisis, we talk about refugees crisis. Security is top on the priority of everybody. And I can tell you that home affairs minister’s work very close to each other and we have also made a step forward by adopting for the very first time A Common European Agenda of Security.

S: All right, well that's an important talk. We have to end it with Dimitris Avramopoulos, thank you so much for being on HARDtalk.

D: Thank you for helping me.