Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature Teaching English Language and Literature for Secondary Schools

Bc. Jan Eichler

Articulation of Canadian Identity through Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph. D 2016

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Bc. Jan Eichler

2

I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D. for his invaluable advice and helpful guidance throughout the writing process.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 6

2. Concept of identity ...... 8

2.1 Canadian identity ...... 10

2.2 Canadian identity: Sports and the media ...... 12

2.3 The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Hockey Night in Canada...... 14

2.4 Coach’s Corner ...... 15

2.5 Don Cherry – The seventh greatest Canadian ...... 17

3. Analysis & methodology ...... 20

3.1 Critical discourse analysis ...... 20

3.2 Media texts language analysis ...... 22

3.3 Research objectives ...... 24

3.4 Transcripts ...... 24

4. Audience-design ...... 25

4.1 Referee-design...... 28

5. Articulation of Canadian identity ...... 31

5.1 Imagined community ...... 32

5.2. Us versus them ...... 37

5.2.1 Blue-collar mentality ...... 40

5.2.2 Expert versus lay discourse ...... 46

5.2.3 Ordinariness ...... 50

5.3 Politics and military affairs ...... 54

5.4 ‘Commertainment’ ...... 58

6. Conclusion ...... 62

References ...... 66

4

English Summary ...... 74

Resumé ...... 75

Appendix ...... 76

Transcription conventions (Tolson, 2006) ...... 76

5

1. Introduction

The discursive construction of identity, whether individual or collective, has been a consistent theme in identity studies over the years. However, the concept of identity remains difficult to delineate due to the fact that it is dynamic and it constantly changes. Media nowadays provide an interesting insight into the process of identity negotiation and also present an important platform that helps to facilitate identity articulation, both in a smaller scope and on a larger national level. In terms of national framework, it is interesting to explore, on the one hand, how nations construct their collective identity and, on the one other hand, how they differentiate themselves from other nations. The aim of the thesis is to observe which discursive strategies and linguistic devices are employed specifically to articulate Canadian national identity in the media. The locus of the thesis is Coach’s Corner, a television program running weekly on Rogers, and its main figure – Don Cherry. The program offers an opportunity to detect the aforementioned phenomena of identity articulation within Canadian context.

The present thesis is divided into two parts – theoretical and analytical. The theoretical part consists of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. Chapter 2 focuses on the concept of identity and the discursive construction of national identity. Next, it presents the notion of Canadian identity in particular and it touches on the role of sports (i.e. the game of hockey) and the media in identity framework. Finally, it introduces the Coach’s Corner show more closely as well as it provides information about the show’s most prominent figure – Don Cherry. Chapter 3 then describes the methodological approach of the thesis and the concepts the thesis draws on. Moreover, research objectives are set forth.

Analytical part of the thesis is also divided into two main parts. Chapter 4 provides definitions of audience-design and referee-design as delineated by Bell (1984).

6

Both of these concepts contribute to the explanation of linguistic variation in the media discourse as well as the position of the audience within the whole framework. In particular, the role of Canadian audience will be observed and the means that help to negotiate an in-group identity on the show.

Chapter 5 is divided into several sections. First, Teun van Dijk’s (2000) ‘us versus them’ dichotomy is applied to find out how positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation is articulated on the show. Similarly, the dichotomy is applied in order to point out values and qualities perpetuated on the show to the audience in the following sub-chapter. Then, based on Fairclough’s (1995) observation, the following sub-chapters examine the phenomenon of mixing discourses in contemporary media language and how this factors in articulation of identity on the show. Namely, the elements of expert, lay, ordinary, and political discourses will be explored. Finally, the thesis deals with the current media language shift towards the entertainment value and commercial interests, which the thesis proposes to be referred to as ‘commertainment.’

7

2. Concept of identity

Based on the performativity and dynamicity of identity in various situations, it can be stated that both individual and collective identities are continuously recreated, highly situational and they can sometimes even be contradictory and conflicting. The concept of identity is, generally speaking, difficult to delineate as there exist many definitions of the term with each author discussing it differently. There are many definitions devised for the dictionary purposes as well. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, defines identity1 as follows:

who or what a person or thing is; a distinct impression of a single person or thing

presented to or perceived by others; a set of characteristics or a description that

distinguishes a person or thing from others.

This dictionary definition, however, is problematic in terms of characterizing and constructing national identity. First of all, the definition shows that the focus is more on distinguishing an individual person from other individuals and thus leaves out little room for the notion of collective characteristics and for drawing any conclusions about a particular nation. Second, the dictionary definitions contradict the aforementioned situationality and fluidity of identity as they are rather fixed and consequently limited and limiting.

In terms of linguistic framework, Ladegaard (Ladegaard, 2012) claims that identity research in the realm of (socio)linguistics focuses primarily on two sections.

First, it is a quantitative area of identity which is signalled through, for example, phonological and morphological choices. According to Joseph (2004), even the smallest and seemingly insignificant idiosyncrasy in language can essentially manifest national

1 Oxford English Dictionary also claims that the term ‘identity’ etymologically originates partly from Latin and partly from French.

8 identity and it might help, for example, to distinguish Anglophone Canadians from

Americans. Second, there is a qualitative research of pragmatic devices and discourse strategies where interlocutors may adopt different identities. The process of adopting and assuming different individual identities during specific contextual situations relates to the juxtaposition of individual identity and the collective identity. Given the importance in defining individual identity, one would expect a similar need to position, present, and represent oneself as a collective group or a nation. As Bechhofer et al. (as cited in Joseph, 2004: 118) claim, analogically to individual identity, “[n]ational identities are not essentially fixed or given but depend critically on the claims which people make in different context and at different times.” The discursive construction of national identity is therefore a significant part of identity studies nowadays.

The research on national identity and its negotiation nowadays predominantly focuses on discursive strategies and their language realization in practice. Even though the scope of national identity presents a complex array of conceptions which are collectively shared and internally realized on multiple levels, Farrell (2008: 57) points out that “[t]he discursive construction of national identity has become a locus of research in language and identity.” According to Wodak et al. (2009), there are historical, territorial, attitudinal, emotional, and some other internalized dispositions that are among national indicators and distinguish in-group members from out-group members. However, Wodak et al. (2009: 4) also confirm that “discursive constructs of nations and national identities [are those mechanisms which] primarily emphasize national uniqueness and intra-national uniformity [and at the same time] ignore intra- national differences.” The selection of an appropriate discourse in a particular situation thus plays an extremely important part in the articulation of national identity as it, on the one hand, allows to justify, highlight, and appraise a certain quality of a nation and,

9 on the other hand, to neglect, overlook, and leave out some of the deficiencies of a particular nation. Simultaneously, the discursive constructs help to position a national identity in comparison with other nations and thus help to forge an imagined national homogeneity and singularity (Wodak et al., 2009).

Erving Goffman’s (1959) seminal work on the presentation of the self suggests that different contexts for interaction warrant for various identity interpretations and that there are different projections by the interlocutors at any given time. It can be believed that because identity is predominantly seen as a multi-faceted concept, the usage of the plural form identities is required in many situations. Similarly, the term national identity is essentially constantly open to transformation and is often dependent on which national traits are revealed, expressed, and foregrounded. Wodak et al. (2009) thus propose that there is no such thing as one fixed national identity, but that different identities are rather discursively appropriated “according to audience, setting, topic and substantive content” (4). Therefore, the alignment of national belonging and articulation of collective and national identity is very often temporary, unstable, malleable, and ever developing, which should be taken into consideration when dealing with it.

2.1 Canadian identity

The debates over a fitting and functioning definition of Canadian identity and the attempts at systematically categorizing quintessential Canadian qualities have been going on for several decades. Nevertheless, these debates have remained unsettled and in many ways unsuccessful and they are the indication of the above-mentioned heterogeneity of national identity. There does not exist any unanimous internal agreement for a clear-cut and unifying definition of Canadian national identity. Even though there is an effort made to minimalize the friction, there are still some who

10 believe that the English and French counterparts are irreconcilable and that “separation is the only way, ultimately, to protect Quebec’s French culture and character” (Harvey,

2006: 43). Canada thus remains, at least in some regards, “made of ‘two solitudes2’, of parallel yet discrete […] existences” (Blake, 2010: 137). In addition, ethnic and cultural diversity are recognized and promoted as one of the fundamental characteristics of

Canadian heritage and provide a valuable ingredient in a multicultural complexity of

Canadian identity (Canadian Multiculturalism Act3). For better or worse, to thoroughly define Canadian nation and to distinguish every minute detail of what is explicitly and exclusively Canadian is beyond the scope of this thesis and we do not aspire to do that in this work.

Even though there will not be covered all of the aspects of Canadian identity, the thesis will attempt to examine the possible means through which Canadian identity is presented and represented in the media. The media analysis will be done by subjecting to close scrutiny one of Canada’s most watched television programs, Coach’s Corner, and its main figure, Don Cherry. Don Cherry and his segment4 are not only well-known within the scope of Canadian broadcasting, but Cherry is a distinctive personality well- recognized within the whole Canadian context. Why he essentially epitomizes the notion of Canadianness on Coach’s Corner will be thoroughly examined throughout the analytical part of the thesis (cf. Chapter 4 and onwards). The Coach’s Corner segment will be introduced in detail in Chapter 2.4. The exploration of Don Cherry’s discourse on Coach’s Corner in the analytical part will potentially reveal whether there are any

2 The term ‘two solitudes’ was borrowed from a book called Two Solitudes written by Hugh MacLennan. 3 For more information about multiculturalism as a Canadian policy, see: http://laws - lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-18.7/page-1.html#h-3 4 The term ‘segment’ can be found throughout the thesis relating to Coach’s Corner. It is called ‘segment’ here because Coach’s Corner is part of a bigger show called Hockey Night in Canada (cf. Chapter 2.3). 11 identity subgroups that emerge from an all-encompassing umbrella term that national identity is and it will help to trace the means Don Cherry’s uses for identity negotiation.

Undoubtedly, one of the identity constructs of a nation is the realm of sport. This is even more so in the Canadian context where sports play a crucial role. In particular, the game of hockey saturates Canadian society and aptly reflects Canadian identity. It is an inevitable symbol of Canadian nationality and as Robidoux (2002) says in his work on Canadian identity:

hockey is more than a mythological construct; it is a legitimate expression of

Canadian national history and identity. Hockey does speak to issues of gender,

race, ethnicity and region. [The game of] hockey moves beyond symbol and

becomes more of a metaphoric representation of Canadian identity (emphases

added, does was italicized in original) (218-219).

In addition, Allain (2011) explains that the game of hockey is important for

Canada and Canadians in a twofold manner. First, it is connected to Canada’s historical landscape (i.e. ice and cold) and it is believed to be invented in Canada and thus manifests something quintessentially Canadian. Second, the game of hockey helps to construct Canada as a nation with its own national mythology. Nevertheless, the mythical and nostalgic idea of the game of hockey representing Canadianness is disputable and debatable nowadays as it has generally shifted its focus more towards a commercial sphere.

2.2 Canadian identity: Sports and the media

Both media and sports are purveyors of national identity and national discourse.

As Maguire (2011) states, sports are well-placed to contribute to the construction of nationhood and individual national sports are thought “to embody all the qualities of

12 national character” (980). However, as Smith et al. (2015) state, sports function as a sociocultural activity across the globe yet there is an undeniably equally important economic sphere which factors in into the shape of the sports landscape. The overall setup is thus often determined by commercial purposes of various business enterprises, including the media and “particularly television” (Smith et al., 2015: 721), which seek to fulfill sports’ potential alongside maximizing their financial profits. The growing impact of the modern day media lays foundations for the commodification of sport where all the participants hold their own interests yet there “have been built a synergetic relationship” (Smith et al., 2015: 721) contributing to the thriving environment for all the parties involved. Consequently, the idea of what can be labelled as ‘proper values’ such as work ethic, discipline, accountability and others generated and promoted by the sports world, is often imposed, established, and reinforced through mass media where

“image management, the manipulation of symbols, and commentary” occur (Frey &

Eitzen, 1991: 507). Media often turn to an ingenious appropriation of the language and might be considered not only as a means for conveying the message, but, in many instances, can be considered as creators of the message and creators of the norm.

Similarly, media facilitate the presentation of individual and collective identity as they foster “a sense of national identity and cultural citizenship” (Smith et al., 2015: 721) and therefore provide an interesting insight into articulation in both smaller communal scope and grander national identity scheme.

Coach’s Corner program, which is part of a larger weekly show called Hockey

Night in Canada, presents a unique amalgamation of the presentation of the language in/by the media and, at the same time, it is a useful tool for identification and articulation of identity. Because of this rare blend of features, Coach’s Corner was selected as a representative sample from Canadian media platforms available across the

13 board in order to demonstrate how Canadian identity is negotiated via putting together the game of hockey as a Canadian national pastime and the world of media.

Notwithstanding the fact that the show is seemingly solely devoted to the game of hockey, the process of commercialization of the media is palpable within the whole dynamic of Coach’s Corner broadcasting and commercial interests become heavily involved even in this case of media performance (Frey & Eitzen, 1991; Fuller, 2002;

Smith et al., 2015). Subsequently, this also affects the subdivision of articulated identities as it inevitably modifies the means for approaching the audience (for more detail, cf. Chapter 5.4).

2.3 The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Hockey Night in

Canada

Before introducing Coach’s Corner, the thesis will provide some background of the show. Coach’s Corner program is part of an even larger and more iconic Canadian

TV show called Hockey Night in Canada. Hockey Night in Canada is “the longest running program in Canada5” (Scherer & Whitson, 2009: 215) and was for a substantial portion of its history a flagship of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC’s) production. Regularly, Hockey Night in Canada attracts a large viewership and ranks among top watched Canadian programs6. It forges its legacy especially on Saturday night when the broadcasting grew to one of the most popular Canadian events. Hockey

Night in Canada essentially serves as a ready indicator of what the game of hockey means to Canadians and it has become an inextricable part of Canadian culture and, by

5 To read more about Hockey Night in Canada’s storied history, consult, for example, Scherer’s and Whitson’s article Public Broadcasting, Sport, and Cultural Citizenship: The Future of Sport on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? 6 See Numeris’s reports capturing the most watched Canadian shows per week here , retrieved January 25, 2016 from: http://en.numeris.ca/media-and-events/tv-weekly-top-30 14 extension, helps to construct Canadian identity. However, shortly after Hockey Night in

Canada’s sixtieth anniversary the rights to televise the show were bought up by Rogers

Communications Inc. This corresponds with the state of Canadian media landscape in a twofold manner. First, a long-term trend among Canadian media is toward chain membership which is dictated by economic imperatives. Illustrated by the aforementioned example of Rogers buying the rights to televise Hockey Night in

Canada, there is a similar trend in the TV industry as well and corporate entities are driving and dictating the national and the local interests of the media. Second, it takes away some of the competencies of the CBC which has as the national public broadcaster a range of duties according to Broadcasting Act7, including the fact that it should “contribute to shared national consciousness and identity” (Broadcasting Act

1991). In other words, there are demands placed upon the CBC to help to build and foster national identity and when the CBC fails to deliver on some of its responsibilities, it only fuels “the ongoing debate over the CBC’s role [which is] part of a larger, ongoing crisis of national identity” (Cormack & Cosgrave, 2013: n.p.). The fact that

CBC has ceded exclusivity for Hockey Night in Canada broadcasting has directly influenced the Coach’s Corner segment by depriving it of more regular air time as well as it might have deterred certain viewership from tuning in since the changes were implemented.

2.4 Coach’s Corner

Despite the fact that Hockey Night in Canada has been going through a tumultuous period, there still remains one staple in the show – Coach’s Corner.

7 For more information, consult: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-9.01/page-1.html

15

Coach’s Corner became part of the Hockey Night in Canada program in 1981 and was created to provide Don Cherry, a former Boston Bruins coach (more on him in

Chapter 2.5), an opportunity to give his expert analysis and critiques of the state of the game. Initially, Cherry was hired as a color commentator, but his opinionated and brash personality was more suited for his own segment than for an in-game commentary which requires a more neutral tone. Cherry was originally joined by sports journalist

Dave Hodge as a host of the segment and the setup of the show as it is known today was established. Dave Hodge was eventually replaced in the position of the host by Ron

MacLean, who was a relatively unknown correspondent for western Canada for the

CBC at that time, in 1987. The duo of Cherry and MacLean has been cooperating on the segment since then despite their contrasting personalities and has been kept together through all the changes on the executive and management front.

The segment remains a fixture on the first intermission of Hockey Night in

Canada’s Saturday broadcasting and, as a matter of fact, Coach’s Corner “is sometimes drawing greater audiences that the game itself” (Scherer & Whitson, 2009: 217). The airtime of the show ranges from six to eight minutes and this has been the point of contention on many occasions. One notable controversy occurred soon after Rogers took over and decided to cut the time allotted to Coach’s Corner short. In arguably one of the most intense episodes over the last several years on November 8 2014, the segment had just little more than five minutes. Cherry managed in that relatively short span of time to touch on various hockey and non-hockey related issues. However, the thing that stood out the most was the fact that he voiced his displeasure over the allotted time. Cherry kept reminding the audience that he does not “have much time as usual” and he has got to “talk fast [because he does not] get much time” as he eventually snapped at the host (Ron MacLean) after his remark that they are tight with “why are

16 we tight, why are we tight” (Captain Canada, 2014: November 8). MacLean’s answer, however, is probably the most interesting thing in the whole incident. Not only was the decision to limit Coach’s Corner time to five minutes made by the producers of the broadcast to show that they are in charge (Shoalts, 2014), but as MacLean explains to

Cherry, the show is tight because “you are so popular and there is all the advertising”

(Captain Canada, 2014: November 8). When one takes into consideration that an intermission in a National Hockey League game takes eighteen minutes and that there also has to be some time left for any kind of panel discussion about the game itself, most of the remaining air time in the intermission should ideally be devoted to commercials. The phenomenon of commercial interests engulfing Coach’s Corner will be examined in detail later in Chapter 5.4. In the end, the time donation for the segment was increased to its regular six minutes plus since the incident and as it repeatedly happened over the years, Don Cherry had his way.

2.5 Don Cherry – The seventh greatest Canadian

Don Cherry is unmistakably connected to Coach’s Corner for over the last few decades, but his position and significance within the Canadian context has gone beyond the boundaries of a hockey commentator. Through Coach’s Corner, he has become, on the one hand, one of the most recognizable, admired, and adulated, and, on the other hand, contentious, criticized, and vilified Canadian figures.

In his hockey career, Don Cherry was an average defenseman who registered only a single game in the revered National Hockey League. However, he became famous for coaching one of the league’s most storied franchises, the Boston Bruins, and

17 even won the Jack Adams Award for the coach of the year in 19768 (hence Coach’s

Corner).

Now 82-year-old native of Kingston, Ontario, was born into a blue-collar family and his background alongside his affiliation with working-class has garnered him “a formidable popularity among blue-collar Canadian hockey fans” (Scherer & Whitson,

2009: 226) and made his position in television industry uncharacteristically secure and protected in light of today’s standards. How is Cherry’s blue-collar background reflected in the values he perpetuates on the show is dealt with in Chapter 5.2.1.

Over the years, Cherry has developed several trademark signs such as wearing extraordinarily flamboyant and colorful suits or giving thumbs up, which are immediately recognizable to a larger audience and are inextricably attached to his individual identity and to the identity of the show. Also, Cherry has been cast, inadvertently or voluntarily, into the role of an unofficial spokesperson of Canadianness and continuously strives to negotiate Canadian collective identity. Combined with his views about the game, very simply put, Cherry expresses for a long time that his “two main crusades are for Canadian kids' keeping jobs in the NHL and for fighting to remain in the game9” (Montville, 1993). This Cherry’s stance will be discussed more in Chapter

5.2.

As Wodak et al. (2009: 5) say, “[d]iscourses of national identity constructed by residents of any given state will always contain or imply both cultural and political elements.” This corresponds with the fact that Don Cherry reaches beyond the sports and cultural worlds and he does not shy away from delving into political matters.

8 List of the Jack Adams Award winners, retrieved February 10, 2016 from: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=24929

9 An interesting research conducted by John Nater and Robert Maciel, which followe d 2009- 2010 Coach’s Corner season, found out that words like fight, fights, and fighting were mentioned forty-seven times throughout the season. This was substantially the most frequent occurrence of any word(s) (Bouzane, 2011). 18

Cherry repeatedly denounced French-Canadians on the show, calling them “whiners” on one occasion and when speaking out against players who wear visors on their helmets he claimed that “most of the guys who wear them are Europeans and French guys”

(“Don Cherry Cheered, Booed,” 2006). This resulted in him getting booed when he made an appearance at the House of Commons in 2006 by some members of the

Parliament10. In addition, Cherry is a fervent proponent of the Canadian Forces and he regularly pays homage to people serving the country on the show. Again, Nater and

Marciel found in their study that “the words “troops,” “battle” and “war” appeared as frequently as references to hockey teams” (Bouzane, 2011) which can usually be found in a hockey-related program merely in a metaphorical sense as such imagery should evoke strong, physical nature of the game. Cherry’s affection towards the Canadian forces might be one of the reasons why he was inducted into Royal Canadian Legion in

2007 as an honorary life member and was added to the list of luminaries such as former

Canadian Prime Ministers Mackenzie King, John Diefenbaker and Lester B. Pearson and former American President Dwight Eisenhower (The Canadian Press, 2007). The construction of Canadian identity through political and military matters is discussed in

Chapter 5.3.

All in all, Don Cherry’s position within Canadian context was summed up best when CBC announced that they are seeking the greatest Canadian of all time in 2004 in their show called The Greatest Canadian. Don Cherry ended up in the seventh place, leaving people like Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, or the first Prime

Minister of Canada, Sir John A. MacDonald, behind him. Cherry’s undeniable popularity among Canadians alongside the platform provided by Coach’s Corner thus create an uncanny opportunity for Cherry to articulate and accentuate Canadian identity.

10 More about the incident here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/don-cherry-cheered-booed-at- house-of-commons-1.626853 19

3. Analysis & methodology

The following chapter will describe methodological approach selected for conducting the analysis of the Coach’s Corner show.

3.1 Critical discourse analysis

In terms of analyzing language and specifically language in media, there exist a number of approaches and the actual selection depends on the specific needs of the research. As the thesis is focused on the qualitative state of the language in use, it will predominantly draw on Discourse Analysis or what is often labelled Critical Discourse

Analysis (CDA). Unlike Content Analysis, which is more quantitative, and

Conversation Analysis (CA), which tends to “explicate[] some of the structural constraints that govern verbal interaction [and] it is not inclined to speculate further about participants’ intentions and motives” (Tolson, 2006: 37), Discourse Analysis should enable the thesis to also reveal some hidden or beneath-the-surface meanings. As

Wodak and Meyer (2001) point out, CDA is “not interested in investigating a linguistic unit per se but in studying social phenomena which are necessarily complex and thus require a multi-disciplinary and multi-methodical approach” (2). For this reason, the research method applied in the thesis will include various discourse analysis sub- disciplines. Among the wide array of domains used for analyzing the negotiation of identity, the thesis will thus partly draw on sociolinguistic and pragmatic features which should help to infer hidden meanings from spoken communication, either directly or indirectly targeted at the audience, and the interpretation of this interactive behavior.

Also, the thesis will partly draw on the concept of audience-design as defined by Bell

(1984) in order to investigate the influence of the audience on language choice on the show (more on the concept of audience-design in Chapter 4). Finally, the thesis will

20 partly draw on Hutchby’s11 (2006) classification of binary oppositions of expert and lay discourses which will help to reveal how Don Cherry adopts and adjusts elements from individual discourses and how they function in Cherry’s appeal to the audience. As

Fairclough (1995) observes, discursive practices of public, political, professional, and other domains have been gradually merging. This eventually affects contemporary media language, including Coach’s Corner discourse. Cherry indeed adopts elements from various specialized discourses that will be examined in the thesis. The aim of the thesis is not, however, to define all of the discourses used by Cherry, but rather how he appropriates individual elements from these discourses in order to articulate Canadian identity on Coach’s Corner.

The term ‘discourse’ is used in different disciplines and in a variety of ways and it has its discursive specifics for identity research as well. Michel Foucault (as cited in

Schirato, 2013: 1) lays the foundation for delineating identity discourse when he claims that discourses are “practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak.”

Frow (2006: 17-18) explains each element of the sentence as critically important stating that discourses are:

practices in the sense that they carry out an action; they are systematic because

they are relatively coherent in the way they work; they are formative of objects

in the very act of speaking of them [and finally they are] performative structures

that shape the world in the very process of putting it into speech. (emphases in

original)

Weedon (2004: 18) follows-up Foucault’s claim by framing discourses of identity as “part of specific discursive fields that are structured in relation to a range of cultural and other institutions. They constitute our subjectivity for us […] and involve

11 Hutchby points out that the classification is adopted from Livingstone and Lunt (1994). 21 relations of power.” Finally, Schirato (2013: 2) adds that these relations of power

“produce the categories, forms and mechanisms that subjects use to understand and negotiate the world.” It is thus often through discursive practices that certain features of national and collective identity are formed, formulated, and foregrounded and they are made more salient and worth attending to this way.

3.2 Media texts language analysis

As evidenced, there are many interpretations of discourse. However, the varied focus of discourse studies has to be narrowed for the purposes of the analysis in the thesis. Because the thesis examines the language in use and the construction of relationships and identities, the work of Norman Fairclough and Teun van Dijk, two of the main proponents of this approach in CDA studies, will be used as a theoretical background.

Fairclough (1995) distinguishes two main senses of discourse. First, he distinguishes the term ‘discourse’ in language studies as “social action and interaction, people interacting together in real social situations” (Fairclough, 1995: 18). Here he refers to the presence of social practices and how they contribute to performativity and productivity. Second, he points out its usage in post-structural social theory where he defines it as “a social construction of reality, a form of knowledge” (Fairclough, 1995:

18) which refers to power relations and how these are established. Fairclough’s use of discourse subsumes both of the senses as profoundly important and intends to bring them together to reveal an “ideational function of language” (Fairclough, 1995: 18) in relation, as opposed to being treated as isolated, to social and cultural practices and processes (Fairclough, 1995: 19).

22

In addition, Fairclough (1995) presents three sets of questions that can help to illuminate the analysis of media texts language, in which he includes both what is said in TV broadcasts and what is written in the newspapers, as follows: (1) how is the world

(events, relationships, etc.) represented; (2) what identities (emphasis added) are set up for those involved in the programme or story (reporters, audiences, ‘third parties’ referred to or interviewed); (3) what relationships are set up between those involved

(e.g. reporter-audience, expert-audience or politician-audience relationships). The thesis will apply this set of questions in order to conduct the analysis and will try to provide answers to these particular questions, with a special attention paid to the negotiation of an identity.

Also, apart from examining the setup of identities and relationships, the thesis will study the discursive interaction based on Teun van Dijk’s (2000) ‘us versus them’ dichotomy. Application of this dichotomy should reveal the so-called in-group and out- group designators. These in-group/out-group designators used by van Dijk are, alongside other terms such as register and lexicalization, “terms about the selection of words, with a particular selection having a particular persuasive function”

(Hesmondhalgh, 2006: 135) and they specifically refer to “words that indicate membership of some kind of ‘us’ group, as opposed to ‘them’” (Hesmondhalgh, 2006:

137). Van Dijk (2009) claims that there exists a conceptual polarization of identity where the objective is to “de-emphasize Our bad things and Their good things” (70).

Consequently, the thesis will try to pinpoint specific examples of this polarization on the show and it will examine how it affects the process of identity negotiation.

Finally, the analysis will be complemented with other concepts. As was mentioned, it will be mainly Bell’s (1984) concept of audience-design that focuses on

23 the role of audience and communicative interaction with it and Hutchby’s (2006) set of binary oppositions that should help to delineate presence of discursive elements adopted by Don Cherry.

3.3 Research objectives

After outlining the methodological process and the structure of the analysis, the main arguments can be presented. First, the thesis aims to prove that Don Cherry, and basically the Coach’s Corner program on a whole, articulates a multi-layered Canadian identity by combining various discursive strategies and an almost glorified status of

Canadian TV personality. Consequently, Don Cherry presents an epitome of

Canadianness and Canadian identity on the show. Secondly, the thesis will argue that, when considering Coach’s Corner as a representative sample of broadcasting state nowadays, there is a tendency of current media to approach the audience as not only viewers, but equally, if not more importantly, as customers. Furthermore, the profitability of TV production is to a great extent based on the entertainment value of the broadcast. The current trend of television programs and media in general is that they are moving towards what the thesis proposes to be called ‘commertainment.’

3.4 Transcripts

Coach’s Corner will serve as a major and primary source for the upcoming analysis. As was described above, the show now runs for over thirty years. In order to make sure that the researched materials are consistent and the results are relevant, the sample will be limited. Specifically, the thesis will focus on 2015-2016 Coach’s Corner season which runs weekly on Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday. The regular weekly

24 installments coincide with the regular season of the National Hockey League season, i.e. they start at the beginning of October and end at the beginning of April. The thesis will provide transcripts of various passages of particular episodes and thus acquire sufficient material for the analysis, the length depending on the relevance of the content discussed in an episode.

When dealing with a multimodal and dynamic medium as television is, admittedly, it is challenging to convey a fully authentic as well as precise experience.

As Liddicoat (2007) points out, transcripts are “subjective representations of the talk”

(13) and the presence or omission of some features is frequently reserved to the transcriber’s judgement alongside the fact that it is determined by their relevance.

The conventions followed for the transcriptions are produced by Andrew Tolson

(2006).

4. Audience-design

The addressed audience is an inevitable part of a broadcasting setup and the target-group can play a crucial role in the identity negotiation process. Bell (1984) suggests that there exists an awareness of the audience by a speaker in terms of the approach to the speech and this awareness can be worked with or even exploited. Bell

(1984) draws this claim on a study which shows that there are style differences adopted by a speaker on various occasions based on the intended audience of a program. Bell

(1984) thus proposes the term “audience design,” which he describes as follows:

speakers take most account of hearers in designing their talk. The speaker is the first person, primary participant at the moment of speech, qualitatively apart from other interlocutors. The first person’s characteristics account for speech differences between speakers. However, speakers design their style for their audience (159).

25

Providing the main prerogative of Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner is to appeal to and attract a national audience, the challenge for the audience-design is how to make the show’s discourse more inclusive rather than exclusive for the Canadian audience. Based on Fairclough’s (1995) framework, Cherry’s task is thus to constitute an own version of reality dependent on the producer’s interests and objectives. The process of national identity articulation and the representational process come down to a series of decisions about what to include and what to exclude, what to make explicit and what leave implicit, what is foregrounded and what is backgrounded, what is thematized and what is unthematized, and other possible categories (Fairclough, 1995, 103-104). To begin with, Sloan (as cited in Goldstein, 2009: 281) discusses the functions of sports for the fans. Among the notable functions he articulated are: (1) a sense of belonging (i.e. the opportunity of identification and camaraderie); and (2) sports serving as a source of entertainment (again reiterating the need to capture the audience). Undoubtedly, the fulfillment of these functions that sports serve for the audience is one of the ways how to establish the sense of belonging for the audience on a sporting-program and thus create a sense of a close-knit identity group. The following extracts illustrate means used by Don Cherry to evoke the sense of inclusiveness for the audience.

Ext. 1 (Coach’s Corner episode on 2 January 2016) 1 DC: I’m the only guy who’ll say it (.) and we: did lose a:nd an- you know if y- you 2 sound like a homer if you do this but [raising hand making gestures to the 3 audience] let me just tell you the guys that COULD have played on this club it 4 wouldn’t have been a contest (.) first we have rookie of the year who i- who is 5 the highest plus on= 6 RM: [making gestures towards Cherry indicating he should hurry up] 7 DC: =yeah yeah is the highest plus on the whole team (.) Florida Aaron Ekblad 8 Connor McDavid could have played Sam Bennett Robby Fabbri might have 9 been the best of them all on that day (.) and Jared McCann (.) so [making 10 gestures to the audience] don’t worry about it folks junior hockey’s like that I 26

11 GUARANTEE YOU we’ll win next year 12 RM: Guarantee it? [Ok jus- [smiling] 13 DC: [GUARANTEE (.) Play it right here [indicating horizontally] if 14 we don’t win it next year (.) you play that ok

Ext. 2 (Coach’s Corner episode on 2 January 2016) 1 DC: All right what I say is .hh you know Darnell’s [video showing gameplay] Nurse 2 played fo:r Don Mills again (.) played with Max a:nd the whole deal (.) and 3 what happened is (.) he kinda he goes after Lucic now (.) you CAN’T have he’s 4 only a teenager by the way he could have played this year too (.) o:: on our team 5 [video showing two players fighting] but he is only a teenager now watch Lucic 6 takes it easy on him

In Extracts 1 and 2 above, Cherry directly and indirectly refers to Canadian team’s endeavors at the World Junior Hockey Championship and the team’s defeat in the quarterfinal game. Especially, Cherry makes the Canadian team’s effort the subject of the talk in Extract 1. Even though Cherry initially admits that Canada lost (Ext. 1 line

1), he then defends Canada’s loss by enumerating several players that were eligible to play in the tournament age-wise, but already play in the National Hockey League and they therefore have to report to their employers there (Ext. 1 lines 4-9). Interestingly,

Cherry repeatedly refers to the Canadian national team as ‘we’ as opposed to ‘they’ in the extract (Ext. 1 lines 1, 11, 14). He thus blatantly and bluntly shows that he identifies with the Canadian team and it seems that he automatically includes the audience involved into the ‘we’ group. This is illustrated by his assumption that the audience is worried about the result of the game (Ext. 1 line 10) and his attempt at soothing the audience by proclaiming Canada’s win in next tournament (Ext. 1 lines 10, 11, 14).

Admittedly, there is still one instance of ‘we’ address in Extract 1 that remains ambivalent. Before listing names of players for Canadian team on line 4, it is possible that Cherry addresses Canadians in general and/or that he addresses the actual audience

27 watching and the co-host. This might, however, be meant to blend into one and Cherry might not differentiate the recipients.

Similarly to Extract 1, Cherry refers to the Canadian junior hockey team in

Extract 2. He mentions that young Canadian prospect defenseman Darnell Nurse could have played on “our team” (Ext. 2 line 4) which again fits in into the national identity framework presented to the audience.

By referring to the Canadian team as “our” and “we,” Cherry establishes collective identity between him and the audience where everybody is figuratively speaking on the same page and roots for the same goal – the Canadian team doing-well.

He thus makes the matter more accessible and inclusive even for not hockey-erudite

Canadians. Indispensably, by establishing the ‘we’ identity, Cherry does not refer only to himself and to the co-host Ron MacLean, but he acknowledges the presence of the audience, more specifically Canadian audience, which is crucial in negotiating collective Canadian consciousness.

4.1 Referee-design

The acknowledgement and ratification of the audience is in general an important part of the speaker’s design for their audience. Bell (1984) distinguishes four different roles of the audience according to whether or not the person is known, ratified, or directly addressed (see Figure 1 below). Bell (1984) characterizes the audience as: (1) the addressee who is known, ratified, and also addressed; (2) auditors, on the other hand, who are known and ratified, but they are not addressed; (3) overhearers who are known, but are not ratified participants; (4) and finally eavesdroppers who are not known whether it is by chance or deliberately.

28

Figure 1 Persons and roles in the speech situation by Bell (1984, 159).

Even though the audience might be cast into the role of people who merely listen, they are not passive (Bell, 1984: 161). Bell (1984) proposes that a speaker employs a shift in style “in response to the extralinguistic situation” (161). Additionally,

Bell (1984) claims that style can also be used intentionally in order to “redefine an existing situation” and he suggests a term “initiative” (161) (emphasis in original) for this kind of style switch (161). Mostly, such style shifts happen as a response to an audience group which is “physically not present [but] influential on the speaker’s attitudes” (Bell, 1984: 161) and because of their umpiring role Bell labels this group as

“referees” (Bell, 1984: 161) (emphasis in original). It can be argued that it is first and foremost the Canadian audience that represents the referee group for Don Cherry. As a matter of fact, though, the relationship is ambivalent. On the one hand, he identifies

Canadians as a target group and it can be therefore believed that he adapts his discourse accordingly in order to create a cohesive group and to make it as much inclusive for them as possible. On the other hand, Cherry with his performance attempts to make the audience to accept his views and to identify with them.

The problem with inclusiveness of the program might occur with participation framework for potential recipients. Montgomery (2007: 30) distinguishes two types of discourses in broadcasting: (1) unidirectional discourse which is solely and directly

29 addressed to the audience; (2) and bidirectional discourse which is addressed predominantly to the other interlocutor, but is designed to be overheard by the audience.

The following extracts illustrate a couple of examples of switches between unidirectional and bidirectional discourses of Don Cherry.

Ext. 3 (Coach’s Corner episode on 19 December 2015) 1 DC: Now we have another great gu::y (.) not quite as good as Jesus John McDermott 2 (.) let’s see John [video clip of John McDermott] he just looks beautiful (.) 3 doesn’t he look great I told him I’d put him on if he get dressed up (.) look at 4 that Scotch outfit John you look real and there () great DIDN’T HE

Ext. 4 (Coach’s Corner episode on 2 January 2016) 1 DC: They had a fight (.) John Ferguson and him on it was a hock- talk-a-hockey (.) it 2 was on a golf course and they said who’s gonna go first (.) it went for five 3 minutes the fight I tell you it was a talk-a-hockey back then (.) Connie Mad Dog 4 Madigan [gesticulating with one hand towards the camera] I GOT YA ON 5 CONNIE

Extracts 3 and 4 represent a couple of examples of making Cherry’s discourse rather exclusive for the general audience and focusing on specific entities of it. Cherry talks about John McDermott, a Scottish-Canadian singer, and Connie Madigan, a retired

Canadian ice-hockey player, respectively. Amidst the talk, Cherry switches the bidirectional orientation targeted at both the co-host Ron MacLean as the other interlocutor and the audience to the unidirectional orientation which is exclusively and explicitly addressed to McDermott and Madigan and as if excludes the overhearing audience. Switching between the unidirectional discourse and the bi-/multidirectional discourse can be, using Goffman’s terminology, defined as a shift of footing which

“implies change in the alignment we take up to ourselves and others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance (as cited in

Montgomery: 2007, 30). For the moment, Cherry’s talk excludes the rest of the

30 audience as it focuses solely on the two specific people. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the interaction in broadcasting is multidimensional most of the time and the audience has to be taken into account as another added dimension almost every time.

Consequently, the communication in mass media is referee-design-driven despite the fact that the presenter is often cut-off from the audience and thus has no immediate and effective feedback (Bell, 1984). The audience is therefore for the presenter a certain ideal, perceived group out there that he/she tries to reach. Essentially, it is Canadian nation that represents this ideal group for Don Cherry and he tries to establish a relationship with it through his initiative style design. In the end, this style is used “as an expressive instrument, a declaration of identity, saying to the audience ‘you and I are ingroup’” (Bell, 1984: 192).

5. Articulation of Canadian identity

The construction of collective identity for the target audience, i.e. the Canadians, is done in various ways on Coach’s Corner. Accordingly, the discursive arrangement of the show often changes as there can be observed elements from various discursive domains in Don Cherry’s presentation. However, the realignment of features from diverse discourses and their condensation together serve primarily to negotiate the ‘we’ identity for the audience and to establish an inclusive relationship between the presenters and the audience. Based on the methodology set out in Chapter 3, the following sections will try to identify and discuss the phenomena that help Don Cherry to articulate Canadian identity.

31

5.1 Imagined community

Reference to regional diversity is one of the prominent features on Coach’s

Corner which helps Don Cherry to articulate Canadian identity. As Tolson (2006) points out, sports discourse can be in many respects revealing in terms of distinguishing or detecting identities, because it is in sports talk that “social class and regional diversity is most evident, in interviews with players and managers, in commentary where former players are employed as pundits, and in phone-in programmes” (94). However, as opposed to programs such as radio phone-ins that provide platform for community group representatives or individuals to express their opinions, Coach’s Corner is under institutional and professional control in terms of output (Fairclough, 1995). As was mentioned (cf. Chapter 2.4), Don Cherry was hired into the TV industry as a former player/coach to provide color commentary, but his role gradually transformed into a leading figure of the show without allowing much input from interviews with players and managers. He does, though, expose the audience to Canadian regional diversity and social class variability by repeatedly referring to geographical and regional locations across Canada. Possibly, the aim of this exposure might be to evoke a sense of commonality and national coherence. One of the processes of how to evoke this kind of sense of Canadian identity is through companionship and identification with the players.

The following extracts present an opportunity for the audience to identify with

Canadian players through regional affiliation.

Ext. 5 (Coach’s Corner episode on 10 October 2015) 1 RM: A couple of ceremonial faceoffs beginning with the Marlies (.) last night you 2 are good at these [smiles] I AM [laughs] I am good drawma- [picture of Don 3 Cherry with two players] watch this he:re the Marlies (.) it’s Andrew Campbell 4 .hh a::nd big guy Jo- from Manitoba look at the guys heh good looking guys

32

Ext. 6 (Coach’s Corner episode on 10 October 2015) 1 RM: [video of a player having a penalty shot] SCOTT Laughton let me just get his 2 name right coz you love him Scott Laughton 3 DC: Y::eah ‘n’ he and he is from Oakville12 [video showing gameplay] 4 RM: Yeah 5 DC: And his granddad is really happy [that we mention= 6 RM: [a::h we all love him 7 DC: =him beautiful guy

Ext. 7 (Coach’s Corner episode on 17 October 2015) 1 RM: All right (.) Martin Jones we gotta go 2 DC: A:ll right yeah we gotta (.) [making gestures indicating movement forward] you 3 know MARTIN JONES North Vancouver boy () [video showing highlights 4 from games] PHENOM of the National Hockey League (.) he has a nine eight 5 two save percentage less than one average unbelievable (.) Deboer’s doing a 6 great job Boughner and Spott are doing a great job (.) Kitchener13 guys coming 7 back .hh () and Steve Spott’s done good job there [video showing goaltender 8 Martin Jones] there’s Jones there and now we have Brent Jones from BARRIE14 9 (.) and the wolfman I call him [video showing gameplay and the discussed 10 player] remember he scares everybody watch these nice plays a::h golden hands 11 like that almost scores

These extracts characterize Don Cherry’s routine regional reiterations that should potentially appeal to Canadians virtually from coast-to-coast, as he mentions locations in the east, specifically Ontario (Ext. 6 line 3 and in Ext. 7 lines 6 and 8), central, specifically Manitoba (Ext. 5 line 4), and western, specifically Vancouver

(Ext. 7 line 3) Canada. Essentially, he produces a shared communal space and refers to places well-known to Canadians, even if this is only in an ‘imagined community’ sense.

The term ‘imagined community’ was coined by Benedict Anderson and relates to an understanding of a nation. Anderson defined nation as “an imagined political

12 Oakville, Ontario, Canada 13 Kitchener Rangers hockey club is based in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada 14 Barrie, Ontario, Canada 33 community [which is] both inherently limited and sovereign”15 (Anderson, 1991: 6). As

Anderson explains, the nation is limited because “even the largest of them […] has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations” (Anderson, 1991: 6). In this case, Cherry accentuates the national boundaries and, in connection to Anderson’s term ‘imagined community,’ Cherry as if reserves his talk to Canadian community. This aims at creating a sense of national affinity and at evoking a sense of national consciousness because, “regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail, [nation is] conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” (Anderson, 1991: 7).

In relation to Fairclough’s terms, Cherry sets up a regional identity for himself and for the audience through reference to a third party, the players and the locations they come from. He thus expresses and establishes a geographical autonomy and constructs a possible identification relationship for the audience. In addition to geographical constructions, he appeals to Canadians through identification with the players on a more personal level. Cherry’s reference to players from coast-to-coast regions and virtually from every background, i.e. not only from populated urban areas, but also from rural areas, prairie provinces such as Saskatchewan, and the Maritime provinces like Nova

Scotia, presents the opportunity for a larger Canadian audience to sympathize with the players or even to potentially dream about becoming one of the names mentioned on the show. The following extracts show other instances of Cherry’s praise of Canadian-born ice hockey players while at the same time reiterating their Canadian regional allegiance and affinity.

Ext. 8 (Coach’s Corner episode on 19 March 2016) 1 DC: [video showing a faceoff] We gotta do it for Brenden Morrow it’s his

15 Anderson also explains that a nation is an imagined community because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members […] yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson, 1991: 6). 34

2 last fifteen years in the league Saskatchewan boy look at Jamie Benn 3 isn’t he beautiful what a guy he is I think they showed Brenden in the 4 stands () 5 RM: Great story by Brenden [players pay tribute too 6 DC: [yeah he’s backing up= 7 =what a guy I love that Jamie that’s th- Brenden THERE he is [video 8 showing Brenden Morrow in the stands] there is Saskatchewan boy 9 fifteen years in the le:ague

Ext. 9 (Coach’s Corner episode on 31 October 2015) 1 DC: Now the last one you’ll see [video showing gameplay] Smith he gets beat of 2 Arizona and they PULLED ‘im (.) I couldn’t believe it was two nothing they 3 pulled a good Kingston16 boy

Ext. 10 (Coach’s Corner episode on 12 March 2016) 1 DC: Ever hearda (.) Reilly Smith? He played for the young Mats [video showing 2 Reilly Smith highlights] I watched him play (.) you know how many goals he 3 got one today (.) got twenty-thre- twenty-two goals ‘n’ nobody even knows he’s 4 alive so we are showing him right here right now played for the young heh Mats 5 (.) I remember him when he was a kid never thought he would be this good 6 got a hot dog (.) see that he scores a goal pretty good (.) I like it like that JUST 7 THOUGHT I’LL SHOW ‘T to [SHOW you= 9 RM: [it’s fantastic 10 DC: =A GOOD CANADIAN BOY

Ext. 11 (Coach’s Corner episode on 27 February 2016) 1 RM: Everybody in North Bay17 love Nick Paul and I know you do too 2 DC: Here he is here is first go:al he played for [video showing Nick Paul 3 score] Mississauga18 Reps (.) I saw ‘im before ANY you people saw ‘im 4 (.) here he puts it in here (.) there [video showing player celebrating] 5 heh he’s there (.) played Mississauga Reps he’s good kid good 6 Canadian bo::y

16 Kingston, Ontario, Canada 17 North Bay, Ontario, Canada 18 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 35

In Extract 8 above, Cherry affectionately calls Saskatchewan-native Brenden

Morrow a “Saskatchewan boy” (lines 2 and 8). Brenden Morrow is here showed as an example of a player who had a long and successful career in the National Hockey

League (Ext. 8 lines 2 and 9) and proved that it is possible to succeed in obtaining wide recognition on a national level even from a small town from a prairie province of

Saskatchewan. He thus accomplished what can be analogically labelled as ‘a Canadian dream19,’ i.e. earning millions of dollars while playing the game of hockey in the world’s most-renowned hockey league and becoming nationally recognizable through that. In Extract 9, Cherry specifies regional locality as he refers to Mike Smith through his birthplace as “a good Kingston boy” (line 3). Besides Mike Smith’s birthplace and the fact that he was pulled from the game Arizona20 was playing (i.e. replaced by another goaltender), there are no other indicators provided by Cherry to justify his use of evaluative adjective/marker ‘good’ (Ext. 9 line 3). This might imply that the sole information that a player comes from Canada should be sufficient enough for the audience to perceive a player to be good (supposedly not only as a player, but also in terms of personal qualities). Cherry thus uses positive evaluation of a Canadian player to negotiate Canadian identity and, at the same time, he constructs a communal relationship with the audience. Finally, in Extracts 10 and 11, Cherry again attaches the evaluative marker ‘good’ to the quality of being Canadian (Ext. 10 line 10 and Ext. 11 lines 5 and 6). However, this time he articulates identity on a national scale and through reference to a third party – Canadian hockey players Reilly Smith and Nick Paul – shows to the audience that even unsung heroes like Reilly Smith and Nick Paul (Ext. 10

19 James Truslow Adams is often credited for popularizing the term ‘American dream’ in his book The Epic of America. In the book, Adams says that American dream is “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. [It is] a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position” (Adams, 1941: 404). 20 The Arizona Coyotes are the National Hockey League team. 36 lines 1 and 3 and Ext. 11 line 3) can eventually gain some recognition on a national level.

5.2. Us versus them

Teun van Dijk’s (2000; 2006) ‘us versus them’ dichotomy is readily applicable to Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner as Cherry tries to foreground positive Canadian content on the show and to emphasize negative ‘others’ elements. This discursive juxtaposition works on a basis of what van Dijk (2006: 360) calls “communicative or symbolic” manipulation. Notwithstanding, this polarization is not exercised as a “form of illegitimate influence […] against the best interests of the manipulated [but rather] in a broader, semiotic sense of manipulation” (van Dijk, 2006, 360-61) (emphasis in original). In this perspective, Cherry exerts communicative power that is provided to him via media platform and through interactional practice of persuasion articulates certain national ideology. Moreover, in terms of Fairclough’s representation, Cherry creates contrasting discourses by foregrounding negative actions by the members of the out-group and backgrounds similar actions done by the members of the in-group

(Fairclough, 1995). Finally, the feature of multimodality in the communicative settings comes into play as Cherry often provides a linguistic account for visual rendition of the events happening. The visual messages complement the exercised and the established multimodal framework which ultimately supports Cherry’s argument and interpretation.

The following extracts present the dynamic of bipolar attitude and oppositional ideologies on the show in terms of presenting the in-group (i.e. Canadians) and the out- group (i.e. the others).

Ext. 12 (Coach’s Corner episode on 12 December 2015)

37

1 DC: [video showing gameplay] Logan Shaw Glace Bay21 watch this here (.) he gets 2 his first goal now loo- watch ge- (.) Logan gets the puck the second time (.) he 3 got the chance [clips showing the player score] this is first goal (.) watch (.) he 4 puts the zinger home now he gets the chance the second one he can get it into 5 empty net (.) watch what he does g- ge- get him c’mon Logan (.) and [video 6 showing gameplay] this is he:re (.) watch he passes over passes over watch the 7 dummy misses the open net like that (.) misses it comes around (.) [what= 8 RM: [heh 9 DC: =a great guy hockey gods were THERE in the net beau:tiful what a good guy 10 [studio] Logan from Glace Bay Nova Scotia

Ext. 13 (Coach’s Corner episode on 12 December 2015) 1 DC: This is a this is ridi- [video showing gameplay] Tootoo gets put over the boards 2 now it says in the rules (.) too many men on the ice now watch this here [clip 3 showing the benches from closer angle] (.) he’s he puts on the ice now watch 4 the DUMMY that watch this here gu:y [does whining voice] he:::y to:o many 5 watch he () look at this guy who’s that guy? 6 RM: Nyquist22 7 DC: NYQUIST look ‘t ‘im y::eah like he goes [does whining voice] come o:::n (.) 8 get a penalty here (.) [switches to normal voice] y::eah y::eah SUCK

In Extract 12, Cherry again repeatedly refers to geographical location (Ext. 12 lines 1 and 10), the birth place of Canadian hockey player Logan Shaw. In addition,

Cherry praises the player’s performance and calls him “a great guy” (Ext. 12 line 9). On the other hand, these elements are not found when compared with the description of the other player. First of all, the other player in this extract and Logan Shaw’s teammate is not even called by his name. The other player is a Finnish ice hockey player Jussi

Jokinen and he is here only referred to as a “dummy23” (Ext. 12 line 7) which has clearly negative connotations. Also, there is no information provided concerning

Jokinen’s geographical characterization, i.e. there is not mentioned that Jokinen is

21 Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada 22 Gustav Nyquist is a Swedish citizen. 23 Definition from Oxford English Dictionary: A dumb person. colloq. 38

Finnish nor is there mentioned in a broader scheme that he is European. This is in stark contrast with a very meticulous and particular description of Canadian places provided to the audience with Canadian players (in Extract 12 as well as in examples mentioned above). In the end, it can be argued that the complimentary comments are purposefully used to foreground and highlight positive Canadian aspects. Based on van Dijk’s differentiation of group designation (cf. Chapter 3.2), in Extract 13, Cherry emphasizes the negative things of the out-group member. First of all, he comes to defense of a

Canadian player Jordin Tootoo as he describes a supposed rule infraction committed by

Tootoo during the game (Ext. 13 lines 1 and 2). A non-Canadian player from the opposing team’s bench then tries to point out the supposed infraction to a referee which draws Cherry’s criticism (Ext. 13 line 4). In comparison with Extract 12, Cherry mentions the name of a non-Canadian player in Extract 13, but he advances to it through an interesting chain of reference. Initially, he calls the player “dummy” (Ext. 13 line 4) as is the case in Extract 12. Subsequently, Cherry creates a sort of co-referential chain when he calls the player very generally “this guy” and “that guy” respectively

(Ext. 13 lines 4 and 5). Then he asks the co-host Ron MacLean to identify the player

(Ext. 13 line 5) and the name of the foreign-player is revealed in the latter stages of the shown segment (Ext. 13 line 6). Finally, even though Cherry repeats the name provided to him (Ext. 13 line 7) and thus acknowledges Nyquist, he again parodies Nyquist’s voice in a whining manner and inevitably ridicules him.

Cherry via the ‘us versus them’ creates in a subtle way the sense of Canadian bias and possibly alludes that Canadians are more capable than Europeans or other nations in general. Additionally, he often produces contrastive approaches towards referring to and identifying Canadian and non-Canadian participants on the show and thus articulates differently their identities. This variation in reference boosts the value of

39

Canadian content and usually involves a negative evaluation of the element of the

‘other.’ He thus through language choices that are available to him systematically represents Canadians more favorably. In addition, it is also equally important there to observe the notion of language absences in the whole dynamic, which in this scenario is realized by omitting regional references in regards to non-Canadian players (Fairclough,

1995). On the other hand, the repeated references to Canadian players’ birth places and

Canadian locations create more familiarity and possibly affection and affiliation towards Canada. Finally, by way of appealing to “gods” (Ext. 12 line 9) Cherry also forms a divide in representation of the in-group and out-group. In Extract 12, Cherry draws attention to the fact that the out-group member missed the net (Ext. 12 line 7) and assigns to him causality of the action as well as responsibility for this action. In contrast,

Cherry backgrounds causality when he indicates that Shaw (i.e. the member of the in- group) almost by default, deserved to score the goal in his shot attempt as these things are “a matter of fate [and] happenings beyond human control” (Fairclough, 1995: 110) for the members of the in-group. Consequently, this conceptual polarization of identities should influence the viewership as they should identify with Canadians, whom Cherry endorses as the good guys, and shun the others.

5.2.1 Blue-collar mentality

Teun van Dijk’s ‘us versus them dichotomy’ is also applicable in terms of values

Don Cherry accentuates on the show. As was already mentioned (cf. Chapter 2.1), it is really difficult to determine unique Canadian qualities and values (also Sparling: 2016).

However, there exist certain values that Cherry perpetuates on the show and it can be argued that they are considered to be the appropriate Canadian qualities by him.

Furthermore, Cherry has become a harsh “critic of Europeans and anyone else he sees

40 as undermining the Canadian way” (Scherer & Whitson, 2009: 217). As Allain (2011) points out, there exists an almost contradictory construction of Canadian identity that is articulated by Don Cherry. First, Cherry reinforces a sentiment that Canadian “hockey players (good ol’ Canadian boys) are to be humble and well-dressed men off ice and vicious competitors on the ice” (Allain, 2011: 9). This perception of Canadian demeanor corresponds with a similarly contradictory notion of a country whose “well- nurtured myths include pacifism, peacekeeping, and tolerance” (Blake, 2010: 81) yet is intrigued by the game of hockey in which violence, aggressiveness, and toughness play a prominent role. Second, Cherry frequently presents the desired Canadian qualities in comparison with other nations, especially the Russians who have been constructed as the Canadian other in the game of hockey since the early 1950s (Allain,

2011). The following extracts provide illustrative examples on Coach’s Corner assigning negative qualities to the others, in this case the Russian players.

Ext. 14 (Coach’s Corner episode on 23 January 2016) 1 DC: I wanna show you why in my era [video showing a Russian player being 2 slashed] why we despised the Russians watch this here hits his pants now look 3 at (.) he’s gonna watch this dive this is the most [parodying whining voice] a::h 4 look at ‘im look look at ‘im a:::h loo::k loo:::k loo:::k at ‘im [switches to normal 5 voice] if that isn’t the most DISGUSTING thing= 6 RM: [humming] 7: DC: =you’ve ever [back to studio] seen in your life I just thought I’d show ya and 8 you wonder why back in my [era= 9: RM: [yeah 10: DC: =why we despised them so much

In Extract 14, Cherry describes a video footage of a retired Russian player Boris

Mikhailov being slashed by a retired Canadian player Wayne Cashman during the game between CSKA Moscow and the Boston Bruins in the mid-1970s. Cherry clearly

41 accuses Mikhailov of embellishing (Ext. 14 line 3) and calls the whole incident

“disgusting” (Ext. 14 line 5) not from the point of view that Cashman attacked

Mikhailov with his stick, but it is in fact the act of diving that irritates Cherry.

Eventually, he claims this to be the biggest reason why his generation despised the

Russians (Ext. 14 lines 8 and 10). In actuality, though, he connects diving to the current generation of Russians as well which is illustrated in the following extract.

Ext. 15 (Coach’s Corner episode on 12 March 2016) 1 DC: Go ahead Cut your finger off? 2 RM: heh Soshnikov [went down easily 3 DC: [all right cut your finger off 4 RM: Yeah 5 DC: Now watch Hoffman good Kitchener24 boy he gets a penalty here [video 6 showing gameplay] (.) h- he takes a dive that’s a dive right there the 7 referee bites look at that it makes you sick [() 8 RM: [Smith’s got it he just 9 comes over hot 10 DC: Yeah now watch watch this here Hoffman comes over Kitchener boy (.) 11 and he’s look at this here [video showing a player wincing] come o::n 12 Cut your finger off (.) now watch this here he tells ‘im he comes back 13 (.) now watch after [showing another video] we’ve got another good 14 shot (.) and everybody’s telling him YOU DO THAT IN THE 15 LEAGUE FROM NOW O:N and the referee bites all the time he i- 16 somebody better tell this guy he doesn’t understand he’s shaking his 17 head

Cherry again juxtaposes the positive qualities of the in-group and the negative qualities of the out-group in Extract 15. Specifically, he accuses a non-Canadian player

Nikita Soshnikov25 of embellishment (Ext. 15 line 6) - which is undeniably an unsportsmanlike conduct - while he suggests that Canadian-born Mike Hoffman is

24 Kitchener, Ontario, Canada 25 Nikita Soshnikov is a Russian citizen. 42 being undeservedly punished for non-Canadian’s shameful behavior (Ext. 15 line 7).

Cherry stresses to the audience that diving is inherently unacceptable (Ext. 15 lines 7 and 11) and encourages the Canadian players on the ice to explain this to the foreigner - in this case the Russian player (Ext. 15 line 14). Interestingly, Cherry states that

Soshnikov shakes his head and that he does not understand (Ext. 15 lines 16 and 17).

This might not only imply that there is a certain language and cultural barrier that hinders the process of communication and cooperation between members of the in- group and the out-group, but ultimately that the values that are considered to be positive by the members of the in-group are not automatically accepted by the members of the out-group. Finally, Extract 15 illustrates another example of Cherry’s way of reference regarding out-group members. In this instance, Cherry starts off the description of the whole situation by calling Soshnikov “Cut your finger off” (Ext. 15 line 1), which is probably motivated by Cherry’s English pronunciation of a Russian name Soshnikov.

Even though the intention might be to use this in a humorous and facetious way, the usage in the context and the exclusion of the out-group members from the jocularity of the comment suggest that it is meant rather as a mocking moniker.

In contrast with negative qualities such as diving that are ascribed to the members of the out-group (in examples above specifically to the Russians), Cherry presents qualities like fearlessness, grit, and hard-work as positive aspects that

Canadians should identify with and possibly should be associated with. The following extracts show Canadians presented positively on Coach’s Corner.

Ext. 16 (Coach’s Corner episode on 9 April 2016) 1 DC: [video showing gameplay] now watch this here he gets cut (.) Johansson cuts 2 him like that you figure he’s figure hey? (.) he’s Alberta co:wboy26 he goes off

26 Thomas Hickey was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where there is annually held the Calgary Stampede (a rodeo festival). 43

3 he’s all sliced up he comes back and gets the winner I tell ya something heh 4 those guys from Alberta and that Western league they are tough guys (.) here he 5 is with the winner again BEAUTIFUL

Ext. 17 (Coach’s Corner episode on 7 November 2015) 1 DC: [video showing gameplay] now we are gonna show you the shot take a look 2 good Canadian boy gets up watch the shot he: grabs his stick with this imagine 3 tha:t good guy

Ext. 18 (Coach’s Corner episode on 1 January 2016) 1 DC: [video showing gameplay] don’t forget they were behind in the semifinal four 2 one Canadian heart brought them back (.) they won they won there I tell ya 3 [showing a bench] that’s a tough thing to go over there in Europe (.) that’s 4 coach right there [showing players celebrating] [what a= 5 RM: [Guy Boucher 6 DC: =bunch of guys at Spengler Cup they love the game (.) the play for the love of 7 the game and the old Canadian heart comes through again

In extracts above, Cherry praises players for being tough and for not giving up and he attaches these qualities to the fact that they are Canadians. Specifically, in

Extract 16, Cherry describes a situation where a Canadian player Thomas Hickey is hit by the blade of the skate from an opposing team’s player (Ext. 16 line 1). Even though

Hickey is bloodied (Ext. 16 line 3), Cherry lauds the fact that Hickey remained in the game and eventually even scored the game-winning-goal (Ext. 16 lines 3 and 5).

Specifically, Cherry attaches the quality of being tough to the province of Alberta and

Western Canada (Ext. 16 lines 2 and 4). This is in sharp contrast with the way the on-ice behavior of the Russian players was depicted (cf. Extract 14 and Extract 15).

Similarly, Cherry praises a Canadian player Connor McDavid in Extract 17 for trying to stand up after being hit hard into the end-boards (Ext. 17 line 2). Even though

McDavid suffered a broken collar-bone on the play, he tries to stand up on his own for which Cherry calls him a “good Canadian boy” (Ext. 17 line 2). This again contrasts

44 with the depiction of the Russians (i.e. the members of the out-group) labelled as divers and attributes the positive qualities to Canadians (i.e. the members of the in-group).

Cherry also highlights perseverance as another positive Canadian quality. In

Extract 18, Cherry points out that Canadians were down four to one in a semifinal game, but they rallied and eventually won the game and the whole tournament (Ext. 18 lines 1 and 2). Cherry strictly assigns the fact that Canadians won to their “Canadian heart” (Ext. 18 line 2) and repeats this again later on (Ext. 18 line 7) as if implying that the positive qualities of ‘not giving-up’ and perseverance are attached to Canadians as opposed to other teams (i.e. nations) that did not have these types of attributes. Finally, he reminds the audience that it is a difficult task to go and win in Europe27 (Ext. 18 line

3) alluding that there exists some kind of barrier between Canada and Europe and that the team succeeded in a hostile environment.

Partly, some of the qualities Cherry perpetuates are arguably based on his blue- collar upbringing (cf. Chapter 2.5). The following extracts illustrate how Cherry underscores hard-work and determination as important ingredients for success.

Ext. 19 (Coach’s Corner episode on 31 October 2015) 1 DC: [video showing gameplay] this guy served his time in the 28American Hockey 2 League too (.) this is what I like boy look at this here guy I love the guy who 3 served his time in the American Hockey League nothing’s given to him another 4 guy right from Winnipeg another Winnipeg boy a::nd I love those guys from 5 Winnipeg

Ext. 20 (Coach’s Corner episode on 31 October 2015) 1 DC: [video showing gameplay] this guy never quits from Winnipeg another guy 2 from Winnipeg all the guys are from Winnipeg (.) saw him play in the GTHL29

27 The Spengler Cup is an ice hockey tournament held in Switzerland. 28 The American Hockey League represents a minor league system one notch below the National Hockey League. 29 The Greater Toronto Hockey League is a minor level hockey league. 45

3 this guy is sensational (.) served a:ll the time in the American Hockey League 4 spent three years in the American Hockey League earn th- number one that’s 5 what I like THEY EARN THEIR WAY

Extracts 19 and 20 provide examples of Don Cherry’s reiteration of hard-work and his appraisal of Canadian players’ assiduous effort on the ice. As Allain (2011) points out, “[t]he notions of hard work, team commitment and dedication to the game are important attributes for an individual presented as the embodiment of national character” (11). Cherry repeats multiple times that he loves players who had to work hard in order to earn their opportunity to play on the National Hockey League level

(Ext. 19 lines 2 and 3 and Ext. 20 lines 4 and 5) and he associates hard-work especially with Winnipeg-located Canadians (Ext. 19 line 4 and Ext. 20 lines 1 and 2).

According to Whannel (2002), athletes are depicted in the media either as exemplars of good morals or as bad role models. He also argues that when certain moral standards are demonstrated by athletes to the nation, they eventually come to be perceived as appropriate from within (Whannel, 2002). By the same token, Cherry tries to reify Canadian hockey players as good role models and through this depiction reinforces certain qualities that Canadians should adopt. On the other hand, Cherry often does not refrain himself from vilifying other nations (whether this are the Russians or anybody else) as bad role models (cf. Extract 14 and Extract 15) which helps him to emphasize the positive attributes of Canadians.

5.2.2 Expert versus lay discourse

Based on Fairclough’s category of relations dealing with setting up relationships between the participants involved in the discursive scheme, it can be argued that Don

Cherry constantly shifts from the perspective of an expert, who basically authoritatively

46 informs the audience, to the one of a fan (or a layman) on Coach’s Corner. He therefore creates two-way relations of expert-audience and what can be called ‘citizen-audience’ relationship. Both items in the latter dichotomy might be designated as Canadian- oriented and create the sense of inclusiveness by claiming common identity with the audience (Fairclough, 1995). In addition, Hutchby’s (2006: 42-43) classification of expert and lay perspectives suggests that there is not always a clear-cut boundary between the two perspectives. Hutchby (2006) claims that television programs conventionally prioritize the expert perspective which is ultimately valorized through operating certain binary oppositions (for example, the expert perspective should be, among others, objective and rational). These elements should authenticate speaker’s relevance to the audience and make the argumentation more trustworthy. However, there are plenty of instances of subjective and emotional elements on the show, which are typically associated with lay discourse. Both of the positions then for Don Cherry provide alternative ways of articulating identities within Canadian context, but also generate tension between the two discourses. The following extracts present the situations where Don Cherry presents himself and is presented by the co-host as a reliable expert figure and, at the same time, adopts features of lay discourse.

Ext. 21 (Coach’s Corner episode on 5 March 2016) 1 DC: What I’m trying to say (.) it’s gonna be a piece of cake (.) I can have ONE and 2 ONE I’m not gonna one and b th- look at the guys they are leaving off should 3 be a PIECE OF CAKE 4 RM: Hey the other question I had for you Don was e::h the young team do you think 5 that the: veterans will get mad at the kids= 6 DC: [waving hands signaling negative response] 7 RM: =[not a chance? () no problem no? 8 DC: [they won’t () doesn’t mean anything (.) they don’t stand a chance (.) ‘ight 9 that’s a sort of a semi-gimmick and everything it will be good to see ‘n’ 10 everything like that but th- they don’t stand a chance (.) it’s a piece of cake 47

11 WE’RE GONNA WIN ‘N’ WE’LL GET BETTER AS WE GO ON

Ext. 22 (Coach’s Corner episode on 10 October 2015) 1 RM: So look Don everybody as much as we love hockey and we love hockey= 2 DC: [pumping both fists] 3 RM: =you’re a baseball guy you got Josh Donaldson’s record [number of votes= 4 DC: [right 5 RM: =which is incredible (.) .hh what do you think of [() 6 DC [I think they are getting 7 stiffed30 nobody will say it FIRST of all let’s go let’s go the dome31 not open (.) 8 they have three many three times as many homeruns when it’s open and they 9 have three times as many wins when it’s open a::nd (.) commissioner

Ext. 23 (Coach’s Corner episode on 10 October 2015) 1 DC: They go and look at it and say it’s all right we are getting stiffed you know why 2 we are getting stiffed? Coz they don’t wanna Canadian team32 in the final 3 THAT’S MY OPINION

Ext. 24 (Coach’s Corner episode on 24 October 2015) 1 RM: Tell us about the baseball (.) the Blue Jays 2 DC: You kno::w I hardly missed a game (.) I really did I’m the fan of fans and the 3 whole deal (.) I’m really ticked off because I’ll tell ya we got stiffed

In extracts above, Don Cherry simultaneously exhibits qualities typical of both expert and lay discourses. Specifically, Cherry is asked in Extract 21 by the co-host Ron

MacLean to provide his expert opinion about Team North America’s chances at the upcoming World Cup of Hockey in 2016 (Ext. 21 lines 4 and 5). The team consists of

North American players aged 23 and under and that is why MacLean wonders about the relationship between the young players and the veterans (Ext. 21 line 5). Cherry, however, immediately dismisses any possibility that the young team would succeed in

30 Oxford English Dictionary lists ‘to cheat’ as one of the definitions for stiff (v.) 31 Rogers Centre (also called SkyDome) is a home stadium for the Toronto Blue Jays, members of the Major League Baseball. 32 The Toronto Blue Jays are the only Canadian team in Major League Baseball. 48 the competition against the veterans (Ext. 21 line 8) and provides a simple expert analysis based on rationality and objective insight. Also, he elaborates on the question and provides more information (Ext. 21 lines 9, 10, 11) than he was originally asked to provide which is a typical feature of the expert discourse (Hutchby, 2006; Tolson,

2006). Nevertheless, the language he presents the additional information with bears, in many ways, characteristics of lay discourse. First, the use of inclusive ‘we’ (Ext. 21 line

11) suggests that he refers to Team Canada and that he identifies with the Canadian audience as well as with Canadian national team. Moreover, it signals that Cherry actually includes the audience. Cherry lumps everybody together as Canadians and does not set himself apart from the group as an expert with objective information, but rather appears to be adopting the role of one of the Canadian people. Second, the guarantee of

Canada’s win in the tournament is strictly subjective, which is also one of the characteristic features of lay discourse (Ext. 21 line 11). Finally, the claim is not grounded on any hard data, but principally draws on an intangible national sentiment reflecting Cherry’s lay perspective (Hutchby, 2006: 42-43). In Extract 22, MacLean again establishes the group identity via using the inclusive ‘we’ (Ext. 22 line 1).

Assumedly, when MacLean says “we love hockey” (line 1) does not address only to

Cherry and MacLean as the co-hosts of the show, but he extends the meaning to the overhearing Canadian audience or even Canadians in general. MacLean then opens up a platform for Cherry to express his opinion about baseball (Ext. 22 lines 3 and 5). Again, this brings an interesting clash of expert and lay discourses. First of all, Cherry does not even let MacLean finish his question and as soon as MacLean asks what he thinks (Ext.

22 line 5), Cherry interrupts him and takes the initiative (Ext. 22 line 6) as if demonstrating that he has something important to share with the audience. Second,

Cherry presents the audience with numerical data (Ext. 22 lines 8 and 9) in this instance,

49 which should in all likelihood justify his position as an expert and solidify his argument for the audience. Notwithstanding this, however, baseball is not Cherry’s area of expertise and as he admits he is just a “fan of the fans” (Ext. 24 line 2) as far as baseball is concerned. Cherry delivers quite emphatically a subjective and emotional comment that there is a bias against Canadians and the Canadian team (the Toronto Blue Jays) from the Major League Baseball’s side (Ext. 23 line 2) and again as if constructs a notion of him being one of the Canadians who will fight for the nation’s cause. Cherry also repeats multiple times in various permutations that “we got stiffed” (Ext. 22 line 7,

Ext. 23 lines 1 and 2, Ext. 24 line 3). Ultimately, Cherry is through the ‘we’ reference addressing Canadian audience and includes himself into the group, again creating a sense of national unification.

Overall, both co-hosts construct a category of ‘we’ membership, often merging themselves and the Canadian audience into one group. While elements from expert discourse corroborate their positions and give credence to their arguments, the amalgamation of lay discourse elements helps to set up more inclusive relationship between the presenters and the audience.

5.2.3 Ordinariness

Discourse is often context-specific and comprises of a language with in-group references and thus excludes members of the out-group. Sports discourse is, admittedly, as a specialized domain highly context-specific and it is often designed to appeal to the specific target audience which is able to orientate themselves in the discursive setup more easily (Tolson: 2006; Hutchby: 2006). Essentially, when entering into any particular arrangement of a sporting event/broadcasting, it means “to be involved in a communicative practice that presumes certain discursive categories of identity (fan,

50 player, spectator), as well as performatives associated with those categories” (Schirato,

2013: 2). The participants are therefore assuming certain identities in a shared situational space. Taking into account the fact that “for millions of people, their dominant experience of sport is not as athletes, but as spectators of a mediated public spectacle” (as cited in Lefkowitz, 1996: 200), the mediation process is extremely important in producing and/or maintaining identity categories for the audience. The onus of the broadcasting setup then becomes to enhance audience’s interest and/or reach further from the already established audience group with various means (including exposure to expert analysis or direct address) in order to attain as wide a spectrum of audience as possible.

Assuming that a substantial part of the viewers of the sporting event broadcasting such as a hockey game is formed by the fans of this particular sport, the effort made to create an inclusive environment for the viewership outside of the group voluntarily tuning in is of a crucial importance. One of the ways is to find a common denominator so that there emerges from the relatively neutral category of program- viewers a rather involved category of supporters based on the emotional investment. In other words, the goal is to engage the audience emotionally. Tolson (2006) notes that

“disfluencies, false starts and repetitions” (101) are among phenomena which help to detect a heightened sense of emotional commitment to a certain discussed topic. The following extract shows an important situation from an international competitive game of Team Canada at the World Junior Hockey Championship (i.e. significantly emotional event for Canadians) with multiple examples of disfluencies in Cherry’s speech.

Ext. 25 (Coach’s Corner episode on 2 January 2016) 1 RM: Finally obviously Finland gets Canada six to five at the World Juniors today 2 Don

51

3 DC: Well first of all we are gonna show I think we are gonna sho:w (.) [a::h the= 4 RM [penalty 5 first () 6 DC: =the penalty now KIDS this is a very I (.) [video showing gameplay] if he lets 7 his stick go remember if you are ever like this I show you where he should now 8 if he takes his hands off and lets it go (.) coz there was a late penalty he didn’t 9 call it yet (.) h- he:: lets it go take you hand off (.) see () back () and now he’s 10 dead (.) take the st- let it go and you are all right it wouldn’t have been called

In Extract 25, Don Cherry describes one of the deciding moments of a quarterfinal game between team Canada and team Finland when one of the Canadian players takes a penalty which leads to a goal scored against team Canada and a subsequent Canada’s defeat. There can be seen multiple occasions of disfluencies, incomplete sentences, and incoherent sequences of sentences. The incoherence and disfluencies observable in Cherry’s talk show that his reaction to the topic is rather spontaneous and he discusses it in a lively and emotional manner. Moreover, Cherry’s performance is saturated with informal language aspects and shows a move towards the conversationalization mode of media language. As Fairclough (1995) points out, the media language has been undergoing a merging process between professional (or expert) and public (or lay) spheres. This entails “problems with relationships based upon authority [and opens up] a new public prestige for ‘ordinary’ values and practices

[…] including ‘ordinary’ conversational practices” (Fairclough, 1995, 11). It can be argued that Don Cherry’s emotionality and his emotional investment increases substantially on the basis of the involvement of Canada’s national junior team and he has become more of a member of the audience in this particular moment rather than staying in his role of a television personality. In this respect, Cherry’s role as a performer/presenter becomes more ordinary and he can be viewed as a regular Canadian fan.

52

The phenomenon of normalizing television representatives in order to eradicate the sense of extra-ordinariness and to construct the sense of relatedness with the audience was described by Frances Bonner. Bonner (2003) points out that ordinary television tries to create sociable atmosphere with its main function being to entertain.

To a great extent, this is based on spontaneity and liveliness of the talk. Bonner (2003) states that among the central characteristics of ordinary television are direct address of the audience and the mundane nature of the discussed topic. Even though she defines sports programs as special form of television and therefore excludes them from ordinary television, Tolson (2006) disagrees with this proposition arguing that even sports feature ingredients of ordinary talk (131) which I will illustrate momentarily.

Referring to the former characteristic of ordinariness, Cherry as if instructs the audience and repeatedly addresses it directly by saying “remember if you are” (Ext. 25 line 7), “see” (Ext. 25 line 9), “[you] let it go and you are all right” (Ext. 25 line 10).

These instructions or commands are employed to “make the audience active participants

(as opposed to passive viewers) by encouraging their own involvement, and therefore their interest” (Robertson, 2005: 9). As far as the latter characteristic is concerned, because the bad result of the game is predominantly of any consequence only for

Canadian national audience, the profoundness or severity of the hockey-game discussion is questionable and could be labelled as mundane. However, if anybody, it is the Canadian audience who can be at least slightly concerned with the topic and the result of the game. It can be believed that even those Canadians who do not fully follow the context would relate to Cherry’s emotional sentiments and they would support team

Canada. Cherry is thus through appealing to these different characteristics constructing a relatively homogenous group occupied with the national interests.

53

5.3 Politics and military affairs

The creation of ‘we’ identity is apparent in regard to political and military problems presented on Coach’s Corner. Don Cherry occasionally steps outside of his role of a hockey analyst and he delves into extra-sporting issues including politics and military (cf. Chapter 2.5). When dealing with these topics, he again temporarily disrupts the relationship expert-audience and represents the voice of ordinary people “who started to play a more active part in political conversation and debate” (Fairclough,

1995: 186) recently. According to Fairclough (1995), the voice of ordinary people has gained such prominence concerning reactions on political and social issues that experiences and opinions of ordinary people have often higher status than the expertise of actual politicians. Partly, this is because there has been an ongoing process of mixing discourses and ordinary people to a certain extent draw upon a professional political discourse (Fairclough, 1995). In this respect, there are indeed certain features of political discourse that are traceable in Don Cherry’s language that help him to produce a message with bigger impact on the audience. It is important to notice that he does so almost exclusively by appealing to Canadian audience and by stressing the importance of collective identity. First, as Fairclough (1995) points out, the use of inclusive ‘we’ is one of the commonest features of political discourse. Similarly to the expert relationship with the audience, there exists tension between authoritative relationship with the audience and the ‘we as a group’ approach based on solidarity and inclusiveness when mixing features from political and ordinary discourses. As

Fairclough (1995) states, however, “the constantly shifting reference of we” (181)

(emphasis in original) helps to ease this tension and contributes to the establishment of collective membership in particular situations. Second, political discourse is most appropriate in a communicative event which includes targeted recipients and the event

54 thus has the interactional potential. The following extract shows the negotiation of collective Canadian identity through ‘we’ reference when addressing political and military issues by Don Cherry. There is also illustrated the construction of an event with communicative potential in terms of political agenda.

Ext. 26 (Coach’s Corner episode on 9 April 2016) 1 RM: [close-up on a pin] 1917 April ninth Vimy (.) a::h the French and the British 2 tried to take the Vimy Ridge for six months (.) General Currie [picture of 3 soldiers climbing the ridge] was the Canadian twas the first time we ever there 4 that’s us going over (.) the first time (.) we ever fought under ah Canadian ah 5 general (.) he did the bombardment going up and we took it in ONE DAY (.) we 6 had eleven thousand casualties [picture of the Canadian National Vimy 7 Memorial] but that was and there’s the monument the greatest monument of to:: 8 peaceful and you know that you notice that there’s no soldiers on it it’s just 9 peaceful one of th- and done by a Canadian architect and built by Canadians one 10 of the greatest a:nd a::h PM Trudeau said it’s a moment that Canada [studio] 11 came together (.) a:nd it sure is and that’s one of the greatest we should have a 12 holiday for that it’s our greatest battle of all time

Extract 26 illustrates Cherry’s frequent use of inclusive ‘we’ as a means of articulating collective Canadian identity. Cherry opens up the show by talking about the

Battle of Vimy Ridge, an event from the First World War (Ext. 26 lines 1 and 2). When describing the event, Cherry repeatedly refers to the participants as “we” and he uses

“us” as the ones who were able to conquer the place (Ext. 26 lines 3, 4, 5). As the event took place virtually a hundred years prior to Cherry’s mentioning it on the show, there is therefore no possibility of his active participation in the event and the same applies to the audience. Cherry’s ‘we’ reference in this case then clearly indicates an inclusive use of ‘we’ including the Canadian audience and Canadians in general. By the same token,

Cherry includes the Canadian audience by claiming that ‘we’ (i.e. the Canadians) should have a holiday in honour of the battle (Ext. 26 line 11 and 12) and subsequently

55 reinforces this notion by saying that it was “our greatest battle” (Ext. 26 line 12)

(emphasis added). Furthermore, the last two lines in Extract 26 open a communicative floor for political discourse and engage the recipients, i.e. the Canadian audience, in a political conversation about having national holiday on a discussed date.

Extract 26 also illustrates an interesting example of ‘us versus them’ dichotomy where the members of the in-group (i.e. Canadians) are presented more positively than the members of the out-group (i.e. the others). In this instance, Cherry prefaces the whole situation by pointing out that the French and the British strived for six months to take the Vimy Ridge (Ext. 26 lines 1 and 2). Canadians, on the other hand, needed only one day to take the place (Ext. 26 line 5).

The following extracts, on the other hand, present examples of shifting ‘we’ reference when dealing with extra-sporting issues on the show yet Cherry still manages to construct a sense of Canadian identity.

Ext. 27 (Coach’s Corner episode on 9 April 2016) 1 RM: Regimental funeral coming up Tuesday in the Q centre in Greater Victoria 2 DC: Sarah Sarah Beckett killed in the line of duty [picture of Beckett in RCMP 3 uniform] she’s just here she is there (.) lovely girl it’s just unbelievable lovely 4 woman and she has two: you:ng boys I I tell you something boy the Mounties 5 and the police where would we be without them where would we be and she 6 was killed in the line of duty (.) I tell ya God bless you Sarah and your family 7 we’re thinking of ya

Ext. 28 (Coach’s Corner episode on 19 December 2015) 1 DC: [close-up on a Santa-themed tie] A:ll right here we a:re we wanna Santa Cla:us 2 we wanna wish Merry Christmas to all th- troops (.) especially to the ones over 3 in Afghanistan Merry Christmas to you

It can be argued that the use of ‘we’ in both Extract 27 and Extract 28 is rather ambivalent, but still appeals to the Canadian audience. Cherry’s specific reference to the

56

Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Extract 27 (Ext. 2 line 4) suggests that the immediately following “where would we be” (Ext. 27 line 5) comments on the situation of the whole nation and therefore includes the Canadian audience. In Extract 28, on the other hand, Cherry’s opening remarks “we wanna wish Merry Christmas” (Ext. 28 lines 1 and 2) do not necessarily imply that ‘we’ in this case identifies the whole nation, but it might refer only to a certain group of people (for example, the program production group). Moreover, the presence of ‘we’ in this case might only be Cherry’s initiative and he thus uses it authoritatively in a sense that “the leader is claiming the right to speak for the people as a whole” (Fairclough, 1995: 181). Effectively, even this approach evokes the sense of national interests for the Canadian audience.

Finally, besides applying the feature of inclusive ‘we,’ Cherry establishes a relationship with the audience by taking up interactive elements such as direct addressing or commands when appealing to them in political matters. Also, by setting out political agenda, he makes the political framework interactive. These points are illustrated in the following extract.

Ext. 29 (Coach’s Corner episode on 17 October 2015) 1 DC: I wanna say listen folks (.) a:h good people (.) women and men have died in two 2 world wars and one of the freedoms is to vote and we don’t vote enough 3 [pointing emphatically towards camera from now on] your vote may cou- it may 4 be change the whole thing so DON’T BE LAZY if these guys can give their 5 lives worth for the freedom to vote YOU GET OUT and vote like good 6 Canadians

In Extract 29, Cherry urges Canadian audience to go cast their votes in the

Canadian federal election held in October 2015. Providing the context, Cherry’s claim

“we don’t vote enough” (Ext. 29 line 2) suggests that ‘we’ in this case identifies exclusively the Canadian nation. Cherry thus again engages the Canadian audience and

57 negotiates a collective identity. Furthermore, Cherry engages the audience by employing elements that should help to increase interactivity. For example, Cherry uses commands like “listen” and “get out and vote” (Ext. 29 lines 1 and 5) and also directly addresses the audience by generalized terms such as “folks” and “you” (Ext. 29 lines 1 and 5). Finally, by stressing the importance of the election and by claiming that to cast one’s vote is what a good Canadian is supposed to do (Ext. 29 lines 5 and 6), Cherry actively involves the audience in a political process and political discourse as voters and citizens.

5.4 ‘Commertainment’

The tendency of contemporary media language is to move “in the direction of entertainment – to become more ‘marketized’” (Fairclough, 1995: 10). Based on this tendency, Coach’s Corner, as part of the media world, presents another opportunity for

Don Cherry to articulate Canadian identity via intensified commercial messages surrounding the show. As Fairclough (1995) points out, “media are being more fully drawn into operating on a market basis [and] one part of that is greater pressure to entertain”(Fairclough, 1995: 11). The audience is ultimately constructed as a customer group and the relationship established between the presenter and the audience might be perceived as the seller-customer relationship. It can be argued that this conceptual shift in contemporary media language creates a new domain merging the shift towards the consumer model and the need to entertain into one mode that the thesis proposes could be characterized as ‘commertainment.’ The notion of ‘commertainment’ is based on the link between the naturalized necessity of advertising present in the media and the commodification of entertainment as a profitable element driven by consumption. This establishment entails a new arrangement in the category of relations for the audience as

58 the audience garners a lot of attention from the advertisers who intentionally try to construct a sort of ‘imagined community’ of fans and thus articulate a collective sphere of ‘we’ (Fairclough, 1995).

According to Holt (2006), corporate brands are often viewed as symbols that help to organize collective identities and function as expressions of a particular national discourse. Coupland (2002) points out that “[b]eer is still the most ruthless product category when it comes to manipulating Canadian imagery to further its own aims” (7).

Even though Fuller (2002) suggest that the whole Hockey Night in Canada program is considered by advertisers as a nation-wide phenomenon and it is targeted as such in terms of commercial interests, Coach’s Corner has a specialized partnership deal with a brewing company33 and beer commercials thus play an important role in the show’s framework. Nonetheless, the beer references on Coach’s Corner have little to do with the intrinsic property of a particular product, but they are tied to a national identity and the audience is able to experience the national “myth via consumption” (Holt, 2006:

375). In the end, this corporal portrayal of Canadian identity might help to establish the sense of common experience and reaffirm Canadian identity for the audience (Allain,

2011) as commercials that are regularly part of the show feature “active young people

(women as well as men) usually in an outdoor setting and often involved in some form of sport or recreational activity” (Fuller, 2002: 191). The following extracts illustrate the presence of ‘commertainment’ on Coach’s Corner alongside the promotion of

Canadian identity by Don Cherry and Ron MacLean.

Ext. 30 (Coach’s Corner episode on 6 February 2016) 1 [cheering crowd behind] 2 DC: Is that terrific or what? (.) I’m telling you that’s why I’m wearing this jacket

33 For more information see: http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49447-Budweiser-signs- multiyear-deal-with-Hockey-Night-in-Canadas-Coachs-Corner.html 59

3 RM: A:nd that’s your specialty (.) beer commercials 4 DC: You better believe it my type of guys

Ext. 31 (Coach’s Corner episode on 19 March 2016) 1 RM: Canada’s goal light is going to the North Pole we all know for the World Cup 2 seen the a:ds and they see your jacket and I wonder how much money you’re 3 making coz [it seems that you are really into this 4 DC: [I AM NOT MAKING ANY MONEY ON THIS JUST MAKE 5 SURE OF THIS NOW [pictures of Cherry promoting the event] I don’t get paid 6 for this I do it of the good of my heart Canada

Ext. 32 (Coach’s Corner episode on 19 March 2016) 1 [goal siren going off] 2 RM: It’s going on the North Pole we should all buy in look at Don (.) he’d buy polar 3 On a Coach’s Corner on Hockey Night in Canada

Extract 30 presents an unusual setup in Coach’s Corner as both Don Cherry and

Ron MacLean participate in an event called Hockey Day in Canada organized for local communities across Canada. There was built a special temporary studio outside for this episode and both co-hosts are only separated by the glass from the cheering audience.

This setup is possibly aimed to create a collective experience for the audience.

Additionally, the beer commercial that immediately precedes the show’s intro alongside the fact that it is connected to Canada’s favourite pastime should potentially evoke the sense of collective participation and the sense of togetherness not only for the audience present ‘on the show,’ but also for the audience watching it on TV. Finally, when

MacLean points out that beer commercials are Cherry’s specialty (Ext. 30 line 3),

Cherry as if reinforces and accentuates the notion of Canadian identity being articulated through the combination of beer commercials and the game of hockey (Ext. 30 line 4), i.e. through the entertainment value of participation in a collective activity easily identifiable for the Canadian audience.

60

Extract 31 and Extract 32 show the beginning and the very end, respectively, of episode promoting the World Cup of Hockey through brewery sponsorship. Similarly to

Extract 30, both co-hosts indicate that beer, the game of hockey, and Canada are inseparable entities. First, when Ron MacLean introduces the information that a goal light is going to the North Pole as part of a beer company campaign, he explicitly mentions that the goal light is Canadian and that everybody, including the audience, knows that because of the ads they have seen (Ext. 31 lines 1 and 2). This specific appeal to the Canadian audience again establishes a communal sphere of ‘we’ and a sense of shared experience between the presenters and the audience. Cherry then claims that the promotion he does for the event is because he wants Canadian national team to succeed (Ext. 31 line 6). Even though this might only be related to Cherry’s support of the Canadian team, MacLean gives it a commercial tone at the end (Ext. 32 line 2).

Typically, MacLean closes any episode by a pun-like line connected to something discussed earlier. In this instance, however, the closing line might be perceived as a commercial slogan encouraging the Canadian audience (previously established) to support the Canadian team by buying the beer product.

According to Fuller (2002), the association of certain attitudes and values with

Canada has been (rightly or wrongly) exploited by the advertisers on Coach’s Corner.

In any case, the current tendencies of media language being ‘marketized’ and the need to entertain the audience open up another platform that allows both Don Cherry and

Ron MacLean to appeal to the Canadian audience and negotiate collective identity.

61

6. Conclusion

The concept of identity has gained much prominence in scholarly research over the last few decades. However, there has not only been surveyed individual identity, but the concept of national identity has been investigated as well alongside the means employed to articulate national identities. In terms of national identity discourse, the focus has been on strategies and devices that contribute, on the one hand, to the construction of national similarities and national uniqueness and, on the other hand, to the differentiation from other nations and other collective groups. In this sense, the mass media is one of the most prominent domains for studying national presentation and representation. The present thesis specifically aimed to analyze the discursive construction of Canadian identity. Coach’s Corner, a longest running program in

Canadian television, was selected as a representative platform that provided data for the analysis. We then focused predominantly on articulation of Canadian identity by Don

Cherry, a co-host of the show and one of the most famous Canadians.

In the theoretical part of the thesis, we have first described the concepts of individual and collective identities and we pointed out that they are fluid and dynamic phenomena and they are discursively constructed according to contextual setting. Then, we have paid attention to Canadian identity in particular and we have pointed out that, due to the heterogeneity of the nation, it is difficult to exactly delineate quintessential

Canadian qualities. Nevertheless, we have shown that, as the sports world is generally considered as one of the purveyors of national identity and national discourse, the game of hockey functions as a ready indicator of Canadian identity. Moreover, we have described the analyzed materials more closely in the theoretical part. First of all, we introduced the Coach’s Corner show, which is a fixture in Canadian television and one

62 of the most watched shows in Canada on a weekly basis. The success of the show, however, is immediately connected to Don Cherry, a former National Hockey League coach turned hockey pundit, who is a well-recognized figure among Canadians nowadays.

In the latter part of the theoretical section, we have introduced the methodological approach of the thesis. The thesis mainly has drawn on CDA as a qualitative research method that enables to uncover hidden meanings and social relations in the examined data. In addition, complementary concepts such as Bell’s

(1984) audience-design and Hutchby’s (2006) binary oppositions have been presented and subsequently applied in the analytical part. The data for the analysis has been collected throughout the National Hockey League 2015/2016 regular season when

Coach’s Corner airs weekly on Saturday night. The collected videos have been examined and transcribed for the analysis.

The analytical part follows-up with a more thorough description of audience- design as defined by Bell (1984) and adds the notion of referee-design. We have shown that these phenomena of communicative setup influence the position of a speaker towards the audience. First, we have argued that this for Don Cherry presents an opportunity to identify the Canadian audience as a target group and, if needed, modify forms of addressing it. Essentially, this creates an ambivalent relationship. On the one hand, the audience has an impact on Cherry’s discourse. On the other hand, Cherry tries to persuade the audience to accept his views. Ultimately, we have argued that this helps

Cherry to establish an in-group framework for the Canadian audience.

In the next part, we have analyzed specific instances of the construction of

Canadian identity by Don Cherry. First, Cherry’s references to Canadian regions in connection to Canadian players are one of the prominent features that occur regularly on

63 the show. We have suggested that by reiterating regional affiliation and by linking it to specific Canadian hockey players, Cherry creates what Anderson (1991) calls ‘an imagined community.’ In this sense, even though individual members of the Canadian audience will not be able to meet each other nor visit every region across the country mentioned by Cherry, they will likely be able to identify with people from a particular community as the referred places are well-known to them. On the other hand, we have shown that Cherry almost exclusively omits regional references when talking about non-Canadian players and thus creates a rather inclusive situation for Canadians and a rather exclusive one for the ‘others.’

In addition, we have illustrated this application of the ‘us versus them’ dichotomy as proposed by Teun van Dijk (2000) in the next two sub-chapters. We have argued that Cherry creates contrasting discourses of, on the one hand, positive presentation of the members of the in-group and, on the other hand, negative presentation of the members of the out-group. Also, we have shown that this conceptual polarization is noticeable in situations when Don Cherry assigns certain qualities that are considered to be positive to the members of the in-group, whereas the negative qualities are attached to the members of the out-group.

In the next sections, we have presented a variety of elements that are traceable in

Cherry’s discourse. Specifically, we have shown that there are discernible features from expert, lay, ordinary, and political discourses in Cherry’s presentation. We have suggested, however, that each of these discourses functions similarly, i.e. they contribute to Cherry’s effort to establish an inclusive framework for the Canadian audience.

Finally, we have described a current tendency of contemporary media language as a factor in identity articulation. Based on the tension between entertainment value

64 and commodification and commercialization of media as explained by Fairclough

(1995), we have proposed a term ‘commertainment’ that is reflective of the described situation in contemporary media. Subsequently, this shift brings about a slight change in a relationship between the audience and the presenter as the audience is cast into the customer role. At the same time, it opens another domain for the presenters on Coach’s

Corner to appeal specifically to the Canadian audience and thus construct collective experience.

To conclude, the analysis has shown mainly two things. First, Don Cherry negotiates Canadian identity by polarizing the positive qualities of the in-group members and the negative qualities of out-group members. Second, the position of the audience remains relatively stable, except for consumer-seller relationship related to commercialization of media language, and it is constantly approached as the Canadian audience in order to construct a collective Canadian identity. On the other hand, the position of the presenter in the discursive setup changes as individual aspects appropriated from various discourses help Don Cherry to articulate the sense of national identity.

65

References

Adams, J. T. (1941). The Epic of America. New York: Blue Ribbon Books.

Allain, K. A. (2010). Kid Crosby or Golden Boy: Sidney Crosby, Canadian National

Identity, and the Policing of Hockey Masculinity. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport, 46(1), 3-22.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. London: Verso.

Bell, A. (1984). Language Style as Audience Design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145-204.

Blake, J. (2010). Canadian Hockey Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bonner, F. (2003). Ordinary Television: Analyzing Popular TV. London: Sage.

Bouzane, B. (2011, May 17). Coach's Corner Altering National Identity? Study

Explores Don Cherry's Influence. Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/

technology/Coach+Corner+altering+national+identity+Study+explores+Cherry+

influence/4799224/story.html

Broadcasting Act 1991, c. 11 (1991). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/

acts/B-9.01/page-1.html

Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1985, c. 24. (1988). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.

justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-18.7/page-1.html

CBS News. (2006, November 7). Don Cherry Cheered, Booed at House of Commons.

Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/don-cherry-cheered-booed-at-

house-of-commons-1.626853

66

Cormack, P. & Cosgrave, J. F. (2013). Desiring Canada: CBC Contests, Hockey Violence,

and Other Stately Pleasures. Retrieved from https://books.google.cz/books?id=

WRib-QpCVRMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs#v=onepage&q&f=false

Coupland, D. (2002). Souvenir of Canada. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre

Dummy. (2016). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/

view/Entry/58408?rskey=JKeUtv&result=1#eid

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Hodder Arnold.

Farrell, E. J. (2008). Negotiating Identity: Discourses of Migration and Belonging

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.languageonthemove.

com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FarrellPhDMigrationBelonging.pdf

Frey, J. H. & Eitzen, S. D. (1991). Sport and Society. Annual Review of Sociology, 17,

503-522.

Frow, J. (2006). Genre. London: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday

Anchor Books.

Goldstein, J.H. (Ed.) (2009). Sports, Games, and Play: Social and Psychological

Viewpoints (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://books.google.cz/books?

id=yKNMmmec8jgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs&source=gbs_ge_summary_r

&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

67

Harvey, J. (2006). Whose Sweater Is This? The Changing Meanings of Hockey in

Quebec. In D. Whitson & R. Gruneau (Eds.), Artificial Ice: Hockey, Culture,

and Commerce (pp. 29-52). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2006). Discourse Analysis and Content Analysis. In M. Gillespie & J.

Toynbee (Eds.), Analysing Media Texts (pp. 119-156). Berkshire: Open University

Holt, D. B. (2006). Jack Daniel’s America: Iconic Brands as Ideological Parasites and

Proselytizers. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6(3), 355-377.

Hughes-Fuller. H. P. (2002). The Good Old Game: Hockey, Nostalgia, Identity

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/

obj/s4/f2/dsk4/etd/NQ81202.PDF

Hutchby, I. (2006). Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Identity. (2016). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/

view/Entry/91004?redirectedFrom=identity#eid

Joseph, J. (2004). Language and Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ladeegard, H. J. (2012). The Discourse of Powerlessness and Repression: Identity Constru-

ction in Domestic Helper Narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(4), 450-482.

Lefkowitz, D. (1996). On the Mediation of Class, Race & Gender: Intonation on Sports

Radio Talk Shows. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics,

3(1), 197-211.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum

68

Maguire, J.A. (2011). Globalization, Sport, and National Identities. Sport in Society,

14(7-8), 978-993.

Montgomery, M. (2007). The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach.

London and New York: Routledge.

Montville, L. (1993, March 29). Cherry BOMBS. Retrieved from http://www.si.com/

vault/1993/03/29/128276/cherry-bombs-don-cherry-part-rush-limbaugh-and-

part-dick-vitale-is-loud-abrasive-volatile----and-the-most-popular-television-

personality-in-canada

Robertson, M. A. (2005). How the Language of Television News Broadcasting is

Shaped by Audience Design. Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/

fss/courses/ling/ling201/res/diss/robertson.pdf

Robidoux, M. A. (2002). Imagining Canadian Identity through Sport: A Historical

Interpretation of Lacrosse and Hockey. The Journal of American Folklore,

115(456), 209-225.

Scherer, J. & Whitson, D. (2009). Public Broadcasting, Sport, and Cultural Citizenship:

The Future of Sport on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? International

Review for the Sociology of Sport, 44(2-3), 213-229.

Schirato, T. (2013). Sports Discourse. London: Bloomsbury.

Shoalts, D. (2014, November 13). Cherry, Rogers off to Rocky Start in Hockey Night in

Canada Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/

hockey/cherry-rogers-off-to-a-rocky-start-in-hockey-night-in-canada-partnership/

article21530178/

69

Smith, P., Evens, T & Iosofidis, P. (2015). The Regulation of Television Sports Broad-

casting: A comparative Analysis. Media, Culture & Society, 1-17.

Sparling, D. (2016, April). Multiculturalism and Integration of Immigrants in Canada.

Speech presented at Canada Days in Brno, Brno, CZE.

Stiff. (2016). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/

Entry/190210?rskey=R4O7LB&result=2#eid

The Canadian Press. (2013, January 18). Budweiser Signs Multi-Year Deal with Hockey

Night in Canada’s Coach’s Corner. Retrieved from http://www.thehockeynews.

com/articles/49447-Budweiser-signs-multiyear-deal-with-Hockey-Night-in-

Canadas-Coachs-Corner.html

Tolson, A. (2006). Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies: A Multi-

disciplinary Introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Van Dijk, T. (2000). New(s) Racism: A Discourse Analytical Approach. In S. Cottle

(Ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries (pp. 33-

49). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(2), 359-383.

Van Dijk, T. (2009). Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach. Retrieved

from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20studies.pdf

70

Weedon, C. (2004). Identity and Culture. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Whannel, G. (2002). Media Sports Stars: Masculinities and Moralities. London: Routledge.

Wodak, R., de Cilia, R., Reisigl, M. & Liebhart, K. (Eds.). (2009). The Discursive

Construction of National Identity. (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://books.

google.cz/books?id=W5ccx_uVfg0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs#v=onepage&

q&f=false

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001). Critical Discourse Studies: History, Agenda, Theory

and Methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.). Methods of Critical

Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-22). London: Sage Publications.

Videos:

Captain Canada. (2014, November 8). HNIC - Don Cherry Coach's Corner. November

8th 2014. (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9hTBh1zdn4

HardcoreSteelheader. (2015, October 10). HNIC - Don Cherry Coach's Corner October

10th 2015 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8gPFvMwdl4

HardcoreSteelheader. (2015, October 17). HNIC - Don Cherry Coach's Corner October

17th 2015 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tFy3H3BnaA

71

HardcoreSteelheader. (2015, October 24). HNIC - Don Cherry Coach's Corner October

24th 2015. Blue Jays Got Stiffed. (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7PzS1A08Wg

HardcoreSteelheader. (2015, October 31). Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner. Happy

Halloween! October 31st 2015 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXFj-1wa4E

HardcoreSteelheader. (2015, November 7). Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner November

7th 2015. McDavid Injured on Purpose (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5slfRY8Z0Ts

HardcoreSteelheader. (2015, December 12). HNIC – Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner

December 12th 2015 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoK3C-aAbmA

HardcoreSteelheader. (2015, December 19). HNIC – Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner

December 19th 2015 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi6tj8_BM8c

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, January 1). HNIC – Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner Winter

Classic January 1st 2016 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsgV-eSgyRY

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, January 2). HNIC – Don Cherry’s Coach’s January 2nd

2016 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u082P6GAU1k

72

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, January 23). HNIC – Don Cherry’s Coach’s January 23rd

2016 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK2UTFYe_Is

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, February 6). HNIC – Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner Hockey

Day in Canada February 6th 2016 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWpB0BAepf0

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, February 27). Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner February

27th 2016 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsINx8iZUTo

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, March 5). Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner March 5th 2016

(HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGSTPvSLWMw

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, March 12). Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner March 12th

2016 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYWK1SOMX2E

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, March 19). Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner March 19th

2016 (HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwpCuqiK78E

HardcoreSteelheader. (2016, April 9). Don Cherry’s Coach’s Corner April 9th 2016

(HD) [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRHNVehh7Ag

73

English Summary

The aim of the thesis is to analyze discursive strategies employed to articulate

Canadian identity in the media. Specifically, the thesis focuses on Coach’s Corner, currently a longest running television program in Canada, and its main personality –

Don Cherry.

The thesis is divided into two parts – theoretical and analytical. In the theoretical part, the concepts of identity and national identity are discussed. Moreover, the thesis examines Canadian identity in particular. Also, it mentions the role of sports and the media world in articulation of national discourse. Finally, the analyzed materials (i.e. the Coach’s Corner show and Don Cherry as its main figure) and the methodological concepts are introduced. The analysis is mainly inspired by Critical Discourse Analysis, which presents a qualitative research method based on interpretation of language and social relations. Additional methodological concepts are described in this part as well.

The analytical part consists of two main parts. The first section (Chapter 4) deals with the discursive framework on the show and inspects the means that help Don

Cherry negotiate an in-group identity for the Canadian audience. The second part

(Chapter 5) examines a wide array of elements mixed from various discourses that help

Don Cherry to construct a collective Canadian identity. Furthermore, the thesis explores the phenomenon of positive presentation of the in-group members in comparison with the negative presentation of the out-group members and how this conceptual polarization employed by Cherry helps him to articulate Canadian identity.

Finally, the thesis observes a current tendency to move towards entertainment and commercial interests in contemporary media language, which the thesis has proposed to be called ‘commertainment,’ and how this factors in articulation of

Canadian identity on the show. Lastly, all findings are summarized in the conclusion.

74

Resumé

Cílem této diplomové práce je analyzovat strategie diskurzu sloužící k artikulaci kanadské identity v médiích. Konkrétně se tato práce soustředí na pořad s názvem

Coach’s Corner, v současnosti nejdéle běžící televizní program v Kanadě, a jeho hlavního představitele Dona Cherryho.

Diplomová práce je rozdělena do dvou částí, teoretické a praktické. Teoretická

část představuje koncepty identity a národní identity, především se pak zaobírá kanadskou národní identitou. Dále se v teoretické části práce zkoumá role sportu a médií v artikulaci národního diskurzu. Materiály, které jsou předmětem analýzy (tzn. pořad Coach’s Corner a jeho hlavní postava Don Cherry), jsou představeny v její další

části, stejně jako i metodologie výzkumu. Práce je postavena především na kritické analýze diskurzu (CDA) jakožto kvalitativní metodě zkoumající interpretaci jazyka a sociálních vztahů. Tato metoda je pak doplněna několika dalšími koncepty, které jsou též představeny v teoretické části.

Analytická část se skládá ze dvou větších sekcí. První (tj. kapitola 4.) se zabývá diskurzivní strukturou pořadu a zkoumá prostředky, které pomáhají Donu Cherrymu vytvořit inkluzivní prostředí pro kanadské publikum. Druhá část (tj. kapitola 5.) zkoumá

široké spektrum prvků ze specializovaných diskurzů a také způsob, jakým tyto prvky pomáhají Cherrymu vytvořit kolektivní kanadskou identitu. Dále pak práce v této části zkoumá fenomén pozitivní prezentace členů cílové skupiny v porovnání s negativní prezentací členů mimo ni. Dále pak práce zjišťuje, jak konceptualizace tohoto rozdělení pomáhá Cherrymu v artikulaci kanadské identity.

Poslední část práce zmiňuje současné tendence jazyka médií, jenž směřuje ke komerčním zájmům a nutnosti zaujmout a pobavit diváka, a také popisuje, jak se toto odráží v artikulaci kanadské identity. Práce navrhuje pro tento směr termín

„commertainment“. Všechny výsledky analýzy jsou pak shrnuty v závěru. 75

Appendix

Transcription conventions (Tolson, 2006) ( ) If empty, indicates unclear portions of text. [ ] Back channel behavior which does not amount to a turn at talk. Description of non-verbal behavior or visual information. (1,5) Length of pause in seconds. ( . ) Pause of less than .5 seconds. = Indicates that utterance follows immediately on previous utterance, or is latched to separate parts of a continuous utterance by the same speaker. [ Indicates the point at which overlap with another speaker begins. >….< ‘More than’ and ‘less than’ signs indicate that the talk they encompass was spoken noticeably quicker than the surrounding talk. word- Hyphen indicates word has been cut off sharply. word Underlining indicates stress given to word or syllable. WORD Uppercase letters indicate increased volume. sho::w Colons indicate lengthening of vowel sound. . Terminal falling intonation. , Brief pause (‘list’ intonation). ? Rising intonation. ! Excited intonation. .hh Audible intake of breath. hh Audible exhalation. heh Laugh token. hhhhh Extended laughter. Where appropriate for the analysis, the length of the laughter response in seconds is indicated in parentheses.

76