R. De Vries Title of Document: Cake and Critique: 'Power'
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ENGELSE TAAL EN CULTUUR Teacher who will receive this document: R. De Vries Title of document: Cake and Critique: ‘power’ full ingredients Name of course: BA THESIS Taalkunde Date of submission:15 June 2016 The work submitted here is the sole responsibility of the undersigned, who has neither committed plagiarism nor colluded in its production. Name of student: Minouck Jonkers Student number: s4106520 Jonkers, s4106520/1 Cake and critique: ‘power’ full ingredients A comparison of power and politeness between the British judges of The Great British Bake Off and the Dutch judges of Heel Holland Bakt Bachelor Thesis Minouck Jonkers (s4106520) [email protected] Supervisor: dr. R. de Vries Second reader: dr. J. Geenen 15 June 2016 Engelse Taal en Cultuur Radboud University Nijmegen Jonkers, s4106520/2 Table of content 1. Introducing the judges ..................................................................................................3 2. Abstract .........................................................................................................................4 3. Introduction ...................................................................................................................5 4. Theoretical background ................................................................................................8 4.1 About the Bake Off format .............................................................................8 4.2 Critical discourse analysis ...............................................................................9 4.3 Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory on politeness ....................................... 12 4.3.1 Face ............................................................................................... 12 4.3.2 Negative and positive politeness strategies ..................................... 13 4.4 Background on the four politeness strategies ................................................. 17 4.4.1 British I think and its Dutch counterparts ik vind and ik denk ......... 17 4.4.2 Dutch discourse particle hè and British question-tags .................... 18 4.4.3 British and Dutch softeners and strengtheners................................ 19 5. Data collection and methodology ................................................................................ 21 5.1 Data collection ............................................................................................... 21 5.2 Methodology ................................................................................................. 21 5.3 Independent t-test .......................................................................................... 23 6. The results.................................................................................................................... 24 6.1 Authority markers I think versus ik vind, and non-authority markers I think versus ik denk ...................................................................................... 25 6.2 Discourse particle hè versus question tags ...................................................... 28 6.3 Positive and negative softeners and strengtheners .......................................... 31 7. Analysis and discussion ............................................................................................... 35 7.1 Authority markers I think versus ik vind, and non-authority markers I think versus ik denk ..................................................................................... 35 7.2 Discourse particle hè versus question-tags ..................................................... 37 7.3 Positive and negative softeners and strengtheners .......................................... 39 7.4 Responses of contestants ................................................................................ 40 8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 43 9. References .................................................................................................................... 47 10. Appendices ................................................................................................................... 50 Jonkers, s4106520/3 1. Introducing the judges The Great British Bake Off Paul Hollywood “Paul Hollywood is one of the UK’s leading artisan bakers. The son of a baker, Paul originally trained as a sculptor until his father persuaded him to change careers. By combining his love of sculpting and baking, Paul established himself as an innovator” (Paul Hollywood). Mary Berry “With nearly sixty years cooking experience, Mary Berry is considered to be the doyenne of baking. Having learnt the art of baking from her mother, Mary quickly established as a leading cookery writer and broadcaster. She has published 70 cookery books” (Mary Berry). Heel Holland Bakt Robèrt van Beckhoven Robèrt van Beckhoven, a master pastry chef, is also known for his role as judge in the children’s programme CupCakeCup, and has earned the title of ‘Master Boulanger’ for his exceptional bread-baking skills (Robèrt van Beckhoven). Janny van der Heijden As a culinary journalist, Janny van der Heijden has written many articles for various newspapers and culinary magazines. She is also chief editor of her own culinary paper ‘Tip Culinair’, and has publisched several cookery books (Janny van der Heijden). Jonkers, s4106520/4 2. Abstract The aim of this research was to investigate how power and politeness are operationalised in the two strongly authority-ridden contexts The Great British Bake Off and its Dutch counterpart Heel Holland Bakt, and to examine how authority is established when comparing its British judges Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry to their Dutch colleagues Robèrt van Beckhoven and Janny van der Heijden. Through a quantitative analysis, the frequency of four politeness strategies, used by the judges, were compared to each other. The four politeness strategies under scrutiny were British I think and its Dutch counterparts ik vind and ik denk, Dutch discourse particle hè and British question-tags, and British as well as Dutch softeners (e.g. Br: pretty; D: best wel) and strengtheners (e.g. Br: very; D: heel). These politeness strategies were examined in order to find out which of these strategies contributed to establishing authority. There is a common belief that the British are less direct and more polite than the Dutch. Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that the British are indirect because of their tendency to use negative politeness strategies. However, Mellaard (2008) contends that the Dutch also make considerable use of negative politeness strategies. Negative politeness strategies can be interpreted as facilitating understatement. This study suggests that the British judges show more authority in their discursive actions than their Dutch colleagues, but not because of the Dutch judges’ frequent use of negative politeness strategies, as what might be suggested when considering Mellaard’s (2008) argument. Hence, this study is not in line with Mellaard’s (2008) argument, nor with Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory. Keywords: power, authority, politeness, face, Brown and Levinson (1987), critical discourse analysis, male and female variation, Bake Off genre, opinion markers, discourse particle hè, question-tags, softeners, strengtheners, (in)directness, negative politeness, positive politeness, British, Dutch. Jonkers, s4106520/5 3. Introduction Twelve amateur bakers compete with each other before the eyes of the entire nation for the title of UK’s Best Amateur Baker in The Great British Bake Off (henceforth: GBBO). The talent show, which first aired on BBC in 2010, has had tremendous success, with around twelve million viewers for its last series (Colan, 2015). Following GBBO’s success story, many countries, such as Brazil, Denmark, Turkey, and The Netherlands, have created their own national version of the show (Higgins, 2015). GBBO has a very odd communicative setting, since the tent, where the baking takes place, is a habitat site for two hosts, two judges, and twelve baking competitors, “young and old, from every background and every corner of Britain” (About the show). The light and humorous tone of the show is carried by its two hosts Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc, who celebrate the joy and pleasure that baking can give. However, there is also a climate of fear as the baking involves a race against time, soggy bottoms and a face-off in front of two baking experts, Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry, who the entire British population considers to be the crème-de-la-crème of the professional baking world. Although the media have written about Paul and Mary, their language has never been the subject of discourse analysis. Their Dutch colleagues in the Dutch counterpart of GBBO, Heel Holland Bakt (henceforth: HHB), Robèrt van Beckhoven and Janny van der Heijden have also never been under academic scrutiny. Jury-assessed contexts, like GBBO and HHB, are fascinating shows to examine as they always have an inherent imbalance of power. The bakes of the contestants are assessed by the judges. They have the power to decide which candidate will be eliminated, and which contestants will be one step closer to winning the grand prize. Since GBBO and HHB are strongly authority-ridden, it would be interesting to examine how authority is established in both shows. Furthermore, there is also a common belief that the British are indirect and more polite in comparison to the Dutch who are stereotyped