1 s2.0 S0378216612002676 Main

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
An approach to the hosts discursive style in Spanish

testimony talk shows
Monica Aznrez-Mauleon a,b,*
a
School of Language Studies, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University,
Baldessin Precinct Building, ACT 0200, Australia
b
Departamento de Filologa y Didctica de la Lengua, Universidad Pblica de Navarra, Edificio Los Magnolios,
Campus Arrosada, 31006 Pamplona, Spain
Received 2 February 2012; received in revised form 29 October 2012; accepted 4 November 2012
Abstract
The present paper focuses on a particular kind of TV talk show: one that, in view of its longevity and audience size, may be said to be
very successful with TV viewers in Spain. The host in this style of programme is in one sense the key participant, controlling and guiding
conversation with and between guests. The analysis of two different programmes featuring four different hosts has shown that there are
certain linguistic patterns that are systematically used by all of them and that directly relate to their role and their goals as managers of this
kind of show. This paper focuses on the most pervasive patterns that appear in the main section of the programme: the host--guest
interactions. It argues that there is a particular discursive style that is role-related and that the hosts strategically use to achieve certain
goals through the show.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: TV talk shows; Media discourse; Role performance; Spanish pragmatics
1. Introduction
In analysing TV talk shows, scholars in media studies often focus on external parameters---features such as
the topic, the participants, audience targets, production---adopting what we might call a macro-perspective. This kind
of description can be greatly enriched by an analysis of an essential component in most broadcast products,
particularly in this kind of programme: the use of language.1 In fact, these shows only means of entertaining and of
attracting the audiences attention are the host--guest conversations. This suggests that TV talk shows in general,
and Spanish testimony talk shows (STTSs from now on) in particular, are shaped by how language is used in the
interaction between participants and that a description of the linguistic features found in them will illuminate our
understanding of their nature. The present paper therefore proceeds from a description of this subgenre, drawing on
relevant research in media studies, ethnography of communication, and sociology of interaction, to a pragmatic
analysis of the discourse of the participant holding the power, the host, using evidence of devices that four such
hosts---in two shows representative of the subgenre---commonly use in interacting with their guests. It expands upon
* Corresponding author at: Departamento de Filologa y Didctica de la Lengua, Universidad Pblica de Navarra, Edificio Los Magnolios,
Campus Arrosada, 31006 Pamplona, Spain. Tel.: +34 948 169509; fax: +34 948 169463.
E-mail addresses: monica.aznarez@unavarra.es, mon.aznarez@gmail.com.
1
The importance of linguistic analysis in the study of media has been pointed out by Fairclough (1995), who highlighted the need to see
language analysis as one of a range of types of analysis that need to be applied together to the mass media.
0378-2166/$ -- see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.001
M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73
51
the description and analysis of STTSs begun in Aznrez (2008), which examined editions of the one programme, with
a single host.
The general framework adopted in the study is that of the ethnography of communication and the sociology of
interaction, which highlights the importance of understanding context before interpreting text. In order to understand the
context of host--guest interactions in STTSs, a study of the relevant components---such as participants, roles, and goals--of the speech event under analysis was carried out, based on previous literature on talk shows. Thus, following scholars
such as Penz (1996), Thornborrow (1997, 2007), Ilie (1999, 2001), Tolson (2001), Gregori-Signes (1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, 2005) and Lorenzo-Dus (2005, 2009), I consider STTSs as a species of broadcast talk that has patterns in common
with everyday conversation but that is produced in an institutional setting for an overhearing audience. This idea has two
main implications. First, role distribution is asymmetrical, with the host at the top of the hierarchy of participants (see Ilie,
2001:230). Second, because it is always oriented to an overhearing audience, this talk is always performed in ways
intended to be acceptable to that audience (Tolson, 2001:29). As Tolson explains, not only must the participants talk
generally in ways that are acceptable to that audience (or else they will switch off), but also the talk has several specific
features which are designed for that audience to relate to (Tolson, 2001:28). Based on these ideas, the present study
understands that STTS hosts performances aim to attain a number of goals for the primary purpose of entertaining the
audience. Moreover, following Norricks (2010:525--526) perspective on talk-show hosts behaviour, this paper assumes
that there is a range of discursive patterns characteristic of the hosts role in STTSs---in other words, a particular discursive
style or role register 2 ---in which he/she engages to achieve those goals. This study focuses on those expressions and
tokens that four different hosts in a kind of programme---the Spanish testimony talk show---have used repeatedly and
strategically and that the literature suggests have not yet received thorough analysis from this perspective.
The decision of giving priority to the study of the hosts discourse arises from the fact that STTSs, as other talk shows
are, are host-centred programmes (Timberg, 1994:272), in which hosts play a predominant role as the representatives of
the institution. The present data show that the same salient linguistic devices can be found in the discourse of four different
hosts of two different shows, and that, in contrast, they are absent in the discourse of the other participants in the
interactions---the guests. Although there are personal differences, they all use the same devices in similar contexts and for
the same purposes, so it seems that all four hosts share the same discursive style. This fact suggests, in keeping with the
abovementioned studies, first, that there is a role register attached to the hosts performance in STTSs; second, that those
features are not casual but strategic; and, third, that each shows host and executive producers perceive the common
devices to be contributing to the shows appeal to its audience.
I will begin by describing STTSs as a subgenre within the broad category of TV talk shows and outlining the data and
the methodology that this analysis uses; and then describe the hosts role and goals, which will guide interpretation of the
data. Finally, I will present the results and discuss the discursive features appearing in the hosts interaction with guests.
The discussion will demonstrate how the host uses these devices to attain his/her goals and to successfully perform his/
her role in the show.
2. Studying Spanish testimony talk shows
The Spanish programas de testimonio (testimony talk shows) started to be produced and broadcast in the nineties,3
long after the genre of tabloid, or confessional, talk shows started in the U.S. and the U.K. Although their origin can be
found in this kind of English-speaking television programme, there are actually some differences that show that Spanish
testimony talk shows such as Esta es mi gente and El Diario de Patricia are not merely a copy of those but have been
adapted and designed to target their audience in Spain. These differences suggest that we should consider these
programmes a separate subgenre of talk show.
According to Shattuc (2001:84), the genre of the tabloid (or confessional) talk show, of which he uses The Oprah
Winfrey Show, Geraldo, The Phil Donahue Show, and Sally Jessie Rapha l as prototypic examples, can be defined
through five basic characteristics:
(1) It is issue-oriented: the content emanates from social problems or personal matters that have social currency, such as
rape, drug use, or sex change.
(2) It is distinguished by the centrality of active audience participation.
(3) It is structured around the moral authority and educated knowledge of a host and/or expert who mediates between
guests and audience.
2
3
As Brown and Fraser (1979:51) explain, there is suggestive evidence that distinguishable speech registers belong to different roles.
According to Lacalle Zalduendo (2000:84), the first STTS started in 1996 and was called Ana.
52
(4) It is constructed for a female audience (though less so since the mid nineties).
(5) It is usually an hour-long syndicated programme produced by non-network production companies to be sold, for
broadcast, to television stations.
STTSs are also issue-oriented, but, unlike Shattucs example shows topics, their topics are not social problems or
matters of social currency. Although we may find some commonality between topics discussed in tabloid talk shows and
on STTSs,4 the latter focus on the anecdotal and on light matters much more limited to the private sphere. It is often the
case that a title relates directly to the guests stories or personal experiences. For example, some of the titles in these data
are I live with a stranger, Neighbour, I come to give you a dose of your own medicine, Now I can face you, and Help
me to recover my past. As we can see, most of the topics cannot be considered socially relevant. Moreover, the fact that
the topic often takes the point of view of the guests (using the first-person singular) indicates its treatment as a personal
matter.
A more crucial point on which STTSs differ from tabloid talk shows is that the studio audience never participates. Its role
during the event is limited to clapping, cheering, and whistling when a guest comes into or leaves the studio, or reacting,
mostly with laughter, to what happens at certain stages between host and guests. It is there to provide a lively atmosphere,
helping the TV viewers to get involved in what is happening, a similar effect to the one that Harris (1994:36) attributes to
laugh tracks in sitcoms. Using Brenneiss distinction as quoted by Duranti (1985:211), we may consider the audience in
the studio the secondary audience or the spectators, who provide both evaluation and an element of control; and the one
watching the show on TV, at whom the performance is chiefly aimed, the primary audience. In most of the programmes
recorded for this study, the secondary audience, that is, the audience in the studio, comprises very young people.
Unfortunately, data were unavailable on the composition of STTSs primary audience, but we can presume that it is quite
varied, because, unlike other talk shows,5 they broadcast at a time of day when anybody could be watching. The fact that
they have been so successful suggests that the primary audience is not restricted to a particular social group.
The final significant difference between STTSs and tabloid talk shows is the absence of experts who have authority
to address a particular topic and challenge guests views. This also explains why STTSs are oriented not towards public or
social debate but rather towards a mere display of personal stories.6 In sum, STTSs are basically devoted to the
interaction between the host and his or her guests, the former being the addressor or interviewer and the institutions
representative; the latter, the addressees or interviewees, being ordinary men and women of all ages, of medium to low
level of education,7 who come either to tell their personal stories or to share their problems and get some help.
Some scholars in pragmatics and discourse analysis have been analysing American and/or British tabloid talk shows
since the mid nineties (Penz, 1996; Thornborrow, 1997, 2007; Ilie, 1999, 2001; Tolson, 2001; Gregori-Signes, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2005; Rama Martnez, 2003; Garca Gomez, 2000, 2007; Lorenzo-Dus, 2005, 2009). STTSs have not
received the same scholarly attention---except for some analysis coming from media studies, such as that by Lacalle
Zalduendo (2000)---perhaps because it was assumed that they are not very different from tabloid talk shows. Only other
kinds of Spanish talk shows, such as the so-called Tertulias (discussion panels broadcast mainly in the morning) (see
Garca Gomez, 2000; Brenes Pena, 2011) and a more recent wave of evening/night-time talk shows (e.g. La Noria [see
Garcs-Conejos Blitvich et al., 2010]), have attracted the attention of scholars---largely that of those interested in
confrontational talk and impoliteness. As Garcs-Conejos Blitvich et al. (2010) point out, it seems that this new wave of
Spanish talk shows, dominated by confrontainment and polarisation, is ousting STTSs (considered the first wave talk
shows). Nonetheless, it is remarkable, in an era in which TV shows come and go quicky, that an STTS such as El Diario de
Patricia---lately called El Diario---should be broadcast for more than 10 years.
3. The hosts role and goals in STTSs
As mentioned, the host is the participant with the dominant role. He/she holds the power as the institutions
representative and is responsible for the management of the interaction and for the whole event. An STTSs success
depends on the hosts attaining a number of goals, all ultimately for the audiences entertainment. The host, as the
4
Of the topics mentioned by Penz (1996:56) in her study of those four American shows, fewer than half (Disclosing secrets after a long time,
Reunions of people who had romantic relationships while on vacation, etc.) can also be found or would be likely to appear in STTSs, and about a
third (Convicted for child abuse, Men accused of raping their wives, etc.) would never be chosen as topics in STTSs.
5
Livingstone and Lunt (1994:45) claim that audience-participation talk shows in the U.K. are in general more likely to be viewed by housewives,
retired people, the unemployed, and part-time workers.
6
STTSs are in this respect closer to the so-called trash talk shows, such as Ricki Lake and Jerry Springer, which exaggerate the focus on the
private domain (Haarman, 2001:54--62) and centre upon everyday life dilemmas (Hutchby, 2001:155).
7
The occupation and age of the guests appear in written form on the screen at the beginning of the interaction.
53
broadcast TV programmes representative, has to catch and keep the primary audiences attention. He/she has to
entertain---as the words etymology tells us, hold---the audience. In order to do that, the host must fulfil the following aims.
First, the host has to successfully manage the event. He/she is responsible for getting the show flowing, for managing
the topic, for avoiding silent gaps, and for clarifying or repairing information for the audience when problems arise.
Second, in order to guarantee the audiences entertainment, the host has to obtain guests self-disclosure, that is, he/
she has to elicit guests testimonies and as much interesting personal information as possible.8 To trigger guests selfdisclosure, the host aims to create a familiar communicative atmosphere that encourages them to speak openly about
their lives, feelings, and thoughts. The way in which the host manages to do this during the course of the interaction is by
minimising his/her institutional role of broadcast-channel representative and exhibiting a more real life or social role
(see Ilie, 2001:231). His/her aim is to reduce the asymmetry between him/her and the guest. Similarly, affiliation and
solidarity are sought as means of making guests comfortable and at ease in a situation that can easily make them nervous
or discourage them from expressing themselves openly.
Third, STTS hosts seek the audiences attitudinal and emotional involvement. They have to foster the TV viewers
attitudes and feelings towards the guests. As Harris points out, Emotions are an integral part of the appreciation of the
media, especially of television (1994:30), and Although attitudes consist of an intellectual component (e.g., reasons that
you favour one candidates position over anothers), much of the psychological dynamic in attitudes is emotional (e.g.,
liking one candidate more than another) (Harris, 1994:17). In programmes, such as STTSs, that are based on personal
stories and experiences, it is likely that audiences engage more when they identify themselves with or experience
empathy towards one or more participants: Empathy may be seen as emotional identification, and it is a very important
factor in the enjoyment of the media (Harris, 1994:34). Another way in which STTS hosts seek the audiences
involvement is by affiliating with it, often trying to make the viewers feel as if they are his/her accomplices.
Last, the host aims for guests to experience a certain degree of confrontation. Confrontation, whether between guests
(see Hutchby, 2001) or between host and guests, is an important ingredient of this kind of show, one that attracts
audiences attention. The host in STTSs often becomes the judge of the guests actions, adopting societys
commonsense views.9
As we will see in the following sections, the data show that the most salient linguistic features in the four hosts
discourse are serving a specific purpose; that is, that they correspond to the goals described above.
4. Data and methodology
The data come from 30 h of video recordings made from 2005 to 2011, of two STTSs: El Diario de Patricia (Patricias
Diary), later called El Diario and broadcast live all over Spain by channel Antena 3; and Esta es mi gente (These are my
people), broadcast live by the Basque regional channel, ETB2. The former started in 2001 and was still being broadcast in
2011 from Monday to Friday at 6 p.m.; the latter ran for more than 6 years (1999--2006) and was broadcast from Monday to
Friday at 8 p.m. Both have been very successful with viewers, being, during the first 3--4 years, the most-watched
programmes in their particular time slots: Esta es mi gente reached 30% of viewers; El Diario de Patricia, 37%.
The recordings of the shows feature four different hosts---three women (Patricia Gaztanaga, Yolanda Vzquez, and
Sandra Davi) and one man (Klaudio Landa)---all between 35 and 45 years of age. As the name of the first programme
signifies, Patricia Gaztanaga is the main host in El Diario de Patricia, but from 2006, she was replaced once a week by
Yolanda. In 2008, Sandra Davi became the host of this show, which then became El Diario. As for Esta es mi gente, this
programme has had a number of different hosts over the years10; the host these recordings feature is Klaudio Landa, the
one who stayed longest in that position.
The methodology of the study is qualitative and quantitative. First, the 30 h of recorded programmes were viewed, and
those discursive patterns were noted that both seemed to have a particular strategic function in the interactions of each
host with guests and appeared repeatedly in all programmes (at least twice by each host and in each programme viewed).
Thus, a first selection of patterns was made through the viewing of the 30 h of recordings. Second, given the variation in
the amount of time devoted to host--guest exchanges in the various programmes, the selection was refined, looking at
2.5 h of each hosts interactions rather than at a certain number of programmes of each host. So 2.5 h of each hosts
interactions were extracted from different programmes (each of which dealt with a different topic, to ensure variety in the
8
Ilie states that in tabloid talk shows the host and the guests share the institutional role as entertainers/coentertainers, whereas the audience
members are institutionally regarded as entertainees (2001:234).
9
This is probably much more salient in tabloid talk shows: Tabloid talk show hosts often identify themselves as law-abiding citizens and
defenders of social order. As such, they seem ready to do anything in their hands to become the hero who punishes the villain and comforts the
victim (Gregori-Signes, 2002:164).
10
Patricia Gaztanaga was actually the first host to appear in Esta es mi gente, but left to start her own programme on a different channel.
54
data). These interactions were transcribed and compared in order to confirm or narrow down the first selection. Only those
tokens or expressions that appeared at least four times in the transcriptions of each host were considered and selected for
the study. This number of occurrences was considered significant enough since it was observed that the selected devices
do not appear at all---at least, not in the same contexts and with the same purposes---in the other participants (the guests)
turns. Third, the devices thus selected were analysed in the occurrences found in the transcriptions.
Examples of occurrences of the different devices appear below, with a translation into English. Translations are as
close as possible to the original (including possible grammatical mistakes by participants), so they may sound awkward on
some occasions; and they maintain some tokens in the original Spanish whenever a translation seemed likely to mislead
the reader. These tokens appear in italics in the translation. The transcription conventions used can be found in Appendix.
5. Results and discussion
The analysis of the data reveals that the four hosts strategically use the same kinds of devices, and use them in similar
contexts and for the same purposes. First, all of them use a colloquial register and colloquial forms of address in all their
interactions with guests. In fact, all the tokens and expressions that characterise the hosts discourse and that will be
discussed below belong to that register (see Beinhauer, 1978; Briz, 1998). The colloquial register is the one that guests
are most familiar with. As will become evident in the discussion, this feature of the hosts discursive style is related to his/
her interest in minimising his/her institutional role, in creating a familiar communicative atmosphere, and in promoting
affiliation and solidarity with the guests and/or the audiences.
Second, they all use listenership devices, that is, signals generally described as showing that the listener is engaging
with the speakers talk. These include the tokens s, mhm, and ya; completion of guests utterances; and repetitions. In the
data, their use is associated with both social and managerial purposes. Amongst the social purposes, we find showing
interest in what the guest is saying, encouraging the guests talk, creating an understanding atmosphere, and increasing
the guests confidence. Amongst the managerial, we find maintaining the flow of conversation, avoiding silent gaps,
assisting in the production of talk for the audience, and initiating framing moves.
Third, all four hosts use two attention-getting markers: the token oye [listen], prefacing new questions; and the firstname vocative in initial or prefaced initial position. In most occurrences in the data, hosts are using these markers not just
to get the attention of their guests but also, again, to minimise their institutional role, reduce asymmetry, and promote
familiarity and pseudo-intimacy with their guests.
Fourth, they all use reformulations of the guests talk; that is, they all sometimes paraphrase what the guest has just
said. Reformulations are introduced or signalled by two markers in the data: o sea (que) [so] and vamos (que) [in sum--COL]. These reformulations are not only used by the hosts to clarify, summarise, or make more explicit for the audience
what has just been said, but also to serve social purposes such as to express solidarity with the guest.
Fifth, hosts also use proarguments and positive comments, as well as negative---sometimes ironic---evaluative
expressions. Proarguments, that is, arguments used by the host to support the guests views, are used in the data to show
empathy for the guest and to inculcate the same feeling in the audience. Positive comments work as positive politeness
strategies through which the host maintains familiarity and pseudo-intimacy with his/her guests. Finally, non-mitigated
negative evaluative expressions in the data constitute impolite acts that hosts use to bring a certain degree of
confrontation to the show.
Sixth, all four hosts use mitigators and compensatory strategies as positive and negative politeness strategies, to
minimise the threat to the guests face. These include: the first-name vocative; certain mitigators that focus on the
propositional content (bushes, according to Caffis (1999) terminology), such as quantifiers (e.g. un poco [a bit]) and
diminutives; some mitigators that focus on illocutionary force indicators (hedges, according to Caffi (1999)), such as igual/
a lo mejor [maybe]; the question tag no? [isnt it?/doesnt it?/etc.]; the reactive marker hombre; the conversational tags
vale?/ de acuerdo?/ te parece? [OK?/all right?]; and the expression venga [come on].
Table 1 summarises the number of occurrences of the abovementioned devices in the 2.5-h transcriptions of each
hosts interactions with guests. The table also specifies the number of occurrences, varying from host to host,11 of each
particular token or expression used. It should be noted that, although there are personal differences, the various hosts use
any one device in similar contexts and for the same purposes, and that this contrasts with the absence of these devices in
the discourse of the other participants in the interactions---the guests---as can be observed in Table 2. Although in
the data we can find a few occurrences of some of these devices used by guests---more specifically, of repetitions and
some mitigators---they cannot be considered to have the same purposes as they do when hosts use them. For instance,
some guests use one or two repetitions during the interaction; but they use them not as listenership devices, with the same
?
11
These differences show that each host---Patricia (HP), Yolanda (HY), Sandra (HS), and Klaudio (HK)---can have his/her own personal style.
This issue needs a thorough study. It would surely lead to interesting conclusions, but is beyond this papers scope.
55
Table 1
Number of occurrences of the devices characteristic of hosts discourse in STTSs.
HP
HY
HS
HK
Listenership devices
S, mhm, ya
Completion of utterances
Repetitions
27
8
32
35
10
107
17
12
12
67
7
47
Attention-getting markers
Oye
First-name vocative
30
32
18
100
10
48
42
105
Reformulations of the interlocutors talk
With markers o sea (que), vamos (que)
24
40
17
25
Evaluative expressions (Evaluation of the interlocutor)
Proarguments and positive evaluative expressions

Negative evaluative expressions
11
18
8
8
5
4
15
7
Mitigators and compensatory strategies
First-name vocative
Bushes
Hedges
Question tag no?
Reactive marker hombre
Conversational tags vale?/ de acuerdo?/ te parece?
Venga
13
6
4
13
8
29
12
8
23
15
4
4
35
4
7
6
4
5
7
10
8
7
8
5
4
5
5
4
Table 2
Number of occurrences of the hosts characteristic devices in guests discourse in STTSs.
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
Listenership devices
S, mhm, ya
Completion of utterances
Repetitions
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
Attention-getting markers
Oye
First name vocative
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reformulations of the interlocutors talk
With markers o sea (que), vamos (que)
Evaluative expressions
(Evaluation of the interlocutor)
Proarguments and positive evaluative expressions

Negative evaluative expressions
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mitigators and compensatory strategies
First name vocative

Bushes
Hedges
Question tag no?
Reactive marker hombre
Conversational tags vale?/ de acuerdo?/ te parece?
Venga
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
social and/or managerial purposes as the hosts, but rather as confirmation responses.12 The following example shows the
use of repetition by the guest as a means to confirm what the host has just said:
(1)
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
oye/ como era all la vida?

dura
dura no?
(ASIENTE)
mucho trabajo
muchas horas
muchas horas y adems sin amigos
sin amigos
12
Guests use a lot of confirmation responses, especially s and mhm, that cannot be considered listenership devices, as they are when used by
hosts.
56
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
listen/ how was life over there?

hard
hard wasnt it?
(NODS)
a lot of work
many hours
many hours and on top of that without friends
without friends
[El Diario de Patricia, 29/06/2007, Aydame a recuperar mi pasado (Help me recover my past), 10:20--10:28]
The same can be said of the few instances of some mitigators found in guests discourse (bushes, such as un poco [a
bit] and diminutives; hedges, such as igual [maybe]; and the marker hombre): they are not used by guests to minimise the
threat to the interlocutors face in negative assessment contexts, but rather, to save their own face in front of the host and
the audiences. The following example shows the use of a downtoning diminutive by a guest who wants to save face when
referring to his own infidelity:
(2)
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
GM
bueno// tuvisteis un bache al principio::

difcil de superar// qu paso?
e::h// que tuve un resbalito
que tuviste?
un:: un desliz
que le fuiste infiel/ vamos
(ASIENTE)
right// you had a bad match in the beginni::ng
difficult to overcome// what happened?
a::h// I had a slip-up---DIM
you had?
a:: a slip-up
that you cheated on her/ in sum---COL
(NODS)
[El Diario de Patricia, 30/11/2006, Vivo con un extrano (I live with a stranger), 02:06--02:20]
On the whole, what is relevant here is that all four hosts (that is, the participants who hold the power in the interaction)
and not the other participants use, to a greater or lesser extent, the mentioned devices in similar contexts and for the same
purposes. As Table 1 shows, attention-getting markers, and more specifically the use of the first name vocative is the most
salient feature of STTS hosts discursive style in interaction. The use of listenership devices is the second most salient
feature. Among those, repetitions and the tokens s, mhm and ya are the most common, although the use of repetitions is
less consistent in all four hosts, because HS does not use them as much as the rest.
The following sections will discuss all those features that characterise STTS hosts discursive style and will argue that
they correspond to hosts strategic language use as the participants who hold the power and who want to attain certain
goals.
5.1. Register and forms of address
The four hosts in the data use a colloquial variety of Spanish. This variety includes the devices summarised in Table 1
as well as other features at the different linguistic levels that can clearly be identified as belonging to that register (see
Beinhauer, 1978; Briz, 1998). At the phonetic level, the intervocalic -d- disappears in the past participle forms in -ado
(llama[d]o, arregla[d]o) as well as in other words with suffixes attached like tempora[d]illa (temporada + diminutive -illa). At
the morphological level, a very salient feature is the prolific use of diminutives, most commonly -ito/a, followed by -illo/a. At
the lexical and phraseological level, hosts use colloquial expressions such as Yo digo que igual tenis un poco jeta [I
say that probably youve got a bit of nerve] or Fue un aqu te pillo aqu te mato [It was a Here I catch you, here I kill you--meaning that something was done in a sudden and unexpected way]. Finally, colloquial discourse markers also appeared,
such as oye [listen] (see section 5.3), vale? [OK?] or venga! [Come on!] (see section 5.6). Apart from the use of the
colloquial register, a few instances appeared of a particular diastratic variety in Patricias discourse, such as the word
morreo [snog], which is associated with a popular or substandard sociolect.
!
57
Similarly, the way the hosts address guests is informal. They all use first-name vocatives and the T-informal form (t)
to address all guests, except in a few exceptional cases. The cases where the host uses the formal usted can be
explained as attempts to accommodate to their guests sociolect. In the data, this happens with old guests who
come from rural areas in Spain, where usted is still very widely used when addressing older people (see Fontanella de
Weinberg, 1999). Hosts adaptation to their guests linguistic variety is one of the strategies they use in order to affiliate
with their guests. As Duranti suggests, The imitation of the features of the addressees speech is often used across
languages to suggest and invoke solidarity as well as to improve understanding (1985:210). As mentioned earlier,
guests are ordinary men and women, who are most familiar with the colloquial and informal variety of language. So, with
the use of the colloquial register, the host is not only improving understanding with his or her guests, but also creating a
familiar communicative atmosphere and promoting solidarity and affiliation with them (and so minimising the hosts
institutional role13).
The colloquial, informal register also makes the event accessible and attractive to STTSs audiences. For example, as
mentioned in section 2, the secondary audience---the audience in the studio---in most of the recordings comprises very
young people who are much more used to that register. Moreover, the choice of certain words is directly targeting such an
audience. For example, with the use of morreo [snog] in a question about a (50-year-old female) guests relationships,
Patricia makes her audience laugh. With that lexical choice, she is distancing herself from the guest (and actually
threatening her negative face) and affiliating with the live audience, youngsters who use that word and who find its use in
this context quite funny.
5.2. Listenership devices
A recurrent feature of all four hosts discourse is the use of different kinds of listenership devices or back-channels. The
literature on these devices characterises them as signals of understanding, acknowledgement, or agreement with respect
to the interlocutors previous talk. In the present data, apart from kinesic or visual back-channels (Duncan, 1974) such as
nodding, there appear the verbal signals s, mhm, and ya, and other back-channelling devices such as completions of the
interlocutors utterances and repetitions.
In the data, these devices are used by the hosts for social as well as managerial purposes. On the one hand, they work
as a means of social reinforcement (Hargie et al., 1994:73--74): the host uses them to show interest in what the guest is
saying, encourage the guests talk, create an understanding atmosphere, and increase the guests confidence. As Farr
(2003:70) explains concerning the use of these devices in academic conversations in English, they can be said to serve
an interpersonal purpose: pragmatically they have the capacity to attend to politeness wants and face needs. This social
purpose is also stated by Norrick (2012:574) when explaining the use of uh-huh and mhm in English conversation: both
mark considerateness or politeness in allowing or encouraging the primary speaker to proceed with the turn in progress;
failure to issue such continuers can be heard as a lack of attention or interest. And on the other hand, these devices are
used for a variety of managerial purposes, such as maintaining the flow of conversation, avoiding silent gaps, assisting in
the production of talk for the audience, and initiating framing moves. With regard to the hosts role, the use of listenership
devices in the data reveals a combination of story recipient and story elicitor roles. Let us now examine each of these
devices.
5.2.1. Mhm, s, and ya
Whilst mhm and s function in the data chiefly as continuers (Schegloff, 1982), taking the stance that the speaker
should continue talking, ya seems to be used by hosts to take the floor, and it functions as a framing move (Forsyth 1974
as cited in Weiner and Goodenough, 1977:217--218; Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975), that is, as a kind of control move that
signals the end of one section and the beginning of another.
The back-channel mhm is more frequent in the data than s is. Perhaps this is due to the fact that s [yes] is
semantically less empty than mhm, and, as Gardner (1998:212--213) suggests of the English yeah in relation to mm, is a
more aligning and less neutral token. In the example below, we see the use of the continuers s and mhm by the host,
Sandra, while she is listening to a guest whose house has been seized because her father-in-law has been ripped off by a
con man:
13
We should bear in mind that it is a strategy that creates an illusion, in the same way in which, as Fowler points out, newspapers use
conversational style (which includes colloquial language) to construct an illusion of informality, familiarity and friendliness, because it implies
co-operation, agreement, symmetry of power and knowledge between participants (. . .) (1991:57). Fairclough (1995:13), from the same macroperspective, suggests that the use of colloquialisms, as part of the general conversationalisation of the media, is a sign of a new public prestige of
the ordinary values and practices---of which tabloid talk shows are a perfect example. As both scholars explain, it is merely a strategy on the part
of those with power to more effectively recruit people as audiences (. . .) (Fairclough, 1995).
58
(3)
HS
GF
HS
GF
HS
GF
HS
GF
HS
GF
HS
GF
y en qu momento entra en juego/ la casa?

pue:s a raz de: ano::// y algo/ ano: y un mes
s:
fallo en un pago/ entonces mi suegro fue a la
entidad bancaria supuestamente que haba sacao el dinero:
y ah le dijeron que no que: ah no: que all l no deba n
y entonces claro se fue// a este prestamista
mhm
y este prestamista le dijo que no se preocupara (. . .)
and when in all this comes/ the house?
we:ll a:fter a yea::r// and a bit/ a yea:r and a month
s:
he missed one payment/ then my father-in-law went to
the bank supposedly that had withdrawn the mone:y
and there they told him that no that: there no: that he didnt owe anything there
and then of course he went// to this moneylender
mhm
and this moneylender told him not to worry (. . .)
[El Diario, 29/06/2011, Vecino, vengo a pagarte con la misma moneda (Neighbour, Im going to give you
a dose of your own medicine), 05:33--05:54]
As we just pointed out, in the data, ya frequently not only acknowledges reception or understanding of the previous
message, but also closes it and makes a section transition. Here is an example in which ya is overlapping the guests
discourse, signalling a framing move, reinforced by the marker bueno [well] and the first-name vocative. The guest, Emilia,
is complaining about her noisy neighbours when the host, Yolanda, decides to move on and initiate the new section, in
which she will introduce the neighbour. This use of ya by the host shows her power as the manager of the interaction:
(4)
GF
HY
GF
HY
GF
HY
GF
HY
m::: muebles arriba/

abajo y la verdad/ yo una vez llam a su casa
a las dos y media de la madrugada
o sea muchos ruidos
y le dije/ por favor/ a:::h la nina
duerme y no quiero que: ya:: me ests mo[lesta]ndo
[ya]//
bueno Emilia/ hoy vas a hablar con ella por fin
m::: furniture up/
down and really/ I once phoned her flat
at two thirty in the morning
so lots of noises
and I said to her/ please/ a:::h the girl
is sleeping and I dont want you to bother me [any more]
[ya]//
well Emilia/ today youre going to talk to her at last
5.2.2. Completions
We may consider the hosts brief completions of guests utterances, following Duncans (1974:166--167) classification,
a kind of back-channelling device: the host does not continue beyond the brief completion and lets the guest continue with
his/her turn. Completing the interlocutors utterances is a cooperative strategy in many contexts in Spanish, and is very
common in informal interviews (Vigara, 1999:506).
The data show that, in most cases, completion appears when the guest cannot find the right word to refer to what he/she
has in mind and uses a gesture instead, or when his/her discourse is simply discontinued, producing a silent gap that the host
tries to fill. This way, the host collaborates in the production of the guests discourse and avoids silent gaps that could slow the
show down and affect the audiences interest. In the following example, the guest is as quick as the host in repairing the gap:
(5)
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
GM
59
bueno y adems yo me planteo/ si t te pasabas

toda la semana fuera de casa/ y ahora de repente
ests toda la semana en casa/ tam[bin la convi]vencia
[tenemos]
tenemos tambin los horario:s// (GESTO)
[cambiados]
[cambiados]// ella est de/ trabaja por la tarde
y yo trabajo por la manana (. . .)
well and also I consider/ if you spent
the whole week away from home/ and now suddenly
you are at home the whole week/ [also the life toge]ther
[we have]
we have also our schedu:les// (GESTURE)
[changed]
[changed]// she is/ she works in the afternoon,
and I work in the morning (. . .)
5.2.3. Repetitions
Repetitions, or more specifically, repetitions of the guests words, are a very salient feature in STTSs. In this section,
I will discuss repetitions that can be generally described as displaying participatory listenership (Tannen, 1989:59).
Repetitions can be considered a good alternative to the use of other back-channel tokens as a means of expressing the
hosts engagement with the guest. As Schegloff (1982:86) points out, the use of the same continuer token may display
incipient disinterest in what the interlocutor is saying, so the use of a variety of devices---including those of surprise, special
interest, and assessment---is a way to indicate the newsworthiness or interest of the interlocutors talk. It should also be
said, though, that repetitions are quite automatic in STTSs. Often, we can see the hosts using them while they look at their
notes instead of looking at the guest, enabling delay in production of the next question. Tannen (1989:48--49) notes the
important role of repetitions in the production of talk for individuals and cultures that value verbosity and wish to avoid
silence: they enable speakers to carry on conversation with relatively less effort (. . .) so they can proceed with
verbalisation before deciding exactly what to say next. Repetitions enable the host to keep the conversational flow going
and to avoid silent gaps while he/she prepares for the next move.
Repetitions in the data are exact reproductions (echoic repetitions) or slightly modified ones of the guests words.14
Echoic repetitions appear either in declarative or in exclamative/interrogative--exclamative form. Declarative echoic
repetitions are used by a host either to elicit the guests confirmation of the previous information and as an invitation to
amplify it (see example 1 in section 5), or, as the token ya, to indicate a framing move, that is, the end of one section and
the beginning of another (see example 6 below). In example (1), the host is asking the guest about her experiences as a
migrant in Germany. In the first repetition, the host is eliciting the guests confirmation of the previous information, which
confirmation comes in the form of nodding. In this case, the elicitation is emphasised by the hearer-oriented marker no?. In
both repetitions used by the host in (1), particular aspects of the guests story are emphasised. In example (6), the echoic
repetition closes the telling of the episode (the guest and her best friends trip back home) and opens a new section with a
question about the guests thoughts at the time when she said goodbye to her best friend:
(6)
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
HP
14
la cuestion es que unos das despus

las dos/ os volvis en autobs/
s
y t te quedaste en Valencia/
y ella siguio para Murcia/
y ella siguio hasta Murcia/
como recuerdas la despedida/
pensaste que iba a ser una despedida:
tan larga?
the thing is that some days later
both of you/ return by bus/
In section 5.4, I discuss another kind of repetition (reformulations).
60
GF
HP
GF
HP
yes
and you stayed in Valencia/
and she went on toward Murcia/
and she went on to Murcia/
how do you remember the farewell/
did you think that it was going to be:
so long?
As mentioned, apart from declarative echoic repetitions such as those in the examples above, the hosts use
exclamative or interrogative--exclamative echoic repetitions. Haverkate (1994:30--31) notices that this kind of
repetition in Spanish shows empathy and solidarity with the interlocutor and constitutes a positive politeness strategy
of the kind he calls alterocentric. Vigara (1999:508) also points out that it is found in those radio or television
interviews in which the interviewer establishes a lively relationship and some degree of empathy with the interviewee.
According to Adarves description of repetitions in interaction (2003), this kind of repetition can therefore be said to
have a eulogic function, that is, it expresses an empathetic attitude towards the interlocutor. In the data, with this kind of
repetition, the hosts express their attitude towards the content of the echoed words, implying an assessment of it as
shocking or surprising information, usually expressing solidarity with the guest. The host pretends to be hearing
that information for the first time and reacts accordingly. This way, they also bring certain aspects of the story to the
attention of the audience, triggering empathetic attitudes towards the guest. In the next excerpt, the interrogative-exclamative echoic repetition is used by the host after asking the guest whether she was getting any help from her
ex-husband for their childrens education:
(7)
HK
GF
HK
GF
HK
GF
HK
GF
anteriormente tu marido/ e:h se haba:: prestado

a ayudarte/ en cuanto a/ l:a educacion de sus hijos?
nunca//
nunca!?
no/ despus de separarnos/ l/ de abandonarnos
a los tres solos// le ped ayuda muchas veces (. . .)
previously your husband/ a:h ha::d he offered himself
to help/ with/ th:e education of his children?
never//
never!?
no/ after we separated/ he/ after he abandoned
the three of us// I asked him for help many times (. . .)
[Esta es mi gente, 07/03/2005, Ahora puedo enfrentarme a ti (Now I can face you), 25:37--25:51]
Finally, non-echoic repetitions, that is, repetitions that include some variations, are used in the data to help the
audiences understand, when the host notices mistakes or difficulties in the guests discourse. In example (8),
the repetitions include some variations that are meant to help the audience understand the time-frame of the events. While
recalling the moment when she received the sad news of her fathers death, the guest switches the tense in the narrative
and the host repairs it this way for the audience:
(8)
HY
GF
HY
GF
HY
HY
GF
recibiste una noticia/

que me imagino que fue
muy dura para ti
que mi padre se ha muerto/ s//
que tu padre se hab[a muerto]/
[hace dos anos]/
haca dos anos
you received some news/
that I imagine was
very hard for you
that my father has died/ yes//
HY
GF
HY
61
that your father [had died]/

[two years ago]/
two years earlier
[El Diario de Patricia, 01/12/2006, No conozco mi pasado (I dont know my past), 03:35--03:46]
5.3. Attention-getting markers

Another salient feature of STTS hosts discourse is the use of two devices traditionally described as attention-getting
markers, which often appear together: oye [listen], usually preceding new questions; and the first-name vocative in initial
or prefaced initial position. As Martn Zorraquino and Portols (1999:4184) explain, oye is a colloquial marker used by the
speaker to signal that the following discourse is a relevant informative unit for the hearer, and, especially when followed by
a familiar vocative, can reinforce the hearers positive face, as it fosters an approach between participants. Romero Trillo
(1997) also observed that the use of oye and other attention-getting devices seems to be linked to unconstrained and
relaxed conversations among equals.
Vocatives in Spanish (see Alonso Corts, 1999), as in English (see Leech, 1999), are used in everyday conversation
(1) to summon attention, (2) to identify the addressee, and (3) to establish and maintain social relationships. Very few
instances of the first two functions (summoning attention and identifying the addressee) are evident in the data. This can
be explained by the facts, first, that vocatives appear in contexts in which the host already has the attention of both the
guest and of the audience, and, second, that there is no need to identify the addressee, because the host usually talks to
one guest at a time. In contrast, the last function mentioned by Leech (1999), that of establishing and maintaining social
relationships, is clearly reflected in the data. As discussed in section 5.1 with respect to the use of first-name vocatives and
of colloquial expressions, with the use of these attention-getting markers the host is trying to create a familiar atmosphere
and the impression of a reduced asymmetry. McCarthy and OKeeffe (2003), in their study of vocatives in British radio
programmes, also conclude that they play a part in invoking and sustaining pseudo-intimacy between strangers. Finally,
the data show that first-name vocatives are used as mitigators in contexts that threaten the guests positive or negative
face. I will discuss those in section 5.6.
Let us now examine two examples of the use of these markers by two different hosts. In the first one, the guest, Mauri, is
recounting seeing his wife---a very jealous lady---spying on him when he was leaving work. In the second one, the guest,
Jos Manuel, is talking about the moment when he returned to his wife months after leaving her.
(9)
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
HY
GM
HY
GM
HY
y:: tu mujer se dio cuenta de que

la habas visto y todo eso?
s s/ nos vimos los dos/ lo p claro// no le dije
nada para no ponerla en evidencia
[pero sss yo yo la vi//]
[claro porque era un poco extrano no?]
y ella me vio a m tambin//
oye/ Mauri/ vosotros habis hablado de esto? (. . .)
a::nd your wife noticed
that you had seen her and all that?
yes yes/ we saw each other/ but of course// I didnt say
anything, in order not to make a fool of her
[but yeah I I saw her//]
[of course because it was a bit strange wasnt it?]
and she saw me too//
listen/ Mauri/ have you two talked about this? (. . .)
(10)
GM
HK
(. . .) aparec en un momento pues que

ella estaba::/ pasndolo mal/
oye/ Jos Manuel una cosa perdona/
no tenas miedo de su reaccion
despus de haberte ido/ de su lado (. . .)?
62
GM
HK
(. . .) I turned up in a moment when

she wa::s/ having a hard time/
listen/ Jos Manuel one thing sorry/
werent you afraid of her reaction
after going away/ from her (. . .)?
As we can observe in these cases, the hosts aim in using these markers is not actually to get the attention of the
guest. He/she already has it at that moment, because the guest has finished his turn. Rather, it is to introduce a new
question at the same time that he/she promotes familiarity and pseudo-intimacy with the guest. In example (10), the
host is also shifting the topic, so, although the turn of the guest seems to have finished by the time the host starts his
turn, the possibility that this is not the case leads the host to also use the mitigating token sorry. The informal form
perdona (an informal way of apologising), the familiar oye, and the vocative, work together as signals of equality. In this
last example, we can also see the use of una cosa [one thing], which serves as an introduction to a new question or a
shift of topic and very often accompanies the other tokens in this particular hosts discourse. In these contexts, it is
common too to find the token a ver, and vamos a ver, [lets see], as in (11), in which it is used to introduce a new
question and to initiate the topic:
(11)
HP
GF
HP
Consuelo buenas tardes

hola
oye vamos a ver/ en tu vida// cuntas//
amigas realmente importantes diras que has tenido?
HP
GF
HP
Consuelo good evening

hello
listen lets see/ in your life// how many//
really important friends would you say youve had?
[El Diario de Patricia, 23/04/2007, Amistad, amor, odio y olvido (Friendship, love, hate and oblivion), 08:16-08:25]
5.4. Reformulations of the interlocutors talk
It is a common practice among STTS hosts to paraphrase or reformulate guests talk.15 The four hosts discourses
contain a prolific use of two markers that introduce or signal reformulations of the guests previous discourse: o sea (que)
[so] and vamos (que) [in sum-COL]. In general, reformulations are used by the host to summarise, clarify or make more
explicit what has just been said by the guest so that it becomes clearer for the audience. The use and functions of
reformulations are very similar to those discussed in section 5.2.3 of repetitions. First, reformulations also draw the
audiences attention to certain aspects of the guests talk. In (12), for example, the host is interested in emphasising the
fact that the guests boyfriend has not come to visit her in 5 years:
(12)
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
y hace cunto tiempo que estis juntos?

pue:s cinco anos/
cada cunto tiempo os veis?/
to:dava: por desgracia no nos podemos ver
po:r causa de trabajo/
o sea que en cinco anos no os habis visto
no
qu hacis/ hablis por telfono?
s
HP
GF
HP
and how long have you been together?

five years
and how often do you see each other?/
15
Formulations, as Heritage and other scholars call them, are also a very common feature in other kinds of institutional discourse, such as news
interviews (see Heritage, 1985).
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
63
no:t yet: unfortunately we cant see each other

becau:se of work/
so in five years you havent seen each other
no
what do you do/ do you talk by phone?
yes
[El Diario de Patricia, 10/07/2007, Hoy descubrir tu traicion (Today I will reveal your betrayal), 03:23--03:38]
Second, reformulations are prospective in the sense that they are expected to be followed by a third turn of
confirmation. In the data, this confirmation is usually brief and not very elaborate.16 Most likely, this is because (as
declarative echoic repetitions can) reformulations can be used as framing moves, to close the previous section before
asking a new question. In these contexts, the host is not really interested in an elaboration of the previous topic, as we can
see in (12), where the host goes quickly into the next question.
Third, reformulations can also be expressive, being used by the host to convey his/her attitude towards the
reformulated information. As are repetitions---see example (7)---they are used to express solidarity with the guests. For
example, in (13), the guest is explaining how her partner denied having transmitted a sexual disease to her and blamed
her for becoming infected. The hosts solidarity is expressed through the exclamatory intonation and is reinforced by the
marker encima [on top of that] which argumentatively supports the guests view:
(13)
HK
GF
HK
GF
HK
GF
HK
GF
l qu explicacion te dio de esto?

s me dijo que:: que no: que:: haba sido yo
que a ver con quin me haba ido
t sabrs con quin te has acostao
o sea encima nego esa/ enfermedad
de transmision sexual que te la hubiese pegado!
s/ dijo que l no lo haba hecho
what explanation did he give you of this?
yes he told me tha::t he hadnt tha::t it had been me
that who knows who I had gone with
you should know whom you have slept with
so on top of that he denied that/ disease
of sexual transmission that he had passed it on to you!
yes/ he said he hadnt done it
Finally, in a few instances in the data, reformulations constitute face-threatening acts (FTAs) (Brown and Levinson,
1987). This happens when, in his/her reformulation, the host, using his/her power, makes explicit what the guest is trying
to avoid saying, as in example (2)---see section 5---in which Yolandas reformulation makes explicit the guests infidelity. In
this way, she makes clear to the audience the guests bad behaviour and promotes a positive attitude towards the cheated
partner, who will be appearing later.
On the whole, the data show that reformulations in STTSs can be for both audience (clarifying, summarising, making
more explicit what has just been said) and guests (usually expressing solidarity with them).
5.5. Proarguments and evaluative expressions
This section includes instances in which the host supports the guests views, adding arguments (proarguments),
comments, or evaluative remarks about what he/she is saying. I will also refer to instances in which the host expresses a
negative evaluation of the guest. The host displays in all these cases a more real-life role, showing his/her thoughts or
feelings---prepared or non-spontaneous though they may be---about the guests and their stories.
16
This contrasts with the use of reformulations in news interviews, in which the third-turn confirmation is usually longer and more elaborate (see
Heritage, 1985).
64
5.5.1. Proarguments and positive evaluations

The argumentative support of the guest and the positive evaluations of him/her are positive politeness strategies17
through which the host reinforces his/her relationship with the guest and maintains the familiarity and pseudo-intimacy that
he/she has been creating throughout the exchange. Penz (1996:169), who discusses sympathetic expressions found in her
data of American talk shows, argues that the host uses them to raise the emotional level of the interaction and to reinforce not
only the guests positive face but also his/her own: the guest is portrayed positively through the hosts sympathy, whereas
[sic] the host presents the picture of himself/herself as a person with the ability to feel with the guest (1996:169).
The argumentative support of the guest has already been observed in example (13), in which the host supports the
guest in her complaint about her partners behaviour. In the next example, the host is collaborating with the guest who
came to the show to meet his mother, but who is not very happy about it because he felt abandoned by her:
(14)
HS
GM
HS
GM
HS
GM
HS
GM
HS
GM
HS
GM
en esos tres anos que estuviste viviendo

con tu abuela paterna
s
supiste algo de tu madre?
s vino: una ve::z a verno:s a m y a mi hermana/
pero: mi padre no quera que:: que nos viera po:r
todo lo:s por el dano que me haba hecho
pero claro/ en tres anos tambin solo: una: una visita!
(ASIENTE)
in those three years that you were living
with your paternal grandmother
yes
did you hear anything from your mother?
yes she ca:me o::nce to see u:s me and my sister/
bu:t my father didnt want her to:: to see us because o:f
all the: because of the harm she had done me
but of course/ in three years o:nly o:ne one visit!
(NODS)
[El Diario, 31/05/2011, Un error nos ha separado (A mistake has separated us), 02:26--02:41]
The kind of comment we find in (14) conveys the hosts empathy for the guest and inculcates that same feeling in the
audience. In (15), the host, with his exclamatory comment, shows his empathy with the guest Ohara, who is describing
harassment by her partner:
(15)
GF
HK
GF
HK
GF
HK
GF
HK
(. . .) lo tena toel da all metido:/ toel da llamando:/

controlando todas las situaciones/
la gente que haba alrededor eran amigos suyos/
entonces aquello era horrible dur un mes
Ohara qu agobio!/
bas[tante]
[qu ago]bio (. . .)
(. . .) I had him all the time the:re/ calling all the ti:me/
controlling every situation/
the people who were around were his friends/
so it was horrible I lasted for one month
Ohara how oppressive!/
quite [a bit]
[how oppre]ssive (. . .)
17
Following Bravos interpretations of politeness in Spanish, we may say that these strategies are targeting the affiliative dimension (see Bravo,
1999).
65
Turning to positive evaluations, we find that these work as enhancers of the guests face, constituting what has been
called Face Flattering Acts (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1996). In the following example, the host praises the guests agility,
helping relax the guest, who seems to be frightened:
(16)
HY
GF
HY
GF
HY
GF
HY
GF
HY
GF
HY
GF
qu tal Carmen?
bien// [asustada]
[te]
eh?
asustada (RIE)
pues te he visto yo correr por ah/
te veo muy gil/ eh?
s
how are you Carmen?
fine// [frightened]
[you]
uh?
frightened (RIE)
I have seen you run around
you look very agile to me/ uh?
yes
[El Diario de Patricia, 07/12/2006, No he podido olvidarte (I havent been able to forget you), 01:15--01:23]
5.5.2. Negative evaluations
Most negative evaluations in the data are mitigated, as we will see in section 5.6. There are a few cases, however, in
which the evaluation constitutes a non-mitigated face-threatening act: an impolite act. Some of those correspond to ironic
comments. Negative evaluations, together with the kinesic (hands on waist, shaking head, serious face, etc.) and
paralinguistic (louder voice, marked intonation) tokens that often accompany them, are markers or taxemes (KerbratOrecchioni, 1992) of the hosts power. Their function is to fulfil the need of confrontation in the programme, as occurs in
tabloid talk shows: as far as the audience is concerned, conflict and confrontation are welcomed because they add to the
vivacity of the programme and contribute to more audience engagement (Penz, 1996:175). These are evaluations of
guests whose behaviour is considered clearly outrageous, so the act of criticising them is justified and totally right for the
audience. According to Gregori-Signes (2005), this is what happens, though apparently in a greater degree, in American
tabloid talk shows, where the role of the host is very close to the role of the judge or the lawyer in court. In these cases, the
host assumes the role of a judge who represents common sense and societys values: Tabloid talk show hosts often
identify themselves as law-abiding citizens and defenders of social order. As such, they seem ready to do anything in their
hands to become the hero who punishes the villain and comforts the victim (Gregori-Signes, 2002:164).
In the data, negative evaluations of guests who represent one side of a story tend to be used as positive evaluations of
the guest representing the other side. So, whilst being impolite with one guest, the host is actually affiliating with the other.
In these data, it is the host Patricia---the one with the longest experience in these shows---who most often expresses
negative evaluations of guests. In these contexts, we can also see the involvement of the studio audience. As Myers
(2001:180) observed of The Jerry Springer Show, the audience, though not directly addressed, plays a key role in the
development of conflict, taking sides with its laughter or applause. In the next example, the guest is directly accused of
being a swindler because she has not paid the large amount of money that she owes her best friend and does not seem to
care about it at all. With this negative evaluation of the guest, the host is defending the friend who too is there in the studio.
The audience joins the host in this evaluation with its applause:
(17)
GF
HP
GF
A
pero ella/ como es tan lista

t eres una estafadora//
yo una estafadora?
(APLAUDE)
GF
HP
GF
A
but she/ because she is so clever

you are a swindler//
I a swindler?
(APPLAUDS)
[El Diario de Patricia, 26/06/2007, Busco venganza (Im seeking revenge), 09:44--09:48]
66
These instances in which the host openly criticises the guest have a similar pattern to the one described by
Thornborrow (2007) in the British show Kilroy: an arguable action of a guests story is problematised by the host,
opening a sequence of paired problematising/justifying turns. In the present data, however, given the nature of STTSs as
explained in section 2, this kind of sequence is shorter, because the aim of the host is not actually to generate debate, as it
is in Kilroy, but just to confront or criticise the guest. We can see this pattern in the next example, in which the host accuses
the guest and her siblings of being careless with their children and of taking advantage of their mother, who has to take
care of them:
(18)
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
o sea que ninguna de las dos pensis

en estar con los hijos
yo s/ yo tengo dos/ que estn conmigo
tu hija::/ la est cuidando tu madre
porque no est contigo
pero tengo dos ms
// y qu?
que esos s estn conmigo
bueno// (NIEGA CON LA CABEZA) pero: pero: es tu hija/
es tu responsabilidad
so neither of you care about
being with your children
I do/ I have two/ who are with me
your daughte::r/ is being taken care of by your mother
because she is not with you
but I have two more
// so what?
that these are indeed with me
OK// (SHAKES HER HEAD) bu:t bu:t she is your daughter/
its your responsibility
[El Diario de Patricia, 28/03/2007, Quiero sentirme como un hijo (I want to feel like my parents child),
01:13--01:30]
Negative evaluations of guests are sometimes expressed through ironic comments. As Haverkate (1985:388)
explains, the main use for irony is to express a judgement or evaluation. In STTSs, the host---in our data, most commonly
Patricia---, as the participant who holds the power, uses irony to judge or evaluate the guest. From the point of view of the
host--guest relationship, STTS hosts ironic expressions usually constitute FTAs to the guests positive face. The
instances of irony found in the data are the kind that Fernndez Garca defines (2001:113--114)18 as referring to the
interlocutors entourage (in this case the guest) and as having negative evaluative content. In most of these cases,
irony works not as a mitigating device but as an impoliteness strategy that actually enhances the threat to the guests
face.19
The situations in which this kind of ironic comment appears are similar to those in which we find non-mitigated negative
evaluative expressions: those in which the host--judge considers that the guests behaviour is outrageous and deserves
to be openly criticised. This phenomenon is in line with Sperber and Wilsons consideration of irony as a moralistic device:
Irony is moralistic (. . .) because an easy way of achieving relevance by means of irony consists in echoing moral norms
right when they are being violated (1990:152). In the following example, the host is getting irritated by the guest and her
siblings, who are causing trouble to their mother and do not show any kind of respect and care for her. The host criticises
the guests immature attitude (continual laughing and smiling) and lack of responsibility, with an ironic comment and an
ironic smile that emulates the guests:
18
This author distinguishes four different kinds of irony based on whether it refers to the interlocutors entourage and on whether the evaluation it
contains is positive or negative.
19
As Fernndez Garca (2001) explains, although some authors have described irony as a mitigating device (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Leech,
1983), others, such as Haverkate (1985) and Culpeper (1996), have claimed that this device can be used to intensify an evaluation and to
enhance the threat to the interlocutors face.
(19)
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
GF
67
y tu hermano: Tony/ parece que

tampoco le:: ha ido muy bien no?
/// no (RIE) (ASINTIENDO)
tambin le ha dado problemas a tu madre//
s (ASINTIENDO)
(RIE) qu bien no?//
tu madre debe estar feliz (SONRIE)
no: (RIE)
and your brothe:r Tony/ it seems that
things havent go::ne very well for him have they?
/// no (LAUGHS) (NODDING)
he too has caused problems to your mum//
yes (NODDING)
(LAUGHS) very good isnt it?//
your mother must be happy (SMILES)
no: (LAUGHS)
[El Diario de Patricia, 28/03/2007, Quiero sentirme como un hijo (I want to feel like my parents child),
01:32--01:45]
However, the host, in uttering such ironic comments, is targeting mainly the audiences. From the point of view of the host-audience relationship, these instances of irony can be described as negative evaluations not referring to the interlocutors---in
this case the audiences---entourage. This kind of irony, according to Fernndez Garca (2001:114), works as a positive
politeness enhancer, creating a superiority complicity and a sense of camaraderie between participants: when the host
negatively evaluates guests through ironic comments, the ironys intent is not merely to criticise the guest but also,
and ultimately, to reinforce the hosts relationship with the audiences. The present case is similar to the one discussed in
section 5.5.2 (see example 17): in both, the host is being impolite to one participant (the guest) and affiliating with another
(the guest representing the other side of the story or, as in the present example, the audiences). The host is affiliating with
both the primary---sometimes by looking at the camera---and the secondary audiences, granting them the status of superiority
accomplices. As Sperber and Wilson (1990:152) point out, the hearer who recognises and shares that ironical attitude will
feel that the speaker and himself stand above the victims of irony.
In brief, the hosts ironic comments in STTSs, though used in the context of host--guest interaction, are mainly targeting
the audiences. Because of their negative evaluative content, they contribute to the confrontational component of STTSs--thus drawing the viewers attention---while they promote affiliation with the audiences.
5.6. Mitigators and compensatory strategies
Mitigating devices are used by the four hosts as positive or negative politeness strategies, in contexts in which the
guests positive or negative face may be threatened. The guests positive face is threatened, as we have just observed,
when the host evaluates him/her negatively; and the guests negative face, when the host uses directives in the
interaction. Their purpose is to minimise a threat to the guests face in a kind of show in which some degree of
confrontation is desirable and certain instructions to the guest are necessary.
Although confrontation with guests is sought through direct FTAs such as the ones in examples (17) and (18), in most
negative assessments, the host uses mitigators and compensatory strategies to try to maintain nonetheless a good
relationship with the guests. Hosts in STTSs use what Briz (1995:117) calls atenuacion dialogica (dialogic attenuation) to
minimise disagreement with the guests. They do so through different devices, such as the first-name vocative, some
bushes---also called propositional hedges, that is, mitigators that focus on the propositional content (Caffi, 1999:890)---and
some hedges (mitigators that focus on illocutionary force indicators [Caffi, 1999:892]), amongst others. Here is an
example in which the host uses mitigating devices when accusing the guest of lying to her partner because she got
pregnant without his consent:
(20)
GF
HK
yo deca/ pues yo quiero formar una familia con l y

[bueno]
[ya]/ pero escchame Liliana/
l no estaba muy de acuerdo entonces/
le enganaste de alguna manera
68
GF
de alguna manera s
GF
I said to myself/ I want to start a family with him and

[well]
[OK]/ but listen to me Liliana/
he didnt really agree so/
you lied to him in a way
in a way yes
HK
GF
[Esta es mi gente, 09/03/2005, Demustrame que me quieres (Show me that you love me), 15:12--15:21]
In this example, there are several elements that work as mitigators. First, we find partial acceptance, introduced with ya
[OK], of the guests argument, that works as a downgrading preface to the negative evaluation introduced with pero [but].
Second, we observe the use of some bushes: the use of the quantifier muy [very] in the negative clause and the
expression de alguna manera [in a way] to minimise disagreement with the guest, who actually admits the negative
assessment in the next turn. Third, use of the first-name vocative---which, as mentioned in section 5.3, conveys familiarity
and solidarity---works as a compensatory strategy in this face-threatening context.
Apart from the use of the first-name vocative as a compensatory strategy, the most common mitigation devices in
negative assessment contexts in the data are some bushes such as diminutives and the quantifiers un poco [a bit] and
bastante [rather/quite/pretty, quite a lot]; and the hedges igual/a lo mejor [maybe] and no s [I dont know]. The
negative question tag no? [isnt it? etc.] and the reactive marker hombre are also amongst the most used. According
to Ortega (1985), the first is a comprobatory appendix (apndice comprobativo) oriented to check whether the
interlocutor accepts or not the preceding segment. Martn Zorraquino and Portols (1999) consider it a politeness
element that shows that the speaker is considering the interlocutor. The second, according to these same authors
(Martn Zorraquino and Portols, 1999), works as a mitigator of the disagreement with the interlocutor in reactive
turns.
Examples (21) and (22) illustrate the use of these mitigators in the data. In (21), the host is evaluating the guest who
came to the show to complain about the infidelity of her husband but who is complaining also about the money he spent.
In this evaluation, we can observe the first-name vocative, the diminutive, and the question tag no? [doesnt it?] as
mitigators. In (22), the host is interacting with a male guest who seems to be addicted to sex but does not admit it. The host
suggests, in a mitigated way, through the marker hombre and the hedge igual [maybe], that he should go to a doctor:
?
(21)
HP
GF
HP
GF
pero Isabel al final te duele un poquito ms

que se gastara los 1500 euros que lo otro no?/
no no no no no/ me duele ms/ lo otro
but Isabel all in all it hurts you a bit---DIM more
that he spent the 1500 euros than the other thing doesnt it?/
no no no no no/ it hurts me more/ the other thing
[El Diario de Patricia, 04/07/2007, No es mi madre, es mi novia (She is not my mother, she is my girlfriend),
03:50--03:57]
(22)
HP
GM
HP
GM
HP
GM
con qu frecuencia necesitas hacer el amor?

si se puede a diario//
y si no lo haces a diario te sientes mal?
no tampoco/ yo respeto el: la edad de mi mujer//
hombre igual te lo tienes que hacer mirar t esto eh?
como?
HP
GM
HP
GM
HP
GM
how often do you need to make love?

if possible every day//
and if you dont make it every day you feel bad?
no its not that/ I respect the: my wifes age//
hombre maybe you should have this checked eh?
pardon?
[El Diario de Patricia, 04/07/2007, No es mi madre, es mi novia (She is not my mother, she is my girlfriend),
01:27--01:40]
69
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, mitigators also appear in contexts in which there is a possible threat to the
guests negative face. In STTSs, the host uses mitigators with certain directives. In the context of STTSs, the host is the
manager of the interaction, and mitigation is not considered necessary in ritualised directives such as telling the guest to sit
down, to look at the screen, or to leave the studio. Many of these, however, contain mitigating or compensatory devices. The
most common tokens are conversational tags such as vale?/ de acuerdo?/ te parece? [OK?/all right?] and the expression
venga [literally come (on), but having many different values], although some quantifiers and diminutives can also be found.
As the following examples illustrate, with expressions such as vale? and de acuerdo? the host is looking for the
guests agreement or acceptance of a directive, appearing to be giving the guest the chance to actually accept or not.
Hosts use these tags in order to appear non-impositive, minimising their institutional role and reducing their distance from
guests. The expression venga is used in the data to trigger the intended effect (the action expressed in the directive) on the
guest. According to Gras et al. (2007:1626), this is the main function of venga in Spanish conversation, which they
paraphrase this way: Direct your attention to the utterance---which has been delivered or is going to be delivered---and be
ready to act according to what is there described (my translation). STTS hosts also use this expression in closings,
signalling the end of a sequence (end of conversation with a guest, change of story, etc.), which often includes a directive
(the guest has to leave the stage, for example). The closing and farewell value of venga spread quite recently in peninsular
Spanish, as Gras et al. (2007) and Blas Arroyo (1998) point out. Blas Arroyo presumes that it originated in a particular
sector of society that has influence in the media: urban upper middle-class people in their thirties or forties. This is
precisely the profile of our STTS hosts. Finally, whilst working as a closing and/or triggering device, venga is also
establishing a kind of relationship with the guest. As Cestero and Moreno (2008) explain, venga is a cue of familiarity and
complicity with the interlocutor in similar contexts to the ones discussed here. In sum, because of its affiliative value, venga
works as a compensatory element in directive and/or closing contexts. Hosts are the managers of the interaction, but they
often try to minimise their institutional roles through affiliative expressions when they have to exert their power.
In example (23), the host is prompting two guests to tell their housemate what they do not like about her. As both guests
show embarrassment, the host uses the expression venga with the directive lnzate to make one of them speak. It is
relevant also that the metaphoric imperative lnzate [literally, fling yourself: take the plunge] is actually targeting the
guests positive face, characterising what is being requested as a brave thing to do:
?
HS
GF
A
HS
GF
A
(23)
bueno/ que aqu la tenis/ chicas/

que decirle lo que queris (. . .)
venga Tatiana/ lnzate/ que Miriam es m::s tmida no?///
(RIE)
(RIE)
well/ here you have her/ girls/
tell her whatever you want (. . .)
venga Tatiana/ take the plunge/cause Miriam is mo::re shy isnt she?///
(LAUGHS)
(LAUGHS)
[El Diario, 17/06/2011, Hoy me lanzo a la piscina (Today I take the plunge), 04:40--04:51]
In (24), the host uses the quantifier and the diminutive un poquito [a bit---DIM], to mitigate the directive piensa [think], and
the conversational tag vale?, to mitigate the prompt to carry out the action required (to go to one of the rooms). The
affiliative venga is used to trigger the required action and to close the sequence:
?
(24)
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
A
HP
A
(. . .) de quin has huido Jessica?

(NIEGA CON LA CABEZA)
piensa un poquito//
t has huido alguna vez de alguien?
(NIEGA CON LA CABEZA)
(. . .) bueno/ no s/ as no:: [huir]
[no sabes]//
huir huir no//
bueno pues mira vas a ir haciendo memoria
y lo vas a hacer en una de nuestras salas vale?
(APLAUDE)
venga!
(APLAUDE)
70
HP
GF
HP
GF
HP
A
HP
A
(. . .) who have you run away from, Jessica?

(SHAKES HEAD)
think a bit---DIM//
have you ever run away from somebody?
(SHAKES HEAD)
(. . .) well/ I dont know/ like that no:: [run away]
[you dont know]//
run away as such no//
all right look you are going to try to remember
and you are going to do it in one of our rooms OK?
(APPLAUDS)
venga!
(APPLAUDS)
In example (25), we can observe the same use of venga. Also, by using the conversational tag de acuerdo? [all right?],
Klaudio is looking for the guests agreement, minimising his institutional role as manager of the show and reducing his
distance from the guest:
(25)
HK
GM
HK
GM
HK
HK
GM
HK
GM
HK
como crees que reaccionar?

que me va a colgar (RIE)
bueno pues lo veremos enseguida
voy ahora/ [afuera] de acuerdo?
[vale]
de acuerdo
venga hasta ahora
how do you think she will react?
she is going to hang me (LAUGHS)
all right we will see very soon
I am now going/ [outside] all right?
[OK]
all right
venga see you in a bit
[Esta es mi gente, 09/03/2005, Demustrame que me quieres (Show me that you love me), 03:33--03:40]
6. Conclusions
The pervasiveness of certain linguistic patterns in the data implies that there is a particular style or role-related register
that STTS hosts use. The discursive features found in all four hosts when they interact with guests include the use of a
colloquial register and informal forms of address, the use of a number of listenership devices or back-channels, the use of
certain attention-getting markers, the use of reformulations, and the use of proarguments and positive and mitigated or
unmitigated negative evaluative expressions. The hosts discursive style, shaped by the particular use of all these
devices, emerges in this kind of programme as a means of achieving his or her goals, for the primary purpose of
entertaining and getting the audiences attention. As we have observed throughout the discussion, hosts use language
strategically in order to succeed in their role as representatives of the institution and managers of the speech event.
First, the host aims to successfully manage the event through the use of certain devices with managerial ends. He/she
manages the topic with the token ya, with repetitions, and with reformulations used to close a subtopic and preface a new
section. He/she transmits or clarifies information for the audiences through utterances completions; repetitions; and
reformulations. A host may also use repetitions and reformulations to draw the audiences attention to certain aspects of
the story. Finally, a host makes time to prepare for the next move by delaying the next question through repetitions.
Second, the host aims to elicit guests stories and testimonies in such a way that guests feel comfortable and give as
much intimate, shocking, or emotional information as possible. He/she does so using discursive elements that create a
familiar and pseudo-intimate atmosphere, promote an affiliation with his or her guests, and reinforce the relationship
with them. The devices serving this function in the data are: a colloquial register and a sociolect adapted to the guests;
71
informal forms of address; listenership devices or back-channels (mainly mhm, ya, completions of the guests utterances,
and repetitions); certain attention-getting markers (oye and first-name vocatives); exclamatory repetitions and
reformulations; proarguments; positive evaluative expressions; and mitigators in FTAs.
Third, the host seeks the audiences attitudinal and emotional involvement by using evaluative expressions and
exclamatory repetitions and reformulations. Also, affiliation with the audiences is sought in the cases of non-mitigated
negative evaluations of the guests, in which the host assumes the role of a judge who represents societys values. In the
data, hosts attain affiliation with the audiences mainly through use of ironic remarks or comments that create a superiority
complicity between them and the host.
Last, the host aims to bring a certain degree of confrontation to the show, as a means of entertaining and of catching the
audiences attention. Confrontational talk is found in explicit or ironic negative evaluations of guests. Negative evaluations
are sometimes mitigated through the use of bushes (mainly quantifiers and diminutives), hedges (such as igual/a lo mejor
[maybe]), the negative question tag no?, and the reactive marker hombre; or through compensatory devices such as the
use of the familiar first-name vocative. As we have seen, there are also cases in which negative evaluations constitute
impolite acts, with no mitigation present at all.
On the whole, the study of the patterns arising in the discourse of the four hosts has shown the complexity of their role
performance. Hosts have to find a balance between being the manager of the institutional event and creating pseudointimacy with their guests, between including confrontation and maintaining a good relationship with them, between
approaching them and distancing themselves from them. In order for the programme to be successful, they have to be
able to target both guest and audience; in other words, to use Munsons (1993) terminology, they have to be able to
combine two different rhetorics: the conversational and interpersonal, and the mass-mediated spectacle. Although further
research---including a thorough analysis of guests discourses---would be needed in order to be able to determine the
extent to which the hosts discursive style contributes to the programmes success, we can already conclude that the
combination of different strategies and linguistic tokens displayed in the four hosts discourses is intended to fulfil each
programmes various requirements. For that reason, we can anticipate that the hosts discursive style should be one of the
factors that lead to STTSs success: a success strongly suggested by the number of years for which they have been
broadcast and by the number of viewers who have been following them every day.
?
Acknowledgements
I owe my gratitude to the Australian National University, for funding my research stay at the International Pragmatics
Association Research Centre (University of Antwerp) at the beginning of this project. I am particularly grateful to Jef
Verschueren and Ann Verhaert for welcoming me as a visiting researcher in that centre. Special thanks go to Anna
Gladkova and Zhengdao Ye for their suggestions at the early stages of this paper, and to Magdalena Romera for her
helpful comments. Finally, I would like to thank the journals anonymous reviewers for their feedback, and John P. Harvey
for his inspiring guidance in improving the final version of the text.
Appendix. Transcription conventions
Our transcriptions are selective, i.e. they do not include details irrelevant to our purpose here. Non-verbal information
such as kinesic or paralinguistic tokens is included when relevant. A translation of each excerpt is provided. Translations
are as close as possible to the original (including possible grammatical mistakes by participants), so they may sound
awkward on some occasions; and they maintain some tokens in the original Spanish whenever a translation seemed likely
to mislead the reader. These tokens appear in italics in the translation. Transcription conventions used are the following:
HP
HY
HS
HK
GF
GM
A
/
//
///
?
!
Host Patricia
Host Yolanda
Host Sandra
Host Klaudio
Guest (female)
Guest (male)
Audience
Short pause, less than 1 second
Pause, 1 second
Long pause, more than 1 second
Interrogative intonation
Exclamatory intonation
72
!
Suspended intonation
Descending intonation
a: n::
Lengthened phonemes
to
Phonetic reduction of a word
[]
Simultaneous talk
(CAP) Non-verbal token
(( ))
Unintelligible word(s)
(. . .)
Omitted talk
Other conventions used:
-DIM
Diminutive suffix
-COL
Colloquial expression
References
Adarve, Camacho, Matilde, Mara, 2003. Algunos oficios interactivos de la repeticion en el discurso oral: funciones eulogicas y dialogicas. Oralia
6, 119--146.
Alonso Corts, ngel, 1999. Las construcciones exclamativas. La interjeccion y las expresiones vocativas. In: Bosque, I., Demonte, V. (Eds.),
Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espanola. Espasa Calpe, Madrid, pp. 3993--4050.
Aznrez, Monica, 2008. Estrategias comunicativas del conductor en los programas televisivos de testimonio. In: Olza Moreno, I., Casado
Velarde, M., Gonzlez Ruiz, R. (Eds.), Actas del XXXVII Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Espanola de Lingstica (SEL). Universidad
de Navarra, Pamplona, pp. 41--52.
Beinhauer, Werner, 1978. El Espanol Coloquial. Gredos, Madrid.
Blas Arroyo, Jos Luis, 1998. Un caso de variacion pragmtica: sobre la ampliacion significativa de un marcador discursivo en el espanol actual.
Aspectos estructurales y sociolingsticos. AnMal XXI (2), 543--571.
Bravo, Diana, 1999. Imagen positiva vs. imagen negativa? Pragmtica socio-cultural y componentes del face. Oralia 2, 155--184.
Brenes Pena, Ester, 2011. Descortesa Verbal y Tertulia Televisiva. Anlisis Pragmalingstico, Peter Lang, Bern, etc.
Briz, Antonio, 1995. La atenuacion en la conversacion coloquial. In: Corts, Rodrguez, Coord, L. (Eds.), El Espanol Coloquial. Actas del I
Simposio sobre Anlisis del Discurso Oral. Universidad de Almera, Almera, pp. 101--122.
Briz, Antonio, 1998. El Espanol Coloquial en la Conversacion. Esbozo de una Pragmagramtica. Ariel, Barcelona.
Brown, Penelope, Fraser, Colin, 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In: Scherer, K.R., Giles, H. (Eds.), Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, StephenC., 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Caffi, Claudia, 1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7), 881--909.
Cestero, Ana Mara, Moreno, Francisco, 2008. Usos y funciones de vale y venga! en el habla de Madrid Boletn de Lingstica 20/29, 65--84.
Culpeper, Jonathan, 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3), 349--367.
Duncan, Starkey, 1974. On the structure of speaker--auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society 3 (2), 161--180.
Duranti, Alessandro, 1985. Sociocultural dimensions of discourse. In: Van Dijk, T. (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 1. Academic Press,
London, pp. 193--230.
Fairclough, Norman, 1995. Media Discourse. Edward Arnold, London.
Farr, Fiona, 2003. Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: the case of student--tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes 2, 67--85.
Fernndez Garca, Francisco, 2001. Irona y (des)cortesa. Oralia 4, 103--127.
Fontanella de Weinberg, Mara Beatriz, 1999. Sistemas pronominales de tratamiento usados en el mundo hispnico. In: Bosque, I., Demonte, V.
(Eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espanola. Espasa Calpe, Madrid, pp. 1399--1425.
Fowler, Roger, 1991. Language in the News. Routledge, London.
Garcs-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, et al., 2010. A genre approach to impoliteness in a Spanish television talk show: Evidence from corpus-based
analysis, questionnaires and focus groups. Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (4), 689--723.
Garca Gomez, Antonio, 2000. Discourse, politeness and gender roles: an exploratory investigation into British and Spanish talkshow verbal
conflict. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 8, 97--125.
Garca Gomez, Antonio, 2007. Habla conflictiva como accion social. Discurso y cognicion. Septem Ediciones, Oviedo.
Gardner, Rod, 1998. Between speaking and listening: the vocalizations of understanding. Applied Linguistics 19 (2), 204--224.
Gras, Pedro, et al., 2007. Forma, funcion y evolucion del marcador conversacional venga en espanol. In: Cano Lopez, P., et al. (Eds.), Actas del
VI Congreso de Lingstica General. Arco Libros, Madrid, pp. 1621--1635.
Gregori-Signes, Carmen, 1999. The use of interventions in media talk: the case of the American Tabloid Talk show. Studies in English Language
and Linguistics 1, 187--200.
Gregori-Signes, Carmen, 2000. The Tabloid Talk show as a quasi-conversational type of face-to-face interaction. Pragmatics 10 (2), 195--213.
Gregori-Signes, Carmen, 2001. Opening phases in American Tabloid Talk shows. In: De la Cruz, I., et al. (Eds.), La Lingstica Aplicada a Finales
del Siglo XX. Ensayos y Propuestas. Universidad de Alcal, Alcal, pp. 555--561.
Gregori-Signes, Carmen, 2002. Heroes and villains: theory-building in tabloid talk show storytelling. In: Snchez Macarro, A. (Ed.), Windows on
the World: Media Discourse in English, vol. 1. Universitat de Valncia, Valencia, pp. 153--175.
Gregori-Signes, Carmen, 2005. Tabloid talk shows and courtroom talk. In: Calvo Garca de Leonardo, J.J., et al. (Eds.), Actas del XXVIII Congreso
Internacional de AEDEAN. Universitat de Valncia, Valencia, CD-ROM.
?
73
Haarman, Louann, 2001. Performing talk. In: Tolson, A. (Ed.), Television Talk Shows. Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Laurence Erlbaum
Associates, New Jersey, pp. 31--64.
Hargie, Owen, et al., 1994. Social Skills in Interpresonal Communication. Routledge, New York.
Harris, Richard J., 1994. A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Haverkate, Henk, 1985. La irona verbal: un anlisis pragmalingstico. Revista Espanola de Lingstica 15, 343--391.
Haverkate, Henk, 1994. La Cortesa Verbal. Gredos, Madrid.
Heritage, John, 1985. Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: Van Dijk, T. (Ed.), Handbook of
Discourse Analysis, vol. 3. Academic Press, London.
Hutchby, Ian, 2001. Confrontation as a spectacle. In: Tolson, A. (Ed.), Television Talk Shows. Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Laurence
Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp. 155--172.
Ilie, Cornelia, 1999. Question--response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 31 (8), 975--999.
Ilie, Cornelia, 2001. Semi-institutional discourse: the case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2), 209--254.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, 1990, 1992, 1994. Les Interactions Verbales (I, II, III). Armand Colin, Paris.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine, 1996. La Conversation. Seuil, Paris.
Lacalle Zalduendo, Charo, 2000. Mitologas cotidianas y pequenos rituales televisivos. Anlisi 24, 79--92.
Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London, New York.
Leech, Geoffrey, 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In: Hasselgard, H., Oksefjell, S.
(Eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 107--118.
Livingstone, Sonia, Lunt, Peter, 1994. Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. Routledge, London.
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, 2005. A rapport and impression management approach to public figures performance of talk. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (5),
611--631.
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, 2009. Television Discourse: Analysing Language in the Media. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Martn Zorraquino, Mara Antonia, Portols, Jos, 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In: Bosque, I., Demonte, V. (Eds.), Gramtica Descriptiva
de la Lengua Espanola. Espasa Calpe, Madrid, pp. 4051--4214.
McCarthy, MichaelJ., OKeeffe, Anne, 2003. Whats in a name?: Vocatives in casual conversations and radio phone-in calls. Language and
Computers 46 (1), 153--185.
Munson, Wayne, 1993. All talk: The Talk Show in Media Culture. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Myers, Greg, 2001. Im out of it; you guys argue: making an issue of it on The Jerry Springer Show. In: Tolson, A. (Ed.), Television Talk Shows.
Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp. 173--191.
Norrick, Neal R., 2010. Listening practices in television celebrity interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2), 525--543.
Norrick, Neal R., 2012. Listening practices in English conversation: the responses elicit. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (5), 566--576.
Ortega, Jenaro, 1985. Apndices modalizadores. Los comprobativos. In: Montoya, J., Paredes, J. (Eds.), Estudios Romnicos dedicados al Prof.
Andrs Soria Ortega, 1. Universidad de Granada, Granada, pp. 239--255.
Penz, Hermine, 1996. Language and Control in American TV Talk Shows. An analysis of Linguistic Strategies. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tbingen.
Rama Martnez, Esperanza, 2003. Talk on British Television: the Interactional Organization of Three Broadcast Genres. Universidade de Vigo,
Vigo.
Romero Trillo, Jess, 1997. Your attention please: pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressees attention in English and Spanish
conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 28 (2), 205--221.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of Uh Huh and other things that come between sentences.
In: Tannen, D. (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 71--93.
Shattuc, Jane, 2001. The confessional talk show. In: Creeber, G. (Ed.), The Television Genre Book. British Film Institute, London, pp. 84--86.
Sinclair, John McHardy, Coulthard, Richard Malcolm, 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford University Press, London.
Sperber, Dan, Wilson, Deirdre, 1990. Rhetoric and relevance. In: Bender, J., Wellbery, D. (Eds.), The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 140--155.
Tannen, Derborah, 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Thornborrow, Joanna, 1997. Having their say: The function of stories in talk-show discourse. Text 17 (2), 241--262.
Thornborrow, Joanna, 2007. Narrative, opinion and situated argument in talk show discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8), 1436--1453.
Timberg, Bernard, 1994. The unspoken rules of talk television. In: Newcomb, H. (Ed.), Television. The Critical View. Oxford University Press, New
York/Oxford, pp. 268--281.
Tolson, Andrew (Ed.), 2001. Television Talk Shows. Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Vigara, Ana Mara, 1999. La recurrencia como estrategia de interaccion en la entrevista radiofonica y televisiva. In: Garrido, Medina, Coord, J.C.
(Eds.), La Lengua y los Medios de Comunicacion: Actas del Congreso Internacional, 1. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, pp.
502--512.
Weiner, Susan L., Goodenough, Donald R., 1977. A move toward a psychology of conversation. In: Freedle, R.O. (Ed.), Discourse Production and
Comprehension. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.
Monica Aznrez-Mauleon received her PhD in Spanish linguistics from the University of Navarra (Spain). She lectured in the School of Language
Studies at the Australian National University for 4 years, and has lectured since 2009 in linguistics and language teaching at the Public University
of Navarra (Spain). Her main publications focus on Spanish phraseology and the pragmatics of Spanish metalinguistic expressions. Her research
interests include ethnolinguistics, Spanish pragmatics in the oral tradition and in the media (especially on television), and the application of both in
language teaching.

1 s2.0 S0378216612002676 Main

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 s2.0 S0378216612002676 Main

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

An approach to the hosts discursive style in Spanish

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

Reformulations of the interlocutors talk

With markers o sea (que), vamos (que)

Evaluative expressions (Evaluation of the interlocutor)

Proarguments and positive evaluative expressions

Mitigators and compensatory strategies

Reformulations of the interlocutors talk

With markers o sea (que), vamos (que)

Proarguments and positive evaluative expressions

Mitigators and compensatory strategies

First name vocative

oye/ como era all la vida?

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

listen/ how was life over there?

bueno// tuvisteis un bache al principio::

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

y en qu momento entra en juego/ la casa?

m::: muebles arriba/

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

bueno y adems yo me planteo/ si t te pasabas

la cuestion es que unos das despus

In section 5.4, I discuss another kind of repetition (reformulations).

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

anteriormente tu marido/ e:h se haba:: prestado

recibiste una noticia/

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

that your father [had died]/

5.3. Attention-getting markers

y:: tu mujer se dio cuenta de que

(. . .) aparec en un momento pues que

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

(. . .) I turned up in a moment when

Consuelo buenas tardes

Consuelo good evening

y hace cunto tiempo que estis juntos?

and how long have you been together?

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

no:t yet: unfortunately we cant see each other

l qu explicacion te dio de esto?

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

5.5.1. Proarguments and positive evaluations

en esos tres anos que estuviste viviendo

(. . .) lo tena toel da all metido:/ toel da llamando:/

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

pero ella/ como es tan lista

but she/ because she is so clever

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

o sea que ninguna de las dos pensis

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

y tu hermano: Tony/ parece que

yo deca/ pues yo quiero formar una familia con l y

M. Aznrez-Mauleon / Journal of Pragmatics 45 (2013) 50--73

I said to myself/ I want to start a family with him and

pero Isabel al final te duele un poquito ms

con qu frecuencia necesitas hacer el amor?