Spoken Discourse Analysis

From a Speech Act Theory and a Politeness Theory perspective.

'Clip from Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA'

Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA, 10:10 16/05/2019, Channel 4, 55 mins. 00:09:17-00:14:43.

Introduction

I will be using the Speech Act Theory and the Politeness Theory to draw conclusions on the analyses of a spoken discourse from the Tv Show 'Kitchen Nightmares'.

Austin’s Speech Act Theory tells us that when we say something, we are also doing something. The Politeness Theory assumes that it is often in everyone’s best interest to maintain each other’s face (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.61).

My work will be based in Dr. Sarah’s lectures, in B. Paltridge’s book “Discourse Analyses”, F. Pridham’s “The Language of Conversation” and R. H. Jones’s “Spoken Discourse”.

'Kitchen Nightmares' is led by Gordon Ramsay, a worldwide known chef. In this episode, the chef visits Andy’s restaurant, which is having business problems. Also present is Andy’s wife, Ellen and Alex, one of the restaurant’s waiters. Since the restaurant is having problems and the popularity of Gordon’s (due to his success), we would expect Andy to listen to Gordon’s critique.

Analyses turn by turn

On line 70, where my analyses begin, Gordon Ramsay seems to use words as “OK” and “Uhh” with sighs between them as a link to what he is going to say next because he is still preparing what he has to say. The word “Right” has an illocutionary force because it should be taken as “Let’s do this” which can be interpreted as him preparing his mind to perform some Face Threating Acts so he can be as honest as possible. “Right” can also be a conversation starter because it also tells the listeners that he is beginning his review. “That was interesting” can also have an illocutionary force because it can mean that, as we know from watching his tasting previously, it was bad. “So that was you at your best?” has a perlocutionary force because it has an effect of offense on Andy. The question also gives Andy the opportunity to take the floor at this moment.

Line 71 is Andy’s answer to Gordon but instead of replying yes or no, the first one replies with other two questions like he had not understand the question, which was simple. I say that the owner of the restaurant breaks one of Gricean’s maxims with this turn: the maxim of quantity, by saying much more than the topic required. While Andy talks, Gordon blinks his eyes way more times than the usual, showing how stupid he found Andy’s question since he also didn’t follow the preferred response. A question creates a slot for the next person to answer, which did not happen.

Gordon replies with a frustrated tone and gets a little caught up with his words to answer the obvious question. He uses expressions like “Y’know” and “And uh” which can be classified as Discourse Markers, which ‘are items in spoken discourse that act as signpost of discourse coherence (Schiffrin 1987, 2001, Fraser 1990, 1991)’ (Paltridge, 2012, p.102). “Y’know” is used to get consensus with his hearer.

Andy replies with another discourse marker “Ok” to express that he understands the question now but let’s Gordon continue. Gordon continues to seek for the answer, giving up his turn once more by falling intonation on line 74. The owner replies by violating the maxim of relevance. He continues to get around the question saying how it was for the restaurant instead of how it was for him. We can also notice that Andy tries to avoid eye contact while doing this. Gordon nods while Andy talks, assimilating Andy’s answer. Since Gordon didn’t take the floor right away and continues nodding, Andy shrugs with an attitude.

Gordon takes the floor once more since he notices Andy is not going to continue by the pause, falling intonation and shrug. Starts by announcing the start of his review “Here’s the problem”. He gives Andy a critique performing a Face Threatening Act while doing it, a positive one, by criticizing Andy’s food. He goes straight to the point and tells his opinion as directly as possible.

Gordon holds a second to continue with it but Andy interrupts him by saying “That’s your opinion”, refuting what Gordon just said with an illocutionary force. At this moment, we can understand that Andy is not comfortable in the situation: he doesn’t take the floor when Gordon gives it to him but steals it to defend himself and taking away Gordon’s credibility even though the last one is just doing what he came for.

Gordon continues with his review the same away as before when he notices that Andy has nothing else to add and in the middle of it, Andy interrupts him again in a sarcastic way, attacking Gordon and his opinion.

Gordon doesn’t stop, he continues to be honest in his review but once more, Andy discredits Gordon with discourse markers “Oh, right” and sarcastic expressions “I’m supposed to believe that”. His face also gives away his attitude - the look to the ground, the forced blink and the turn of his face.

Gordon replies in a tone that we can tell he his offended that the owner just accused him of lying.

On line 83, Andy stutters when trying to say that he didn’t knew about the cartilage on the rillette. He also steps back by doing this – before, he said that it was a lie, but now he accepts it and says that nobody told him.

Between Gordon’s turn on line 84, we watch a flashback from previous scenes and we find out that Andy violated one of Gricean’s Maxims once more, the maxim of quality, by lying. He lied to have a Positive Face and not take the blame.

Gordon then calls the waiter to the conversation and asks him a question, sharing the floor with someone else by doing this. Alex takes the floor and answers the chef politely and ending it with falling intonation, indicating that he has nothing else to add. By telling the truth, Alex exposed Andy as a liar.

Gordon tries to save Andy's positive face by getting the other to leave and Andy leave but once they do, he announces he will be honest once more.

He raises his tone to let Andy know that he is trying to help and Andy is not collaborating with him but Andy cuts him and attacks him by saying that he is not being helpful at all and is just “slamming him down”.

Gordon replies to him by doing the same back but Andy just keeps saying that he is being attacked. He also says that what Gordon says doesn’t matter and discredits him once more. Both men continue this fight through the rest of the transcript, taking turns by sharing the floor.

Conclusion

From the analyses of the transcript, we can conclude that there were some illocutionary and perlocutionary forces, the first one often used in a sarcastic tone.

Gordon always maintained his Negative Face, acting freely, being honest and telling the truth without leaving his words up to interpretation. Andy had once a Positive Face but besides that, always tried to be indifferent to Gordon’s opinion, performing a positive FTA.

References

Brown, P & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

This work was submitted on November 6th 2020 by Lara Soares for the module 'Discourse and Digital Media' as part of my degree English and Creative Writing BA.