0
TOPIC
ANALYZING GORDON RAMSEY’S
CONVERSATIONS WITH KIDS AND
ADULTS IN MASTERCHEF US
GROUP’S MEMBERS
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Student’s ID
19040835
19040875
19040863
19040891
19041017
Name
Nguyễn Minh Hằng
Bùi Tuấn Hưng
Nguyễn Quang Huy
Nguyễn Lê Minh Khuê
Nguyễn Ngọc Thu Thảo
1
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3
GORDON’S CONVERSATION WITH ADULTS ................................................. 3
Conversation 1 ...................................................................................................... 3
Conversation 2 ...................................................................................................... 7
GORDON’S CONVERSATION WITH KIDS...................................................... 12
Conversation 1 .................................................................................................... 12
Conversation 2 .................................................................................................... 17
COMPARISION ..................................................................................................... 21
REFERENCE ......................................................................................................... 22
GROUP REPORT .................................................................................................. 24
2
INTRODUCTION
One of the key focuses of discourse analysis is conversation analysis. This analysis
uses commonplace spoken dialogue to examine how people manage their interactions. It
does this by performing a fine-grained analysis of the discussion. As a result, this
investigation will examine how Master Chef judge - Gordon Ramsey interacts with the kid
and adult candidates, as well as what his comments on their food truly mean to each of
them. Additionally, based on frameworks such as overlapping, feedback, repair, and
discourse markers, the paper also highlights a number of parallels and contrasts between
the two dialogues and suggests the justifications for this comparison.
GORDON’S CONVERSATION WITH ADULTS
Conversation 1
1
2
3
Gordon
Cutter
Gordon
4
5
6
Christian
Gordon
Cutter
7
8
Gordon
Cutter
9
10
11
Gordon
Cutter
Gordon
12
13
14
15
Cutter
Gordon
Cutter
Gordon
16
17
Cutter
Gordon
Wow, is that it?
That’s it, chef
That’s it? Holy mackerel. Chistian gave:: Courtney 30 mins, (to
Christian) Ah, did you give Cutter 10 mins?
(note: he holds on to his turn)
((Christian shook head))
Describe the dish pls ↓ (to Cutter) ((gesticulate))
It’s an artisan pizza with um basil, oregano,
Hold on a minute (0.5). Just (.) let me drop you there. (.) An artisan::
pizza? (note: he holds on to his turn by pausing)
That’s what the menu says
[No, no, but, I]
=when I go to the pizza restaurant that I like and they call them artisan
pizzas and they list all the different pizzas=.
An artisan pizza, huh?
I don’t know what else to name.
=Yeah, my name is Gordon Ramsey, not Stevie Wonder.
Right, well, first of all, I feel like a fucking kids party and some mini
pizzas come out.=
Maybe describe it again and I'll try to hear it.
So I have pizza here, with um tomato based on oregano, prosciutto and
mushroom and artichoke topping.
3
18
19
Gordon
Cutter
Why a pizza?
I don't want to just throw the spaghetti in the pot and boil the spaghetti.
I wasn’t that comfortable with making the pasta so I made a dough.
20
Gordon
It’s just not good ↑ enough, it’s not masterchef. Damn ((grimace,
audible exhalation)). Well, enjoy your mini pizza。.
a. Open conversation
The conversation opens by a question which is very likely a rhetorical question.
After the candidate answers the question, Gordon replies by repeating his answer as an act
of other repairing, aiming to check what he has heard is correct. The reason for such a
shocking reaction of Gordon is that in the challenge occurring in the video, other candidates
have one hour to cook. Nevertheless, as a winner of the previous challenge, Christian has
the privilege to appoint one person to cook in 30 minutes only and that person is Courtney.
Since Cutter is not the appointed person and he has one hour to cook, Gordon has expected
a better dish from him. This type of opening conversation is not conventional as it does not
begin with summons/answer and identification/recognition sequences.
However, in the second turn, Gordon turns to another candidate (Christian), then
returns to his conversation with Cutter.
b. Turn taking
Generally, the conversation follows the basic rule of English conversation proposed
by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974), which is one person speaks at a time with the
exception of one overlap in which the overlapper is Gordon. As can be seen on the video,
Gordon seems to hold on to his turn slightly longer than the candidate by a brief pause
during an utterance. To illustrate, in utterance number 3, he pauses shortly in the middle of
the sentence “Christion gave Courtney 30 minutes to cook”. In utterance number 7, he
pauses thrice between each sentence and within a sentence, illustrating that he has not
finished his turn, thus, preventing Cutter from interrupting him. Additionally, we also noted
that Gordon also holds on to his turn by not pausing at all at the end of an utterance and
starts a new one straight away. Example can be observed in utterance 13 in which he does
not pause after saying “My name is Gordon Ramsey, not Stevie Wonder”, and continues
by using discourse markers that are “right, well, first of all”.
After finishing his turn, Gordon signals it by pausing at the end of the utterance,
making eye contact which is looking at the candidate and gesticulating. These ways follow
the rules proposed by Paltridge and Hyland (2012).
4
As aforementioned, overall, the conversation adheres to the basic rule of English
conversation (Sacks et al., 1974) with the exception of one overlap in utterance 9. While
overlapping can be construed as cooperative (Tannen, 1994; Sauders, 1999), in this
conversation, it is an interruption or a competitive overlap as the overlapper, who is Gordon,
shows no enthusiastic support or agreement with the overlapped. By committing an overlap,
Gordon intends to draw attention from the dish and demand a further explanation for the
name of the dish, which he may consider to be more important. Meanwhile, the action of
overlapping also indicates his emotion that is disbelieving and shocking (Li, 2001; Yang,
2001).
c. Adjacency pair
The first adjacency pair is utterances 1 and 2. Gordon performs the first part by
asking a rhetorical question and Cutter replies to the point. Judging by his later reaction, it
can be seen that Cutter’s reply is a dispreferred answer.
The second adjacency pair is utterances 5 and 6. Gordon asks Cutter to describe the
dish, which is a request for information. Cutter takes up the proposal by describing the dish
that he has made.
In pair 11 and 12, Gordon asks a question which performs the function of otherinitiated other-repair (Schegloff et al., 1977). The purpose here is not to correct the other
but to check whether what he has heard is correct. His question does receive an answer
from Cutter.
Pair 13 and 14 starts with Gordon requiring Cutter to describe the dish again and
Cutter acts accordingly by providing further details about his dish.
In pair 15 and 16, Gordon requests information regarding the reason for the name
of the dish. Cutter replies by giving his explanation.
d. Insertion sequence
Two insertion sequences are found in the conversation. The first one is in utterances
3 and 4, in which Gordon disrupts the conversation by turning to Christion after hearing
Cutter’s reply. According to Levison (1983) and Conversational Analysis in Pragmatics
(2022), an insertion sequence functions as a clarification or a delay to a dispreferred second
part. As we have analyzed earlier, Cutter’s reply is dispreferred, thus, even though he asks
Christion whether he has actually given Cutter 10 minutes to cook, the actual purpose here
is to delay. We also think another reason is that Cutter’s dish is so bad that it seems like it
was cooked in a rush, and Gordon wants Cutter to be aware of that.
5
The second insertion sequence is in utterances 7 and 8, in which Gordon interrupts
Cutter’s dish introduction. Based on the work of Levison (1983), it can be seen that the
function of this insertion sequence is clarification. Gordon wants to know whether he has
heard correctly and requests for further clarification regarding the name of the dish before
continuing the conversation. It is worth noticing the emotional aspect in here as Gordon
does not show neither surprise on hearing the name of the dish in the previous utterance,
nor eagerness to listen to the explanation. His reaction can be illustrated as shock or
disbelieving.
e. Repair
There are three repairs in the conversation, located in the utterance 3, 7 and 11
respectively. When analyzing repair in this conversation, we used the framework of
Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks in 1977, demonstrating that the two main types of repair
which are self-repair and other-repair also have subtypes, forming the total of four types of
repair which are self-initiation self-repair, other-initiation self-repair, self-initiation otherrepair, and other-initiation other-repair. To further illustrate, self-initiated means the repair
operation is initiated by the speaker of the troublesome source while other-initiated means
the repair operation is initiated by any but the speaker. Based on this framework, we have
identified that all three of the repairs included in the conversation are other-initiation otherrepair. The purpose of the repair is to check whether he has heard correctly, also to express
the emotional statement that is disappointment.
f. Discourse marker
In total, there are 10 discourse markers in the conversation, varying in different
types which is summarized in the table below. The analyzed result is based on the
framework of Schegloff and Sacks (1973), Stubbs (1983), Knowles (1987), Schiffrin
(1987), Biber et al (1999), Nakane (2007) and Quasim (2009).
Discourse marker
Line
Type
Function
holy mackerel
3
expletives
indicates emotional state which, in this case,
is disbelieving (Schiffrin,1987)
ah
3
hesitator
used to fill pauses in speech
(Knowles 1987, Stubbs 1983)
please
5
polite
speech-act
requires the candidate to describe the dish
(Biber et al., 1999)
6
huh
11
interjection
acts as other-repair (Schiffrin, 1987)
and
13
coordinating
conjunction
groups ideas (Biber et al., 1999)
f***
13
expletives
indicates emotional state which, in this case,
is disappointment (Quasim, 2009)
yeah
13
interjection
provides feedback (Nakane, 2007)
right
13
newsmaker
open another round of talk (Schegloff and
Sacks, 1973; Gadner, 2001)
well
13
adverb
first of all
13
lexical
phrase
damn
17
expletive
indicates emotional state which, in this case,
is disappointment (Schiffrin,1987)
well
17
adverb
acts as a possible pre-closing (Schegloff and
Sacks, 1973)
g. Close conversation
It can be seen that the conversation does not close archetypically since there is no
signal word or phrase such as “OK”, “alright” or “bye” (Buton, 1987). Instead, it is signaled
through the fall of Gordon’s intonation coupled with the discourse marker “well” which
acts as a possible pre-closing (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). Based on the work of Button
(1987), we noticed that the end of this conversation follows a certain sequence type in
closing that is back reference. To illustrate, Gordon uses the pronoun “it” twice to refer
anaphorically to Cutter’s dish. Body movement might also be counted as a signal as Gordon
slowly steps back.
Conversation 2
1
2
Gordon
Right, describe the dish, please!
Yachecia It is biscuits and gravy, with uh homemade chicken-apple sausage,
homemade buttermilk pepper biscuits, cri,spy (0.5) home fried
underneath and a soft scrambled egg on top. ?
7
3
Gordon
4
So you do all that and three minutes ago you decided to make scrambled
egg on the side. Is this what you like (0.5) in general? ?
Yachecia Absolutely = because sometimes I have to (.) preach the sermons = sing
the songs and be the janitor, so (h) we gotta put it all in there.
5
Gordon
>< Let’s talk about the biscuits. Yeah we couldn’t believe how light
and (.) exciting。 they were.
Yachecia Well cold butter is my key and then I had [/] I didn’t have buttermilk so
I had to make it and added buttermilk to it. Really high temperature for
a short amount of time.
6
7
Gordon
8
Wow. I mean (0.5) it’s delicious. Erm. It tastes expensive yet it’s made
with simple ingredients. Biscuits, er, incredible. >< The potatoes
underneath (0.5) cooked beautifully. Yeah what would I change (.) it’s
a touchless cream sausage。
Yachecia Okay.
9
Gordon
10
>< It’s very rich 。 but the flavour’s there and if that’s what you do for
breakfast, God knows (.) what you do for dinner. Great job. . Thank
you=
Yachecia =Thank you chef.
a. Open conversation
The conversation opens with an utterance of Gordon. “Right” in the utterance is a
newsmaker, used to open another round of talk (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973; Gadner, 2001).
By having the word “please” - a polite speech act (Biber et al., 1999) - at the end of the
sentence, Gordon turns his utterance into a formal and polite request, not a command such
as “Right, describe the dish!”. The purpose of Gordon's request is to ask the contestant
Yachecia to describe what she had made for the judges.
b. Turn taking
The conversation follows the basic rule of English conversation proposed by Sacks,
Schegloff and Jefferson 1974, which is one person speaks at a time. Both speakers share
8
approximately the same duration of their turn without having the turn overlapped by that
of the other.
Gordon signals the end of his turn by: using “please”/ “thank you” as a signal, asking
the question “Is this what you like in general?”, reducing and softening the speech volume
at the end of the utterances. His end of a turn is further expressed through eye contact,
gesticulation and movement.
To hold on to his turn, Gordon pauses briefly between utterances, uses sound signals
such as ‘uhm’, ‘uh’ and ‘yeah’, and says some phrases more quickly than surrounding.
c. Adjacency pair
One basic unit of conversation is the adjacency pair (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973).
Each adjacency pair consists of two parts: Part 1 is a proposal, and part 2 is the expected
uptake of that proposal (Clark, 2001). There are a wide range of joint actions which
adjacency pairs can be available for, including: requests for information, greetings,
farewells, offers, orders, and apologies (Stenstrom 1994). In the conversation between
Gordon and the contestant Yachecia, there are 5 adjacency pairs in total.
The first pair is made from utterance 1 and 2. Part one - a proposal - belongs to
Gordon. He proposes that Yachecia tell him about her dish. It is a request for information.
In part 2, Yachecia takes up the proposal by describing the dish she had made. In just two
turns, Gordon and Yachecia manage to coordinate on the content, participants, roles, and
commitments of their joint action. Same things happen for all other pairs.
The second pair is utterance 3 and 4. In Gordon’s turn, he brings out a question
about what Yachecia likes. This is also a request for information. Yachecia fulfills the
request by starting her reply with ‘Absolutely’, then followed by more detailed information.
Pair number three starts with utterance 5, which is Gordon’s offer ‘Let’s talk about
the biscuits.’ Yachecia takes up the offer in utterance 6 by recounting her cooking process.
Utterance 7 acts as part 1 of the fourth pair. In the utterance, Gordon exchanges
some information with Yachecia, in this case are comments on her food. Part 2 of the pair
- utterance 8 - is Yachecia’s reply that contains the word ‘Okay’, showing her agreement.
The last pair is utterance 9 and 10. The pair starts when Gordon compliments the
contestant’s dish and thanks her and ends when Yachecia shows her appreciation upon
Gordon’s words and closes the conversation by saying ‘Thank you’.
d. Insertion sequence
9
There are no insertion sequences found in the conversation between Gordon and
Yachecia.
e. Feedback
Gordon’s feedback can be observed mostly through the combination of body
movement, gesture and eye contact. In the conversation, the feedback is shown through
tokens ‘Yeah’ (utterance 5, 7) and ‘Wow’ (utterance 7). For ‘Yeah’, it is classified as a
response token, functioning as “continuers” (e.g., Sacks 1992a, 1992b; Schegloff 1982).
‘Yeah’ can act as an acknowledgement token as well, since its function is retrospective
receipt, claiming understanding (Gardner, 2001). The word ‘Wow’ is an assessment,
meaning it is spoken by the current speaker or recipient to evaluate some prior talk
(Goodwin, 1986). Gordon’s use of ‘Wow’ is a positive evaluation for Yachecia’s preceding
answer, used to express his excitement toward the dish.
f. Repair
There is one repair found, which is ‘I mean’ in the utterance 7. This repair is a selfrepair type (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977). Gordon uses ‘I mean’ to repair himself
after saying the word ‘Wow’.
g. Discourse marker
Gordon’s conversation with contestant consists of seven discourse markers, which
is listed in the table below:
Discourse
marker
Line
Type
right
1
interjection
Function
•
•
please
1
polite
speech-act
marks information state transitions
to express discourse structure
(Schleef, 2005), in this case is to
start a new conversation
acts as an attention-getter (Othman,
2010), the one Gordon want to
attract is Yachecia’s attention
requires the candidate to describe the dish
in a polite way (Biber et al., 1999)
10
so
3
linking
adverbial
•
•
•
yeah
5, 7
interjection
•
•
7
hesitators
9
conjunction
Erm & er
but
demonstrates
the
relationship
between Gordon’s utterance and the
preceding discourse - in this case is
Yachecia’s reply (Levinson, 1983)
acts as a complementary marker of
main idea units (Schriffin, 1987)
“you do all that and three minutes
ago you decided to make scrambled
egg on the side”
conveys a meaning of result which
appears in the knowledge-based level
of discourse (Schriffin, 1987): this
type of relation holds as Gordon uses
information
about
Yechecia’s
cooking process as a warrant for an
inference.
provides feedback (Nakane, 2007)
acts as a continuer (e.g. Sacks
1992a, 1992b; SchegloV 1982) for
Gordon to further comment on
contestant’s dish
used to fill pauses in Gordon’s speech
caused by hesitancy, to let Yachecia the
listener catch up, and to assist Gordon plan
his next saying (Knowles 1987, Stubbs
1983)
informs an forthcoming unit as a contrasting
action (Schriffin, 1987)
h. Close conversation
The pre-closing is a complement made by Gordon to Yachecia with a falling
intonation (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973) ‘If that’s what you do for breakfast, God knows (.)
11
what you do for dinner. Great job.’ The conversation follows an archetype of closing with
two similar units ‘Thank you’ both used by Gordon and the contestant (Buton, 1987). This
can also refer to a continued repetition of closing items ‘Thank you - Thank you’.
GORDON’S CONVERSATION WITH KIDS
Conversation 1
1
Gordon
Henry. (1.5) so let’s get back to the actual process cause last half an
hour (1) you looked so upset.
((walk))
2
Henry
it’s just like (1) mind-bending how [you]
3
Gordon
[sure]
4
Henry
5
Gordon
6
Henry
has to be so thin:: [and] (.)
7
Gordon
[I know]
8
Henry
9
Gordon
10
Henry
and it has to be perfectly runny. (0.6)
11
Gordon
[yeah
12
Henry
[it’s just (0.5) hard to make it.
13
Gordon
SO:: visually (0.5) it’s missing some of the butter (0.8) >and then the<
(0.5) EDGES of you::r
have to get everything (0.5) perfe ↑ ct (.) and [the pasta]
[I know]
the egg yolk cannot [brea::k
[yeah
ravioli >looks a< little bit ragged. (.) BUT (0.5) Henry >it’s all< about
its taste right?
14
15
Henry
(yes)
16
Gordon
>> (how long you cooked it for) <<.
12
17
Henry
I cooked it for (0.3) (at least) (0.5) ninety minutes.
18
Gordon
ninety minutes? holy mackerel (have you cooked it) for thirty.
19
Henry
nine, (0.5) ninety seconds.=
20
Gordon
=ninety seconds [(foosh)
21
Henry
22
Gordon
[h
(.) for goodness sake. (0.8) wo↑w (0.7) let’s get in there shall we? (1) o
(yeah) (2.7) oh look there’s ricotta
((
cut the food))
e↑verywhere (1.2) how much chee::↑se is in there.
23
24
Henry
= o I don’t know o
25
Gordon
o now there’s the egg there (0.5) fi↑nally. (3) dear oh dear young o
man. (7) the egg yolk is cooked
((raise
fork))
((eat))
26
beautifully↑ (0.5) that’s a big plus for me (0.7) pasta rolls nice and
thinly↑ (0.4) but the big issue I have is
27
that you put way to much ricotta you know [that]
28
Henry
29
Gordon
30
Henry
31
Gordon
32
[yes]
because it doesn’t look like an egg yolk ravioli [it]
[(it’s)
looks like a (0.5) ricotta (0.5) and EGG ravioli (0.5) and the ricotta::
(0.8) is:: (0.5) really bland (0.5) so:: you
got some good news on that dish (0.) you got some really bad news
(0.5) tha::nk you.
a. Open conversation
13
In line 1, Gordon opens the conversation by calling Henry’s name. If this is in a
summon-answer sequence, Henry will answer the summon first, since there is a one-pointfive second pause that follows, and then Gordon states the reason for summoning, thus
making this a three-turn sequence (Levinson, 1983). However, since it’s obvious from the
format of the show that this is the part where the judge and the contestant talk about the
food, no reason is stated for why the conversation occurs, and Gordon jumps straight into
developing the topic without waiting for Henry to answer the summoning.
b. Turn taking
b.1. Discourse marker
“So” is pronounced with greater volume and stretch to take turn and change topic
b.2. Overlapping
Yule (1996) also mentions that young people might feel a sense of closeness or
solidarity with overlap expressing similar ideas to them. This notion is further reinforced
in this conversation since most of the overlaps in this conversation show acknowledgement.
Gordon overlaps Henry 4 times with his feedback in line 3, 5, 7, and 9. Gordon is also
overlapped 4 times, specifically in his feedback in line 11, his outbreath in line 20, his
assertion in line 28, and at the beginning of his syntactic unit in line 30. Gordon takes turns
by self-selecting using overlapping near the end of a syntactic unit (clauses) produced by
Henry. Aside from the use of “minimal acknowledgement” tokens (Gardner, 2001, pp. 22),
the overlaps are also brief as Gordon immediately withdraws to let Henry continue without
too much disruption in flow. Overlap in line 20-21 is that of audible outbreath, which seems
to be a playful interaction showing Henry’s relief and Gordon’s understanding of that relief.
In line 28, Gordon gives Henry the floor through initiation of an adjacency pair of assertion,
but before Gordon can finish his assertion “you know that”, Henry might have guessed the
full assertion, so he takes the turn to agree with Gordon, which overlaps with the end of
Gordon’s assertion. Henry also tries to take the turn from Gordon through overlap but
immediately drops out in 30. Henry seems to attempt to continue Gordon’s comment on
his dish by adding his own comment, but since Gordon doesn’t drop his turn, Henry's brief
overlap is stopped. To sum up, overlapping instances in this conversation have short length
and seem to be cooperative to show attentiveness and involvement.
b.3. Nominating other speakers
Gordon is the one nominating the other speaker mainly through the use of adjacency
pairs and (questions and assessments and assertions) and falling intonation at the end of
one syntactic unit (clauses, sentences). (Paltridge, 2012).
14
b.4. Hold floor
In order to hold the floor, Gordon uses various discourse markers “and”, “but”, “so”,
“cause” for coherence. Most pauses in this conversation are short, mostly less than a second,
so speakers can maintain their turn.
c. Adjacency pair
In line 1, Gordon gives an assessment “last half an hour, you looked so upset”.
However, this can also be a question why he was upset since Henry talks about the
difficulties in (line 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12). Henry’s response could also be interpreted as an
agreement to the assessment that he was upset.
Line 14 and 15 is an assessment sequence. Gordon’s assessment (the taste is the
most important) is phrased in the form of a rhetorical question with question tag “right?”
to indicate that Henry also understands this assessment, and Henry’s response is an
agreement, which is a preferred second pair part (Levinson, 1983).
The exchange in line 16-17 is a question - answer pair with the second pair part is
an answer, which is preferred (Levinson, 1983). In line 18, “ninety minutes?” is an
expression of surprise, as well as a other-repair by repeating the trouble-source
turn (Jefferson, Harvey & Sacks, 1977) to check understanding, so it does not receive a
response. However, “Have you cooked it for thirty?” is a question, and the second pair part
is a preferred answer (Yule, 1996).
In line 23, Gordon’s assessment (there is a lot of cheese) is phrased in the form of a
rhetorical question, further indicated by falling intonation. Henry’s response in line 24 is
disproved by the low volume “I don’t know”, which expresses doubt (Yule, 1996). Henry
might take Gordon’s assessment as a question and provide his answer.
In line 27-28, Gordon gives an assertion “you know that” and receives a preferred
quick response of agreement from Henry.
d. Feedback
Gordon gives feedback via “minimal acknowledgement” tokens are used with
various degrees of agreement. The use of such tokens isn’t too disrupting to the other
speaker’s flow while still showing involvement (Gardner, 2001, pp. 22). Token “yeah” in
line 9 and 11 “yeah” is a way to respond topically and to show more involvement and
attention; token “sure” in line 3 shows certainty; token “I know” in line 5 and 7 functions
as “markers of prior knowledge” showing strong agreement (Gardner, 2001, pp. 22).
e. Discourse marker
15
In line 1, “cause” is the short form of “because”, which is a subordinating
conjunction showing the reason as to why Gordon wants to talk about the process with
Henry. In line 13, Gordon uses the coordinating conjunction “and” to group ideas together
into general points (Schiffrin, 1987), which is the visual flaws of the dish). Coordinating
conjunction “but” is used twice to signal that the upcoming idea will contrast the previous
idea. In line 14, the contrast here is between the visual flaw and the potential of the taste to
become the savior of the dish. In line 26, “but” contrasts between the good points of the
dish and the problematic elements of the dish that may outweigh the good points.
The linking adverbial “so” is used in line 1, 13, and 31. In line 1, “so” initiates the
topic of Henry’s cooking process. “So” in line 13 indicates the change of topic from
Henry’s difficulties in the cooking process to Gordon's comment about the food. “So” in
line 31 signals the conclusion, which is the result from Gordon’s evaluation of the dish.
Adverbial of time “now” in line 25 is uttered as the egg yolk appears when Gordon cuts
the food. In this case, “now” could be indicating new ideas/information (Schiffrin, 1987),
which is the egg yolk appearing. Gordon used an expletive “Holy mackerel” in line 18 to
show strong feelings of surprise (Biber et al, 1999)
Interjection “oh” in line 22 shows surprise (Leech & Svartvik, 1994). Gordon
expresses surprise at the quantity of ricotta in the food, whereas he expected a reasonable
amount. Interjection yeah in line 22 shows Gordon’s excitement for the non-audible action
of successfully cutting the food.
Gordon also uses two “moderated” expletives “Holy mackerel” in line 18 and “dear
oh dear” in line 25, to show great surprise at the time needed to cook and signal problematic
elements of the dish respectively.
Lastly, the response elicitor “right?” in line 14 is a question tag to signal mutual
understanding (Biber et al, 1999) of the assessment that the taste is more important than
the visual representation of the dish.
f. Close conversation
Gordon occupies all the pre-closing as well as in the closing move, and Henry does
not take part in any of them. Before closing the conversation, Gordon gives a
conclusion/summary of his comment on the dish. This is a back-reference (Button, 1987)
on the good points and some major issues with the dish stated above. It might be because
of the disappointment in Gordon’s comment that Henry doesn’t take part in the
development of the pre-closing sequence, nor does he start the closing moves by thanking
Gordon for his comments. In line 32, Gordon uses polite act formulae “Thank you” (Biber
et al, 1999) to end the conversation. It could be that because Gordon walks away from the
16
contestant as he closes the conversation, Henry doesn’t have the chance to take part in the
closing moves.
Conversation 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Gordon Sa::die. >Describe this dish, please<
Sadie
So I made:: Bacon-Chive >Parmesan Egg Cu↑ps< with:: tomatoes and
Sourdough toast (2.5)
Gordon <Look at that!> (1.5)
Growed-up who was your:: hero? (.)
Sadie
Definitely my mother (.)
She inspired me to get in the kitchen and start:: coo↑king (.)
Gordon When I first arrived in the U.S., Guess who my hero was=
Sadie
=Who?
Gordon Julia Child (0.5)
Sadie
Sa::me::
Gordon No:: (.)
Sadie
Yes::
Gordon You know Julia Child↑
Sadie
Yes (1.5) she's the queen of but↑ter
17
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Gordon She is the queen of butter (1.5)
Do you know what she sounds like? (.)
Sadie
Would you like me to do an >impression<=
Gordon =Yes, please=
Sadie
=Okay (1.0)
I think Sadie is going to be the next MasterChef junior
Gordon Humour ((claps)) Loved that ( )
Sadie
º Man ((try food))
Gordon Wow º >that's delicious< (.)
>You know the eggs are cooked beautifully<
?/.The finesse >is incredible< because <those yolks are> runny (.)
Egg Parmesan very salty:: but it gives a great season to the eggs (.)
I can taste the bacon ((hand gesture)) (0.5)
What would I do differently (.)
You know:: maybe when you chop those chives up:: throw the chives
across the parmesan >so you got that< nice light onion flavor running
<through> the parmesan=
Sadie
=Okay=
Gordon =But ?/. young lady you have vision (0.5)
<Great start> (.)
Thank you (.)
Sadie
Thank you
a. Open conversation
18
It appears that Gordon executes a summon-answer adjacency pair, which starts with
Gordon summoning Sadie by calling her name in line 1, expecting an answer. However,
there occurs an absence of an answer. In the research on sequence organization, Schegloff
(1968) proposed that some turns at talk are united by a special property: conditional
relevance. If one turn is conditionally relevant to another, then the production of the first
provides for the relevance of the second. Since no answer occurs, its absence is a noticeable
event, which allows for a variety of inferences. In this case, there is a high possibility that
Sadie does not intend to interrupt in case Gordon might keep up. She remains eye-contact
as an indication that she is being attentive.
b. Turn taking
b.1. Nominating other speakers:
After finishing his turn, Gordon selects the next speaker by addressing the speaker
by name as in utterance number 1. He also uses patterns such as pausing at the end of the
utterance and making eye contact. These ways follow the rules proposed by Paltridge and
Hyland (2012).
However, Gordon mainly nominates the other speaker through the use of adjacency
pairs and sharply raising or lowering the pitch of his voice at the end of one syntactic unit
(clauses, sentences). (Paltridge, 2012).
b.2. Keeping turn
Gordon holds on to his turn by using a short pause, mostly less than a second, during
an utterance. As an illustration, in utterance number 3 and 13, he pauses shortly in the
middle of the sentence. In utterance number 19, he pauses five times between each sentence,
implying that he has not finished his turn, thus, preventing Sadie from interrupting him.
c. Adjacency pair
Adjacency pairs are “Pairs of utterances in talk are often mutually dependent’’
(McCarthy, p119). They are considered to be automatic sequences consisting of a first and
a second part produced by the different participants in a conversation. There are a range of
reasons for these insert sequences’, but typically the interested adjacency pairs. According
to yule (1996:76) Adjacency Pairs can be divided into thirteen types.
The first adjacency pair is utterances 1 and 2. Gordon continues with a request to
describe her dish. It was a request for information. Sadie replies with a preferred response
by describing her dish.
19
In utterances number 3 and 4, Gordon asks a question to request for information and
Sadie replies with a preferred response by answering the question.
The same thing happens in utterances 5 and 6. Gordon asks a question to request for
information although Sadie replies with a dispreferred response (non-answer). A preferred
response would be a name/title of a person, or “I don’t know”
Utterances number 8 and 9 was an ‘Assertion/Disagreement’ adjacency pair. “Same”
is an assertion of the fact that Gordon and Sadie admire the same person. “No” is a
dispreferred disagreement with that assertion. However, this seems to be an expression of
surprise, it still displays the disbelief that Sadie knows and admires Julia Child. Gordon
restates this disbelief in Line 11.
The next pair 9 and 10 is an ‘Assertion/Disagreement’. “No” can be considered as
Gordon’s assertion of the surprise information that Sadie also admires Julia Child. “Yes”
might be a dispreferred response since it disagrees with the assertion in line 9 (that Sadie
couldn’t have known about Julia Child. Once again, this topic is further developed in line
11).
In utterances number 11 and 12, Gordon asks a question to request for information
and Sadie replies with a preferred response by answering the question.
Pair 14 and 15 is an ‘Offer/Acceptance’ adjacency pair where Sadie offers to
perform an impression, which is an attempt at imitating another person's manner and
speech for the sole purpose of entertainment. Gordon replies with a preferred response by
accepting the offer.
d. Insertion sequence
Insertion sequences have two functions: to clarify and to delay. A delay is an item
used to put off a dispreferred second part. A dispreferred second part is a second part of an
adjacency pair that consists of a response to the first part that is generally to be avoided or
not expected, which are: “A refusal in response to a request, offer, or invitation; a
disagreement in response to an assessment; an unexpected answer in response to a question;
or an admission in response to blame”.
Utterances number 6 and 7 includes an unexpected answer in response to a question.
As Gordon asks a question to request for information, Sadie replies with a dispreferred
response by asking another question.
e. Close conversation
20
The conversation does not close archetypically since there is no signal word or
phrase such as “OK”, “alright” or “bye” (Buton, 1987) but signaled by Gordon lowering
the pitch of his voice. Gordon makes all the pre-closing as well as in the closing moves.
He gives a conclusion/summary of his comment on the dish. This is a back-reference
(Button, 1987) on the good points and suggestions on how to improve the dish. In line 32,
Gordon uses polite act formulae “Thank you” (Biber et al, 1999) to close the conversation.
Sadie does not take part in the closing moves.
COMPARISION
The usage of overlaps in both contestants when they are presenting the meals is the
first resemblance in Gordon's discourse. It is clear that the two contestants are the subject
of numerous repairs, feedback and discourse markers.
However, on the criticism side, Gordon communicates those concepts differently
with each speaker depending on the context of the dialogue. The overlap between these
two talks is the first distinction. Gordon briefly interjects "uh, yeah, I know" into his
statement a few times as Henry, the kid candidate, is discussing his feelings regarding the
task. Yule (1996) asserts that when two people express ideas that are similar to their own,
young people may feel a sense of closeness or solidarity. This helps to explain why Gordon
just encouraged the child to feel free to talk about any difficulties they had while cooking
and to further the conversation. Contrarily, this judge tends to interrupt Cutter, the adult
contestant, and takes a little bit longer to speak.
Besides, feedback is another factor that Gordon uses separately to speak to different
candidates. When speaking to Henry, Gordon uses the same word "yes" to demonstrate
interest and attention while still allowing him to continue his speech. When speaking to
Cutter, Gordon uses the same term and then interrupts Cutter by taking a second, longer
turn to comment on the food.
Repair is the third distinction made here. In the dialogue with the child, this aspect
is hardly ever present, but in the other, three repairs are utilized. Gordon repeats what Cutter
just said—not to correct him, but to be sure what he heard was accurate, as well as to
emphasize his surprise and disappointment with the meal.
Finally, the purpose of using discourse markers in each conversation is completely
distant. These markers are used with children to ensure coherence. For instance, the
conjunction "so" and "cause" in line 1 illustrate the causal - result relationship by allowing
the reader to initiate how Henry handled the situation thirty minutes earlier. On the other
hand, according to Schiffrin's framework for discourse markers, Gordon primarily uses
discourse markers when speaking to Cutter to express his emotions. In particular, the
21
expletive "Holy mackerel" is thought to be a discourse marker that denotes an emotional
state, in this case, disbelief.
Along with the aforementioned critique, this analysis will assess Gordon Ramsey's
compliments of both finalists. Regarding the similarity, he frequently makes brief pauses
to hold his turns when speaking.
What separates these two compliments? Gordon seems to provide Sadie more time
to talk by bombarding her with questions about the food and what inspired her during those
brief pauses to hold turns. When Yachecia, the adult, finishes her presentation of the biscuit,
he makes a lot of detailed comments.
After analysis, it became clear that the primary difference between these two talks
was the kids' language proficiency, which was far lower than Gordon's and required further
development. In order to encourage people to speak aloud what they want to contribute
about the problem, Gordon repeatedly avoids overlapping them. Additionally, he rarely
swears when speaking to the children to serve as an example of polite speech and help them
learn from him.
REFERENCE
1. [Cooking Max]. (2021, November 25). Masterchef Junior S6E10 [Video]. YouTube.
Retrieved
September
14,
2022,
from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAL8FwhAJ0&t=1814s
2. [ftv]. (2020, November 20). Best Dishes on MasterChef Part 1 [Video]. YouTube.
Retrieved from https://youtu.be/q2HLamQo0i8
3. [MasterChef 1080p]. (2021, December 20). MasterChef US S05E09 1080p [Video].
YouTube.
Retrieved
September
17,
2022,
from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTFzN_n7bw4&feature=youtu.be
4. Biber, D., Johnason, S., Leech, G., Gonard, S. and Fingegan, E. (1999). The
Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman
5. Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In Talk and Social Organization (pp.
101–151). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
6. Clark, H. H. (2001). Conversation: Linguistic Aspects. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?sa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj
%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D%26cad%3Drja%26uact
%3D8%26ved%3D2ahUKEwj0_qO9vp36AhXQEIgKHeAnCEMQFnoECBEQA
Q%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fweb.stanford.edu%252F~clark%252F200
0s%252FClark%252C%252520H.H.%252520_Conversation%252C%252520ling
uistic%252520aspects_%2525202006.pdf%26usg%3DAOvVaw3Jza3MWqlorDq
oqA4kozKr&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1663478649974926&usg=AOvVaw1M7E
ByS_B6IsBFBghZ5sBy
22
7. Conversational Analysis in Pragmatics. (2022, July 28). English Literature &
Linguistics.
Retrieved
September
17,
2022,
from
https://englishstudyhelp.blogspot.com/2012/05/conversational-analysis-inpragmatics.html#:%7E:text=An%20insertion%20sequence%20is%20a,responding
%20with%20the%20second%20part%20.
8. Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. John
Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92
9. Goldberg, J. A. (1990, December). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions.
Journal of Pragmatics, 14(6), 883–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/03782166(90)90045-f
10. Knowles, G. (1987). Patterns of Spoken English: An Introduction to English
phonetics. London: Longman
11. Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1994). A communicative Grammar of English. 2nd. ed.
London: Longman
12. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Murata, K. (1994). Intrusive or cooperative? A cross-cultural study of interruption.
Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 385–400.
14. Nakane, I. (2007, November 14). Silence in Intercultural Communication:
Perceptions and Performance (166th ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
15. Othman, Z. (2010). The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native
speaker lecturers: Their ‘anticipated’ and ‘real’ meanings. SAGE journals. 12(5).
DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610376365
16. Paltridge, B., & Hyland, K. (2012, November 1). Discourse Analysis: An
Introduction (Bloomsbury Discourse) (2nd ed.). Continuum.
17. Sacks, H. (edited by Gail JeVerson)
(1992a). Lectures in Conversation. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
(1992b). Lectures in Conversation. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.
18. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974, December). A Simplest
Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4),
696. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
19. Saunders, P. (1999). Gossip in an Older Women’s Support Group: A Linguistic
Analysis. In Language and Communication in Old Age: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives (1st ed.).
20. Schegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh
huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In Analyzing Discourse: Text
and Talk, Deborah Tannen (ed.), 71–93. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
21. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4).
https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
22. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977, June). The Preference for SelfCorrection in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361.
https://doi.org/10.2307/413107
23. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
23
24. Schleef, E. (2005). Gender, Power, Discipline and Context: On the Sociolinguistic
Variations of Okay, Right, Like and You Know in English Academic Discourse.
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium about Language and Society Forum
48: 177–86
25. Stenstrom, A-B. (1994). An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. Longman, London
26. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural
Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
27. Tannen, D. (1996, January 4). Gender and Discourse. Oxford University Press.
28. Thomson, A. & Martinet, A. (2002). Practical English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University press
29. Thornborrow, J. (2001). Questions, control and the organization of talk in calls to
a radio phone-in. Discourse Studies, 1, 119–43
30. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
GROUP REPORT
No.
Name
Student’s
ID
1.
Nguyễn Minh Hằng
19040835
2.
3.
Bùi Tuấn Hưng
Nguyễn Quang Huy
19040875
19040863
Tasks
•
Devise task and
assign members to
complete the task
•
Keep track of the
group’s working
progress
•
Presenting
•
Writing report and
edit the final version
•
Presenting
•
Writing report
•
Presenting
•
Writing report
24
Grade of
contribution
(out of 10)
10/10
10/10
10/10
4.
5.
Nguyễn Lê Minh Khuê
19040891
Nguyễn Ngọc Thu Thảo 19041017
•
Designing
presentation slide
•
Writing report
•
Presenting
•
Presenting
•
Writing report
25
10/10
10/10