Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika –
Зарубежная лингвистика и
лингводидактика – Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
Language games and power dynamics in broadcasting
Maftuna SHONAZAROVA
1
Uzbekistan State University of World Languages
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received September 2024
Received in revised form
10 October 2024
Accepted 25 October 2024
Available online
15 November 2024
This article investigates the linguistic and pragmatic
dimensions of contemporary broadcasting discourse. Drawing
on an interdisciplinary framework that integrates insights from
discourse analysis, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and media
studies, it foregrounds Ludwig Wittgenstein’s concept of the
“language game” as developed within various pragmatic and
interactional traditions. Within broadcasting contexts, the
language game emerges as a dynamic interplay of linguistic
resources, conversational norms, institutional imperatives, and
audience expectations that collectively shape meaning-making
processes in and around mediated talk.
Offering a critical overview of existing scholarship on
broadcast discourse, the article focuses on how language games
are orchestrated and contested across genres such as news
interviews, talk shows, sports commentary, and more. Through
a close reading of authentic examples drawn from English-
language radio and television programs, it illustrates how hosts,
guests, and audiences collaborate to construct a distinctive
communicative environment. This environment is sustained
through both explicit strategies—such as humor, lexical choices,
and formulaic expressions—and implicit, context-driven
pragmatic cues—such as turn-taking practices, epistemic stance-
taking, and strategic ambiguity.
Ultimately, this study demonstrates that broadcast language
games function not merely as vehicles for information transfer
but as complex, dialogic arenas in which power, ideology, and
cultural values are constantly negotiated.
2181-3701/© 2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss6-pp223-231
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
language games,
pragmatics,
broadcasting,
discourse analysis,
media talk,
linguistic strategies,
audience engagement.
1
Teacher, Faculty of International Journalism, Uzbekistan State University of World Languages.
E-mail: maftunashonazarova@gmail.com
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
224
Radiodiskursda til o‘yinining lingvomadaniy va pragmatik
aspekti
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar:
til o‘yinlari,
pragmatika,
eshittirish,
diskurs tahlili,
media nutq,
lingvistik strategiyalar,
auditoriya jalb etilishi.
Ushbu maqolada zamonaviy eshittirishlar sharoitida tilning
lingvistik va pragmatik jihatlari ko‘rib chiqiladi. Tadqiqot nutq
tahlili, pragmatika, sotsiolingvistika va media tadqiqotlari bilan
bog‘liq interdisiplinar yondashuvga asoslanib, Lüdvig
Vitgenshteyn tomonidan ilgari surilgan va turli pragmatik hamda
interaktiv an’analar doirasida rivojlantirilgan “til o‘yini”
tushunchasiga tayanadi. Eshittirishlar sohasidagi til o‘yini
lingvistik vositalar, suhbat normalari, institutsional talablar va
auditoriya kutishlarining dinamik o‘zaro ta’siri sifatida talqin
qilinadi. Ushbu omillar vositachilik qilingan nutq jarayonida
ma’no yaratish jarayonini shakllantiradi. Maqolada eshittirish
diskursi bo‘yicha mavjud ilmiy adabiyotlar tanqidiy tahlil qilinib,
til o‘yinlari, yangilik intervyulari, tok-shoular, sport sharhlari va
boshqa eshittirish janrlarida qanday tashkil etilishi va
bahslashilishi ko‘rsatib beriladi. Ingliz tilidagi radio va
teleko‘rsatuvlardan olingan autentik misollarni chuqur tahlil
qilish orqali biz boshlovchilar, mehmonlar va auditoriya o‘ziga
xos kommunikativ muhitni qanday hamkorlikda yaratayotganini
namoyish etamiz. Bu muhit aniq strategiyalar – xushchaqchaqlik,
leksik tanlov, shakllangan iboralar – hamda bilvosita, kontekstga
bog‘liq pragmatik signallar – navbat almashinuvi amaliyoti,
bilish pozitsiyasi va strategik noaniqlik orqali qo‘llab-
quvvatlanadi. Natijada ushbu tadqiqot ko‘rsatadiki, eshittirish
sohasidagi til o‘yinlari shunchaki axborot uzatish vositasi emas,
balki hokimiyat, mafkura va madaniy qadriyatlar tinimsiz
muhokama qilinadigan murakkab, dialogik maydon hisoblanadi.
Языковые игры и динамика власти в сфере вещания
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
языковые игры,
прагматика,
вещание,
дискурс-анализ,
медийный дискурс,
лингвистические
стратегии,
вовлечение аудитории.
В данной статье рассматриваются лингвистические и
прагматические
аспекты
использования
языка
в
современных условиях вещания. Исследование основано на
междисциплинарном подходе, который объединяет анализ
дискурса, прагматику, социолингвистику и медиаведение. В
его
основе
лежит
концепция
«языковой
игры»,
разработанная Людвигом Витгенштейном и развиваемая в
различных прагматических и интеракционных традициях.
Языковая игра в контексте вещания представлена как
динамическое
взаимодействие
языковых
ресурсов,
разговорных норм, институциональных требований и
ожиданий аудитории, формирующих процесс создания
смысла в условиях медиированной коммуникации. В статье
даётся критический обзор существующих исследований
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
225
телерадио-дискурса с акцентом на то, как языковые игры
организуются и оспариваются в таких жанрах вещания, как
новостные интервью, ток-шоу, спортивные комментарии и
другие форматы. На основе анализа аутентичных примеров
из англоязычных радио- и телепрограмм исследование
демонстрирует, как ведущие, гости и аудитория совместно
создают уникальную коммуникативную среду. Эта среда
поддерживается как явными стратегиями – юмором,
лексическим выбором и формульными выражениями, так и
неявными,
контекстуально
обусловленными
прагматическими сигналами. Среди них – практики
распределения
очередности
высказываний,
эпистемические позиции и использование стратегической
двусмысленности. В итоге исследование показывает, что
языковые игры в сфере вещания – это не просто каналы
передачи информации, а сложные диалоговые площадки. На
этих площадках непрерывно происходит борьба за власть,
идеологические установки и культурные ценности.
INTRODUCTION
Broadcasting, as a prominent and pervasive medium of communication, has long
attracted scholarly attention from linguists, media theorists, and communication
researchers (Bell & Garrett, 1998; Ekström & Tolson, 2013; Hutchby, 2006). Central to the
study of broadcast communication is the understanding of how language functions in the
orchestrated, rule-governed, and contextually rich interactions that take place in radio and
television programs. Within these interactions, language is not merely a conduit for
information transfer, but a complex cultural and social phenomenon shaped by
professional norms, institutional constraints, and audience expectations (Clayman &
Heritage, 2002; Fairclough, 1995; Tolson, 2006).
One fruitful way to conceptualize and analyze the intricate interplay of linguistic and
pragmatic factors in broadcasting is through the notion of the “language game”
(Wittgenstein, 1953). Borrowed from philosophical investigations into the nature of
meaning and understanding, the language game framework foregrounds the idea that
communicative exchanges are guided by shared rules, patterns of use, and interactive
norms. However, unlike many philosophical discussions, broadcast contexts involve a
range of pragmatic considerations – such as the asymmetry of power between
interlocutors, the performance aspect of media talk, and the presence of a non-co-present
audience – that complicate the straightforward application of language game theory.
The relevance of the language game concept for broadcasting lies in its capacity to
illuminate how meaning is negotiated rather than fixed, how identities and roles are
dynamically constructed, and how linguistic resources are selectively deployed to achieve
strategic ends. Broadcasters, including hosts and anchors, partake in a form of
“institutional conversation” that is both constrained by editorial policies and, at the same
time, flexible enough to entertain, inform, and persuade (Hutchby, 2006; Tolson, 1991). In
these contexts, the language game is not static; it is fluid, contested, and continually
adapted as participants try to maintain relevance, credibility, and engagement with the
audience.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
226
This article sets out to advance our understanding of linguistic and pragmatic
aspects of the language game in broadcasting. First, it offers a comprehensive literature
review, examining how relevant theories in linguistics, pragmatics, discourse analysis, and
media studies have dealt with the complexity of broadcast talk. Second, it draws on the
theoretical framework of language games to map out key features of broadcast
interactions, focusing on how pragmatic strategies and linguistic structures coalesce in
different broadcast genres. Third, authentic examples are analyzed to show how these
theoretical insights manifest in practice. Finally, the article concludes by considering the
broader implications of understanding broadcasting as a language game, discussing how
this perspective can inform future research and contribute to the critical evaluation of
media discourse.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Communication within broadcast media often displays features that distinguish it
from everyday conversation. Scholars have noted that broadcast talk is shaped by an array
of institutional goals – such as informing the public, enhancing network credibility,
building brand identity, and entertaining viewers (Bell, 1991; Montgomery, 2007).
Interviews, news announcements, panel discussions, and even casual banter on morning
shows are governed by norms and conventions that ensure the smooth operation of these
institutional functions (Clayman & Heritage, 2002; Thornborrow, 2015). Discourse
analysts have highlighted how turn-taking, topic control, and syntactic simplifications
serve these institutional imperatives, reflecting power dynamics between hosts and guests
(Greatbatch, 1998; Scannell, 1991).
Pragmatic analyses of broadcast discourse emphasize how meaning emerges in
context-bound interactions. Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) relevance theory has been
applied to understand how media talk is tailored to diverse and dispersed audiences who
must infer meaning from limited contextual cues. Levinson’s (1983) theories of
conversational implicature, Gricean maxims, and the notion of face in Brown and
Levinson’s (1987) politeness framework all help explain the subtle adjustments speakers
make to align with audience expectations and maintain credibility. For example, news
presenters often deploy hedges or modal verbs to manage epistemic stances, and political
interviewers use strategic ambiguity to pressure interviewees while maintaining an
appearance of neutrality (Clayman & Heritage, 2002; Ekström & Tolson, 2013).
The concept of language games, introduced by Wittgenstein (1953), rests on the idea
that meaning is a function of use within a given rule-bound context. Since its inception, the
notion has been adapted by linguists and discourse analysts to underscore how patterns
of language use create and maintain social realities. In broadcasting, language games shape
and reflect power asymmetries, editorial ideologies, and audience beliefs (Fairclough,
1995; Thornborrow, 2004). Media talk can be seen as a form of institutional language game
where participants, including hosts, guests, and even silent audiences, tacitly agree on
particular rules and norms that govern the interaction – rules that can be challenged,
renegotiated, or subverted as part of the meaning-making process.
Radio and television presenters engage in “audience design” – the process of
tailoring speech to the imagined recipients who cannot respond directly (Bell, 1984). This
involves selecting lexical items, employing specific pragmatic markers, managing prosody,
and adjusting topic development to cater to presumed audience knowledge and
preferences. For example, sports commentators use specialized jargon and formulaic
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
227
expressions to frame events in ways that excite listeners and confirm their expert roles
(Rowe, 2004). Likewise, talk show hosts rely on conversational humor, irony, and strategic
interruptions to maintain a lively on-air persona and ensure audience entertainment
(Tolson, 2006).
Studies on the linguistic and pragmatic aspects of broadcasting have employed
multiple methodologies, including conversation analysis (Hutchby, 2006), critical
discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995), interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 1982), and
corpus linguistics (Bednarek, 2010). Each approach contributes distinctive insights. For
instance, conversation analysis highlights turn-taking and sequential organization of talk;
critical discourse analysis reveals underlying ideological patterns in language choice;
corpus linguistics quantifies linguistic forms and collocations; and interactional
sociolinguistics explores cross-cultural norms in media communication. Together, these
methodologies provide a comprehensive toolkit for examining the complexity of language
games in broadcast discourse.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Wittgenstein’s (1953) notion of language games emphasizes the activity-bound and
rule-governed nature of linguistic meaning. Within broadcasting contexts, a language game
can be conceptualized as the interactive negotiation of meaning under institutional,
cultural, and pragmatic constraints. Whereas in ordinary conversation participants have
symmetrical roles and immediate shared contexts, broadcasters and their guests operate
in a triadic environment: (1) the speaker – often a professional communicator such as a
host or correspondent; (2) the interlocutor – e.g., a guest, politician, or interviewee; and
(3) the overhearing audience – often vast, anonymous, and dispersed. Each participant
contributes to the shape and direction of the language game, albeit with differing degrees
of power and influence.
Pragmatics, concerned with meaning in use and context, aligns naturally with the
concept of language games. Key pragmatic phenomena relevant here include implicature,
presupposition, face management, politeness strategies, speech acts, and stance-taking.
These are not random features of talk; rather, they are systematically deployed within
broadcast interactions to achieve strategic ends. For instance, interviewers may use
indirect questions to maintain politeness while probing sensitive issues, effectively playing
a “game” with the interviewee’s face wants (Clayman & Heritage, 2002). Similarly, talk
show hosts often engage in humor and teasing as pragmatic strategies to foster solidarity
with their audience and position themselves as relatable figures (Chiaro & Nocella, 2004).
As institutional discourse, broadcasting adheres to a set of norms – what we might
term “house rules” of the language game. These rules influence when a host can interrupt,
how a guest is introduced, what lexical register is appropriate, and which speech acts are
expected (Hutchby, 2006). Adherence to, or deviation from, these rules can have
significant consequences. For instance, a politician who refuses to answer a direct question
in a political interview flouts the expected cooperation principle, prompting the
interviewer to reassert control, often by rephrasing the question or challenging the
politician’s evasiveness. These moves are part of the “meta-game” where participants
negotiate the validity and applicability of the rules themselves.
Broadcast language games are inherently asymmetrical. Hosts and interviewers
typically have the authority to select topics, manage turn allocation, and impose “footing”
shifts that redefine participants’ roles in the conversation (Goffman, 1981; Clayman &
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
228
Heritage, 2002). This asymmetry extends to pragmatic strategies: a host can cut off a guest
to go to a commercial break without losing face, while a guest who attempts to challenge
the host’s authority risks negative evaluations from both the interviewer and the audience.
Understanding this interplay of power is crucial to analyzing the language game, as the
pragmatic “moves” are often designed to reinforce or contest established hierarchies.
Broadcast language games are inherently performative. Speakers craft their
utterances not only to communicate content but also to maintain persona, uphold
credibility, and align themselves with audience expectations (Tolson, 2006).
The introduction of humor, rhetorical flourishes, and formulaic expressions often aims at
audience involvement. Moreover, the audience itself is dynamic, shaping the rules of the
game by responding – albeit indirectly – through social media commentary, ratings, or
online reviews. The language game in broadcasting thus continuously evolves, reflecting
changes in cultural norms, media technology, and the shifting preferences of listeners and
viewers.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
News interviews exemplify the complexity of the language game in broadcasting.
Typically, the interviewer embodies institutional authority, framing the agenda and
controlling the flow of talk (Clayman & Heritage, 2002). Questions are often formulated as
complex speech acts that simultaneously request information, test credibility, and signal
institutional stance. The respondent, aware of the audience’s presence, must navigate
carefully, providing answers that appear cooperative and informative while preserving
personal or political face. For instance, when an interviewer asks a politician: “Can you
guarantee that these policies will lower unemployment next year?” the utterance is not
merely a yes/no question. It implicitly challenges the politician’s competence, seeks
accountability, and cues the audience to evaluate the politician’s response. The politician’s
reply, in turn, may strategically use conditional language, qualifiers, and positive face-
enhancing devices to appear honest and reasonable, thereby maintaining credibility
within the constraints of this language game.
In talk shows, the language game often takes on a more playful character. The host
and guests frequently engage in humor, teasing, and banter. These practices serve several
pragmatic functions: They entertain the audience, project a relaxed and friendly
atmosphere, and establish rapport among participants (Tolson, 2006). For example,
a late-night show host might introduce a guest with a series of humorous compliments that
rely on shared cultural references. The guest’s response may incorporate self-deprecating
humor to reinforce solidarity. The audience’s laughter, though mediated, becomes a crucial
component of the language game, signaling approval and encouraging further playful
exchanges. In this scenario, the rules of the language game differ from those of the news
interview: humor is permissible and even expected, direct confrontation is minimized, and
face-threatening acts are softened by the jocular frame.
Sports broadcasting introduces another dimension to the language game.
Commentators must simultaneously fulfill the roles of journalists (providing accurate,
timely information), experts (offering insightful analysis), and entertainers (engaging the
audience emotionally) (Rowe, 2004). The language game here involves the strategic use of
specialized jargon, evaluative adjectives, and metaphors to dramatize events. For example,
a soccer commentator might say: “He threads the ball through the defense like a needle
through fabric – pure brilliance!” This utterance is not just descriptive; it projects
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
229
excitement, expertise, and emotional involvement. The commentator’s linguistic choices
invite the audience to share in the exhilaration, reinforcing the commentator’s authority
and the broadcast’s entertainment value. In this way, the language game in sports
commentary is a balancing act of pragmatic moves that cater to multiple audience
expectations.
A notable feature of broadcasting is the reliance on formulaic language –
prefabricated expressions that fulfill specific pragmatic functions. These may include
opening greetings, sign-offs, transitional phrases, and ritualized acknowledgments of
sponsor messages (Bell, 1991; Thornborrow, 2015). Formulaicity ensures predictability
and coherence, helping both participants and audiences navigate complex media events.
For instance, a news anchor might repeatedly use phrases like “In other news” or “Coming
up after the break” to structure the broadcast and manage audience expectations. Although
seemingly mundane, these formulaic sequences are integral to the language game, acting
as stable “rules” that guide the interpretation of subsequent talk.
Another key aspect of the language game in broadcasting is the strategic use of
ambiguity. Broadcasters often leave certain meanings open to interpretation, allowing
them to appeal to a wide audience base (Eisenberg, 1984). A political commentator might
say: “Some argue that this policy goes too far, while others believe it doesn’t go far enough.”
This statement defers commitment, refraining from endorsing a particular stance while
acknowledging multiple viewpoints. Strategic ambiguity preserves the commentator’s
appearance of neutrality and encourages the audience to form their own conclusions. In
doing so, it becomes a pragmatic resource that participants use to navigate sensitive topics
without alienating parts of the audience.
Contemporary broadcasting is increasingly multimodal, with visual cues, graphics,
music, and social media feeds intertwining with spoken language. These additional
semiotic resources expand the scope of the language game. For example, a television news
show may present a split-screen interview with multiple guests, on-screen text
summarizing key points, and a ticker running headlines beneath the main image. Each
mode contributes to the overall meaning, reinforcing certain interpretations while
challenging others (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Social media interactions, hashtags, and live
polls further complicate the language game by introducing a quasi-interactive dimension.
Audience members can “talk back” through tweets or posts, influencing future broadcasts
and modifying the established rules of media communication.
The rules and norms of the broadcast language game are not universal. Cultural
values, linguistic traditions, and ideological climates influence how meaning is constructed
and received (Scannell, 1991). A talk show in Japan might adhere to strict politeness norms
and indirectness strategies, while a British political interview might value pointed
directness and quick wit. Similarly, a sports commentary in Latin America might embrace
more emotional and hyperbolic expressions than one in Northern Europe, reflecting
regional communication styles and audience expectations (Hjarvard, 1994). Cross-
linguistic research reveals how cultural norms shape the language games played out in
broadcasting, underscoring the need for comparative studies that consider local media
ecologies.
CONCLUSION
This article has examined the linguistic and pragmatic dimensions of the language
game in broadcasting, drawing on theoretical insights from pragmatics, discourse analysis,
sociolinguistics, and media studies. By viewing broadcast talk as an institutionalized yet
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
230
dynamic game, we have illuminated how various linguistic and pragmatic resources – from
turn-taking norms and question design to humor, formulaicity, and strategic ambiguity –
coalesce to shape meaning, influence perception, and negotiate power relations.
We have seen that while the language game in broadcasting is guided by
institutional imperatives and cultural norms, it is also open to challenge and modification.
Journalists, presenters, commentators, and guests are all players who can, within the limits
of the game’s rules, attempt to redefine its boundaries. Audiences, though physically
absent, remain active participants who respond, interpret, and critique what they see and
hear, indirectly influencing future broadcasts.
As broadcasting platforms become increasingly multimodal and interactive, the
complexity of these language games grows. Future research must therefore account for
new technologies, hybrid genres, and globalized media ecologies. By continuing to explore
how language functions as a game in these evolving contexts, scholars can enrich our
understanding of the relationship between language, society, and the media, helping both
producers and consumers of media content navigate the intricate world of broadcast
communication more ethically and effectively.
REFERENCES:
1.
Bednarek, M. (2010).
Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper
corpus.
Continuum.
2.
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design.
Language in Society
, 13(2),
145–204.
3.
Bell, A. (1991).
The language of news media.
Blackwell.
4.
Bell, A., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1998).
Approaches to media discourse.
Blackwell.
5.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987).
Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press.
6.
Chiaro, D., & Nocella, G. (2004). Intertextuality and the translator: Creative and
constraining ties in humorous texts.
The Translator
, 10(1), 1–24.
7.
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002).
The news interview: Journalists and public
figures on the air.
Cambridge University Press.
8.
Culpeper, J., & Gill, D. (2014). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In K.
Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics
(pp. 617–637).
Cambridge University Press.
9.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.
Communication Monographs
, 51(3), 227–242.
10.
Ekström, M., & Tolson, A. (2013). Political interviews. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge
(Eds.),
The Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis
(pp. 198–212). Bloomsbury.
11.
Fairclough, N. (1995).
Media discourse.
Edward Arnold.
12.
Goffman, E. (1981).
Forms of talk.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
13.
Greatbatch, D. (1998). Conversation analysis: Neutralism in British news
interviews. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.),
Approaches to media discourse
(pp. 163–185).
Blackwell.
14.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982).
Discourse strategies.
Cambridge University Press.
15.
Hjarvard, S. (1994). The globalization of language: How the media contribute to
the spread of English and the emergence of medialects.
Nordicom Review
, 1, 75–97.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Issue – 2 № 6 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
231
16.
Hutchby, I. (2006).
Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of
broadcasting.
Open University Press.
17.
Levinson, S. C. (1983).
Pragmatics.
Cambridge University Press.
18.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012).
How to do critical discourse analysis.
Sage.
19.
Montgomery, M. (2007).
The discourse of broadcast news: A linguistic approach.
Routledge.
20.
Rowe, D. (2004).
Sport, culture and the media: The unruly trinity.
Open University
Press.
21.
Scannell, P. (1991).
Broadcast talk.
Sage.
22.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995).
Relevance: Communication and cognition
(2nd
ed.). Blackwell.
23.
Thornborrow, J. (2004). Language and interaction in the broadcast interview. In
K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.),
Applying conversation analysis
(pp. 98–114). Palgrave
Macmillan.
24.
Thornborrow, J. (2015).
The discourse of public participation media.
Routledge.
25.
Tolson, A. (1991). Televised chat and the notion of conversation.
Media, Culture
& Society
, 13(3), 409–441.
26.
Tolson, A. (2006).
Media talk: Spoken discourse on TV and radio.
Edinburgh
University Press.
27.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953).
Philosophical Investigations.
Blackwell.
