Thought Journal #3

Lejiao Wang

March 26, 2014

Thought Journal 3 on The Colbert Report with Deborah Tannen

By Lejiao Wang

In this talk show between Colbert and Dr. Tannen, identities are not just being talked
about, but also displayed through the co-constructed oral interaction between the host
and the guest. The conflictions between two pairs of identities are indexed in this talk
show, namely expert vs. layman women vs. men, through the ideological stance
taking of the host and the guest as well as their language and prosody use. As the
interaction goes on, the identities of both interlocutors also keep shifting which in turn
pushes and constructs the interaction between the two in the studio.

Dr. Tannens study is actually justifies the core topic of this talk show how women
talk and are perceived. In the first sentence of Colberts open talk, he explicitly brings
up one of the identity of Dr. Tannen an expert to introduce her as a guest. Till
now, Tannens identity is still neutral and nothing more than a scholar. While in the
second sentence Colbert deliberately turns Dr. Tannens identity from an expert to a
woman by saying talk to and perceive her. Pronoun her unambiguously indicate
Tannens gender. And here, by using talk to and perceive (similar phrase used to
introduce Tannens study field), Colbert indicates that he would not only take Tannen
as a scholar, but also as a representative of the group of people that she studies (e.g.
women). By shifting Tannens identity explicitly, Colbert also shifts his own identity
implicitly to the opposite position (a man) to Tannens and the confliction between
the two identities is about to emerge. The shifting of identities indicates that in the
studio they are not just going to talk about gender, they will also display their genders.

Thought Journal #3

Lejiao Wang

March 26, 2014

After a short greeting to each other, Tannen says Dont worry. I wont be judging
you to show her attitude toward Colbert that although shes a scholar and an expert
in women communication, she would be nice to him and not judge him because hes
the host of the show and also a man (not the focus of her study). Judge is a formal
verb that usually links to opinion formation. While instead of expressing his
appreciation toward the mercy from an expert, Colbert conducts an FTA by
producing a dispreferred response and using judge back on Tannen Well, Ill,
Ill judge you for both of us. Here, judge can be taken as the escalation of
perceive and sounds more arbitrary. Hence Colbert further develops his own
identity as a self-aggrandized layperson of this study field as well as a member of the
public. Furthermore, you in this sentence refer to Dr. Tannen both as an expert and
a woman. The confliction of identities emerges for the first time.

In terms of epistemic stance making, theres a moderate degree of certainty in Dr.

Tannens utterance, even though shes talking about her own study field, like might
just say. This moderate degree of certainty is in accordance with Tannens identity
as an expert who is quite aware of the dialectic relationship between context and the
use of language. When she portrays the attitude of the public, however, she selects
quite a few words indicate high degree of certainty like hes a really sensitive man
We really cant trust her because shes emotional to indicate their
unreasonableness. On the other hand, Colbert also deliberately selects a series of
words that could help him to built up the identities that he wants to create for himself,
for example, in the sentence if you ask a manhe would say, well yes obviously
a modal would of high degree certainty is used to describe a mans possible

Thought Journal #3

Lejiao Wang

March 26, 2014

response to a womans indirect speech act. Colbert is a man himself, thus he would
feel justified to be a spokesperson of men. To intensify his masculine identity within
the talk, his adopts an emphatic, shouting tone when hes saying Get used to it
woman. Wheres my cocktail? Using woman as a reference in his utterance vividly
expresses that there are some disrespectful attitude toward women exists in public.
And in the sentence I call it the Morgan Freeman theory, using call theory to
refer to his own explanation, shows a kind of arrogant and self-aggrandized features
of his identity. Thats all that Colbert deliberately wants to create in the interaction,
since he is not just talking about gender issues, hes trying to display it to the audience.

In their talk, Colbert is constantly and deliberately violating cooperative principle of

conversation. He doesnt provide the preferred response, conducts FTA directly,
keeps interrupting, and also pretends to misunderstood the speakers (Tannens)
indirect speech act, i.e. They might say youre not gonna wear that are you. And
Id imagine the daughter might say yes, mother. In this example, Colbert purposely
misunderstands the mothers complaint of the daughters inappropriate dressing and
request for a change literally as a question, which in turn pushes Tannen to further
illustrate her opinions. The noncooperative conversation also helps to push their
interaction to move on to the direction that Colbert as the host would like it to be.

Thought Journal #3

Lejiao Wang

March 26, 2014

Appendix
Deborah Tannen

Stephen Colbert

1. A guest

1. A host of a talk show

2. An expert (on the way women 2. A self-aggrandizing layman

talk

Identity

and

how

they

are

(of women communication

perceived)

study)

3. A woman

3. A man
4. A husband

1. I wont be judging you.

1. Women are wrapped up in

2. shes being a woman again.

their

3. Hes a really sensitive man.

pheromones.

emotions

and

their

4. A woman in any position of 2. Do you think Hillary is being

Affective

authority

Stance

challenge.

has

special

judged more harshly or its

harder for a woman to be
perceived

as

a,

breakthrough president, than

say Barak Obama as a black
man?

Stance

3. damn straight. Get used to

it woman.
4. Wheres my cocktail?
1. Epistemic Modals:

Epistemic

1. Epistemic Modals:

e.g. They might say youre not

e.g. And Id imagine the

gonna wear that are you?

daughter might say Yes,

I mean at some ages she

mother.

Thought Journal #3
Stance

Lejiao Wang

March 26, 2014

how would a mother

might just say

you might just change

say youre wearing that.

2. Adverbials:

If you ask a man a-are

because if a man

you wearing that, they would

shows emotion, people might

say well yes obviously, I have

think, gee yeah, hes a really

it on.

e.g.

sensitive man.

We really cant trust her

because shes emotional.
But we just do.
3. Unqualified

equative

would

straight.

Get

say

damn

used

to

it

woman.
2. Adverbials:
e.g. dont we already have

expressions with copula be:

a sense of the way women

e.g. She is being judged more

behave?

harshly.

3. Unqualified

equative

expressions with copula be:

e.g.

So their message is that

men

arent

getting

from

women in that.
4. Verbs:
e.g. I call it the Morgan
Freeman theory.
1. Disagreements:

1. Interruption

e.g. It depends on how old she 2. Disagreements:

is, actually. I mean, at some
FTA

ages she might just say

e.g. No. No. (direct)

Thought Journal #3

Lejiao Wang

March 26, 2014

(indirect)
Its kind of who is asking.
I mean if you wife said
(indirect)
1. Youre not gonna wear that are 1. Wheres my cocktail?
Indirect
Speech

you?
2. If your wife said to you, uh is
that what youre gonna wear?

Reference of the public:

People
We
Themselves
The majority of Americans

Modality: Oral discourse

Register: Colloquial (kinda, gonna, damn straight, etc.)
Genre: Comic TV talk show