Pozna, 2014

Magdalena Lampkowska
355118
Gendering the household.
Possible implications of
conversational patterns and social
categorization for identity formation on
the basis of media discourse.

Kreowanie pci spoecznej oraz
zwizanych z ni rl w rodzinie.
Moliwe implikacje schematw
konwersacyjnych oraz kategoryzacji
dla procesu ksztatowania tosamoci,
na podstawie dyskursu medialnego.

ii
Praca magisterska napisana
na Wydziale Anglistyki
Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
pod kierunkiem prof. zw. dr hab. Romana Kopytko
kierunek studiw: filologia angielska
specjalno: jzyk i komunikacja w mediach i polityce

iii
SUMMARY
The aim of this paper is to answer the research question asked by the author: Is the
division of family roles gendered in homosexual family from the mass media per-
spective? The analysis of the data described in chapter 4 is based on the research
methods i.e. Membership Categorisation Analysis, which main focus is to describe
the categorization of the characters from the TV series Modern Family , as well as
Conversation Analysis, which main goal is to analyse the detailed, specific ways in
which the characters talk with one another and create the identities. The first two
chapters contain the theoretical background for the described issue. Approaches to
both discourse in general and media discourse are described in chapters 1 and 2.
The second chapter is particularly devoted to different identity theories and social
perception of family, and other, roles.
The data which inspired the theoretical background for the thesis and were used for
the conducted analysis come from the popular, modern, comedy TV series created
in the USA titled Modern Family. Chapter 4 shortly describes the characters and the
context of the TV series; however, the majority of chapters content is devoted to
the two characters that play the homosexual couple with an adopted Vietnamese
daughter.
The conclusions drawn on the basis of the analysis suggest that the creators of the
TV series try to influence viewers perception of the homosexual families who
adopt children quite intentionally. On the basis of the chosen extracts from the TV
series script, the author concludes that the homosexual couples divide household
roles using the traditional and stereotypical womens and mens roles. To some ex-
tent, the authors of Modern Family associate the homosexual characters with the
heterosexual features. Since homosexual families adopting children is still a taboo
issue in many parts of the world, the measure the director took makes it easier and
more comfortable for the audience to understand and accept the issue. The aim of
the analysis conducted in chapter 4 is to notice the techniques used by the TV series
creators as well as to raise the question whether the use of the techniques is advan-
tageous to the general public. What the author discusses in the last part of chapter 4
is, whether manipulating the difficult taboo into the more common picture is the
proper way of dealing with it.

iv
STRESZCZENIE
Napisana przeze mnie praca miaa na celu znalezienie odpowiedzi na posta-
wione pytanie badawcze: Czy podzia rl w rodzinach homoseksualnych w medial-
nym przedstawieniu jest dyktowany pci spoeczn. Analiza danych przeprowa-
dzona w rozdziale 4 jest oparta na nastpujcych metodach badawczych:
Membership Categorization Analysis, skupiajca si na kategoryzacji bohaterw
serialu Modern Family, oraz Conversational Analysis, skupiajca si na szczeg-
ach i sposobach jzykowych interakcji, ktrymi posuguj si gwne postaci seria-
lu. Pierwsze dwa rozdziay pracy stanowi teoretyczne to dla poruszonego tematu.
Przedstawiaj one teorie i oglne podejcia do dyskursu , jak rwnie teorie dyskur-
su medialnego. Drugi rozdzia jest szczeglnie powicony teorii zwizanej z to-
samoci, jej rodzajami, oraz spoecznym odbiorem rnych rl w spoeczestwie i
rodzinie.
Dane, ktre zainspiroway teoretyczne to pracy oraz zostay wykorzystane
do przeprowadzenia analizy, pochodz z popularnego, wspczesnego serialu ko-
mediowego stworzonego w USA pt. Modern Family. Losy bohaterw serialu zosta-
y pokrtce przedstawione w rozdziale 4, natomiast wikszo uwagi zostaa po-
wicona wybranej dwjce bohaterw wcielajcych si w role homoseksualnych
rodzicw adoptowanej dziewczynki z Wietnamu.
Wnioski pynce z analizy sugeruj celowy zabieg reysera majcy na celu
wpynicie na odbir rodzin homoseksualnych adoptujcych dzieci. Ze zgromadzo-
nych fragmentw dialogw serialu wynika, e pary homoseksualne dziel role pe-
nione w rodzinie na podstawie tradycyjnych rl kobiety i mczyzny. Reyser se-
rialu do pewnego stopnia nadaje heteroseksualne cechy homoseksualnym
bohaterom, co sprawia, e odbir tabu, jakim jest homoseksualizm, staje si atwiej-
szy. Analiza przedstawiona w rozdziale 4 ma na celu zwrcenie uwagi na ten za-
bieg jak rwnie skonienie do przemylenia susznoci tego zabiegu.






v
Imi i nazwisko: Magdalena Lampkowska
Kierunek i specjalno: filologia angielska, jzyk i komunikacja w mediach i poli-
tyce
Numer albumu: 355118
Wydzia Anglistyki
Promotor: prof. zw. dr hab. Roman Kopytko
1. Oryginalny tytu pracy dyplomowej
Gendering the household. Possible implications of conversational patterns and so-
cial categorization for identity formation on the basis of media discourse.

2. Tumaczenie tytuu pracy dyplomowej
Kreowanie pci spoecznej oraz zwizanych z ni rl w rodzinie. Moliwe implika-
cje schematw konwersacyjnych oraz kategoryzacji dla procesu ksztatowania to-
samoci, na podstawie dyskursu medialnego.







Podpis promotora
.....................................................
Podpis studenta
.....................................................
Miejsce i data
............................................


vi
Pozna, dnia ............................


OWIADCZENIE


Ja, niej podpisana Magdalena Lampkowska studentka Wydziau Anglistyki Uni-
wersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu owiadczam, e przedkadan prac
dyplomow pt: Gendering the household. Possible implications of conversational
patterns and social categorization for identity formation on the basis of media dis-
course - napisaam samodzielnie. Oznacza to, e przy pisaniu pracy, poza niezbd-
nymi konsultacjami, nie korzystaam z pomocy innych osb, a w szczeglnoci nie
zlecaam opracowania rozprawy lub jej czci innym osobom, ani nie odpisywaam
tej rozprawy lub jej czci od innych osb. Owiadczam rwnie, e egzemplarz
pracy dyplomowej w formie wydruku komputerowego jest zgodny z egzemplarzem
pracy dyplomowej w formie elektronicznej.
Jednoczenie przyjmuj do wiadomoci, e przypisanie sobie, w pracy dy-
plomowej, autorstwa istotnego fragmentu lub innych elementw cudzego utworu
lub ustalenia naukowego stanowi podstaw stwierdzenia niewanoci postpowania
w sprawie nadania tytuu zawodowego.

[tak]* - wyraam zgod na udostpnianie mojej pracy w czytelni Archiwum UAM
[tak]* - wyraam zgod na udostpnianie mojej pracy w zakresie koniecznym do
ochrony mojego prawa do autorstwa lub praw osb trzecich

*Naley wpisa TAK w przypadku wyraenia zgody na udostpnianie pracy w czytelni Archiwum
UAM, NIE w przypadku braku zgody. Niewypenienie pola oznacza brak zgody na udostpnianie
pracy.




(czytelny podpis studenta)


vii
Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................VII
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... IX
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 1 : THE NOTION OF MEDIA AND DISCOURSE ................................3
1.1. DEFINITIONS OF DISCOURSE .....................................................................................3
1.2. DEFINITIONS OF MEDIA ............................................................................................7
1.3. MEDIA DISCOURSE AND REPRESENTATION OF REALITY............................................8
1.4. APPROACHES TO MEDIA DISCOURSE.......................................................................11
1.5. GENDER AND THE MEDIA .......................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2 : THE IMPORTANCE OF IDENTITY ...............................................15
2.1. SELF AND IDENTITY ...............................................................................................15
2.2. DIFFERENT THEORIES.............................................................................................17
2.3. SEX AND GENDER ...................................................................................................22
2.4. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM ...................................................................................26
2.5. GENDER IDENTITY .................................................................................................29
2.6. GENDER ROLE .......................................................................................................30
2.7. GENDER AND FAMILY ............................................................................................32
CHAPTER 3 : METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................35
3.1. MEMBERSHIP CATEGORISATION ANALYSIS ...........................................................35
3.2. CONVERSATION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................38
CHAPTER 4 : THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .....................................................42

viii
4.1. INTRODUCTION TO THE DATA ANALYSIS................................................................ 42
4.2. MANS ROLE IN SOCIETY AND FAMILY ................................................................... 44
4.3. WOMANS ROLE IN SOCIETY AND FAMILY ............................................................. 56
4.4. CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................ 66
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 69
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 70
PRIMARY SOURCES ....................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 73

ix
List of figures
1. The circuit of culture 1
2. The circuit of culture 2

1
Introduction
The subject of the present thesis concerns the analysis of media influence of viewers
perception of homosexual families. The topics presented in this work focus on linguistic
and sociological aspects of the issue. The subject of the paper appeared interesting and
challenging to the author because it revolves around current mass media product popu-
lar in the USA TV series Modern Family.
This thesis consists of a theoretical part devoted to discourse and the media, the
importance of identity and methodology chosen for the analysis. The practical part of
thesis presents the analysis of the data and the reached conclusions.
In order to be able to conduct the analysis of media content, it is crucial to un-
derstand the very concept of media and discourse it uses. In the first chapter, not only
different definitions and approaches to discourse are presented but also definitions of
media. Further, the author presents more specific information about media discourse
and representation of reality in order to explain various approaches to media discourse.
Finally, the notion of gender and the media is explained in chapter one.
The second chapter concentrates on the importance of identity which is the basic
concept for the current the analysis. Firstly, the author presents the difference between
self and identity as well as different theories devoted to the notions. Moreover, the sec-
ond chapter explains the difference between sex and gender and the theory of Social
Constructionism, as it is relevant to the content of the analysis. Final three parts of the
second chapter are devoted to describing gender identity, gender role and gender in
family in detail. The last three subsections of chapter two provide the theoretical back-
ground for the analysis presented in the descriptive part of the thesis.
The third chapter of the paper consists of the methodological background for the
analysis described in the last chapter. The author presents two methods used in dis-

2
course analysis in general Membership Categorization Analysis and Conversational
Analysis. The two methods are crucial for the proper analysis of the data selected by the
author.
The final part of the thesis demonstrates the analysis of the selected data. The
aim of the analysis is to answer the following question: Is the division of family roles
gendered in homosexual family from the mass media perspective? Using the methods
described in chapter three, the author tries to find an answer for the research question.
Results of the analysis are presented in the Conclusion.

3
Chapter 1: The notion of media and discourse
1.1. Definitions of discourse
The study of discourse analysis has been of interest to a number of scientists and re-
searchers since the middle of the twentieth century. People use discourse for communi-
cation when they create utterances to convey information. Afterwards, the information
is interpreted in order to indicate meanings and intentions. According to Deborah Shif-
frin (1994: 339), discourse should be analysed in terms of two different ways: a struc-
ture, i.e. a unit of language that is larger than the sentence; and the realization of func-
tions, i.e. as the use of language for social, expressive, and referential purposes. Some
approaches to discourse analysis lead from structure to function, whereas others espouse
the opposite direction. However, it is important to distinguish between the two. Struc-
tural perspectives view discourse as sentences, whereas functional ones view discourse
as language use. Scientists in favour of the structural approach to discourse analysis
claim that it is based on the relation between sentences, regardless of their potential use.
In contrast, followers of the functional discourse analysis approach believe that relations
between the utterances and their producers are of crucial importance. They do not
strictly separate the established relations. Interestingly, Shiffrin (1994: 364) claims that
the notion of context is of use when attempting to distinguish between the two ap-
proaches.
One way of approaching discourse analysis is Zellig S. Harris (1951: 11) strictly
structural approach. The scholar, considered the pioneer in discourse analysis, claimed
that the universe of discourse for each statement in the descriptive analysis is a single
whole utterance in the language in question. According to his view, a discourse analyst
should focus on the relation between the frame and position of phonemes and mor-

4
phemes within an utterance. It is crucial to take notice of how particular chunks of an
utterance interrelate with each other. Notwithstanding, this structural approach of dis-
course analysis usually does not focus on stretches longer than one utterance. This
means that the analyst includes no mention of interrelations among whole utterances of
the analysed discourse.
Michael Stubbs (1983: 1) is another representative of the structural approaches,
though his view goes beyond Harris morphemic and phonemic approach. He claims
that discourse is language above the sentence or above the clause. Stubbs (1983: 87)
points to the fact that language is both highly structured and unpredictable, and ques-
tions the possibility of analysing discourse from the formal perspective only. He empha-
sizes the importance of such factors as intuition, creativity, and flexibility that surround
human language. It is worth taking notice of another difference between Harris and
Stubbs (1983: 93), who acknowledges the unity of stretches of utterances and states that
people tend to make sense of one utterance interrelating with the next one, to use the
first as a discourse frame for the second. In other words, participants of language can
predict what will come next. Such predictions can be both correct and incorrect, yet it is
significant to analyse more than only one utterance in order to fully comprehend the
meaning of text. However, Stubbs (1983: 17) clearly states that there are such utterances
that occur in specific systems and structures. Nevertheless, it is difficult to establish
discourse structure because of its uniqueness stemming from the fact that it is always a
construction of two or more speakers and their spontaneous choices. According to
Stubbs (1983: 95), it is difficult to see how A could place absolute constraints on what
B says. The fact that there are always at least two participants (speaker and hearer for
monologues, if not two speakers) raises also the problem of intentionality and different
points of view. This points to the complexity of interaction between the two or more
participants.
Both Harris and Stubbs focus on structure of discourse (its formal side). However,
their claims differ in a number of respects. For Harris, the discourse structure analysis
focuses on the investigation of morphemes and phonemes of a single utterance. Accord-
ingly, when analysing written text one concentrates on its morphemes, and when ana-
lysing speech acts, phonemes are of interest. Stubbs, on the other hand, extends the
aforementioned idea by the notion of predictability. He notes the fact that when analys-
ing discourse, people predict what will occur next and thus it is impossible to make
sense of one utterance. He also acknowledges the spontaneity and creativity of language

5
users, and the unpredictability of language. One can draw a parallel between Harris
morphemes and phonemes and Stubbs sentences and clauses. Nevertheless, the schol-
ars are both of the opinion that discourse has a certain structure. It is also noted that
language is composed of units that occur in particular arrangements. Finally, what these
two structural approaches have in common, is the fact that language utterances are to be
analysed on the basis of its location in a text and not on the context in which it occurs.
According to Brown and Yule (1983: 1), discourse analyst should concentrate on
what language is used for. They claim that it is impossible to fully comprehend the
meaning of a given text without analysing the context in which it occurs. Linguistic
elements are meaningless unless one considers the interpersonal relations they fulfil.
What they do to facilitate the process of discourse analysis is distinguish between the
two inseparable language functions, i.e. transactional and interactional. The transac-
tional function of language stands for the content of text and its structure, whereas the
interactional function of language is involved in expressing social relations and per-
sonal attitudes. Brown and Yule (1983: 23-27) claim that it is necessary to realize that
the data to be analysed is the result of the active process. This approach clearly focuses
on the dynamic means of expressing meaning, which is a combination of language form
description and its communicative function. It is also of crucial importance how the
data is processed, both by the producer and the receiver. Another aspect Brown and
Yule draw lots of attention to is context, stating that it is significant to analyse the cir-
cumstances in which the language occurs.
Guy Cook (1989: 6) represents another approach to understanding language. He dis-
tinguishes between two types of language, i.e. one abstracted in order to teach a lan-
guage or literacy, or to study how the rules of language work, and another which has
been used to communicate something and is felt to be coherent. Cook calls the latter
discourse and the method that helps to give discourse coherence discourse analysis.
He also points to the fact that discourse can be grammatically well-formed but it is also
possible that it can have grammatical errors in it. It is worth noting that discourse uses
grammar rules as a resource both when complying with them and when abandoning
them. However, the main purpose of discourse it to communicate and be understood by
its users, no matter its grammaticality.
Yet another view of language is represented by Norman Fairclough according to
whom (1989: 22), language needs to be viewed as a form of social practice. He states
that language is a part of society, hence linguistic phenomena are social phenomena

6
and that it is the proper way of analysing it. What he means by these statements, is the
idea that whatever people do, be it speaking, listening, writing or reading, they are so-
cially determined and produce social effects. He also highlights the fact that language
should be seen as a social process determined not only by linguistic elements but also
by all the linguistic activities performed by people. Moreover, one needs to take notice
of the fact that a contextualized language is not merely a reflection or expression of
social processes and practices, it is a part of those processes and practices (Fairclough
1989: 23). He also distinguishes between discourse and text, implying that text stands
for both written and spoken language uses. According to Fairclough (1989: 24), dis-
course represents the social process of communication and text is an element of this
process. One could summarize that in Faircloughs (1989: 26) view, discourse is the
relationship between texts, interactions and contexts.
Using different names, i.e. transactional and interactional function, communicative
function and social function respectively, Brown and Yule, Cook and Fairclough de-
scribe language in terms of its functions. Functional approaches to discourse analysis
focus on the functions and purposes that language fulfils in interpersonal communica-
tion of any kind, be it writing or speaking. What is of equal importance to functionalists
is the fact that language is viewed as a dynamic process that is highly influenced by the
context. Hence, from the functional point of view, when analysing discourse as lan-
guage in use, one cannot detach it from context.
Deborah Shiffrin (1994: 39) proposes yet another definition of discourse, mainly
discourse is utterances, which arises not as a collection of decontextualized units of
language structure, but as a collection of inherently contextualized units of language
use (Shiffrin 1994: 39). It can be interpreted as a balanced method combining the ele-
ments of structural and functional approaches. Shiffrin recognizes the need to analyse
both the relations between units of discourse, so the utterances, and the relations be-
tween them and the context, so the external reality, in order to fully understand dis-
course.
As has been presented, the approaches to discourse analysis have been gradually
changing. Formal approaches that highlight the importance of structure of a text gave
way to more pragmatic, functional understanding of discourse with regard to context,
being an inseparable element of language analysis.

7
1.2. Definitions of media
Media can be defined in a variety of ways. One way of understanding what media are
would be to describe them as any communication system through which people are in-
formed, educated or entertained. They are the means of transmitting information,
knowledge and other messages. The transmission processes occur due to any intermedi-
ary agency that enables communication to take place. Media operate any technological
solution that extends the speed, range or channel (the channel is the physical means
through which communication takes place) of communication. In an attempt to fully
understand the concept of media, one should take a closer look at mass media. Ac-
cording to Eoin Devereux (2003: 6), mass media merge old and new media. Old media
are reflected in tools like films, magazines, newspapers, television and radio. On the
other hand, new media are reflected in the Internet, digital television, video on demand
and mobile-based technology. Devereux (2003: 6) describes new media as those that
have the capacity to enable communication with potentially large numbers of people in
a diverse range of social settings. Also, he also points to the fact that the aforemen-
tioned definitions are oversimplified and that it is crucial to shed more light on the im-
pact of new technologies and the power they give to their audience members. Devereux
(2003: 6) also highlights the complicated internal dynamics of media organizations, as
well as the sheer multitude of often contradictory media texts that audiences are ex-
posed to. Finally, he emphasizes the importance of the fact that, in terms of new mass
media, the audiences are capable of engaging actively with these texts. The traditional
way of conceptualizing mass media is now being challenged by the fact that cheap me-
dia technologies with the potential for greater audience activity and agency are easily
available. Because of the information and communication technology (ICT-based me-
dia) such as the Internet, media texts such as Web sites, independent movies or music,
home pages hosted on the World Wide Web are being produced by a large number of
audience members.
According to Devereux (2006), media organizations vary in terms of its objec-
tives. They can exist in order to inform their publics as well as to generate profit. The
other fact he draws the readers attention to is that there is a huge number of media gen-
res the audience encounters every day. Taking a closer look at television genres, one
can name a few, for example documentaries, news programmes, soap operas or films.

8
Naturally, they differ in many ways such as their make-up, or the discourses and
forms of knowledge through which they represent and reproduce the social world. It is
important to realize that some media texts remain objective and uphold the status quo in
society, whereas others strongly challenge reality, perceiving it as an unequal system of
power. Not only do the media differ in their organizations, but also the audiences may
have different expectations about different genres. What is more, they can be both ac-
tive and passive, depending on the circumstances. Thus, it is no longer an easy chal-
lenge to understand the traditional relationship between senders and receivers of the
media messages because of the constant state of flux media finds itself in. The overlap-
ping processes of media globalisation and technological change complicate the matter
respectively.

1.3. Media discourse and representation of reality

According to Anne OKeeffe (2006: 1) media discourse is a broad term which
can refer to a totality of how reality is represented in broadcast and printed media from
television to newspaper. Media are incontrovertibly important in todays world and
almost everybody is affected by it. The recipients of media content are exposed to me-
dia representation of reality every time they watch a news programme on television or
read a newspaper. Media discourse both represents and shapes reality playing a vital
role in constituting peoples world view. Media are frequently treated as an authority
that one should refer to in order to know the truth about the modern world in the context
of political, economic or social reality. Thus, the way media present the content to the
receivers is of huge importance. By introducing an issue in a specific way, the media
may influence peoples opinion and stance on a given matter. The fact that the audience
perceives certain phenomena in a given way, strongly depends on the way media repre-
sent it.
Mary Talbot (2007: 5) describes yet another idea of what the notion of media
discourse stands for: An initial broad understanding might be in terms of what it is not
direct, face-to-face communication. However, this claim should function only as a

9
starting point in the process of understanding media discourse. The above mentioned
definition is partial and ineffective since it neglects ubiquity of the media. Media dis-
course circulates in and across institutions and it is deeply embedded in the daily life
and daily interaction of almost everyone (Talbot, 2007: 5). Hence, it is imprecise to
describe media discourse as deprived of traces of direct communication. When analys-
ing media discourse, it is crucial to refer to the notion of culture. According to Hall
(1997: 1), culture is widely interpreted in terms of shared meanings. In the modern
world, circulation of these meanings is strongly dependent on the media of any kind.
Cultural meanings are shared through language as a representational system. The proc-
ess of sharing meanings can be illustrated by analysing Halls circuit of culture model
(see Fig.1).













Figure 1. The circuit of culture (Stuart Hall 1997:2)

The model in Fig.1 followed Halls original encoding/decoding model. The
model in Fig.2 is the original form, which was designed specifically in order to analyse
television discourse. Halls attempt was to explore the production of meanings from the
perspective of various sites. He also intended to establish the relative independence of
those sites.




10









Figure 2. The circuit of culture (Stuart Hall 1997:2)


Through the model of circuit of culture (fig.1) Hall expressed deep disapproba-
tion of the popular sender-receiver model of mass communication. He claimed that
was most imprecise to assume that, in the sender-message-receiver chain, the message
could be perceived along with its recognisable content. Hall emphasized that reality
existed outside language; however, it is mediated through language. It is through dis-
course, that we express what we know. According to Hall (1980: 131) Discursive
knowledge is the product not of the transparent representation of the real in language
but of the articulation of language on real relations and conditions. By challenging the
sender-receiver model, Hall highlighted the fact that specific cultural conditions influ-
ence every stage of any communication process. Mary Talbot concludes that:

Creators of media texts produce them in particular institutional contexts, drawing on shared
knowledge frameworks, professional norms etc; the same media texts are engaged with by audi-
ences in different cultural contexts, where the resources drawn upon to understand them (or not,
as the case may be) cannot be assumed to be the same (Talbot 2007: 7).

When analysing media discourse, it is of crucial importance to be aware of the
fact that the social processes involved both in encoding and decoding of media texts are
not the same. The extent to which those processes differ allows us to assume that the
texts bring different meanings to producers and to audiences.
In an attempt to understand the notion of media discourse, one needs to have a
closer look at the distinction between text and discourse. Text can be used to refer to the

11
observable ,completed product of interaction, and discourse can stand for the process of
interaction itself. Those two notions can be referred to as cultural object and cultural
activity respectively. Talbot (2007: 9) suggests, This emphasizes that text is the fabric
in which discourse is manifested, whether spoken or written, whether produced by one
person or several. In other words, the distinction is between product and process, be-
tween object and activity. Since discourse is claimed to be a process, to properly ana-
lyse it, it is essential to look at both the text, the interaction and the context that the text
is embedded in. As Talbot (2007) notices, it is pointless to study text in isolation be-
cause it is a part of a discourse formation process.
1.4. Approaches to media discourse
There are many approaches to media discourse and all of them both differ and cross-
fertilize in a number of respects. The purpose of this subsection is to present a selective
account of previous work on media discourse. The first to be described is the linguistic
and sociolinguistic approach. As far as linguists are concerned, they are strongly inter-
ested in the ways in which language is used in the media, for instance in terms of par-
ticular types of grammatical structure or particular intonation patterns. The example of
media language that has been of interest to linguists for quite a long time now are news-
paper headlines. The reason why they have attracted the attention of linguists is that
they are characterised by their distinctive syntactic properties. Sociolinguists, on the
other hand, focus on sociocultural analysis of media discourse, trying to show the sys-
tematic relations between language and sociocultural context (Fairclough1995 : 21).
Sociolinguistic approach to media discourse can be described as the search for correla-
tions between variable linguistic features and variable aspects of social context (Fair-
clough 1995: 21).
Another approach to media discourse is that proposed by conversation analysis.
The main field of interest for conversation analysts is the informal, everyday talk be-
tween equals, for example a telephone conversation. However, they also study media
discourse, e.g. interviews language. According to Fairclough (1995: 23), Conversation
analysis actually shares with linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis through strengths in
the detailed description of organizational properties of media language. It focuses on

12
analysing the organization of interaction, specifically on turn-taking, topic-control, for-
mulation etc. The very important aspect of this analysis is the relational aspects of con-
versation. At the same time it rather neglects relations of power, ideologies and cultural
values that become visible after linking properties of talk with high-level features of
society and culture.
Next approach to media discourse is related to semiotic analysis perspective
where text analysis is not to be treated as a key component of cultural analysis of media.
More attention is devoted to semiotic codes and conventions which underlie both lin-
guistic and visual aspects of media discourse (Fairclough 1995: 24). According to
Fairclough, it should be noted that semiotic analysis differs from the linguistically ori-
ented approaches such as linguistic, sociolinguistic, critical linguistic, social-cognitive
and cultural-generic analysis. It does not thoroughly analyse the detailed properties of
the text.
Critical linguistics is a type of discourse analysis whose one of the main con-
cerns is media discourse. As Fairclough(1995: 25) states, it views text as multifunc-
tional, always simultaneously representing the world (ideational function) and enacting
social relations and identities (interpersonal function); seeing texts as built out of
choices from within available systems of options in vocabulary, grammar, and so forth.
Both ideological processes and linguistic processes as well as the relations between
them, are perceived as discourse ingredients. Another crucial factor, in the processes of
understanding what critical linguistics is, is the fact that the linguistic choices that are
made by authors of texts can, and most often carry ideological meanings. This appears
frequently in media discourse.
In a series of studies, Van Dijks social-cognitive model has offered a frame-
work useful for analysing news discourses especially in newspapers. In this model, dis-
course is described with three dimensions: text, discourse practice, and sociocultural
practice. However discourse practice seems to be a tool for combining textual analysis
with sociocultural analysis. It is important to note that Van Dijks work has mainly fo-
cused on news discourse. In his analysis of practices of news production and news com-
prehension, he puts a socio-psychological emphasis on processes of social cognition
(Fairclough 1995: 29). Broadly speaking, Van Dijk focuses on how our schemata and
background knowledge influence the produciton and comprehension of a media text. In
his attempt to link media texts with contexts, Van Dijk tends to establish how social

13
relationships and processes are achieved at the micro-level of media text, through the
routine practices. According to Fairclough (1995: 29), The analysis aims to show rela-
tionships between texts, production processes and comprehension processes, and be-
tween these and the wider social practices they are embedded within. In the analysis of
news texts, it is crucial to distinguish between the two term: macro and micro struc-
tures of news discourse. Macro relates to the overall content of a text, whereas micro
relates to the semantics of a text. Microanalysis reveals the coherence relations in the
text, syntactic lexical characteristics or rhetorical features. Still, Van Dijks analysis is a
useful tool only in terms of a news-making practices.
Finally, it is useful to take a closer look at a cultural-generic analysis. As Fair-
clough (1995: 31) states, it explores the cultural and social import of ways in which
media genres such as interview or chat are currently evolving. The cultural-generic
analysis is of crucial importance in the context of new media, where the audiences are
passive but can also become active in receiving media texts. In 1981, Raymond Wil-
liams (1981: 142) perceived this analysis as valuable in that it realizes the innovation in
genre due to technical discovery. He also appreciated the fact that cultural-generic
analysis takes notice of the importance changes in consciousness among audiences and
producers of media texts. It is of crucial importance that this approach attends to both
interaction and representation simultaneously. Not only does it draw on the multifunc-
tional view of texts but it also focuses on how media producers address the audiences as
well as how they establish the social relationships in talk. This approach is valuable in
that it relates changes in genres to changes in public sphere and technology.
1.5. Gender and the media
Todays world is unequivocally layered, hence it classifies people in terms of gender,
age, ethnicity, race, class, disability, location and sexuality. Accordingly, all the social
disadvantages, exclusions and privileges associated with these categories are unequally
spread. Todays world can also be described as being imbued with media, but also as
saturated with information and communication technologies.(Rosalind Gill, 2007) It is
of crucial importance to discover the relationship between the two worlds descriptions.
In other words, what needs to be taken notice of is how cultural structures and images,

14
societies are surrounded by, relate to such phenomena as oppression, inequality and
domination. However, to study gender and media, one needs to consider the diversified
nature of the field. According to Rosalind Gill (2007), the only aspect most researchers
agree with is the fact that cultural representations are an important source of data to ana-
lyse. Other than this, there are many different perspectives and approaches towards the
field. Analysing gender and media, there is a huge variety of different methodologies,
epistemological commitments, as well as theories. Moreover, a researcher needs to con-
sider plural different understandings of power, but also, different ways of conceptualiz-
ing the complicated relationship between widely interpreted representations and real-
ity. Finally, what is of crucial importance for a researcher to consider is to
acknowledge how variously media images interact with sense of identity and subjectiv-
ity of an individual.

15
Chapter 2: The importance of identity
2.1. Self and Identity
In order to better understand gendered discourse, it is important to get the socio-
logical and psychological view of self and identity. The two notions are thoroughly ana-
lysed and interpreted in three theories: social identity theory, identity theory and per-
sonal identity theory. However, before characterising the three theories, one needs to
comprehend the meaning of self and identity in full.
There are many interpretations of the self. George Herbert Mead (1934) claims
that the self is created during various interactions with social institutions. The view of
the self being the offspring of mind derives from the Symbolic Interaction tradition in
sociology. Mead (1934) interprets mans mind as a tool used by the self which is ex-
ploited in several processes. One of the processes the self performs is the evaluation of
the social environment. Afterwards, the self interprets the interactions in order to be
able to re-evaluate the outcome. Finally, if necessary, the self can change itself accord-
ingly. In other words, the self is viewed as an object which can both modify and control
itself. The self is inspired by the reference points, significant individuals and target
groups, which are exploited as yardsticks.
According to Stets and Burke (2000: 224) self is reflexive in that it can take it-
self as an object and can categorize, classify, or name itself in particular ways in relation
to other social categories or classifications. It is categorization process that eventually
develops identity. Following Stets and Burkes understanding of the self, it can be as-
sumed that it is a conscious essence of ones personality. The self establishes significant
and efficacious relationship with other social units. It is also worth noting that the self is

16
dynamic, which results in being able to interpret and reinterpret the surrounding envi-
ronment. Consequently, after the flexible shaping, the self becomes an identity.
It is inaccurate to differentiate between the self as a creation of society and the
self as the exclusive product of the mind. Instead, it needs to be emphasized that the self
is a unit created as a result of interpretation of interactions performed by the mind, that
occur between the society and the individual. What is more, according to Stets and
Burke (2003), after the self is created, humans need to develop a self-awareness. Occa-
sionally referred to as a self-concept, the self-awareness is a stage during which the self
acknowledges both its existence and its distinction from the society. At the self-concept
stage, the self performs the evaluation of itself in negative and positive terms. In other
words, during this stage humans amass the meanings ascribed to themselves. Finally, it
is at this stage that the self is provided with the important asset in the process of iden-
tity formation, mainly the self-esteem.
Identity is another notion crucial in the process of understanding gendered dis-
course. According to Stets and Burke (2003), the identity is an entity which supersedes
the self. One can understand the identity as the social position that is both owned and
attributed by the self. In other words, the number of social statuses the self has corre-
sponds to the number of identities related to it. It is crucial to highlight that identity is a
flexible entity which is able to alter according to the surrounding environment and the
context. The identity can also change responding the expectations of the counterpart of
an interaction, be it another identity, group or society. Therefore, it is important to ac-
knowledge that self and identity are two separate units, where self precedes and creates
identity used during the individuals interactions with others. For example, analysing
the interaction between teacher and students, it is clear that the interaction occurs be-
tween the two types of identities ascribed to the participants by the society and self.
However, the same participant being in a different context, such as financial transac-
tions at a market, assumes a different identity according to the context, which is an evi-
dence of identitys flexibility.
Stets and Burke (2003) feature two separate notions of structure and agency
which facilitate the understanding of identity. Structure stands for the external and
structural factors that impact identity, be it groups or institutions existing in the society.
Hence, if one violates the structure they function in, they will be judged and punished
by the society. For example, if a teacher acts against the set patterns of behaviour, he or

17
she will face sanctions created by the structure. On the other hand, agency stands for the
freedom of choice an individual has. Being limited by the set structural norms and be-
havioural patterns, an agent utilizes his or her imagination and creativity in order to se-
lect the attitude of their preference.
While the self attempts to create the identity, it is strongly influenced by either
the awareness of group membership, or the desire of being a member of a group or even
the external necessity of entering a group. The internal and external factors enable the
self to form an identity, which is evaluated and strengthened by the structure later on.
The concepts of self and identity have been of interests to many psychologists and soci-
ologists. Stets and Burke (2003) present the three theories - Identity Theory, Social
Identity Theory and Personal Identity Theory - which elaborate on identity and its group
membership, identity and the roles it assumes, and identity in its personal perspective
respectively.

2.2. Different theories
According to Stets and Burke (2000), there are many similarities and overlap be-
tween Social Identity Theory and Identity Theory which enable the merger of the two
theories. There are three main areas which represent a base for the theories linkage: dif-
ferent base of the identity, activation of identity and the concept of salience and the va-
riety of processes triggered once an identity is activated.
Firstly, it is worth emphasizing that both theories consider the self as reflexive
in that it can take itself as an object and can categorise, classify, or name itself in par-
ticular ways in relation to other social categories or classifications (Stets and Burke
2000:224). However, both Social Identity Theory and Identity Theory name the process
differently self-categorization and identification, respectively. These are the processes
through which an identity is formed.
Social Identity Theory focuses on social categories or groups that particular peo-
ple belong to. As Stets and Burke (2000:225) noted a social group is a set of individu-
als who hold a common social identification or view themselves as members of the
same social category. During the social identification process, people compare each

18
other to the self. They are categorized either as in-group or out-group depending on
their similarity to the group self. There are two important processes occurring during
the self identity formation namely, self-categorization and social comparison. Firstly,
what needs to be noted is that self-categorization process results in an accentuation of
the correspondences between the self and the in-group members. Consequently, the self-
categorization process results in highlighting the differences noticed between the self
and the out-group members. People tend to accentuate beliefs and values of a given
group as well as attitudes and styles. What also becomes emphasized are affective reac-
tions, norms of behaviour and other qualities and properties considered to be relevant
among a given group. Analysing the consequences of the second process, it is necessary
to define it first. Social comparison is about individual application of the accentuated
factors. It mostly regards the aspects which might be beneficial and improving for the
self. The most crucial aspect which is enhanced is ones self-esteem. This is possible
due to the evaluation of both the in-group and the out-group with a view to either posi-
tive or negative judgment. Finally, the social categories people place themselves in, are
created in the structured society. These categories cannot function separately, but they
relate to contrasting, more or less powerful, prestigious ones. The crucial fact is that
humans are preceded by the social categories at the moment they are born. They be-
come members of the already structured society from which they derive their personal-
ity or the self. Interestingly, each individual follows a unique path, thus each individual
is a member of an incomparable blend of social categories.
On the other hand, in Identity Theory the crucial part of identity formation is
social-categorization. In each culture, there are symbols which create social positions
as Stets and Burke (2000:225) put it the relatively stable, morphological components
of social structure that are termed roles. Hence, Identity Theory, similarly to Social
Identity Theory, addresses the elements of the structured society. People live and act in
the structured environment, and moreover, they name themselves according to the posi-
tions they occupy. The process of naming is followed by the development of social ex-
pectations towards a given role. Once the self is categorized as an occupant of a given
role, the set of meanings and expectations is associated with that role. In other words,
the set of meanings and expectations conceptualizes the set of standards for the estab-
lished type of behaviour. Overall, it should be stated that an identity is developed out of

19
a self-view emerging from either self-categorization or identification among particular
groups or roles.
When people hold a particular social identity, they are at one with a particular
group, being similar to other members of that group as well as having groups point of
view. On the other hand, when people hold a particular role identity, they focus on
meeting the expectations associated with it and cooperating with role partners. As Stets
and Burke noted (2000:226): the basis of social identity is in the uniformity to percep-
tion and action among group members, while the basis of role identity resides in the
differences in perceptions and actions that accompany a role as it relates to coun-
terroles.
Analysing the group-based identities, one needs to acknowledge the three possi-
ble ways of how uniformity of perception reveals itself. Firstly, uniformity of percep-
tion reveals itself along the cognitive lines and the most common outcome of it is social
stereotyping. By identifying with the in-group, stereotyped perceptions of in- and out-
group members are intensified and become more homogenous. Secondly, uniformity of
perception also reveals itself along the attitudinal lines when people positively evaluate
the group once they become its member. In other words, individuals feel strong attrac-
tion to the group as a whole. Finally, uniformity of perception reveals itself along the
behavioural line when people behave alike the other group members. In general, it is
stated that when people take on a group-based identity, uniformity of perception and
action occurs.
Analysing the role-based identities, it is important to realize that there is a match
between the individual meanings that are associated with occupying a particular role
and the different types of behaviours enacted during the interaction with others. Once a
person takes on a role identity, he or she accepts the self-meanings and expectations
following the role. The person also considers how the role relates to other roles in the
group and finally, he or she lives up to the meanings and expectations. According to
Stets and Burke (2000:227): If each role is to function, it must be able to rely on the
reciprocity and exchange relation with other roles. In contrast to Social Identity The-
ory, in Identity Theory individuals do not consider themselves similar to partners of
interaction. They view themselves as different, having their own interests, resources and
duties. In other words, it should be noted that each role is related to the counter roles to
some extent, but also set apart from them. The match between the individual and

20
counter roles results in negotiation of meanings for identities and situations, hence the
reciprocity. An example of how people negotiate their roles can be noticed in the family
environment. Men and women (husbands and wives) hold different gender roles and
also present different behaviours. A number of research has been conducted in order to
find out how can negotiation of roles within a group influence it. Some work showed
that once the interrelated roles behaviours are negotiated, a group becomes strongly
attached to each other. However, other research showed that once fathers and mothers
exchange with some of the role based behaviour, this can bring disruptive effects.
Summing up, there is a clear difference between the role- and group-based iden-
tities in that the former do not express the uniformity of perceptions and behaviour
style. It is not the similarity with others in the same role that is highlighted but the inter-
relatedness and individuality in the either group or interaction context. Holding a par-
ticular role identity through maintaining the meanings, resources and expectations, peo-
ple allow for the composite interrelatedness of social structures.
Many researchers have attempted to join the Social Identity Theory and Identity
Theory with identity from its more personal perspective. So far, it has been firmly stated
that the three cannot be separated. To better understand the notion of person, it is crucial
to acknowledge that individuals act in terms of their personal aims and desires rather
than groups or categorys. The identity can be activated to a certain extent, depending
on the factor in the situation such as social comparison or social fit. It may be assumed,
from the point of view of Social Identity Theory, that social identities go along the nor-
mative, established lines and the personal identities go along the idiosyncratic character-
istics. At some point, the two meet, reaching a purposeful compromise. On the other
hand, from the point of view of Identity Theory, the persons identity is a set of mean-
ings which support an individuals self. It may be assumed that there is a link between
person identity to role identity, basing on the common system of meanings. It is possi-
ble that the meanings of both role identity and person identity coincide, and are linked.
An example of such overlap of identities is the one of a masculine gender identity,
which conceptualizes the role, and the mastery identity, which conceptualizes the per-
son. This overlap occurs because of the shared meaning of control. According to Stets
and Burke (2000), if the expectations associated with a particular role are conflicting in
relation to person identity meanings, it is most likely that the individual will neglect the
role and maintain the person identity. Thus, it is impossible that the person identity is

21
unaffected by the role identity. The point is to balance and maintain the demands of
both identities.
Another notion crucial at the attempt of understanding the similarities and dif-
ferences between Social Identity Theory and Identity Theory, is the notion of activation
of identities and identity salience.
In Social Identity Theory, the notion of salience is used in order to indicate the
activation of an identity. In other words, a salient identity is the one which functions to
highlight and increase the influence it has on a given groups behaviour and perception.
Analysing what salience is, one needs to consider it as a product of accessibility and fit.
Accessibility occurs when a given category is ready to activate itself in a person. As
Stets and Burke noted: It is a function of the persons current tasks and goals, and of
the likelihood that certain objects or events will occur in the situation(2000:230). Fit is
the correspondence between the category specifications and situational perceptions. Fit
can be analysed in terms of both comparative and normative aspects. Comparative fit
occurs when an individual understands the differences within the group as less signifi-
cant than the differences between groups. However, a normative fit occurs when an
individual understands the way a group functions according to the culturally established
stereotypes and normative lines.
In Identity Theory, salience is conceptualized as a probability of identity activa-
tion in a given situation and the focus is on the effect of a persons role in the social
structure. In order to fully understand the notion of salience from the Identity Theory
perspective, it is necessary to elaborate on the idea of commitment to an identity. Com-
mitment can be analysed in terms of two aspects: quantitative and qualitative. The first
aspect concerns the number of people a person is linked to through an identity. The
more persons one is attached to, the greater the likelihood of an identity being activated
in a situation. Hence, the second component of commitment the qualitative concerns
the strength of the ties between people. Therefore, the stronger the ties to others, the
more probable it is for an identity to become salient.
Finally, it is crucial to describe the last area related to both theories, mainly the
cognitive and motivational processes. In Social Identity Theory, the central cognitive
process is depersonalization, which means that an individual perceives her or himself as
an impersonation of an in-group prototype. This process underlies many group phenom-
ena for example ethnocentrism, group cohesiveness or social stereotyping. Similarly, in

22
Identity Theory, the central cognitive process is self-verification, which stands for see-
ing the self in accordance with the identity standard. This process underlies many be-
havioural processes for example role taking or role making. Both depersonalization
identification with the social category- and self-verification role behaviour- relate to
and reaffirm social structural arrangements.
With regard to the motivational processes, in Social Identity, it is assumed that
once an identity is activated and the individual acts upon the in-group behaviour, he or
she maintains and enhances the self-esteem through the process of self-evaluation.
However, it Identity Theory the notion of self-esteem is used as a motivator. In other
words, The individual evaluated their role identity on the basis of their performance,
which would influence their self-esteem. Thus, the more positive the evaluation of the
role, the higher persons self-esteem.
Summing up, the merger of the two theories with the incorporation of Person Identity
Theory, allows for a better understanding of the self and identity and its combination. It
is likely that the three identities overlap sometimes fortifying who one is a and some-
times restricting the self.
2.3. Sex and gender
In order to understand the importance of social identity and the language people
use, whether it is gendered or not, and if so, then to what extent, one needs to distin-
guish between sex and gender. It is crucial to notice the difference between the two no-
tions, which, when misinterpreted, tend to confuse the general understanding of who are
girls and boys, men and women, male and female, masculine and feminine.
To begin with, it is necessary to define the term gender as something we are not born
with and we do not possess. It is something we do (West and Zimmerman 1987) and
something we perform (Butler 1990). This distinction is accurately depicted by Pene-
lope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet (2003: 10), who provide readers with an exam-
ple. Basing on cultural knowledge and life long experience of social life, it is easy to
imagine a popular pattern of a young boy proudly following his father and respectively
a young girl following her mother. Thus, observing this young boy as he tries to be just
like his father by swaggering and sticking out his chest, parents understand that he

23
wants to be a man. It is a generally socially acceptable and expected kind of behaviour.
The case is similar for the girl. When the parents observe her putting on her mothers
high-heeled shoes, smearing makeup on her face and mincing around the room, they
understand that the little girl wants to be a woman. Chances are that none of the parents
act precisely in enacted manners, but the children create personae that embody what
they admire in male or female role models. However, it is also possible that the little
girl will occasionally adopt the swagger and the little boy will try some mincing, in
which case chances are that adults will no longer consider their children as cute as
when they performed the expected acts. In other words, specific gendered performances
are available to everyone yet not everyone can act upon them with impunity. At this
point gender and sex come together because society tends to relate ways of behaving
with biological sex assignments.
Thereupon, one needs to understand the notion of sex. It describes the biological
categorization which is primarily based on reproductive potential of a given person.
Following this line of thought, one should acknowledge that gender is the social elabo-
ration of biological sex (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003: 10). In other words, gen-
der bases on biological sex at the same time exaggerating the biological differences.
Interestingly, gender also categorizes the differences into domains that often appear
irrelevant because for certain behaviours there are no biological justifications. For ex-
ample, it is not biologically based that women should mince and men should swagger,
or that women paint nails and men do not. Nevertheless, the distinction between sex as
biological and gender as social is not clear. There is a tendency to view sex as given by
biology and gender as a result of social upbringing. Still, there is not strict point at
which sex stops and gender begins. To some extent, the reason for this is that it is im-
possible to come up with a single objective criterion for male and female sex. It is better
to see biological sex as a combination of anatomical, endocrinal and chromosomal fea-
tures (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003: 10). Hence, it is through cultural beliefs that
people assign certain features to a given sex, establishing what actually makes someone
male or female. Ultimately, the way in which people understand biological sex, and
whether they see themselves as male or female, is a result of a social process.

It is widely believed that biological differences between males and females re-
sult in differences in capabilities and dispositions. The most popular and well-known

24
believe about males is that the higher the level of testosterone in their bodies, the more
aggressive men become. It is also commonly assumed that because of the left-brain
dominance, men tend to be more rational than women. On the other hand, because of
the lack of brain lateralization women are believed to be more emotional. However, it is
crucial to remember that the relation between the way people behave and their physiol-
ogy is not at all simple, and as Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000) notices, the very work on
sex differences in brain is at an early stage, far from being conclusive. When analysing
the physical differences between male and female brains, one needs take notice of the
most robust scientific difference formally confirmed. corpus callosum is the link be-
tween the two brain hemispheres, and apparently womens is relatively larger than
mens.
According to the early research findings, the result of men having smaller corpus
callosum is their more significant lateralization, whereas women having larger corpus
callosum is claimed to be the reason for greater integration between the two hemi-
spheres, at least when considering visuo-spatial brain functions. Since the research on
sex differences in brain is at such an early stage, all the evidence of any difference is
based on very small samples, thus it is unreliable and shaky. Hence, there is no real evi-
dence for the relation between brain physiology and cognition. However, at this point it
is worth mentioning that if any physiological difference is suspected, there is a tendency
to snatch it and immediately assign it to particular gender stereotypes. The example il-
lustrating this procedure is the educational policy of attributing subjects like mathemat-
ics and engineering to males whose left brain areas are believed to be more functional.
What can be observed in the contemporary world is the eagerness, both of scientists and
the public, to clearly differentiate between sexes and to come up with gender differ-
ences. People are deeply engaged in creating the dichotomous categories of male and
female. As a result of this phenomenon, thin evidence of brain differences is associated
with stereotypes of behaviour, what is subsequently broadcast through the media. It
proves that the majority of people, be it scientists, journalists or the public, expects sen-
sational gender news.
To what extent gender is related to biology is a debatable matter, however it is
logical that there is no evident relation between them. The occupation people hold, or
the gait or even the use of colour terminology does not depend on the individuals
chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, or secondary sex characteristics. Thus, no biological

25
constraint stops women from shaving their heads, and men from growing their hair
long, or both sexes from becoming engineers. The dichotomy is the result of eclipsing
the similarities and emphasizing the differences between sexes. Useful example of bio-
logical sex difference is male and female voices. It is scientifically proved that mens
vocal tract is significantly longer than womens. It is why mens voices tend to be lower
in pitch. However, more often than not, the individuals actual voice pitch does not cor-
respond to their vocal tract. Considering childhood, it is at the age of four to five years
old, that vocal tracts are fully developed. Until this moment, boys tend to lower their
voices either consciously or unconsciously, and girls respectively. In the end, it is
mostly clear whether a little child is a boy or a girl, judging by their voice, regardless of
their vocal tracts length.
Another important aspect, when discussing the difference between sex and gen-
der, is the individuality of some people that diverge from the prototypes in a number of
ways. Blackless et al. (2000) claims that 1 in 100 babies, when born, differ in body
structure from standard male or female. As Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003: 11)
state these bodies may have such conditions as unusual chromosomal makeup (1 in
1,000 male babies are born with two X chromosomes), hormonal differences such as
insensitivity to androgens (1 in 13,000 births), or a range of configurations and combi-
nations of genitals and reproductive organs. In order to bring anomalous babies
closer to their male or female category, surgical and/or endocrinal manipulations are
sometimes used. For each sex genitals, there are stringent restrictions as far as the size is
concerned. Some critics (e.g. Dreger 1998) have observed that standards for male geni-
talia are more stringent than female. Whether there are more or less hermaphroditic or
intersex infants depends on a number of factors, such as geographic location of a given
country. There are places where there is a greater occurrence of sexes unfitting the pro-
totype. Occasionally, in order to be able to place these babies into some category, the
societies attempt to create social categories that would reach beyond the two basic ones.
Still, these new categories seem to be perceived as anomalous.
Basing on the aforementioned points, it is extremely important to differentiate
between sex and gender. It is to be recognized that biology imposes certain physical
features on the average male and female. The development and the enlargement of these
differences is completely social. They considerably originate in peoples beliefs, as far

26
as sexual differences and their significance are concerned. The differences also derive
from peoples reliance on their assumptions and interpretations.
2.4. Social Constructionism
Social constructionist view is based on the claim that gender is a social construct, that
is, a system of meaning that organizes interactions and governs access to power and
resources (Crawford 1997: 12). According to social constructionism, gender ought not
to be interpreted as individuals attribute but should be understood as tool used to make
sense of transactions that occur between people. Hence, it is assumed that gender is pre-
sent in transactions instead of persons, at the same time being conceptualized as a verb
instead of a noun. Feminist sociologists e.g. Candace West and Don Zimmerman, by
using the phrase doing gender, indicate the salience of sex seen as a social and cogni-
tive category. This category is commonly used in order to construct the social view of
what men and women are like. Society selects, filters and acts upon the information
they are surrounded with to produce the widely accepted model of both sexes. Hence,
focusing on the aforementioned transactions, or gender-related processes, it is worth
emphasizing that they have an impact on not only the individuals behaviour, feelings
and thoughts, but also on the interactions between these individuals. Moreover, the
gender-related processes are of huge importance when regulating the structures of social
institutions. Considering the fact that social constructionism views gender not as an in-
dividuals attribute but as a system of meanings, it is of crucial importance to focus on
the processes of construction. Whereas the processes occur, both differences are created
and power is allocated. Should one regard the fact of gender being played out at three
levels, mainly social, interpersonal and individual, can they attempt to understand the
processes in question.
Analysing the social level where gender functions as a system of power rela-
tions, it is important to take notice of different cultural dependencies of various parts of
the world. However, generally speaking, in most societies men hold more power than
women. On the whole, there are more men than women working in the government,
dealing with politics, or representing the law. What is more, men are also more present
in the public discourse or in academics. Such state of affairs is widely considered as

27
natural and objective. On the other hand, all the alternative views of power relations are
muted . Thereupon, women as part of society automatically become a culturally muted
group. Therefore, in order for scientists and researchers to understand womens system
of meanings, special effort is necessary. In other words, to understand gender at this
level, the suppressed meanings of muted groups demand thorough analysis. Moreover,
it is also important to focus on the academic disciplines which are considered as being
far from neutral but at the same time, actively involved in maintaining and reproducing
power relations through the implicit ways. One needs to take notice of scientists con-
structing gender through various performances, be it rhetorical practices or theoretical
biases. Finally, in order to be able to understand gender at the social level, it is crucial to
analyse how the scientific knowledge of the researchers is represented in mediated dis-
course. The representation of reality through mass media largely shapes the social rela-
tions.
Secondly, it is worth noting that gender is being played out at an interpersonal
level. Gender is interpreted as cues that help people know how to behave during a social
interaction. Interestingly, both usage and perception of gender cues occur outside
awareness. According to Crawford (1997: 14), it has been generally stated that mens
and boys behaviour is more positively evaluated than the behaviour of women and
girls. Even when the behaviour of both sexes is identical, the society tends to judge it
differently by the double standard. Once people are categorized by sex, the differences
are not only noticed but also created. In other words, the fact that men and women are
treated differently on a daily basis, during the usual interactions, may lead to the act of
deliberate change of behaviour, according to social expectations. Thus, gender can be
thought of as a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the process of fulfilment begins with cre-
ating gender difference. Afterwards, the observed differences are merged with sex, so
that, at the end of the process, the belief in sex differences is affirmed. An example of
self-fulfilling prophecy is the common belief that what is beautiful is good. People
generally build a link between attractiveness and positive personality traits. These traits
are generated from peoples personal modes of social interactions and their experience.

Finally, it needs to be highlighted that gender is being played out at an individual
level. Gender is interpreted as masculinity and femininity on the basis of socially ac-
cepted characteristic traits of both sexes. When analysing discourse of gender, it is no-

28
ticeable that certain traits, as well as particular interests and behaviours, are ascribed to
a given sex. Hence, these traits are considered to be proper for people of a particular
sex. The reason for this assumption that a characteristic trait matches a given sex, stems
from the fact that gender tends to be treated as dichotomous. From the social point of
view, a person can be assigned to only one type of behaviour, either masculine or femi-
nine but also a person can be attached to an individual personality. Interestingly, the
dichotomy of masculinity and femininity socially favours and values the masculine
pole.
Mainstream psychology has been strongly involved in social construction of
gender identities. It has been creating measures to examine what masculinity and femi-
ninity mean equalizing it respectively with instrumentality and expressiveness. Ac-
cording to Lewin (1984: 198), these traits are in large part euphemisms for male domi-
nance and female subordination. Recently, some scientists have come up with a term
androgynous which is used in order to describe people who mix the traits convention-
ally associated with one sex or another. A person who is both affectionate, which is a
trait traditionally ascribed to women, and self reliant, which is a trait traditionally as-
cribed to men, can be described as androgynous. The concept of androgyny can be per-
ceived as modern and progressive because it withdraws from conceptualizing femininity
and masculinity as diametric opposites. However, this concept still considers gender to
be the set of individual traits. It enhances dichotomy by viewing androgyny as a combi-
nations of differences.
People create their identities through the discourses they use. In terms of mascu-
linities and femininities, the identity development is based on the gender discourses.
Gender distinctions are visible at the structural levels and represented at the interper-
sonal level. Men and women have different level of accepting the normative, socially
established and accepted traits, behaviours and roles ascribed to people of a given sex,
among a particular culture. According to feminist theories, the fact that women are psy-
chologically subordinate can be reasoned with the conventionally ascribed feminine
traits such as excessive concern with pleasing others, passivity, dependency and lack of
initiative. The described state of affairs can severely influence the everyday reality of
those subordinate members of society. According to Crawford (1997: 16), the labora-
tory and field research has been done proving a number of actual consequences of the
subordination of women. The clinical experience shows that, comparing men and

29
women, the latter miss personal entitlement. What is more, in terms of employment,
women do not only pay themselves less for corresponding work but also they tend to be
content about the employment standards, though quite often their salaries are signifi-
cantly lower. Academic ability is another example of girls and women having low self-
esteem and self-confidence, during the whole educational path. Finally, women are at
higher risk of suffering from disturbances of body image, depression and eating disor-
der.
Concluding, it is appropriate to assume that gender is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Un-
doubtedly, both sexes are different from each other and the reason for this are the social
gendered contexts. Moreover, even in the identical situations, men and women encoun-
ter different expectations and norms. Therefore, if one of the sexes diverge from the
socially accepted norm, then one faces the social consequences of this violation.
2.5. Gender Identity
According to Suzanne Kessler (1978:8), Gender identity refers to an individ-
uals own feeling of whether she or he is a woman or a man, or a girl or a boy. In other
words, gender identity should be interpreted as self-attribution of gender. Moreover,
people tend to subconsciously attribute gender to others, basing their judgement on the
first impressions only. It is crucial to have a clear gender identity in order to maintain
the self-image. Despite the attributions made by others, ones gender identity is rela-
tively independent and of the greatest importance for the individual. Hence, if the soci-
ety attributes a conflicting gender identity to an individual, he or she will hold on to his
or her self-attributed gender identity.
In order to verify someones gender identity, one should simply ask him or her a
question about it. Still, by asking a straightforward question whether somebody feels
like a man or a woman, the answer is already limited determined. Moreover, asked per-
son can simply lie and not reveal their genuine gender identity. Being asked such ques-
tion, people could be confused and feel obliged to answer with accordance to the physi-
cal evidence they present in spite of their true feelings about themselves. Thus, gender
identity is always what a person feels, regardless of what other people think he or she
feels and regardless of the nature of question asked. However, it is quite uncommon to

30
distinguish between the gender identity and gender attributions. Generally, people tend
to notice gender as a whole, without the distinction between the personal feelings and
public impressions.
The question of when and how humans attribute gender identity to themselves
cannot be left unanswered. As Kessler (1978) put it, the development of gender identity
occurs during the critical period (until the critical period, a child is too young to have a
gender identity) and cannot be change afterwards. It has not been strictly established but
rather socially accepted that the critical period takes place when a child is about 3 years
old.
Finally, people tend to confuse the notions of gender identity and gender-role
identity which is about the degree to which a person identifies him or herself with the
norms of behaviour and feelings associated with one sex or another. It is crucial to dif-
ferentiate between the two terms in order to avoid the confusion. Once it is believed that
the gender identity people consider to hold and the way they feel and behave is the same
aspect, a great misunderstanding occurs. Namely, people could incorrectly assume that
someone with atypical feelings about how their maleness or femaleness should be ex-
pressed in behaviour has a gender identity problem (Kessler 1978: 11). This false as-
sumption could result in confusion or even gender identity breakdown once someone
would consider her or himself as not fulfilling the expectations ascribed to a given gen-
der-role identity. In other words, a great number of people may not know whether they
are male or female.
2.6. Gender Role
As previously mentioned, a given role determines certain social expectations,
and it can be interpreted as a set of prescriptions and proscriptions. for individuals be-
haviour, speech style, or attitude. According to Kessler (1978), gender role represents
the set of expectations regarding the type of behaviour appropriate for people of one
gender. People can either be occupants of roles they achieved e.g. teacher, student, doc-
tor, or they can be occupants of roles they have no control over and roles they were as-
cribed to e.g. Italian, infant. Notwithstanding, the significant majority of people inter-
prets gender roles as naturally ascribed and beyond control. Following the traditional

31
perspective, it is worth mentioning that once someone is born as either a boy or a girl,
he or she is immediately ascribed to and obligated to perform male or female roles. To
put it another way, an individual is expected to follow the prescriptions and proscrip-
tions for a given gender. Hence, the gender roles became obligatory in their nature what
lead to misuse of gender role attributes for example in the dictionaries, in which some
authors exploit gender role characteristics such as courageous or strong in order to de-
fine the word man. Still, it needs to be highlighted that gender role consists of a number
of components, be it interests, dress, activities, skill or the choice of sexual partner. Ac-
cordingly, depending on who occupies male or female role, there are different expecta-
tions for each of the components.
It is of crucial importance to emphasize the aspect of violation of expectations
and the social sanctions that follow them. Hence, it is still expected that women feel a
need to have a home and family and any dissent from the expectations is strongly criti-
cised by the society, family members etc. Similarly, men are restricted in terms of
clothes they wear so that it is socially rejected that men would wear skirts. As Kessler
(1978: 12) put it: A stereotype is a set of beliefs about the characteristics of the occu-
pants of a role, not necessarily based on fact or personal experience, but applied to each
role occupant regardless of particular circumstances. Stereotypes are not objective in
that they are created on the basis of culture and history of a given culture. However,
they are very influential and they also have an evaluative component so that certain be-
haviours ascribed to a given gender role as evaluated as positive, negative or highly
valued etc. For example, there is a popular female stereotype consisting of high valued
traits such as tactfulness and law-valued behaviours such as helplessness or passivity.
The way children learn to behave in accordance with their sex and the way they develop
their gender role is either explained and described in terms of biological of environ-
mental factors. The major theories however, agree that dichotomous roles are a natural
(and hence proper) expression of the dichotomous nature of gender (Kessler 1978: 12).
On the other hand, the dichotomous nature of gender can appear problematic once the
gender attributions are considered as dichotomous.

32
2.7. Gender and Family
In order to understand the complex idea of gender within the family, it is crucial
to contrast it with the notion of Sex Role Theory. Similarly to Identity Theory described
previously in this chapter, Sex Role Theory deals with the socialization of an individual
rather than with social structures. Sex role is a term often overused to describe i.a. the
structural shortcomings and disadvantages as well as implied personality traits. The Sex
Role Theory defines sex roles in terms of the unity of personality traits or crystallized
types of interpersonal behaviour. Hence, the traditional arrangements within sex roles
are considered as stable and consistent instead of diverse and opposing, creating the
ideal types of male and female behaviour. However, the Gender Theory focuses on the
way particular behaviours and roles are ascribed particular gendered meanings. Accord-
ing to Myra Marx Ferree (1990: 868), While the sex role model assumes a certain
packaging of structure, behaviours, and attitudes, the gender model analyzes the con-
struction of such packages. In contrast to Sex Role Theory which revolves around so-
cialisation process, the gender perspective focuses on the categorization and stratifica-
tion.
Once the gender associated with specific roles and gender associated with the
individuals who occupy them are separated, it is possible to offer a complete structural
analysis of family interrelations. At the attempt of challenging the sex role perspective,
the gender perspective provides plenty of examples of not traditional family models
such as men who mother or women who father. Since gender is relational, people
go through personal struggles trying to understand and fulfil the social expectations for
what a real mother or father is like. As Ferree (1990: 870) noted: Gender is, with
race and class, a hierarchical structure of opportunity and oppression as well as an affec-
tive structure of identity and cohesion, and families are one of many institutional set-
tings in which these structures become lived experience. Gender perspective allows for
the thorough analysis of how gender is played out within different family ground, be it
employment, household or money. Family joins the economy and relationships within
the household and because these connections are historically and culturally deeply gen-
dered, they become more and more complicated.
First of all, it is crucial to focus on how gender is represented through employ-
ment within a family. According to the mainstream view of family, it is generally as-

33
sumed that men have been both the only paid workers and the only providers in a tradi-
tional family. Within sociological studies, men and women are referred to as bread-
winners and housewives respectively. Such family model supports the idea of women
being present and willing to meet the needs of all the family members, as it would be a
natural behaviour for them. On the other hand, men are assumed to be away from
home, working all day, so that they can financially provide for their family. It is neces-
sary to contrast this traditional model of family by mentioning the change of attitudes
towards professionally active women, which has been occurring for the past decades.
More and more women have been developing their professional careers and have be-
come independent in terms of their earnings. Also, the economic situation of many
countries precludes the families from receiving only one salary. Hence, the two-income
families struggle with not only both partners being away from home but also with shar-
ing responsibilities at home. Finally, gender theory attempts to explain why it is impor-
tant that there is the association of masculinity and the provider role within the two-
income families. People generally believe that the majority of house income should be
the husbands responsibility and even if women work, their salaries are lower and of
less significance. The fact that very often women do earn less, even for the same type of
job men do, just because of their sex, allows the husbands to feel entitled to meet the
role expectations they are faced with. On the economic ground then, once men share
their provider role with women, their ideal vision of masculinity becomes threatened.
Thus, the provider role comes with its cost and conflicts.
To understand the issue of two-income families and their struggle with sharing a
responsibilities at home, it is crucial to define and elaborate on housework. On one
hand, housework is a physical, unpaid labour which facilitates daily routines in the
household. On the other hand though, housework is quite a gendered structure, depend-
ing on a given culture and history. Specific tasks are ascribed to particular genders, and
thus, they convey social meanings about femininity and masculinity. Therefore, the
meanings convey the message about power relations. However, because of the eco-
nomic changes occurring, it is no longer unproblematic to divide the housework be-
tween both working partners. As Ferree (1990: 874) noted: The confusion arises be-
cause the apparent unity in the conceptualization of housework comes from imposing
culturally shared gendered categories on a historically shifting domain. Hence, it is
difficult to even define what housework stands for these days because it has been

34
changing. Moreover, it is important to take notice of, that some professional services
which used to be unpaid labour in the past, for example nursing, became a paid occupa-
tions. Nevertheless, the category of gender is still visible within these professions.
Daughters very often receive more training and are expected to help more in house-
work, unlike sons. Gender perspective focuses on the categorization within families and
on the extent to which men are involved and participate in housework. Despite the slow
changes in the mainstream gender categorizations, women are still considered to be
natural as housewives and their performance constructs the proper family. Hence, it
is possible to assume that the quality of housework women represent, is the physical
proof of them being good mothers and wives, meeting the cultural definitions of these
roles. Therefore, if a woman fails at meeting the needs of her household, she may find
herself feeling guilty about it, as it is her nature to fulfil these needs.
Finally, it is crucial to elaborate on the financial aspect of the household and the
power relations associated with it. Money is a significant source of power in a family
because, earned individually, it is redistributed to other family members. According to
Ferree (1990: 877): The gender perspective suggests that the actual control over
money and how it is used are important dimensions of power inside the household, and
that gendered family norms are essential to understanding these dynamics. Hence,
earning the money as well as controlling income, which very often are two various ac-
tivities, are of extreme importance for family members. The economic field appears to
be very problematic though, since the families experience many conflicts over the allo-
cation of goods. Shared income does not stand for equal standards of living for all the
family members, hence, some may feel underestimated. It has been found that women
take care of minor financial issues and more significant amounts of money are con-
trolled by men.
To say that family roles are gendered is true, however the term gender role demands
an elaborate consideration. Since there is a huge variety of gender norms and meanings,
it is impossible to distinguish a dichotomous role which could embody these norms.
Hence, the term gender role is a theoretical self-contradiction.


35
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1. Membership Categorisation Analysis
Membership Categorisation Analysis is an ethnomethodological method for analysing
interactional and textual practices (Stokoe 2012: 277). MCA provides the researchers
with the categories and topics such as gender, ethnicity, identity, nationality etc, and
gives its primary interest to studying those issues. Using MCA, the researcher can fol-
low how members of society describe and understand the world they live in. MCA al-
lows for analysis of distinct textual settings and the identities emerging from interac-
tions based on turn-taking. Using this method, it is possible to focus on different
categorial matters such as culture, morality or normativity. MCA has not been effi-
ciently described in literature yet, hence it is unclear how to proceed when analysing
data using this method.
Stokoe (2012: 280) creates her personal guideline for doing MCA. She advises
that one should begin the analytical work with collecting the data across different set-
tings. Data collection may be influenced by the a priori interest in a given category, or
unmotivated, depending on the research purpose. Then, she suggests that it is important
to create specified categories e.g. human, man, woman, boy, girl, pacifist, artist, prosti-
tute, Australian etc. Next, one needs to collect membership categorization devices i.e.
stage of life, occupation, family, sex; and non-explicit category descriptions e.g. men
are so testosterony, which carry meanings and culturally established moral obligations
and normative assumptions. Further, it is worth locating the sequential positions of
categorial instances in the interaction. Then, the researcher ought to analyse the general
design of interaction in terms of turn-taking and actions where the categories appear.

36
Finally, it is necessary to search for evidence of participants juggling categories,
what are the consequences of using them, what co-occurring features participants as-
cribe to particular categories and how do they resist them.
According to Stokoe (2012: 281), in order to proceed with the membership cate-
gorization, it is useful and advisable to gather key concepts for the process. Firstly, Sto-
koe refers to membership categorization device, which helps to understand why certain
categories are believed to belong to particular collective categories. Membership cate-
gorization device helps with establishing associations, e.g. category of mommy or
child belong to the collective category family. Interestingly, one category may be-
long to myriad of MCDs, depending on what rules one chooses to apply to the category.
Thus, the category of baby can belong to MCDs of stage of life but also terms of
endearment(Stokoe 2012: 281).
Another concept to follow when analysis data using membership categorization
is the concept of category-bound activities. It refers to activities that are typically asso-
ciated with a particular category, e.g. Why are men (category) so reluctant to go to the
doctors (activity) (Stokoe 2012: 281). Furthermore, there is the concept of category-
tied predicates. It relates to instances when the category (e.g. mother) is characterized
by the activity culturally tied to it, considered as a predicate (e.g. caring for the baby).
The concept of standardized relational pairs is the next device used when doing MCA. It
refers to the pairs of categories, somewhat obliged to each other, e.g teacher-student,
parent-child, neighbour-neighbour. Next, Stokoe (2012) describes the concept of dupli-
cative organization, which is about categories functioning within units or in a way char-
acteristic for teams. An example illustrating duplicative organization is the category of
goalkeeper within the category of football team, or the category of mother/father within
the category of family. Stokoe (2012) also distinguishes the concept of positioned cate-
gories. It refers to the collections of categories which hold a particular hierarchy, e.g.
baby, teenager, adult. On the basis of the hierarchy, an individual can be accused of not
meeting the expectations associated with the category, e.g. an adult can be accused of
behaving like a teenager. Another concept Stokoe (2012) describes is the concept of
category-activity puzzles, which relates to people putting together unexpected catego-
ries, when performing certain activities. This concept is often used in formulating jokes,
e.g. women-drivers. Social changes and gendering are also marked when two categories
are unexpectedly put together, e.g. male-nurse. Next concept described is the economy

37
rule which relates to the economy of words usage. This rule is widely used in newspa-
per headlines which generally aim at being as short as possible. Hence, it is sufficient to
describe a person using one word ascribing one category, e.g. Father and daughter in
snow ordeal. Following the economy rule, it is important to mention the consistency
rule. It is applied when two or more categories are used right next to each other e.g. fa-
ther and daughter, or when they both belong to one category e.g. family. Father and
daughter are perceived to be members of the same family. Finally, Stokoe (2012) de-
scribes the categorization maxims. She claims that there are two types of maxims, de-
pending on way of categorization. First, she distinguishes hearers maxim which is ap-
plied for duplicatively organized categories, so when the two categories are used to
categorize members of populations. As Stokoe suggests: those categories can be heard
as categories from the same collection, then: hear them that way (Stokoe 2012: 282).
The other maxim she distinguishes is the viewers maxim applied for category-bound
activities. Hence, if a Member sees a category-bound activity being done, then if one
sees it being done by a member of a category to which the activity is bound, see it that
way (Stokoe 2012: 282). Thus, which maxim is in use strongly depends on the context
and people involved.
It is important to realize that activities people perform and existing predicates
can be either category-bound, or positioned hierarchically, organized duplicatively, or in
standardized relational pairs. This variety may result in action for example people can
complain about a neighbour (category) playing loud music at night (activity). Another
example of complaint based on activities is when a lecturer does not follow the obliga-
tions he or she has towards the student an example of two categories in a standardized
relational pair.
As Stokoe (2012) states, it is of crucial important to be aware that the way cate-
gories are related to each other, strongly depends on the context of the situation. It is
impossible for the categories to relate to one another, basing purely on researchers
ideas. The context and particular stretch of discourse are essential for the going to-
gether of the categories. Membership Categorization Analysis infers a lot of social
background information about a given society. Hence, a woman can be categorized as a
mother, wife, lady or daughter, and depending on society, each category carries differ-
ent rights and obligations, predicates, category-bound activities that the woman is ex-
pected to perform. When doing Membership Categorization Analysis, it is not the re-

38
sponsibility of the analyst to interpret and impose meanings on the categories he or she
detects. However, as Stokoe (2012: 283) noted: the appeal of MCA is to try to unpack
what is apparently unsaid by members and produce an analysis of their subtle categori-
zation work. Hence, using MCS, the analyst can identify and unpack features that are
category-generated and associated with them, cultural meanings the categories acquire
and maintain and also the dominating patterns in the use of these categories.
3.2. Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis, similarly to Membership Categorisation Analysis, is an eth-
nomethodological method for analysing interactional and textual practices (Stokoe
2012: 277). CA, however, specifies the normative structuring and logics of particular
courses of social action and their organization into systems through which participants
manage turn-taking, repair, and other systemic dimensions of interaction (Heritage,
2005:104). Using CA, the analysts focus on large conversational data in order to be
able to analyse patterns of turn-taking in a conversation, how sequences of talk are or-
ganized, and how actions are formed.
Conversation is difficult to define; however, there are some guidelines to follow
when classifying a talk as a conversation. Firstly, a conversation is not task-driven.
Next, as Cook (1989 :51) states: Any unequal power of participants is partially sus-
pended. Moreover, relatively small number of participants take part in conversation,
although the number is not strictly defined. Another characteristics of the conversation
is that turns are quite short, as opposed to monologues, lectures etc. Finally, the content
of the conversation is intended for the participants, rather than for the audience. All in
all, conversation can be characterized as unpredictable and lacking set structure.
As mentioned above, Conversation Analysts main focus is on turn taking and its
characteristics, e.g. that turn taking usually occurs at the end of one speakers talk and
the beginning of the next. The way turn takings latch onto each other is usually char-
acterized with perfect, natural timing, as a result of which, participants do not talk at
the same time, but exchange their thoughts. On the other hand, under some circum-
stances, people overlap and pause when talking. The way people carry conversations
varies between languages and cultures and because of this, misunderstandings may oc-

39
cur during cross-cultural talks. It is not only turn-taking that holds responsibility for the
successful communication. Body language, body position, intonation and especially
eye-contact, are strong means of signalling indirect messages. Another aspect strongly
influencing communication during conversation is the status and role of the speaker.
Conversation participants naturally adjust their style of talking, depending on who they
talk to, e.g. the way students talk to their peers and teachers varies in style.
Researchers recognize many turn-taking types, e.g. adjacency pair, which occurs
when one speakers utterance is likely to cause another speaker to reply to it. Adjacency
pair is observable with greetings when good morning is likely to be answered with an-
other good morning. In case the greeting is not answered, it may be interpreted as rude-
ness, impoliteness or a sign of miscommunication. When analysing adjacency pairs, one
will most likely deal with two responses one of which is preferred and the other dis-
preferred. Both offers and requests can be followed either by acceptance or refusal.
Similarly, assessment can be followed either by agreement or disagreement. The pattern
repeats with blame (denial-admission) and answer (expected answer-unexpected an-
swer). In case of dispreferred replies, they are usually signalled beforehand with expres-
sions like: well, you see; or a pause.
At times, it is possible that the second part of the adjacency pair is delayed, when the
speaker intends to alter the sequence of turns. Cook (1989: 54) offers an example of
insertion sequence:
A: Did you enjoy the meal?
B: (Did you?
A: Yes.)
B: So did I.
The above dialogue represents the sequence of one question and answer pair containing
another like (Q (Q-A) A). Most often, the topic of the insertion sequence is the same as
the topic of the original question. However, sometimes speakers insert a sequence unre-
lated to the original topic intentionally, and then go back again. An example of side se-
quence provided by Cook (1989: 54) illustrates such occurance:
A: Im dying to know- where's my watch by the way?
B: What?
A: What Gillians aerobics sessions are like HA HA HA HA
B: What aerobics sessions? Its here.

40
A: Gillian does aerobics sessions every evening. LEADS them. Thanks. Can you imag-
ine?
Both insertion sequence and side sequence modify the conversations into more chaotic
and unorganized. Notwithstanding, they prove that conversation is a type of discourse
which is constructed and negotiated in time. It is the naturally occurring language that
analysts can observe mistakes and miscommunication. CA describes repair as a tool
used by participants to correct either their own or other participants words in order to
achieve maximum communication. For example:
A: what have you got to do this afternoon
B: oh Im * going to repair the child bar
A: what do you mean CHILD bar
B: uh its er metal bar goes acr has to be fixed from one side of the car I mean from
one side of the back seat to the other for the BABY seat to go on
A: AH::::
Cook(1989: 55).
In the above extract, the speaker uses an ambiguous term child bar, and is asked to re-
pair the miscommunication that occurred. In the course of conversation, the speakers
negotiate the solution together to overcome the temporary breakdown in communica-
tion. Rephrasing of ones thoughts is enough for the term to no longer be ambiguous for
the interlocutor.
Moreover, speakers can also formulate gist and upshot, where the former summarizes
the literal meaning of his/her words (Ill just go over the main points again (Cook
1989:55)), and the latter makes explicit what the speaker wants to do with his/her
words (I was only trying to be friendly (Cook 1989: 55)).
Finally, conversation participants use pre-sequences in order to create the ground for, or
draw attention to, the turn they are about to take. Pre-sequences may vary in specifics.
The following is an example of pre-request:
A: Have you got any jazz?
B: Yes.
A: Can I put one on?
Cook (1989: 56).

Another example of pre-sequence presents pre-invitation:

41
A: Are you free tonight?
B: Yes.
A: Like to go to that film?
Cook (1989: 56).
More often than not, pre-sequences serve as a tool to obtain a longer turn, e.g. with sto-
rytelling (with the use of Have you ever heard the story about a...).
Once the longer turn is obtained, the speaker should also mark the end of his/her turn,
so that the interlocutor realizes that it is the time he/she may begin their turn. Such sig-
nalling is often marked by a pause, a kind of laughter, or words like: Anyway...,
So....
Finally, in British and North American English, it is culturally set to close a conversa-
tion in the particular way. It is advisable to signal the impending closure of the conver-
sation by the pre-sequence so that the interlocutor can echo the farewell. The following
example illustrates ending of the conversation with the use of pre-sequences:
A: Ill ring you Thursday night then
B: all right * ring us Thursday
A: yes I will*
B: bye bye then dear
A: bye
Cook ( 1989: 56).
This way of closing the conversation is employed in order to make sure that each
speaker is not deprived of communicating their thoughts until the very end of the con-
versation. The above example also presents the way of avoiding the abrupt ending of the
conversation which could be considered rude or impolite.
All in all, CA allows the researchers to thoroughly examine the naturally occurring lan-
guage, with the use of tools described above. This method focuses on the ordinary con-
versation viewing it as the most basic form of talk. As Brian Paltridge (2006: 107)
noted: For conversation analysts, conversation is the main way in which people come
together, exchange information , negotiate and maintain social relations. Hence, all the
other types of talk derive from conversation. The most appreciated feature of CA is that
analysts consider real life data as the prime source of information.

42
Chapter 4: The analysis of the data
4.1. Introduction to the data analysis
TV series, also called TV shows, are intended to be broadcast on television for on a re-
curring basis. Usually, they are divided into particular episodes and, the episodes consti-
tute seasons. In the past, TV series were broadcasted on television only, and the audi-
ence followed their favourite stories sitting in their couches at a set time. Some people
watched them just to relax after a difficult day, and some kept on following the stories
for years just because they got used to them. However, the 21st century is a thriving
period for TV series. They are no longer perceived as dull, invaluable, time wasting
soap operas, but as high quality entertainment. The first big change about TV series is
that they are no longer available on television only but also, and probably to majority of
people the most, via the Internet. Young generations of educated people who know
other cultures and other languages, follow a few different TV series at a time, often
watching a few episodes at a time. Another aspect different about TV series nowadays
is that highly appreciated directors work on them, involving popular actors and ac-
tresses, whose famous names drag people to start following the stories. Finally, the con-
tent of the TV series has been gradually changing from mainly romance to everyday
lives of different societies. Depending on the specific topic of a given series, it can be
claimed that todays TV shows reflect society and use everyday life as a screenplay.
Comedy is yet another genre of TV shows, contemporarily intended to be humorous and
to entertain the audience. The topics it depicts are, just as with other TV series genres,
based on societys everyday life.

43
Thus, it is no surprise that two of the contemporary TV series directors decided
to tell the audience the story of modern families. Since family does no longer stand for
the one and only type of arrangement, i.e. working father, stay-at-home mother and 3
children, Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan creators of the series decided to
reflect on modern types of families in a comedy TV show.
The TV show Modern Family debuted in September, 2009 in the US. This sit-
com tells the story of three families related to each other, yet each story is highly indi-
vidual. One family could be described as the traditional construct where father Phil-
is the only employed member of the household the breadwinner. Claire - stay-at-home
mother in her mid-forties strongly focused on her husband and children Luke, Alex
and Haley. The five of them live a relatively happy and calm life in California. Claire is
overprotective, likes jogging and reading books. In high school, she was a cheerleader
and trained ice skating together with her brother Mitchell. She stood for an election for
town councillor, without success. She chose staying at home and taking care of the
household and the rest of the family is pretty comfortable with this arrangement. Phil is
the real estate agent. He tries to be the super-dad for his children by impressing them
and being their friend more than a parent. He used to be a magician and he hopes Luke
would follow him in the future. Phil is competitive and aims at winning. Their oldest
daughter Haley is a teenager focused on her beauty and popularity among friends.
She prefers boyfriends to studying as opposed to Alex who is the most intelligent and
clever from the siblings. Alex always wants to be as different from Haley as possible.
She plays the cello and lacrosse. It is difficult for her to be around boys. Finally, Luke,
the youngest, is rather unruly and not very intelligent. He has quite illogical ideas which
he often executes with his father.
The second family, whose everyday life is the content of Modern Family, con-
sists of Jay, Gloria and Manny. Jay is the head of the family being a father to Claire and
Mitchell. He is married to much younger Columbian woman Gloria. He likes football
and finds it difficult to talk about his feelings. Gloria, on the other hand, has no trouble
expressing her emotions in a very loud, Latin manner. The society perceives her as a
trophy wife, judging by the big age difference between her and Jay, and by her attrac-
tive looks. The last member of this family is Manny Glorias son from previous mar-
riage. He is very mature and perspicacious; not being a teenager yet, also takes care of

44
everyone in the family. Manny idolizes his biological father who does not get involved
in bringing him up.
The third family consists of Jays son Mitchell, his life partner Cam and their
adopted daughter Lily. Mitch is a lawyer, who does not like football but rather is a fan
of musicals. He does not hide the fact that he is homosexual and always speaks his mind
in this respect. Cameron comes from Missouri but lives in California together with
Mitchell and Lily. He is a flamboyant person and he used to be a clown. During his
University time in Illinois, he played football. Lily is Cams and Mitchs adopted
daughter who was born in Vietnam.
In this chapter, the set of data is presented and analysed. The data chosen for this
analysis is taken from the Modern Family script, Mitch and Cam family in particular.
The data comes from the first 4 seasons of the series and is thematically grouped. The
first part consists of 5 extract from 2 episodes. The second part consists of 7 extracts.
Together, there are 12 extracts. The focus of the analysis is (1) mans role in society and
family, (2) womans role in society and family and (3) medias influence on peoples
perception of homosexual families. In the end, the two parts are compared, and the con-
clusions are drawn.
The analysis of the data is carried out with the two methods of discourse analy-
sis, namely Conversational Analysis and Membership Categorization Analysis, which
are fully described in chapter 3. The present study focuses on the qualitative analysis of
the data, and is data-driven.
The research question of the study is Is the division of family roles gendered in homo-
sexual family from the mass media perspective? The analysis of the data is to raise a
question about media influence on shaping society and opinions and also to point to
specific linguistic devices used for categorizing members of given groups. The research
aims at revealing the stereotypical approach towards the issue of gay parenting.
4.2. Mans role in society and family
In order to be able to analyse the first part of data, it is crucial to describe the characters
of interest in detail.

45
Mitchell Pritchett is Jays son and Clairs brother. He graduated from Cornell
University and Columbia University Law School. Mitch is rather law-key person, at
times being the exact opposite of Cameron, which often is the reason for disagreements.
They counterbalance each others personalities. Mitch is very open about his homo-
sexuality and whenever he feels homophobic energy, he defends himself with a short
speech about him being equal to others. Cams flamboyant personality often confuses
and bothers Mitch. He and his sister Claire are quite competitive, and Jay their father
has not fully accepted the fact that Mitch is gay, which is probably the main reason
why Mitch has a closer relationship with his mother. In terms of being a father to Lily,
he is quite overprotective and cautious. At their household, he is the breadwinner most
of the time within the series and often misses his time with Lily.
Cameron Tucker grew up on a farm in Missouri, and as a teenager he used to
play football. Nowadays, he is a big sport fan but also he devotes his free time to col-
lecting antique fountain pens, Japanese flower arrangement, acting as a clown and film-
ing home-made movies. He has a rather dramatic and outgoing personality which con-
trasts Mitchell. At the beginning of the series, he is a stay-at-home dad, taking care of
Lily and the household. He feels comfortable in this role, until Lily starts kindergarten
and Cam goes back to teaching music. Because of his natural over the top personality,
he often seeks being in the centre of attention, and he finds it difficult to deal with criti-
cism.
Their relationship is based on deep love and contradictions. They counterbalance
and support each other at the same time. One of the biggest differences between the two
men is how their upbringing influenced their personalities. Due to growing up on a
farm, being an athlete and getting lots of support from his family, Cam does not feel
afraid to be himself in the most flamboyant manner. On the other hand, Mitchs child-
hood was rather conservative thus; he tries to avoid behaving in a stereotypical gay
manner and has problems with showing affection.
Jay Pritchett is Mitchs and Claires father, married to Gloria and a stepfather to
Manny. Due to age difference between him and Gloria, he often gets confused with her
father. Jay is interested in traditionally manly fields such as football, constructing model
airplanes and fishing. He has never fully accepted the fact of Mitch being gay, however,
on a daily basis, he is in good relationship with Cam and especially Lily. It is only
sometimes, that he nags Mitch about him being not manly enough.

46
Merle Tucker is Cams father. He is a guest character in the series, visiting his
son from Missouri from time to time. He is a typical farmer, with a blade of grass in his
mouth. Merle loves Cam, Mitch and Lily, however, similarly to Jay, he finds it difficult
to accept the homosexuality in his son.
The TV series Modern Family is a rich source of data to linguists, psychologists,
and media specialist. Despite its artificial character, and neatly arranged script, it depicts
the possible scenarios of peoples behaviours placing them in contexts familiar to view-
ers.
The data is divided into thematic groups. In the examples presented below, the
following transcription symbols are used to indicate (Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of
transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed). Conversation Analysis:
Studies from the First Generation. (pp: 13-31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.):

- line numbers, e.g 1,
- names of participants C stands for Cam, J stands for Jay, M stands for
Mitchell, MR stands for Merle, CL stands for Claire, and G stands for
Gloria
- short pauses (.),
- long pauses (the number indicates the length of it in seconds), e.g. (2.0),
- laughter H
- a nonverbal activity ( )
- membership categorizations bold font
- punctuation symbols used to mark intonation ,.?
- words that are spoken faster > <
- emphasized words underline
- falling intonation
- rising intonation

1) Fathers viewing their gay sons

Extract 1
1 MR Oh, (.) this was a delicious meal, Mitchell. (.) I wish my wife could cook
2 a roast like this. (.) > You got a good one there, son.<

47
3 C Oh, well, I'm very lucky, just like you and mama. (.) Never had a bad
patch. (2.) Except the winter of '85. Remember that?
5 MR Oh, I spent several nights in the cow bed then.
6 C Oh, (1.0) here. Let me help you.
7 MR No, no, no. You sit-- sit down.- (.) Let-- lets us guys catch up here a
little bit . - Yeah.
9 J OFFSIDE: I'll tell you why I don't like that guy-- > and I could never say
10 this to Mitch< -- (2.0) he treats my son like the wife in the relationship.
11 (2.0) Always has.
12 MR Before we get to dessert, (.) I've got some presents here.
13 C Oh! Oh, you didn't need to, dad. Love it!
14 M Oh, Merle, thank you so much. Oh! Look at this. Oh. (.) So elegant
huh? (3.0) Oh, this is so sweet. I think I might cry.
16 J Don't.

To start with, the general context of the extract will be presented. The conversa-
tion occurs between Merle, Jay, Cameron and Mitchell during the family dinner. Merle
pays the visit without any particular occasion. The atmosphere is quite casual, and the
participants feel free to raise up any topic they prefer. In lines 1 and 2 Camerons father
Merle honestly compliments the meal prepared by Mitchell, wishing that his wife could
cook that skillfully. Using the category wife, he ascribes Mitchell to the category be-
longing to Membership Categorization Device women, despite the fact that Mitchell is
a man. Then, when his son offers help with cleaning the plates off the table, Merle pro-
tests against it. He provides category-based account for his actions by using the catego-
ry guys. In other words, Merle ascribes category-generated actions such as cooking,
cleaning the plates to women, and chatting and catching up, to men, ignoring the fact
that both his son and his sons partner are men. This attitude triggers a reaction in Jay
Mitchells father, which the director of the series presents as an offside interview with a
given character, as if commenting on what the audience see in the episode. Jay openly
admits not liking his dinner companion, by strongly complaining about the way Mitch-
ell is treated by Merle. He cannot accept the fact that Merle refers to Mitchell using the
category of women and ascribes category-resonant description to him, directing him to
women-like activities. Later on in the conversation back at the dinner table, Merle

48
surprises his son and his sons partner with gifts. Both Mitchell and Cameron are de-
lighted with what they got, however, Mitchell expresses more appreciation up to the
extent that he fears he might start crying. Since he is categorized as a woman by Merle,
mentioning crying, he provides the category-based account for the announced behavior.
Jay is very firm in his reaction to what Mitchell saying by shortly forbidding him from
crying. The length of his talk suggests that he is upset about Mitchells attitude present-
ed in Merles presence.
Although the conversation presented in the extract seems rather casual and
friendly Merle compliments Mitchell, Cameron looks back on the events from his
childhood, both men are gifted with watches in line with their liking- there is a lot of
subtext present. Clearly, mens and womens roles are defined by the use of categories
and category-generated features, where men are those who participate in the social life
(sitting by the dinner table and talking with other men), and women are those who take
care of cooking the food for the guests, cleaning and presumably, crying.
The director and screenwriter of the series create a stereotypical view of the two catego-
ries man and woman and the category generated features associated with them. They
convince the viewers that even if the relationship is homosexual, the household roles are
gendered so that one acts more like a woman and the other, like a man. This perspective
is more familiar to the general public, since homosexual families are still in minority;
hence, the perspective is more easily approachable and preferable.

Extract 2
1 MR > I remember Cam, one time, rolled a tractor tire right through a chicken
2 coop. H He was three at the time.<
3 J > I remember Mitchell, one time, karate-chopped a plate glass win-
dow.> Got seventeen stitches.
5 G Ah, yes. I love that story. Which one of the Charlie's Angels he was be-
ing again?
7 J >That's not important.<
8 MR I think it was Farrah.(.) >Yeah, the thing I remember is, when Mitchell
told that story, how-- how he giggled all the way through.<
10 J >I'm sure he wasn't giggling.<
11 MR Oh, yeah, he-- he was giggling, all right H

49
12 J No, see, Mitchell has a booming laugh. It's Cameron, actually (.) -- has
13 the high laugh. You know...
Analyzing the second extract, it is important to know that the conversation oc-
curs at the same day that the first extract described, after the dinner. Merle sits with Jay
and his wife Gloria in the living room. Similarly to the first extract, the atmosphere
among the participants is casual and friendly. They talk reminiscently of their sons
when they were younger. Merle is the one bringing up the memory first, telling a story
of Cameron rolling a tractor tire when he was three years old. He speaks in a fast, proud
and confident manner. Jay immediately responds with Mitchells childhood story about
him karate-chopping a plate glass window, ending up with seventeen stitches. At that
point, both men are extremely proud with the manly characteristics of the events they
evoked, which are rich in category resonant descriptions. According to the man, the
tougher the boy is, and the more resistant to pain, and eager to experience adventures,
the more of a man he becomes. After Jays utterance, Gloria asks an uncomfortable
question about Mitchell being one of the Charlies Angels at the mentioned time (Char-
lies Angels is a film telling the story of three women working for one man). Jays re-
sponse to Glorias question is direct and firm, stating that what she refers to is of no
importance. He avoids any chance of associating Mitchell with feminine features in
front of Merle. However, Jay not answering Glorias question does not stop Merle from
dwelling on the topic and joking about Mitchell being one of the Charlies Angels in-
deed. What he emphasizes, is Mitchells way of laughing, by calling it giggling. He
ascribes the category resonant description of the feminine way of laughing to Mitchell.
This triggers firm reaction from Jays side, who immediately defends his sons mascu-
linity, by contradicting Meryls statement. Moreover, he ascribes the category resonant
description of masculine laugh being booming. Afterwards, both men pretend the kind
of laugh they are ascribing to their sons, which results in quite a ridiculous situation of
two mature men acting out female laugh.
Similarly to extract one, this conversation seems just a casual talk between two
men at first. Nevertheless, once the category generated features of men and women are
revealed, one notices the subtext of the utterance. Merle constantly attempts to distin-
guish between Cameron and Mitchell by categorizing the as man and woman respec-
tively. Since Jay has never actually fully accepted the fact that Mitchell is gay, it is ex-
tremely difficult for him to handle the way Merle talks about him. This is the reason for

50
Jay defending his son, and redirects Merles accusations of Mitchell being feminine
towards Cameron. It seems like the men are throwing the ball back and forth reaching
no reasonable conclusion.
This short extract is another example of the way creators of the series Modern
Family try to influence the viewers. They aim at ascribing concrete social roles of man
and woman to the two homosexual men. Indirectly, by arranging the humorous talk be-
tween mens fathers, the directors focus the audiences attention on the fact that even in
the homosexual relationship, there is a clear division into masculine and feminine be-
haviors. This particular extract draws on category generated behavior laughing,
which supposedly is different in nature when performed by men and women. According
to the series script, women giggle when laughing, and men laugh boomingly. The audi-
ence might be of the impression that the two men are perceived differently by their fam-
ilies, namely Cameron is viewed as a masculine man and Mitchell, as a feminine men in
this respect.

Extract 3

1 MR Jay, (.) I want to thank you for helping me do this. (2.0) I know Cam ap-
preciates not having to do it all on his own. (4.0) What? What's that face?
3 J >You really wanna know?<
4 MR Sure.
5 J Sometimes I think you treat my son like the woman in their relation-
ship.
7 MR What?
8 J Like those watches. (2.0) Cam's was all big and manly. (.)The other one
9 looked like something Grace Kelly would wear.
10 MR >Well, that's just because Mitch has a more slender wrist than Cam
does.< That's all.
12 J It's skinny,(.) not slender.> And you're honestly telling me you don't cast
13 Mitch in the more ladylike role?<
14 MR Are you saying Cam is the wife in this deal?
15 J I don't think about it that way. (.) It's not like it was in our day. Hus
band went out to work. Wife stayed home with the kids.

51
17 MR That sounds like a clever way of saying "yes."
18 J Fine. (4.0) They're both equal. (6.0) Neither one is the wife.
19 MR Yeah.(.) Yeah. I know that in my head.(2.0) It's just that it makes me feel
20 a tiny bit better (2.0) to think that the person he's spending his life with
21 (2.0) is a tiny bit of 19 a woman.
22 J I get it.(6.0) Every time > I start to feel comfortable with this thing, some
23 new part comes up I gotta wrap my head around.<
24 MR Yeah, I guess we got no choice.
25 J Yep.(3.) We got two sons,(4.0) and they're gay for each other.

The third extract presents the final part of Merles visit at Cam and Mitchells
home. He and Jay help assembling the new bed frame their sons bought. This time, they
are alone in the room, and the conversation assumes slightly less casual and less funny
character. Merle is the one striking up the conversation, being thankful to Jay for help-
ing him and Cameron assembling the bed frame. He is relieved that Cameron does not
have to do that on his own, and at the same time implies that Mitchell is of no help to
Cameron as far as furniture assembly is concerned. Once more, he indirectly categorizes
Mitchell as a woman who is presumed to be unhandy with tools. Jay, being sensitive
about the way Merle talks about his son either directly or indirectly, immediately reacts
with a sour face expression. Puzzled, Merle asks for the reason behind the grimace and
receives a very straight forward answer. At that point, in line 5, Jay is honest with Merle
for the first time, telling him, that it seems he treats Mitchell like a woman in their rela-
tionship. Jay uses the MDC son to indicate that he refers to a male and immediately
contrasts it with the category of woman. What the audience is implicitly presented
with then, is the stereotypical image of man being responsible for tools and construction
work in the household. Jays accusation confuses and surprises Merle as he is of a con-
trasting view. When asked to specify the claim, Mitchells father brings up the example
of the watches Merle gave to the men. In line 8, he uses the category-resonant features
to describe man-like watch, saying it is big and manly in its character. With the
other watch, he uses the category related persona of Grace Kelly Princess of Monaco -
to describe it as a more feminine type of watch. Merle almost immediately takes turn
and, in lines 10 and 11, attempts to excuse his choice of gifts with the size of mens
wrists using the category-resonant feature slender which again associates Mitchell

52
with a woman. At that point, Jay takes turn and refuses associating Mitchells physique
with the woman category, correcting Merle that the wrists is skinny category neutral
feature. This reply triggers the open and honest conversation between the two. Lines 13
and 14 are the breakthrough moments in the extract. Mitchells father directly asks
Merle if he does or does not cast his son in the ladylike role the expression standing
for the woman category. Merle avoids answering the question by posing one wheth-
er Jay sees Cameron as a wife in this deal instead. In line 15, the audience is presented
with a very honest and serious peace of Jays mind regarding his sons homosexuality.
He refers to our day being the time when both Jay and Merle were starting families of
the own. The traditional and preferred model of the family emerges husband pro-
vides for the family as a breadwinner, and wife stays at home to take care of the kids.
Through this sentence, he expresses the traditional family roles, generally accepted by
the society, at the same time contrasting them with the family roles his son and Camer-
on hold. However, this honest statement of Jays strikes a defensive mechanism in
Merle. In line 17, he claims that Jay does indeed cast Cameron in the role of the wife.
Finally, Jay draws a general conclusion and summary of his attitude towards their sons
relationship, saying that as soon as he starts feeling comfortable with this thing (fami-
ly is all of a sudden related to as thing), some new part appears which puzzles him all
over again. When he says Neither of them is the wife, he eventually admits that they
both belong to the category man. Interestingly, Camerons father makes an honest
confession explaining his behavior and the constant categorization of Mitchell as a
woman. He admits that the homosexual relationship is easier to accept for him when he
imagines that his sons partner is (line 21) tiny bit of a woman. The extract ends with
Jay, admitting the reality, using a lot of pauses, that their two sons men are gay for
each other.
Extract 3 is an example of how difficult it could be for parents to accept their
childs homosexuality, even at the point when the adopted child is the part of the family
and they all live in one household. Once again, by implicitly using MCDs, the creators
of the series direct viewers attention to family roles being gendered despite the fact that
there are two man in the relationship. Interestingly, the viewers are also presented with
parental way of coping with the difficult situation. As Merle says, it is easier to accept
ones child homosexuality once a parent treats the partner as the opposite sex. This
could be perceived as a guideline for the part of the audience struggling with the similar

53
situation, however, the question is, whether the presented solution is the right way of
understanding with homosexuality. This extract might send the wrong and misleading
message that what it takes to feel comfortable with homosexuality is to ascribe gendered
roles to people. Moreover, once again, the male role in the society and family emerges.
Because of the use of such categories and category resonant features like big, manly,
husband going to work, the audience is provided with the stereotypical view of mans
role in the family. As the conversation proceeds, it is clear that this model is not appli-
cable in homosexual families and can cause conflict and miscommunication.

Extract 4

1 M So (.) I lay the toolbox outside and all the supplies are ready, and I think
we (.) are good to go!
3 C Terrific.
4 M >Aren't you gonna change into a working man's outfit?<
5 C No,(2.0) I'm good, and I don't think workmen really call them "outfits."
6 INTERVIEW M We are building a princess castle for Lily. Uh,(.) >it's
something every father wants to be able to do for his daughter.> (3.0) You know, and
(.) I fancy myself as a bit of a castle designer. < I have done a few sketches.
9 M Oh! Look at us! (2.0) Three construction dudes!(.) Dad, >I'm gonna
get you some workman gloves. I have a blue and camel. What's your preference?<
11 J Surprise me.

Extract number four is the example of the conversation between Mitchell, Cam-
eron and Jay. They prepare themselves for building a princess castle for Lily. The at-
mosphere is very casual and friendly, but again, a lot of subtext is hidden in the way the
comedy script is written. It is Mitchell who is most excited about and eager to building a
castle and begins with preparing the toolbox necessary for the work. Since it is a come-
dy TV series, very often there is a lot of implicit irony an ridiculing present. It is ob-
servable in line 4 when Mitchell asks Cameron if he is or is not going to change into
working mans outfit. This phrase is building the categorization man with the use of
category-resonant feature describing the outfit. Cam immediately takes turn and ridi-
cules his partners words claiming that workmen do not call their working clothes

54
outfits. This category resonant description of clothes outfit indirectly criticized
by Cameron, who has already been presented as the more manly man in the relation-
ship, draws audiences attention to Mitchell being in a ladylike role again. According
to the construction of this TV series, after the audience is presented with the extract of
characters lives, then the characters comment on what has happened in the extract in
the form an interview or a documentary. The utterance Mitchell produces from line 6 to
8 is an example of the commentary. He categorizes himself as father the same as all
the heterosexual fathers- whose dream and will is to build a princess castle for his
daughter. Within one sentence, he takes pride in being in the standard, traditional father
role characterized by manly skills of building and construction. However, the director
immediately brings up the humoristic aspect of the series and includes the phrase cas-
tle designer in the script. This time, in line 8, Mitchell takes pride in being no longer a
castle builder manly role but castle designer. What the audience receives is an im-
plication that Mitchell being a designer is of higher importance than him being a father
capable of building a princess castle for his daughter. The ridiculing continues after the
documentary part of the extract, when the three men are back in the room together. In
line 9 Mitchell uses the pronoun us, to refer to himself, his father and Cameron, at the
same time creating the gendered-category us being men. He follows up on the pro-
noun, and specifies who they are using the category resonant description construction
dudes and saying it in a very proud and satisfied manner which is a part of implicit
ridiculing. The director of the series develops the utterance by including the question
about the color of the gloves Mitchell offers to his father. What an audience receives in
line 10 is the stereotype of homosexuals being less interested in the stereotypically
manly activities such as building and construction, and being more involved in the
stereotypically womanly activities and areas such as attention to details, in this case
the colors. The extract finishes with Jays catty response surprise me.
This extract is yet another excellent piece of data showing the stereotypical por-
trayal of mans and womans roles in the relationship and family. The view of strong,
proud, handy and skillful father, who pays little attention to details such as colors
emerges from the extract. Since the context is homosexual family, the audience is once
again presented with the particular separate roles being ascribed to the men, in spite of
them both being male. This relates to extract 3, where Camerons father admits it is eas-
ier to accept his sons homosexuality once he imagines Mitchell as a woman. The crea-

55
tors of the series direct the audience into the same conclusion, presumably with the final
aim of homosexuality being widely accepted and supported in the world.

Extract 5

1 C >Well, this is a touchy subject for Mitchell. He wants to feel like
a regular Joe,< like you and I.(.)> Oh, pardonnez-moi. I prefer the champagne Dijon to
the standard yellow.< (3.0) You know, (.) there are a few areas that define us as men,
like sports and construction. Mitchell just wants to feel like he's...(1.0) Part of the
man club.
6 J I just think it's crazy, that's all. >So what if he can't swing a ham-
mer?<(2.0) Look at all he has done.(.) Law school, great career, providing for his fami-
ly. (.) That's manly, too, isn't it? I mean, the classical sense.
9 C >Well, yes, I mean, I think it also takes a big man to< (1.0) quit his ca-
reer as a music teacher and raise a child.
11 J You're a man, too, Cam

Analyzing extract 5, it is necessary to acknowledge that the conversation takes
place in the kitchen while preparing sandwiches between Cameron and Jay after the
princess castle is built. The general topic of the conversation is Mitchell and his attitude
towards building and construction. Cameron excuses his partner and his behavior claim-
ing it is a touchy subject for him. In lines 2-5 he explains the reason behind Mitchell
being so involved in building the castle for Lily. Cameron uses the MCD regular Joe,
which falls into the category of man. Moreover, he says that Mitchell wants to feel
like you and I, by which he means himself and Jay previously presented as stereo-
typical men. This statement is colored with the humoristic fragment where Cameron is
picky with the types of mustard used for the sandwiches. Presumably, the authors of the
series tried to balance the extent of stereotype, and ascribe some womanly features to
Cameron too, since he is homosexual. Still, the general impression the audience is left
with is that it is Cameron who is more of a man than Mitchell. Further on, Cam builds
the category of man with the use of category resonant description, saying that there are
certain areas of life that define men. Interestingly, Camerons turn is not interrupted by
Jay because he is strongly interested in what Cam says, which is the reason for unusual-

56
ly long stretch of talk, considering the standard Modern Family script. Hence, the areas
of life defining a man, according to Cameron are sports and constructions category
resonant description. He concludes Mitchell wants to be a part of the man club, at the
same time suggesting he is not even though he is a man just as Cam and Jay.
4.3. Womans role in society and family
The following extracts are analyzed in order to see what is the womans role in
society and family emerging from the Modern Family screenplay. Despite the fact that
some category-generated features of womans role have already emerged in the previ-
ous subsection, this part will elaborate on them in greater detail. The characters of the
extracts are the same as previously, and the family of interest is Mitchell, Cameron and
Lily.
Extract 6
1 M Good morning!
2 C He-e-e-y! (2.0) Hey, what's this?
3 M >Well, I know you've had some late nights with Lily, and this is just my
4 way of saying "thank you" and "I love you."<
5 C Oh, thank you.
6 M And this is just the beginning.(.) Yeah, 'cause today is your day.
7 C Today?
8 M All day.
9 C Today. (2.0) Today is my day.
10 M Something's happening.
11 C >It mother's day, Mitchell.<
12 M So?
13 C You're bringing me breakfast in bed on mother's day.
14 M > Okay, no, no, this is not a mother's day breakfast. This is breakfast that
happens to be on --<
16 C You think of me as Lily's mother! I'm your wife! I'm a woman!!
17 M What?
18 C I can't eat!

57
19 M Okay, you know what? (2.0) If you can't accept the nice gesture, then just
20 forget it. (3.0)

In order to analyze extract 6, it is important to describe the general context and
the setting. The scene presents mothers day in the USA, early hours, when Mitchell
welcomes Cameron with breakfast brought to bed. The reason for his morning surprise,
according to what he says, is gratitude and love he feels for Cameron. Mitchell feels
grateful for Cameron spending late nights with Lily. However, breakfast is not the
only way of expressing his feelings, as he announces that the whole day is going to be
devoted to Cameron. This news makes Cameron wonder why this particular day is cho-
sen to be, as Mitchell puts it, his day. After a quick exchange of short turns, Cam con-
cludes that the real reason behind breakfast prepared by Mitchell is mothers day. Thus,
he points viewers attention to category-based account for Mitchells action, who con-
tradicts the accusation claiming it is a pure coincidence. Cameron does not let his part-
ner finish the utterance, jumping into the middle of his sentence. He realizes that Mitch-
ell built the categories of mother and wife and attached them to Cameron. This
accusation leads to misunderstanding between the two men as they soon cease to talk.
The audience observes a clear signal that Cameron is the one categorized as the mother
in the homosexual relationship due to him staying at home with Lily, according to this
extract. The director provides the viewers with the traditional view of womans role in
the family taking care of the child at night, when it is not asleep. In the stereotypical
heterosexual family model, a woman is the one staying at home, thus being able to de-
vote her sleeping time to taking care of the child. Once again, the authors of the series
attempt to ascribe stereotypically feminine role to one of the men.

Extract 7
1 M Oh, is that the party over there?
2 C >I don't know. I'm a woman, remember? I have a terrible sense of direc-
3 tion.<
4 M >May I remind you that my big crime was making you fluffy pancakes,
okay? I'm getting a little sick of you dwelling on this. It happens to be
mother's day, not martyr's day.<
7 C Mitchell. I'm sorry. It's just a sensitive issue for me.

58
8 M Okay.
9 TOGETHER: There's nothing gays hate more than when people... Treat us like
10 women.
11 C We're not. We don't want to go to your baby shower. (.) We don't have a
12 time of the month.(.) We don't love pink.
13 M Well, you love pink.
14 C No, pink loves me.
15 M Okay.
16 MAN: Hey, guys!
17 M Hey! So...(2.0)
18 C >That's Jen, husband Rick, baby Diego. I don't get it either.<
19 M Hey, Jen. (.) Let me help you with that.
20 Jen Oh.
21 M Rick! (1.0) How you doing?
22 Jen We should do play group on weekends more often. (.) It's nice to have
the husbands around to help, right?
24 C >Oh, yeah, because that makes all the sense in the world - you as the hu-
25 band.<
26 M Stop it. That's not what she meant.
27 MAN Okay, everybody, (2.0) happy mother's day! I know I speak for all the
28 guys when I say thank you for everything you do while we're off having
29 affairs.(2.0) Oh. I'm kidding. I'll pay for that later. Uh, (.) let's get the
moms and kids together for a picture!
31 C >No, let's go. Let's get out of here. Leave the stroller and run.<
32 M Cam, stop. No one's going to ask you to --
33 WOMAN: Cameron, get on up here.
34 C >I don't know. You guys just go ahead.<
35 WOMAN: You're an ordinary mom!
36 C: Oh, (.) I don't know. Uh, okay, all right.(.) Unhand me.
37 WOMAN: Get over there.
38 MAN: That's -- that's... Okay, tighten up, tighten up. (.) Up here, ladies! Beau-
39 tiful. One more, gals. (2.0) Oh, thanks, ladies. Thanks so much. Perfect.


59
This extract is set in the same episode that extract number 6 is mothers day.
The two men go to the picnic party in the park. The conversation begins with the con-
flict raising question about the locus of the party. Cameron answer is full of irony be-
cause he does not only refuse to help Mitchell find a spot but also, in line 2, he directly
categorizes himself as a woman. At this point, he also mentions having a terrible sense
of direction, which is a category-generated feature stereotypically associated with wom-
en in general. Mitchell takes a quick turn trying to defend himself and the gesture of
preparing breakfast for his partner, which calms Cameron down a bit. In line 7 he Cam-
eron admits that categorizing him as a woman is a sensitive issue. At that point, the
director uses the documentary style incorporating the interview with the two men back
at house. From line 9 to 15 the two men, almost speaking in chorus, explain the sensitiv-
ity of the aforementioned issue. They contrast the two categories: gays gender-driven
category, and people gender-neutral category. They claim there is nothing more offen-
sive than when people treat gays like women. Afterwards, they explain why it is incor-
rect to categorize them this way. Lines 11,12,13 contain the stereotypical view of wom-
en, rejected by the two characters, namely women attending baby showers, having time
of the month and loving pink. What the implicit message behind the humoristic utter-
ance is, is that women can be described with the use of category-generated features such
as: interest in babies, behaving unusually during period time or being obsessed with
colors, in this case pink. Further, the episode continues in the main setting of picnic in
the park when the two men finally reach the location and other people celebrating
mothers day. Participants begin chatting in a casual and friendly manner until, in line
22 Jane of the mother celebrating in the park accosts Cameron as if he was Mitch-
ells wife. In line 23, she uses the MDC husbands referring to her husband and Mitch-
ell. Cameron resists the category with the use of irony, speaking to Mitchell on the side.
What he actually means in lines 24 and 25 is that it is illogical to refer to him as to a
wife because he is a man. All of a sudden, in lines 27-30 one of the men present at the
picnic has a message for all the participants, especially all the mothers. Following the
humoristic pattern of the screenplay, the man expresses his gratitude for everything that
women do when the men are off having affairs. In the funny manner, the director ac-
tually spreads the message that it is natural for men to have affairs and for women to do
everything, meaning taking care of the household. To commemorate the day, the man
suggests that all the mothers and children gather for the picture together. Line 31 pre-

60
sents Camerons reaction to the suggestion, which is to leave the stroller where it stands
and run away. He predicts that people taking part in the party could ask him to join the
picture with other mothers. This is indeed what happens in lines 33 and 35, where the
woman calls Cameron to join the group as the ordinary mom. She officially and pub-
licly categorizes him as a woman using the MDC of a mother. Presumably to avoid
further embarrassment, Cameron decides to join the picture and get it over with. To
make the extract more of a comedy, the directors continue with ridiculing Cameron,
arranging the use of categories such as ladies and gals towards the people posing in
the picture.
Extract 7 leaves the audience with no doubt that one of the characters is consid-
ered a woman by his environment and his role is to take care of the household and the
children. Surrounded with humor and casual friendly context, the extract sends the mis-
leading message to the audience that in the homosexual family roles are strictly gen-
dered and it is possible to actually distinguish between the two men in terms of who is
in the male and who is in the female role. The director facilitates it for the viewers to
understand and accept the homosexual model of the family by changing it into hetero-
sexual one.

Extract 8
1 C They offered me a bouquet, (.) Mitchell.
2 M Which you accepted.
3 C Why can't you ever take my side? (2.0) They think of me as a woman!
4 M >Cam, no, come on. We're just a new type of family, you know? They
don't have the right vocabulary for us yet.(2.0) They -- they need one of
6 us to be the mom.<
7 C >So why does it have to be me? Do I wear a dress?<
8 M Well...
9 C: That's a nightshirt!
10 M It's kind of satiny.
11 C What are you saying?
12 M Come on, you know.
13 C No. No, no, no.(.) I don't know.

61
14 M All right, (.) if -- if I'm thinking about it, (.) of the two of us, (.) if -- if I
had to pick, (.) I-I-I might say that you're slightly... mom-er.

Extract 8 presents the two men coming back from the party, still being in the
park. Cameron got a bouquet as a mothers day gift from people organizing the party,
which clearly upset him. Flowers are stereotypically and traditionally considered a gift
handed to women only, hence Cams concern. In line 3 he clearly and directly com-
plains about party participants thinking of him as a woman, thus ascribing him to the
female category. Lines 4 and 5 are crucial for this extract because there, Mitchell ex-
plain the reason behind people ascribing feminine role to Cameron. He refers to them-
selves as a new type of family for the first time in the series (this has not been men-
tioned in two previous seasons). This is the first time Cameron, Mitchell and Lily are
considered to belong to the category of family by the director. In lines 4-6 Mitchell
strongly differentiates between their family and other people, using the gender-neutral
category they. This stands for the heterosexual families, contrasting with homosexual
family of interest. Mitchell points to the fact that American society lacks proper vocabu-
lary for them (us) the homosexual parents. He concludes that it is necessary for
heterosexual people to categorize one of the men as a mom in order to understand and
accept the modern family type. This confirms what the director attempts to communi-
cate through the TV series discourse, that homosexuality is easier to understand once
heterosexual interpret it in their own way. However, it is puzzling for Cameron to un-
derstand why it is him that the society categorizes as a woman (line 7). Once again, the
director uses humor as answer pointing to the nightshirt Cameron is wearing and it be-
ing feminine. The extract ends with Mitchell confirming societys categorization as he
concludes that if he had to choose, then Cameron seems slightly mom-er. Using the
category-resonant description, he actually admits that his gay partner can be seen as a
woman and mother in their family.

Extract 9

1 C What's this?
2 M > Well, it's a mother's day card. And I know - Stop it! Okay. Cam, that
was (2.0) Gloria's card from Manny but I just wanted you to see was its

62
definition for "mother" was on it.(.) It's warm, nurturing, supportive.
You know, maybe when the world sees you as a mom --
6 C Not just the world.
7 M Fine. Fine. Me too.(.) But maybe this is what we're seeing, and I don't
know why that's such a bad thing.(2.0) It certainly doesn't make you less
9 of a man, right?
10 C Maybe you're right.
11 M Yeah.
12 M And, Cam, put down the scotch. You're not fooling anyone.
13 C It is so burn-y. Oh, my God.

Extract 9 is the closing part of the mothers day presented in the episode. The
two men are at Jay and Glorias house waiting for dinner to be served. Mitchell brings a
mothers day card to Cameron; however, as soon as he tells Cam what he brought, the
man tears the paper into pieces, being sensitive to categorizing him as a woman, he im-
agined the card being a gift for him. The card was Glorias gift though. In lines 3-5
Mitchell tries to soothe his partners by explaining the definition of mother printed on
the card. He enumerates category resonant description using adjective associated with
mothers such as warm, nurturing and supportive. At this moment, the authors of
Modern Family provide the audience with specific description womans role in a family
pointing to specific character features she needs to have. Trying to bond with his part-
ner, Mitchell states that it is the world, so other people, presumably heterosexual peo-
ple, and not him, who categorize Cameron as a mother. In line 6 though, Cameron im-
mediately takes turn to point that it also Mitchell who categorized him as a woman. In
the following line Mitchell takes turn in the conversation and agrees with Cam at the
same time trying to explain that categorizing Cameron as a woman is not negative. Line
8 and 9 are those fully soothing Cameron, when Mitchell tells him that, even when cat-
egorized as a woman and a mother, to him Cameron is still a man. Final exchange of
utterances draws viewers attention back to the comedy aspect of the series when
Mitchell tells Cameron to stop drinking whiskey. In line 13, Cameron is relieved he no
longer needs to act in a manlike manner drinking strong alcohol when sad. Despite its
humoristic character, the final exchange contains the category-generated feature of men
being fond of alcohol. What the director does is creating a context in which Cameron

63
being a man is ridiculed when acting out the stereotypically manlike activity, hence the
audience again goes back to the impression of Cameron being a woman in the family.
Finally, one more feature of womans role in society and family emerges from the ex-
tract - restraining from alcohol, as it is manlike thing.

Extract 10
1 C You quit?! I'm tingling.
2 M I am, too. (.) It's like my heart is full for the first time in forever. Oh, god,
3 it's really pounding.> It's like I feel the weight of endless possibilities
just sitting on my chest. She is not doing anything, cam.<
5 C You're not panicking, (2.0) are you?
6 M Of course I am panicking!
7 C No! (1.0) Don't panic. If you panic, I panic!
8 M I just(.) quit(.) my job! Cam!
9 C Oh, my god, (.) Mitchell, I am used to nice things! What are we gonna
do?!
11 M Okay, (.) no, no, just calm -- calm down.(3.0) This is what we're gonna
12 do. I am going to(2.0) -- I'm gonna do what I'm trained to do.(.) I am go-
13 ing to lie(.), grovel9.), debase myself(.) >until I get what I want. I am a
lawyer, damn it.<
15 C Mitchell! No-(2.0) we'll find something better for you,(.) Something
16 that works for all of us.
17 M There's no plan "b" here, Cam. (.) We have a mortgage. We have (2.0)
18 We have a - a child to support. I --
19 C Hey.(2.0) It's gonna be okay.(2.0) We're gonna figure it out. I just want
20 you to be happy, and you will be happy. And that is something worth
toasting.

The above extract is an example between the two men talking about Mitchell
having quit the job. Up till this moment in the series, Mitchell was the one earning the
money and providing for the family, and Cameron was the one taking care of the
household and the baby. In lines 2 and 4 Mitchell performs the longer stretch at talk
expressing how satisfied he is with quitting his job and how bright the future seems to

64
be. However, at the end of this utterance he completely alternates his attitude into panic.
In line 7, the viewers observe how dependent Cameron is on Mitchell, since as one be-
gins to panic the other follows his lead. The panic continues in lines 9 and 10 where
Cameron raises his voice and says that he is used to nice things. The director makes a
clear suggestion that nice things are presumably clothes, books, flowers etc. and that
without Mitchells salary, Cameron will not be able to afford these. Hence, he is not
only mentally but also financially dependent on Mitchell. Camerons raised voice,
which is full of concern, makes Mitchell control the situation and calm Cameron down.
In lines 11-14 he comes up with the immediate plan of getting his job back, categorizing
himself according to his profession lawyer. Cameron does not agree for this option
and tries to convince Mitchell that they will manage to find solution suitable for both of
them. However, Mitchell enumerates the reasons behind him deciding to go back to
work, namely mortgage and a child to support. The final utterance is Cameron comfort-
ing his partner claiming that they will figure something out in general but he comes up
with no concrete plan.
What is worth emphasizing on the basis of this extract is the way of portraying
Cameron as the dependent one both mentally and financially. This is the stereotypical
family model that the father earns the money hence the breadwinner and the mother
becomes used to nice things she can buy with the use of this money. Again, the audi-
ence is directed into a belief that Cameron is supposed to be categorized in the female
role in spite of being a man and that he fulfils the traditional, stereotypical womans role
in the family.

Extract 11

OFFSIDE
1 M I am losing my mind. (2.0) As much as I love U, which is,(.) you know,
2 more than life itself, I am (.) whew! -- >Not cut out to be a stay-at-
home dad.<
4 No. But I-it's Cameron's turn.(2.0) >It's Cameron's turn to be out in the
5 world interacting with other grown-ups while I get to stay at home and
plot the death of dora the explorer.(4.0) >I'd like to fill her backpack
with bricks and throw her into candy-cane river.<

65
OFFSIDE
8 C I am in a really dark space. > Being away from my Lily is literally tor-
ture.< And I can't pressure Mitchell, (2.0)
10 But I really, (.) really,(.) really just want him to get a job > So I can go
11 back to being a stay-at-home dad/trophy wife!<

The above extract is divided into two parts, following the documentary style of
the series. Both men are interviewed separately, answering the question about the way
they feel after exchanging the roles. In the first part Mitchell admits that it is driving
him crazy to spend that much time without work at home. Even though, as he says, he
loves his daughter very much, he does not consider himself to be a stay at home dad.
Interestingly he does not call himself mom, although staying at home is associated with
mothers role. Further on, Mitchell admits it is time for his partner to live the outside
world and to interact with other grown-ups. The other grown-ups Mitchell refers to are
MDC for the category of men i.e. those not staying at home with children.
In the second part of the extract, Cameron answers the same question, with more
emotional tone of voice, nearly crying. In lines 8 and 9, he describes how very difficult
it is for him to be away from Lily. At the same time, he admits that he really wants
Mitchell to get a job because what he is waiting for is going back to being a stay at
home dad/trophy wife. Interestingly, Cameron refers to himself using two separate
categories one for man and the other for women. Another intriguing use of words is
trophy as a noun in a function of an adjective describing wife. The term trophy wife
is usually ascribed to women who get involved in a relationship being driven by the
money the partner owns. Hence, again with the use of humour, the director draws
viewers attention to Camerons feminine character. Also, this extract confirms the al-
ready described stereotypical womans role being a stay at home mother, enjoying
spending the money earned by the husband.

Extract 12

1 M Cam. Cam, (.) you have got to relax.(2.0) I told you I wouldn't take a job.
2 C Take the job.
3 M What?

66
4 C >I want you to take the job.<
5 M I thought you(.) liked having me home with Lily.
6 C I don't. (2.0) I mean, I do. I just (3.0) I miss my time with Lily, and I
know it's selfish --
8 M No, (2.0) I want the job!
9 C You do?
10 M Oh, my god(1.0), yes! I-I love Lily,(2.0) but I hate baby talk.
11 C I love baby talk!

Extract 12 is the conclusion of the situation described above, when Cameron and
Mitchell take part in the party. This is not just a regular party though, because they visit
Mitchells potential employer, who actually offered him a job. In extract 12 the two
men discuss the opportunity for Mitchell getting back to work. At the beginning of the
conversation Mitchell calms his partner down assuring him that he does not intend to
accept the offer, despite his personal preference. Cameron immediately takes turn and
nearly commands Mitchell to take the job. In lines 4-11 the two men realize that they
have both not been honest with each other, and that they both feel uncomfortable with
the new roles they perform. Cameron admits he misses spending time with Lily, and
Mitchell confesses that he hates baby talk. Obviously, Cameron says he loves baby talk,
which is another category-generated feature associated with women in general being
skilful with children e.g. baby talk.
The script is written in a way to bring the original order back to the family by
Mitchell going back to work and Cameron back to household duties. Hence, the author
implicitly concludes that from the two men, one is meant to follow his career and the
other to achieve happiness by staying with children at home. In this way, the series
makes it slightly easier for the audience to accept and understand the homosexual, mod-
ern type of family.
4.4. Concluding remarks
Basing on the set of data presented in the 12 extracts from the series Modern
Family, a number of conclusions can be drawn. The data present stories inspired by

67
modern world and homosexual families being more and more visible in todays world,
but also the stereotypical views of family roles being gendered.
First of all, the set of 5 first extracts provide the examples of mans role in soci-
ety and family in detail. The data reveal that the contemporary media creators direc-
tors and screenwriters come up with the traditional mans role, at the same time touch-
ing upon the modern social issue (homosexual families). According to the data, the
mans role in the family is to be a breadwinner and be able to financially provide for his
family. Moreover, it is crucial that the man in the family is skilful in terms of building
and construction. He should also be interested in the manly areas such as sport and
aeroplanes. Also, it is inappropriate for him to express emotions, not to mention crying.
Concluding, on the basis of the data, the tougher the man in the family, the better qual-
ity he represents.
When it comes to the second set of extracts, the data reveal the examples of
womans role in society and family in detail. The authors of the series created a tradi-
tional model of a woman being a wife and a mother in the family. According to the data,
the womans role in the family is to be warm, nurturing and supportive. She should quit
the professional career in order to be able to devote more time and affection both to the
household and to bringing up the children. She is expected to restrain from alcohol and
to be interested in the areas such as babies, flowers, chatting and clothes. She is also
presented as the one financially dependent on the husband and his support.
Paradoxically, the data reveal the roles of man and woman, but the characters of
the series are two gay men. One could assume that it is impossible to receive a womans
role description on the basis of the TV series about gay couple. However, what the au-
thors tried to achieve through creating the womans role, was facilitating the perception
of potentially difficult topic. The TV series has been originally aired in the USA, where
in some particular states it is legal for people of the same sex to get married and adopt
children. However, it is still an issue found difficult to understand by the vast part of not
only American but society in general. Modern Family is one of the first TV series, espe-
cially comedy, which raises the issue of homosexual families in detail. The creators
have taken the approach of presenting it in the light and humoristic manner, which is a
positive aspect. However, they have also directed peoples understanding of homosex-
ual families into considering them as almost the same as heterosexual families, by the
use of family gendered roles. As a consequence, people following the story of Cameron

68
and Mitchell are misled to belief that in the homosexual couple or family, one man as-
sumes the role of the woman and the other that of the man. This approach converges
homosexuality with heterosexuality.
To summarize the findings of the data, a conclusion can be drawn that the media
creators manipulate the audience by the use of categories they ascribe to the TV series
characters. Hence, it is advisable to pay a lot of attention and analysis to the content of
the comedy TV series in order not to be misled.


69
Conclusion
This thesis is devoted to media discourse analysis on the basis of modern mass
media content TV series Modern Family. Firstly, the author focused on presenting the
theoretical background of the analysis, which consisted of (1) describing notions of me-
dia and discourse, (2) showing the importance of identity and (3) presenting the meth-
odology of the analysis. The presented theoretical parts created the basis of conducting
the analysis, whose goal was to answer the research question. The author tried to estab-
lish whether the division of family roles is gendered in homosexual families from the
mass media perspective. In order to do so, the author analysed the chosen extracts from
the TV series Modern Family.
Summing up the conclusions reached after analysing the quoted extracts, it is crucial to
imply that family roles are indeed gendered in homosexual families from the mass me-
dia perspective. The creators of the TV series used a number of linguistic devices in
order to ascribe heterosexual features to a homosexual couple. This being noted, it is
fair to assume that the authors of the TV series wanted to influence viewers perception
of the content of Modern Family, namely to make the understanding of the unknown
easier, where the unknown is homosexual and easier is heterosexual perspective.
Supposedly, the reason for such an interpretation of reality and the aim to facilitate the
viewers perception, is that people find it less difficult to accept and understand some-
thing they are familiar with. Since the issue of homosexual families is still a taboo in
many areas in the world, it could appear easier to understand once presented in the het-
erosexual light.
Considering all the knowledge and conclusions that come from this analysis, the author
emphasizes the fact that discourse of media influences viewers perception of reality.

70
References
Primary sources
Modern Family. Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan (dir.) 2009. ABC, Season 1
Modern Family. Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan (dir.) 2010. ABC, Season 2
Modern Family. Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan (dir.) 2011. ABC, Season 3

Secondary sources

Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London:
Routledge.
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crawford, Mary. 1995. Taking difference: On gender and language. London: Sage.
Devereux, Eoin. 2003. Understanding the media. London: Sage.
Dreger, Alice Domurat. 1998. Hermaphrodites and the medical invention of sex. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

71
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of
sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
Gill, Rosalind. 2007. Gender and the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1997. Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices.
London: Sage.
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Structural linguistics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kessler, Suzanne J. and Wendy McKenna. 1978. Gender: An ethnomethodological ap
proach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social
behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
OKeeffe, Anne. 2006. Investigating media discourse. New York: Routledge.
Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse analysis: An introduction. London: Continuum.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Stets, Jan E. and Peter J. Burke. 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory, So
cial Psychology Querterly 63: 224-237.
Stets, Jan E. and Peter J. Burke. 2003. A sociological approach to self and identity,
in: Mark R. Leary and June Price Tangney (eds.), Handbook of self and identity.
New York: Guilford Press, 128-152.
Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. Moving forward with membership categorization analysis:
Methods for systematic analysis, Discourse Studies 14, 3: 277-303.
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural lan-
guage. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Talbot, Mary. 2007. Media Discourse: Representation and interaction. Edinburgh: Ed-
inburgh University Press.

72
West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender, Gender and Society 1,
2: 125-151.
Williams, Raymond. 1982. The sociology of culture. Chicago: The University of Chica-
go Press.


73
Appendix
1. Modern Family. Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan (dir.) 2011. ABC, Season
3, Episode 20

Extract 1

Meryl: Oh, this was a delicious meal, Mitchell. I wish my wife could cook a
roast like this. You got a good one there, son.
C: Oh, well, I'm very lucky, just like you and mama. Never had a bad patch. Ex
cept the winter of '85. Remember that? Oh, I spent several nights in the cow bed
then.
Mitch: Oh, here. Let me help you.
Meryl: No, no, no. You sit-- sit down.- Let-- lets us guys catch up here a little
bit. - Yeah.
OFFSIDE: I'll tell you why I don't like that guy-- and I could never say this to
Mitch-- he treats my son like the wife in the relationship. Always has.
MERYL: Before we get to dessert, I've got some presents here.
C: Oh! Oh, you didn't need to, dad. Love it!
M: Oh, Merle, thank you so much. Oh! Look at this. Oh. So elegant, huh? Oh,
this is so sweet. I think I might cry.
J: Don't.




74


Extract 2

Meryl: I remember Cam, one time, rolled a tractor tire right through a chicken
coop. He was 3 at the time.
J: I remember Mitchell, one time, karate-chopped a plate glass window. Got 17
stitches. Ah, yes. I love that story.
Meryl: Which one of the Charlie's Angels he was being again?
J: That's not important.
Meryl: I think it was Farrah. Yeah, the thing I remember is, when Mitchell told
that story, how-- how he giggled all the way through.
J: I'm sure he wasn't giggling.
Meryl: Oh, yeah, he-- he was giggling, all right.
J: No, see, Mitchell has a booming laugh. It's Cameron, actually-- has the high
laugh. You know...


Extract 3
Meryl: Jay, I want to thank you for helping me do this. I know Cam appreciates
not having to do it all on his own. What? What's that face?
J: You really wanna know?
Meryl: Sure.
J: Sometimes I think you treat my son like the woman in their relationship.
Meryl: What?
J: Like those watches. Cam's was all big and manly.The other one looked like
something Grace Kelly would wear.
Meryl: Well, that's just because Mitch has a more slender wrist than Cam does.
That's all.
J: It's skinny, not slender. And you're honestly telling me you don't cast Mitch in
the more ladylike role?
Meryl: Are you saying Cam is the wife in this deal?

75
J: I don't think about it that way. It's not like it was in our day. Husband went out
to work. Wife stayed home with the kids.
Meryl: That sounds like a clever way of saying "yes."
J: Fine. They're both equal. Neither one is the wife.
Meryl: Yeah. Yeah. I know that in my head. It's just that it makes me feel a tiny
bit better to think that the person he's spending his life with is a tiny bit of a
woman.
J: I get it. Every time I start to feel comfortable with this thing, some new part c
omes up I gotta wrap my head around.
Meryl: Yeah, I guess we got no choice.
J: Yep. We got two sons, and they're gay for each other.

2. Modern Family. Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan (dir.) 2010. ABC, Season
2, Episode 1

Extract 1

M: and all the supplies are ready, and I think we are [Smooches] good to go!
C: Terrific.
M: Aren't you gonna change into a working man's outfit?
C: No, I'm good, and I don't think workmen really call them "outfits."
M: We are building a princess castle <i>for Lily.</i> [ Chuckles ] Uh, it's some
thing every father wants to be able to do for his daughter. You know, and I fancy
myself as a bit of a castle designer. I have done a few sketches.
C: Which we have archived so we can use the kit.
M: Mm, yeah. The kit. Uh, the Kit. Which, uh,
we're gonna do together.
M: Oh! Look at us! Three construction dudes![ chuckles ] Dad, I'm gonna get
you some workman gloves. I have a blue and camel. What's your preference?
J: Surprise me.

Extract 2
C: Well, this is a touchy subject for Mitchell. He wants to feel like

76
a regular Joe, like you and I. Oh, pardonnez-moi. I prefer the champagne Dijon
to the standard yellow. You know, there are a few areasthat define us as men,
like sports and construction. Mitchell just wants to feel like he's... Part of the
man club.
J: [ Grunts ]
C: [ Sighs ]
J: Come on.[ sighs ]I just think it's crazy, that's all. So what if he can't swing a
hammer? Look at all he <i>has</i> done. Law school, great career, providing
for his family.That's manly, too, isn't it? I mean, the classical sense.
C: Well, yes, I mean, I think it also takes a big man to quit his career as a music
teacher and raise a child.
J: You're a man, too, Cam.

3. Modern Family. Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan (dir.) 2010. ABC, Season
2, Episode 21

Extract 1
M: Good morning!
C: He-e-e-y! Hey, what's this?
M: Well, I know you've had some late nights with Lily, and this is just my way
of saying "thank you" and "I love you."
C: Oh, thank you.
M: And this is just the beginning. Yeah, 'cause today is your day.
C: Today?
M: All day.
C: Today. Today is my day.
M: Something's happening.
C: It mother's day, Mitchell.
M: So?
C: You're bringing me breakfast in bed on mother's day.
M: Okay, no, no, this is not a mother's day breakfast. This is breakfast that hap
pens to be on --
C: You think of me as Lily's mother! I'm your wife! I'm a woman!!

77
M: What?
C: I can't eat!
M: Okay, you know what? If you can't accept the nice gesture, then just forget it.

Extract 2
M: Oh, is that the party over there?
C: I don't know. I'm a woman, remember? I have a terrible sense of direction.
M: May I remind you that my big crime was making you fluffy pancakes, okay?
I'm getting a little sick
of you dwelling on this. It happens to be mother's day, not martyr's day.
C: Mitchell.
M: I'm sorry. It's just a sensitive issue for me.
C: Okay.
TOGETHER: There's nothing gays hate more than when people... Treat us like
women.
C: We're not. We don't want to go to your baby shower. We don't have a time of
the month. We don't love pink.
M: Well, you love pink.
C: No, pink loves me.
M:Okay.
MAN: Hey, guys! Hey! So...
C: That's Jen, husband Rick, baby Diego. I don't get it either.
M: Hey, Jen. Let me help you with that.
J: Oh.
M: Rick! How you doing?
J: We should do play group on weekends more often. It's nice to have the hus
bands around to help, right?
C: Oh, yeah, because that makes all the sense in the world - you as the husband.
M: Stop it. That's not what she meant.
C: Look at us. I could snap you like a twig.
M: Okay, every once in a while you say that thing about the twig, and I need you
to know that it bothers me. - Sorry.

78
MAN: Okay, everybody, happy mother's day! I know I speak for all the guys
when I say thank you
for everything you do while we're off having affairs. Oh. I'm kidding. I'll pay for
that later. Uh, let's get the moms and kids together for a picture!
C: No, let's go. Let's get out of here. Leave the stroller and run.
M: Cam, stop. No one's going to ask you to --
WOMAN: Cameron, get on up here.
C: I don't know. You guys just go ahead.
WOMAN: You're an honorary mom!
C: Oh, I don't know. Uh, okay, all right. Unhand me.
WOMAN: Get over there.
MAN: That's -- that's... Okay, tighten up, tighten up. Up here, ladies! Beautiful.
One more, gals. Oh, thanks, ladies. Thanks so much. Perfect.

Extract 3
C: They offered me a bouquet, Mitchell.
M: Which you accepted.
C: Why can't you ever take my side? They think of me as a woman!
M: Cam, no, come on. We're just a new type of family, you know? They don't
have the right vocabulary for us yet. They -- they need one of us to be the mom.
C: So why does it have to be me? Do I wear a dress?
M: Well...
C: That's a nightshirt!
M: It's kind of satiny.
C: What are you saying?
M: Come on, you know.
C: No. No, no, no. I don't know.
M: All right, if -- if I'm thinking about it,of the two of us, if -- if I had to pick, I-
I-I might say that you're slightly... mom-er.
BOY: Excuse me. Can you throw that ball?
C: Can I throw a ball? You don't -- you don't think I can throw a ball?
M: Cam.
C: No, no, no.

79
M:That's not what he said.
C: No, apparently, this gentleman doesn't think I can throw a ball.
C: Oh, that's not what he said. You think I can't throw a ball? Well, let's find out!

Extract 4
M: Hey.
C: Hey.
M: Here.
C: What's this?
M: Well, it's a mother's day card. And I know - Stop it! Okay. Cam, that was
Gloria's card from Manny but I just wanted you to see was its definition for
"mother" was on it. It's warm, nurturing, supportive. You know, maybe when the
world sees you as a mom --
C: Not just the world.
M: Fine. Fine. Me too. But maybe this is what we're seeing, and I don't know
why that's such a bad thing. It certainly doesn't make you less of a man, right?
C: Maybe you're right.
M: Yeah.
CL: Come on, let's join the party.
M: And, Cam, put down the scotch. You're not fooling anyone.
C: It is so burn-y. Oh, my God.

4. Modern Family. Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan (dir.) 2009. ABC, Season
1, Episode 17, 20

Extract 1
[ door opens, closes ]
C: You quit?!
C: I'm tingling.
M: I am, too. It's like my heart is full for the first time in forever. Oh, god, it's
really pounding. It's like I feel the weight
of endless possibilities Just sitting on my chest. She is not doing anything, cam.
C: You're not panicking,are you?

80
M: Of course I am panicking!
C: No! Don't panic. If you panic, I panic!
M: I just quit my job! Cam!
C: Oh, my god, mitchell, I am used to nice things! What are we gonna do?!
M: Okay, no, no, just calm -- calm down. This is what we're gonna do.
I am going to -- I'm gonna do what I'm trained to do. I am going to lie,
grovel, debase myself Until I get what I want. I am a lawyer, damn it.
C: Mitchell! No.
M: Oh, no, you're right -- the tie.
C: No, we'll -- we'll find something better for you, Something that works for all
of us.
M: There's no plan "b" here, cam. We have a mortgage. We have -- We have a -
a child to support. I --
C: Hey. It's gonna be okay. We're gonna figure it out. <i>I just want you to be
happy, and you will be happy.</i> And that is something worth toasting.

Extract 2

M OFFSIDE I am losing my mind. As much as I love lily, Which is, you know,
more than life itself, I am -- whew! -- Not cut out to be a stay-at-home dad.
No. But I-it's cameron's turn. It's cameron's turn to be out in the world Interact
ing with other grown-ups while I get to stay at home And plot the death
of dora the explorer. I'd like to fill her backpack with bricks And throw her into
candy-cane river.
C OFFSIDE I am in a really dark space. Being away from my lily is literally tor
ture. and I can't pressure mitchell,
But I really, really, really just want him to get a job So I can go back to being a
stay-at-home dad/trophy wife!

Extract 3

M Cam. Cam, you have got to relax. I told you I wouldn't take a job --
C Take the job.

81
M What?
C I want you to take the job.
M I thought you liked having me home with lily.
C I don't. I mean, I do. I just -- I miss my time with lily, And I know it's selfish -
-
M No, I want the job!
C You do?
M Oh, my god, yes! I-I love lily, but I hate baby talk.
C I love baby talk!