PROTOCOLO DE ACTUACIÓN EN CASOS DE CIBERBULLYING

There is face at stake regardless of the type of interaction. It could be a conversation between close friends or a conversation between a salesman and customer. Face is always on the line and it is up to the interlocutors on how they want to navigate through the labyrinthine of face-saving, face loss or face enhancement. The bottom-line is that face matters. As Goffman (1967, p. 5) puts it, face is the "positive social value in a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular context." It is essentially linked to what others perceive of the person involved. The amount of face hanging in balance depends on factors like the presence of

other people. Culpeper (2011, p. 48) claimed that more face is at stake if there is wider public exposure.

This statement aptly describes the discourse of radio prank calls. Everything that is broadcasted on the radio is public as it is available to listeners from all corners of the world. Hence, victims of radio prank calls may have to endure immense face losses since their vulnerabilities are exposed to state-level audiences. When it comes to face in radio prank calls, there are several issues worth bringing up. Firstly, there are times where face is one-sided in these calls, i.e. the deejays or pranksters are fully aware of the situation as they are the ones in charge of setting the scene. Since they have the upper hand in the conversations, they can avoid losing face. The receiver, on the contrary, has absolutely no idea of the prank and is thus more susceptible to face loss.

However, one cannot deduce that the deejays can escape every single time. There are circumstances where the receivers may turn the tables on the deejays through techniques like verbal aggression. This is consistent with Hutchby's (1996, p. 488) claims that power asymmetry is not a one-way feature in radio discourse. The roles can be reversed in which the receiver could manoeuvre the deejays into assuming the more vulnerable position. In other words, the deejays are not immune to face loss. They too could end up looking like fools.

Secondly, face is affected although the participants do not have a proper schemata of the receiver. One has to bear in mind that the audience does not know who the receiver is or how he/she looks like. In short, they have no background knowledge of the target. The audience would at most be provided with his/her name, job and the situation which led up to the prank call. Other than that, the receiver pretty much remains a person without

a face. Even the deejays have limited knowledge of the receiver. They rely only on basic information to pull off the pranks. As such, they are often unable to tell the precise outcome of the interaction. The deejays are principally co-constructing the interaction as it progresses pronto. Despite so, one cannot conclude that the receiver has total anonymity. There could be family and friends who are intimate enough to recognize him/her on air or those who were already notified of the prank call.

Face is constructed, salvaged or damaged based on the actions or roles played by the participants. In radio prank calls, there are three interlocutors - the deejays, receiver and audience. Each of them contributes differently to the conversation. The deejays take on the role of the director. They are the ones who organise the atmosphere of the scene. Besides, it is the deejay's job to draw forth angry or heated responses from the receiver. This is a role which Thornborrow (2001) has termed 'dramatizer.' They dramatize the situation to increase the entertainment value of the prank call. This view also echoes Hutchby’s (1996, p. 74) opinion that radio hosts are “oriented to the task of pursuing controversy.” This means that they analyse the recipient’s utterances and look for things to argue about.

The role of the receiver can be surmised into a simple word - defender. In radio prank calls, the receivers are frequently placed in conflictive positions where they are accused of some wrongdoing which they never committed. It is in situations like these where they have to stand up for their rights. Unlike the deejays who know that there is an audience tuning in to the conversation, the receivers are under the impression that the call is a private conversation between two parties. When impoliteness is perceived, people are more likely to express emotions in private conversations as compared to public places (Mills, 2003, p. 146). They tend to let loose in private settings as there is

less face at stake. Telephone calls fit the bill perfectly as the hearer does not even have to see the speaker in person to talk. Even if one were to lose face, only one party would be present to hear it. Thus, it is possible that the receivers would react more violently in the radio prank calls as compared to public face-to-face interactions.

All of the interlocutors of a prank call are susceptible to face loss except for the audience. The audience is spared from potential face threats as they are technically absent from the discourse. Scannell (1991, p. 3) maintained that the place where broadcast talk occurs is separated from the place it is heard. The audience is not situated in the same studio as the broadcasters. They could receive the information in numerous places like at home or on the bus. That is to say, the audience does not participate directly in the conversation between the deejay and receiver. Heritage (1985) and Montgomery (1986) described this type of audience as an audience of 'overhearers' or 'overhearing recipients of a discourse.' Besides, the listening status of such audiences has also been labeled 'eavesdroppers on a cozy chat' (O'Keefe, 2006, p. 17).

The audience is allocated a different role in the prank call discourse. Their role is that of a judge. They listen to the conversation between the deejay and receiver and proceed to evaluate various aspects. For instance, they could judge how capable the deejay was in deceiving the victim or they could judge how gullible the victim was in perceiving the prank. Other aspects include evaluating how damaging the face threats were or whether or not the prank was a success or failure.

In a nutshell, the way face is handled and the roles that the participants perform contribute to the expression of impoliteness in radio prank calls. The deejays rely on a certain degree of impoliteness to ensure that the prank call goes as planned. They

accomplish this through hurling aggravating insults at the target. In contrast, the receiver employs impoliteness as a defence mechanism against the deejay's verbal onslaught. Impoliteness is also used to express hostile emotions. The only party that does not actually use impoliteness is the audience. They do, however, assume the roles of evaluators of impoliteness. They are given the opportunity to decide whether impoliteness was warranted, over the top or entertaining. Although they are not physically present, the audience is needed to keep the show running. This reflects Webster et al.’s (2006) opinion that every activity of the media, whether it is content- related or market-related, is centered on the audience.

2.6 Summary

On the whole, the literature demonstrates that research in the field of radio discourse has suffered considerably. Only certain genres such as radio talk shows and radio interviews were given emphasis. Majority of the research also tended to center on similar topics. These topics include the asymmetrical power relationship between the host and caller, gender and orientations to impoliteness. Very few studies have explored the types of impoliteness strategies found in the radio discourse. The usage of impoliteness strategies could vary according to the different situations they occur in. They could also reflect crucial elements like emotions, attitudes and opinions on certain issues. Therefore, this is an area worth looking into.

The study of how impoliteness develops in radio programmes has also been neglected. By exploring the beginnings, middles and endings of impoliteness, inferences can be made as to how impoliteness is constructed in confrontational radio conversations. In addition, even fewer researchers have attempted to observe the genre of radio prank calls despite their prevalent presence in radio stations. This study intends to add on to

existing literature by examining the stages which contribute to the progression of impoliteness as well as the impoliteness strategies used in Hitz.fm’s ‘Gotcha’ calls.