Interviews with Novak Djovik and Roger Federer - Case Study Example

Discourse Analysis of Interviews with Novak Djovik and Roger Federer There are many aspects of discourse analysis that can help us in interpreting messages which are invariably influenced by several factors. To help decipher how meanings are construed out of our specimen, the two sets of interviews with tennis players, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, we use discourse analysis (DA). The interviews was held after the two tennis players just completed a January 2008 semi-final match at the Australian Open tennis tournament. As discourse analysis is a vigorous discipline that studies texts as acts of communication, this writer sought to compare the two interviews by determining how genre help in shaping meanings, as well as in ways the texts of the interviews construed meanings in the field of tennis. It will also attempt to show the mode of interview with that of written and casual talk between friends; while texts of the interviews will also be analyzed how the interviews and the interviewers may together be interpreted in terms of interpersonal meaning approach. Finally, as it is the aim of this paper to make an analysis of the theories employed to find out how texts are made or came as a product of different forces, such as the world outside, that invariably and actively influences meaning, this paper will cap this inquiry by making an evaluation of the attitudes expressed, the feelings, the judgments and the values depicted in the two sets of interviews, to support our assumptions about the interactive nature of the interviews we have for this study. To aid us in this study, this researcher considered major ways these two interviews may be compared – 1) Resource Person: Interview 1 was with Mr. Djokovic, the winner of the match and a promising, aspirant top rank player; while Interview 2 was with Mr. Federer, the loser and considered then to be top-rank in the world; 2) Interviewers: Interview 1 was with Mitts Willander, former champion tennis player during the 1980s ; while Interview 2 was done before the members of press corps; 3) Settings: Interview 1 was done with a hand held microphone by the interviewer; compared with Interview 2 where the interviewee was seated before a table with a microphone in front of him; 4) Milieu: In Interview 1, Mr. Willander’s interview time was not mentioned, while with Mr. Federer, the press briefing was set 15 minutes after the match and broadcast for a television audience. Register It will be of value to make use of three variables of situational features that determine registers – Field, Tenor and Mode – by comparing the two interviews. It is said these register variables can be used to make sensible interpretations about text types (Eggins and Slade, 1997). As in our mission and what this theory stands for, we can thus determine how meanings, as in spoken language, are shaped by the context of situation and how it work to shape that context. As noted, we look into the field (i.e., what the text is all about), which asked - 1) What is the activity of the involved? 2) What are they on about: 3) What is the content matter or topic? and, 4) what is the institutional setting? According to Rothery (1980), field is mostly reflected in the lexical choices made. To answer 1) who is involved in the activity, in both Interview 1 and 2, the interviewees are both tennis players, who just competed for the semi-finals of the Australian Open; while in interview 1, there is only one interviewer, Mr. Willander who is similarly a champion tennis player in his prime during the 1980s, compared with Interview 2 which has many and may assumed to be mostly journalists without any tennis match records. Interview 1, as with the second query, 2) what are they on about or the practical purpose of the interview, may be said to be after entertainment while Interview 2 is mainly interviewing for news gathering; 3) The content or topic of both interview dominantly talked about the aftermath of a tennis game, however when dealt on specifically, Interview 1 dealt with the turnaround or twist of events that made Djorovik the eventual victor, Interview 2, meanwhile, dealt with sheer “bad day” or luckless day that Federer blamed for his loss; 4) In terms of institutional settings, both interviews are about the sports of tennis, which in part is construed with the lexical choices made in both interviews (e.g., served, court, tennis tournament, match, etc.). In terms of tenor (i.e., who is taking part), we sought to find out – 1) the relationship between the involved, 2) the roles of the involved, and 3) purpose or aim seen in the discourse. (Gregory,1967). First we determined that in the role relationship aspect between the involved, Interview 1 showed that the tenor was between a former champion tennis player and a new champion tennis player, while in Interview 2, there is the tennis player (sportsman) and mediamen. As with the roles of those involved in interview 1, we saw an expert-expert (knower -knower) role played, while in Interview 2, the relationship was that of an expert-layman (knower-non-knower). Lastly, using the functional tenor (purpose or aim) approach, we found out that in Interview 1, the interviewer tries to find out the source of luck or the reason for Djokovic’s unprecedented and turnaround victory through boosting the confidence of the interviewee (e.g. how does it feel?, you went through your game plan to perfection …was that something conscious?, etc.); interview 2, meanwhile, stretches to ask Federer about what to expect of him in the future match, which may inevitably moving to ask him if he is interested for a rematch, and to find out how determined he will keep his rank (e.g., you played really well … (was) your standard high as it always has been?, etc.) Finally with regard to mode as a type of textual organization that shape register in discourse, this researcher used the following to compare the two – 1) the means of the communication, and 2) kinds of feedback channels open. The mode to interpret register for both interview is spoken-to-be-written or –to-be-broadcast. Meanwhile, the feedback channel used by both interviewer and interviewee in both interviews is a microphone (e.g., Willander’s microphone, Federer’s microphone in front of him). Genre To look after the study of context in the perspective of culture and social processes in discourse, we refer to genre. With genre, researchers may be able to mine the stages that can emerge out of language users’ own construction of different kinds of texts. Our subject discourses with its own set of conventionalized patterns and based on their structural organization signified an interview genre under the bigger umbrella of talk or spoken genre. In an interview genre, we look into several language features inherent in this type of interaction to compare our subjects – 1) It is said that questions may either be closed or open. If it requires a yes or no answer, it is a closed question, but when an interviewee has the liberty or freedom to decide as to how a remark or response will be given, it is considered open. In both interviews that we have, we can consider the questions to be open; 2) With regard to the tone of the conversation, interview 1 offers a more informal interaction than Interview 2, particularly since the latter is situated in a news room that is also expected to be broadcast on television; as in Interview 2, there was a dominant use of linking words or phrases that tend to seek clarifications (e.g., Do you think, Do you feel, Can you put that down, etc.); 3) On the point of view of how the participants in the conversation speak, both the interviewer and the interviewee are using the second persona (e.g., you, your, etc.) and first person (I, I’m, I’ll, me, my, etc.), respectively. Both interviews manifest the different stages of genre which may be similar yet different in some respect. In several studies being undertaken, it is established that the study of spoken discourse helped identify the generic stages that constitute a genre (e.g. Labov and Waletzky 1967, Plum 1988, Rothery 1990). The three parts of an interview genre include: 1) an orientation or the background wherein in this part the interviewer introduces some background, subject, or purpose of the interview to the interviewee; 2) the question and answer occur only when an interview eventually take shape as the interview directs or lead the converation or discussion by asking the interviewee with his prepared or spontaneous questions; 3) the conclusion or closing, when the interviewer close the converation and the interviewee are thanked or congratulated for accommodating the interview. It is noticeable though the clear advantage of Interview 1 since it showed a complete text hence, the structure of interview genre are evident from orientation/background, questions/answers, to the final part, which is the conclusion; on the other hand, Interview 2 which is a truncated version of a transcription, apparently missed the two parts of the genre, since only the questions/answers phase is provided . Mode In the dimension of modes of interaction, there is barely a clear or sharp bound that will fit into a single category for spoken and written discourse. What we can see instead in view of both of these kinds of discourses holding on a differnet position on a ‘mode continuum.’ Characteristically, there are talk which are spontaneous and sometime without reflection and editing, and the speakers are physically together in a shared context, and usually have multiple channels available for feedback. On the other hand, there is another set of talk, and its language is positioned intimately with what the speakers are doing. As they call it, ‘language accompanying action,’ which is a kind of language that is “very spoken,” yet can be expressed in a variety of differnet modes of interaction.” With our two interviews, the mode used in Interview 1, though not clearly identified and provided in the text, may extend from spoken, spoken-to-be-broadcast and spoken-to-be-written, unlike in Interview 2, since we were told the news conference is meant for television broadcast, we can say immediately it is spoken-to-be-broadcast, yet it can also be spoken-to-be-written, since the organizations where the journalists or members of the press corps who were present during the event was not identified or provided. It is also said that there are two kinds of distances that can be involved when we interpret mode: 1) the proximity of the language of the text from the activity it describes, and 2) the proximity of speakers and listeners are from one another. On the first kind of mode based on distance, when used for both Interview 1 and 2, we may say that the many aspects of these interviews such as the location of where the interviews were held, the distance between the interviewers and interviewees, etc., talk (or interviews) was close to the activity it describes, whereas the mode of written discourse is far from it. Feedback can easily be commenced and started (dialogic) between the interviewer and interviewee since they are not that far from one another. On the second kind of mode, this time based on the proximity of speakers and listeners from one another, both interviews were conducted with the interviewer and interviewee in near, or face-to-face talk or interaction while they are farthest in writing or broadcast. In this type of mode, there is also a minimal opportunity for feedback (monologic). Talking about purpose or particular goal, both interviews exhibited that the interviewer and interviewee aim for something, compared with a casual talk or conversation where the talking is seemingly for the sake of talking itself only, sans any goal. In casual talk, however, there is an imminent social buildup of interpersonal reality geared to maintain or establish social relations. All these activities contribute to build a solidarity network between the speaker and listener, who may be friends or neighbors. Among other means by which we may construe meaning out of the interview in view of casual conversation with friends are as follows – 1) Use of language. In an interview, there is a far more formal interaction than the less formal or informal talk (e.g., colloquial vocabulary, elliptical clauses and contracted sounds) usually exhibited when friends or strangers start to establish or converse; 2) Type of Dialogue: In an interview, speaker and listener or in the case of our study, the interviewer and interviewee, both wait for their turn to speak, since the format is a question and answer, it is inevitable for both party to hear the whole question delivered before giving a response, likewise also that the interviewer wait for the interviewee to answer before asking a question, which can be seconded with a followup; quite the contrary in a casual talk, where there may be more than two speakers and that competition increased for turns to talk; 3) Duration: An interview is meant to be short or very brief, so long as both parties achieved the goals or purpose of the event or activity, it will halt; however, a casual talk tends to be longer, whereby the end goal is to keep the conversation alive and going; 4) Generic Structure. An interview has a generic structure, while a casual talk seems to be disjointed, has limited generic structure but not predictable; and 5) Topic choice: In an interview, there is a focus on a particular goal or content, and this is the opposite with casual talk whereby more topic choices are expected. Tenor With the two interviews, our own selection of interpersonal system of mood, will help us decipher tenor. By patterns of clause types, Interview 1 and 2 has a dominant imperative mood to derive an interpersonal meaning, by this we state that the messages by the interviewers (Widdelman, for Interview 1, and members of the press corps, for Interview 2) becomes imperative as the interviewer addressed his messages to the interviewee with an implicit ‘you’ as the subject to request a reply from the interview being conducted. In imperative tenor (Eggins and Slade, 1997), it is said that ‘one can direct somebody to do something if he or she assumes the dominant position.’ So in both interviews, the inquirer (interviewer) have some authority (power) over the interviewee. The interviewers, Widdelman (for Djokovic) and the members of the press (for Federer), can thus direct the interviewee to answer or do something. Reciprocity is not evident in this mood tenor as can be found in this mood type. Widdelman, a former champion himself, is not only asking questions to Djokovic, he is also sharing or giving some knowledge, bit by bit; however, in the second set of interviewe, one can discern that in a quite formal arrangement of a press conference, the journalists or the members of the press, while asking or inquiring the interviewee (Federer) questions, manifests their influence and power as member of the press who can use television or any broadcast means to either make or break one’s character. Field To interpret the messages of the two interviews that construe the field of tennis, we make use of relevant J.R. Martin and D. Rose (2007) model as this approach dissect patterns to arrive at a valid interpretation of message into meaning based on the sequence of activities and lexical choices. Such sequence of activities (people, things, processes, places and qualities) are expected to be oriented in global institutions. In Interview 1, the participants, Willander and Djokovic, who discussed the post-match tournament, specifically harbor their talk on the strategies Djokovic employed (i.e., “… seemed to play Federer’s forehand more than other players do, etc.”), which was quite technical and may not be easily understood in layman’s level, while Interview 2, the Federer press conference, talked, discussed and rationalized about his lost from the match and what it means to be in a bad form in some days and was quite abstract in describing his feelings ((i.e., ‘you know, the spirit, the way I fought, you know the way I tried, etc.’). Using lexis and the kind of representation of the world constructed out of the two interviews, Interview 1 has talked about the world of tennis as a game to be enjoyed no matter what the outcome may become (e.g., you play him, you learn something new, get the tactic down … be positive, not too nervous, etc.), on the other hand, Interview 2, posits a more serious tone for the world of tennis, especially when Federer, at the backdrop of a scheduled television airing of a press conference, talks about some serious mistakes (e.g., ‘not really serving the way like I want, it wasn’t completely satisfying, etc.), being in bad shape and not in good form (e.g., I … I/ve not been really a serving like the way I want to know for maybe the last few matches, etc.). Both these interviews are similar in that they primarily speak of a recent tennis match (the participants and circumstances standing in a large sense about the sport of tennis), whereby influenced by their own time period, their masters and their clients, and are significant in terms of teaching content when addressing contemporary issues (like architecture should follow physical laws and principles). Attitude Now, as we move toward finding out not just what language in discourse does but what it means when interpreted, we turn into the exploration of meanings in terms of interpersonal dimension of language. Hence, the cognitive aspect of intention and interpretation are highlighted. Thus, an appraisal theory approach, which deals with how social relations and values are produced in interpersonal meaning (Martin and Rose 2003) is considered. As appraisal theory, concerned with evaluation, we look into three of its dimensions: 1) attitudes expressed (Attitude), 2) feelings or emotions evoked (Engagement), and 3) grading as force and focus (Graduation). (Martin and Rose 2003) To interpret in discourse how values are expressed, we will make use of Attitudes model. As Martin and Rose (2003) put it, this is an evaluation that pore into “people’s character and their feelings,” which can more or less intense, more or less amplified, and it may be the speaker’s or the other source. In Attitude, we look into the discourse whether the text exhibit positive or negative values, explicitly or implicitly expressed, and that their value can be upgraded or downgraded. To look into Attitude, categorically, we will analyze the two interviews based on how Attitude is expressed, whether of emotions or feelings (Affect), of things (Appreciation), and of behavior and character (Judgment). Looking back to the two sets of interviews that we have, one will notice that Interview 1 manifested a dominantly positive Attitude based from the number of words, phrase or semantic nuances that we can spot on. Likewise, the presence of another tennis champion interviewing Djokovic, we can say complemented and expressed as a casual talk, in a way established an appreciative relationship between the two, and in support, minimizes the interviewer nor the interviewee from being judgmental of the opponent, or the player who lost, but just gave them moments to enjoy and savor the fun game that had happened. In a way, this is really what the interviewer would like the interview to unfold, effortless, tireless and spontaneous without being critical of the other player (Federer’s) bad form during the game. See further in Appendix about Attitude how messages are coded based on the positive and negative attitude as seen here – I: Well, you know, I think… I think you went through your game plan to perfection. You seemed to play Federer’s forehand more than .. ah .. other players do. Was that something conscious? However, with Interview 2, while the atmosphere or the tennis player interviewed, Federer, the loser of the match, was trying to make the mood of the interview lighter, it cannot generally become so. Coupled with the setup, a press interview and a live television coverage of it, a reporter/journalist would attempt a surprising, big news scoop out of this setup. As we would notice, somehow, questions are thrown out of Federer that somehow try him and challenge him to express his real feelings towards his opponent, the winner of the game, Djokovic. Apparently, Federer, the interviewee wanted to make a clear, honest expression of his feeling, but he tries to balance this with the high expectations of his endeared fans and admirers worldwide. F: tst…umm…well look, I told you, it depends a lot on day form. You can’t always, you know, play your best or, you know, your opponent doesn’t always play the same way either and ah…well it’s no doubt I’ve played better in my life, you know, that’s for sure, you know … There are instances as well in the Interview 2 that while the word would semantically be considered postiive, however, deconstructing the nuances of the stream of thoughts and the flow of interaction, we can still spot traces of negative Attitude. s My analysis As seen in the interviews that we have, tennis is a sport that evinces many aspects of discourse analysis. From our deep analysis of how meanings are construed socially and culturally, how the attitudes are expressed and relationships enacted, how the construction of the talk to give us a glimpse of its mode, and lastly, what world type are being constructed, we realized that we will need to use discourse analysis tools. Through this study of the interviews, our old and current view of the language, text and meanings were broadened, a clear advantage for any researcher and student in constructing meanings out of the ordinary or mundane, especially in the convulated web of noise and distractions we see in our daily lives, from our neighbors talking to the different portrayal of our world in th media. While still a small perspective on this aspect about tennis, we thus realized that the world of sports portrayed in the media, at least just how the audience have grown accustomed (or conditioned) to experience and witness is practically aimed to satisfy man’s fascination for spectacle, drama, tragedy and inspiration. The linguistic medium in the two sets of interview in sports, more particularly of the field of tennis, is not determined much by the target audience and the location, but about how far, the inerviewee (Djokovic and Federer) would be able to express themselves, not really to be understood, but how they would respond to the interviewer. As a global institutional game, the discourse used, to be understood in the world, and to be carried or aired on television or any broadcast means using a language that is understood by majority, was English. While in the media or journalism, one major goal is to convey a message in a clear, easy-to-understand world, however, the interviews are quite raw, and will act both as news message in itself or spoken-to-be-written yet, so the role that journalists or media production outfits would play cannot be undermined. The media rooms would still be be necessary to translate into simpler and easy-to-understand lexicon the world of tennis being discussed or expounded by the interviewee. Appendices Appendix A: Mode +/- interactivity (response time; monologic/dialogic) +/- spontaneity +/ - aural feedback +/- visual feedback Interview 1 Typically dialogic with quick response after questions are asked Quick, fast with some reflection + aural feedback + visual feedback Interview 2 Dialogic with quick response after questions are asked Not very quick as reflections, presence of broadcast cameras, make room for more expectations, so interviewee was thinking over the question very carefully + aural feedback + visual feedback Appendix B: Attitude In orange, the positive attitude In green, negative attitude In italics, the graduation Interview 1: This is an interview with the match winner, Novak Djokovic (D). Both the player and the interviewer are standing in front of a sponsor’s backdrop. The interviewer (I) is Matts Willander who was himself a champion tennis player in the 1980s. He stands besides Djokovic and has a hand held microphone. (1) I: Ah, I’m here with Novak Djokovic. Ah the match win of your career, I would say, in your first Australian Open final. How does it feel? (2) D: It…it’s really difficult to say how it feels. I mean, I showed everything on the court. It was just amazing to win .. to win in straight sets. I honestly didn’t expect to really really play so well and to stay with him all the time, you know. Ah .. obviously the crowd … expected ah expected me to, you know, have my ups and downs, cos he he has so many.. so much experience in important matches. But you know I’m just very very happy with my performance today. (3) I: Well, you know, I think… I think you went through your game plan to perfection. You seemed to play Federer’s forehand more than .. ah .. other players do. Was that something conscious? (4) D: Well yeah, you know, every time you play .. you play him you learn something new, so I tried to ..to get the tactic down and to ..to be .. ah .. positive on the court and not too nervous – well I had some, you know, bad emotions and frustrations, but it’s all sport, so I’m very very happy the way I deal with the pressure especially today. (5) I: Yeah, I know. You served unbelievably well in crucial situations. Have you been working on your serve or are you just getting stronger? (6) D: (laugh) Well you know, if you look at me you don’t say I’m getting stronger, but... ah ... yeah I’ve been working on many things and especially the serve, so it’s one of the most important elements in the game, so I’ll be working on that in the future more. (7) I: OK well, for once the two .. clearly the two best players in the world in the final, you and Jo Wilfred Songa. What do you expect from the finals? (8) D: Oh well (laughing) it’s going to be very interesting to see that. As I said on the court ..mm.. it’s great to see some new players coming up and playing in the Australian Open finals. I think nobody expected ..ah ..ah ..this kind of final at the start of the tournament, but, you know, we .. we really really deserve it. We showed that throughout all the tournament, so it’s going to be interesting to see, but I’m very very confident about the final. (9) I: Well… well done and good luck in the finals. (10) D: Thanks (11) I: Thank you. Interview 2: This is an interview with the loser of the match, Roger Federer (F). At the time he was the top-ranked player in the world. The interview is in the pressroom, 15 minutes after the completion of the match. It is broadcast for a television audience. Federer is seated at a table with a microphone in front of him. He is asked questions by a number of journalists (I-1, I-2, etc). (1) I-1: You played really well obviously. But do you think that your standard was as high as it always has been? (2) F: tst…umm…well look, I told you, it depends a lot on day form. You can’t always, you know, play your best or, you know, your opponent doesn’t always play the same way either and ah…well it’s no doubt I’ve played better in my life, you know, that’s for sure, you know. I…I’ve not been really s..serving like the way the way like I want to, you know for maybe the last few matches, but … maybe served too many aces against B so I didn’t have any more let, you know (laugh). Look it happens, but he covered the court well. He didn’t give me much and ah so that obviously played a role in the way I played him tonight, but no, it wasn’t completely satisfying. […] (3) I-2: do you think he will go on and win the final now? (4) F: I don’t care really (5) I-3: Do you feel you were moving as well as you usually do? (6) F: No I don’t. I don’t think I was moving that great, you know. I think I played really well the first two matches, you know, in terms of movement also. You know, I don’t know if the serve has got a bit quicker, you know. I definitely wasn’t as good on the defensive, you know, like I usually am. I couldn’t come up with the passing shot when I needed to and yeah, that definitely hurt me, ah especially today. (7) I-4: Can you put that down to anything tonight, Roger, or is it just one of those nights, as you say? (8) F: Excuse me? (9) I-4: Do you put that down to anything? Can you put a finger on it, or is it just one of those games as you said? (10) F: No I mean, look I’ve had 15 minutes to reflect on the match so I can’t tell you much yet, but, there’s some sort of a disappointment, but ..ah ..from, you know, the spirit, the way I fought, you know the way I tried. It’s all I could give and, you know. Um when you give one hundred percent, you know, um you’re sought of happy with your performance and it can’t always go your way. I know that. You know, I’ve won many many times. Anyway I didn’t expect myself to win, so it’s one of those nights when you are a little bit disappointed, but then I go over and I look forward to the rest of the year. […] […] Appendix C: Field Words, phrases, or any related terms that signify field of tennis are underlined Interview 1: This is an interview with the match winner, Novak Djokovic (D). Both the player and the interviewer are standing in front of a sponsor’s backdrop. The interviewer (I) is Matts Willander who was himself a champion tennis player in the 1980s. He stands besides Djokovic and has a hand held microphone. (1) I: Ah, I’m here with Novak Djokovic. Ah the match win of your career, I would say, in your first Australian Open final. How does it feel? (2) D: It…it’s really difficult to say how it feels. I mean, I showed everything on the court. It was just amazing to win .. to win in straight sets. I honestly didn’t expect to really really play so well and to stay with him all the time, you know. Ah .. obviously the crowd … expected ah expected me to, you know, have my ups and downs, cos he he has so many.. so much experience in important matches. But you know I’m just very very happy with my performance today. (3) I: Well, you know, I think… I think you went through your game plan to perfection. You seemed to play Federer’s forehand more than .. ah .. other players do. Was that something conscious? (4) D: Well yeah, you know, every time you play .. you play him you learn something new, so I tried to ..to get the tactic down and to ..to be .. ah .. positive on the court and not too nervous – well I had some, you know, bad emotions and frustrations, but it’s all sport, so I’m very very happy the way I deal with the pressure especially today. (5) I: Yeah, I know. You served unbelievably well in crucial situations. Have you been working on your serve or are you just getting stronger? (6) D: (laugh) Well you know, if you look at me you don’t say I’m getting stronger, but... ah ... yeah I’ve been working on many things and especially the serve, so it’s one of the most important elements in the game, so I’ll be working on that in the future more. (7) I: OK well, for once the two .. clearly the two best players in the world in the final, you and Jo Wilfred Songa. What do you expect from the finals? (8) D: Oh well (laughing) it’s going to be very interesting to see that. As I said on the court ..mm.. it’s great to see some new players coming up and playing in the Australian Open finals. I think nobody expected ..ah ..ah ..this kind of final at the start of the tournament, but, you know, we .. we really really deserve it. We showed that throughout all the tournament, so it’s going to be interesting to see, but I’m very very confident about the final. (9) I: Well… well done and good luck in the finals. (10) D: Thanks (11) I: Thank you. Interview 2: This is an interview with the loser of the match, Roger Federer (F). At the time he was the top-ranked player in the world. The interview is in the pressroom, 15 minutes after the completion of the match. It is broadcast for a television audience. Federer is seated at a table with a microphone in front of him. He is asked questions by a number of journalists (I-1, I-2, etc). (1) I-1: You played really well obviously. But do you think that your standard was as high as it always has been? (2) F: tst…umm…well look, I told you, it depends a lot on day form. You can’t always, you know, play your best or, you know, your opponent doesn’t always play the same way either and ah…well it’s no doubt I’ve played better in my life, you know, that’s for sure, you know. I…I’ve not been really s..serving like the way the way like I want to, you know for maybe the last few matches, but … maybe served too many aces against B so I didn’t have any more let, you know (laugh). Look it happens, but he covered the court well. He didn’t give me much and ah so that obviously played a role in the way I played him tonight, but no, it wasn’t completely satisfying. […] (3) I-2: do you think he will go on and win the final now? (4) F: I don’t care really (5) I-3: Do you feel you were moving as well as you usually do? (6) F: No I don’t. I don’t think I was moving that great, you know. I think I played really well the first two matches, you know, in terms of movement also. You know, I don’t know if the serve has got a bit quicker, you know. I definitely wasn’t as good on the defensive, you know, like I usually am. I couldn’t come up with the passing shot when I needed to and yeah, that definitely hurt me, ah especially today. (7) I-4: Can you put that down to anything tonight, Roger, or is it just one of those nights, as you say? (8) F: Excuse me? (9) I-4: Do you put that down to anything? Can you put a finger on it, or is it just one of those games as you said? (10) F: No I mean, look I’ve had 15 minutes to reflect on the match so I can’t tell you much yet, but, there’s some sort of a disappointment, but ..ah ..from, you know, the spirit, the way I fought, you know the way I tried. It’s all I could give and, you know. Um when you give one hundred percent, you know, um you’re sought of happy with your performance and it can’t always go your way. I know that. You know, I’ve won many many times. Anyway I didn’t expect myself to win, so it’s one of those nights when you are a little bit disappointed, but then I go over and I look forward to the rest of the year. […] […] Works Cited Christie, F.; Unsworth, L. 1999. Developing socially responsible language research. In Researching language in schools and communities: functional linguistic perspectives. London: New York Eggins, S. and D.Slade. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell. Gardner, R. 1994. ‘Conversation Analysis: some thoughts on its applicability to Applied Linguistics’. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Hood, S. 2006. The persuasive power of prosodies: radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Unsworth, L. (Ed) Researching Language in Schools and Communities. London: Routledge Martin, J.R. and D. Rose. 2003. “Interpreting social discourse” Working with Discourse: meaning beyond the clause. London Read More