'Regina v John Terry': The Discursive Construction of an AllegedRacist Event

Gavins, J., & Simpson, P. (2015). 'Regina v John Terry': The Discursive Construction of an Alleged Racist Event.Discourse & Society, 26(6), 712-732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515592783

Published in:Discourse & Society

Document Version:Peer reviewed version

Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal:Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal

Publisher rights© The Author(s) 2015

General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associatedwith these rights.

Take down policyThe Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made toensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in theResearch Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact openaccess@qub.ac.uk.

Download date:20. Sep. 2020

Coversheet:Title: ‘ReginavJohnTerry:TheDiscursiveConstructionofanAllegedRacistEvent’Shorttitle: ‘ReginavJohnTerry’Articlesize: 10,580words;1.56MB.Authors’details:JoannaGavins,SchoolofEnglish,UniversityofSheffield,Sheffield,S37RA,UK.Telephone: 00441142220214Email: j.gavins@sheffield.ac.ukandPaulSimpson,SchoolofEnglish,Queen’sUniversityBelfast,UK,BT71NN.Telephone: 00442890491065Email: p.simpson@qub.ac.ukAcknowledgementsTheauthorswouldliketothankanexternalreviewerandtheeditorofthisjournalfortheircommentsandsuggestionsonanearlierdraftofthisarticle.Andfortheirhelpfuladviceonlegalexpressionandterminology,theauthorswouldalsoliketothankFreeLawGroup8atSheffieldUniversity.Shortautobiographicalnote:PaulSimpsonisaProfessorofEnglishLanguageatQueen’sUniversityBelfast.BestknownforhisworkinStylistics,PragmaticsandCriticalLinguistics,hispublicationshaveincludedarticlesonthesociolinguisticfeaturesofpopsingingstyles,thepragmaticsofadvertisingdiscourseandthelinguisticpatternsofverbalhumour.HisbooksincludeStylistics,OntheDiscourseofSatireandLanguage,IdeologyandPointofView,andtheco‐authoredLanguageandPower.AformerEditorofthejournalLanguageandLiterature,SimpsoniscurrentlyChairofthePoeticsandLinguisticsAssociation. JoannaGavinsisaReaderinLiteraryLinguisticsattheUniversityofSheffield.Herresearchcentresontheinteractionsbetweenlanguage,styleandthehumanmind.Shehaspublishedwidelywithinthedisciplinesofstylistics,cognitivelinguisticsandcognitivepoetics,andistheauthorofReadingtheAbsurd(EdinburghUniversityPress,2013),TextWorldTheory:AnIntroduction(EdinburghUniversityPress,2007),andco‐editor(withGerardSteen)ofCognitivePoeticsinPractice(Routledge,2003).SheisEditoroftheJohnBenjaminsbookseriesLinguisticApproachestoLiterature.

2

ReginavJohnTerry:TheDiscursiveConstructionofanAllegedRacistEventAbstractThisarticleexplorestheconformationindiscourseofaverbalexchangeanditssubsequentmediatisedandlegalramifications.TheeventconcernsanallegedlyracistinsultdirectedbyhighprofileEnglishprofessionalfootballerJohnTerrytowardsanotherplayer,AntonFerdinand,duringatelevisedmatchinOctober2011.ThesubstanceofTerry’sutterance,whichincludedthenounphrase‘fuckingblackcunt’,wasfoundbyaChiefMagistratenottobearacistinsult,althoughthefactthattheseactualwordswereframedwithintheutterancewasnotindispute.TheupshotofthisrulingwasthatTerrywasacquittedofaraciallyaggravatedpublicorderoffence.AsubsequentinvestigationbytheregulatorycommissionoftheEnglishFootballAssociation(FA)ruled,almostayearaftertheevent,thatTerrywasguiltyofraciallyabusingFerdinand.Terrywasbannedforfourmatchesandfined£220,000.Itisourcontentionthatthisevent,playedoutinlegalrulings,socialmediaandprintandbroadcastmedia,constitutesacomplexweboflinguisticstructuresandstrategiesindiscourse,andassuchlendsitselfwelltoanalysiswithabroadrangeoftoolsfrompragmatics,discourseanalysisandcognitivelinguistics.Amongstotherthings,suchananalysiscanhelpexplaintheseeminglyanomalous‐evencontradictory‐positionadoptedinthelegalrulingwithregardtothespeechactstatusof‘fuckingblackcunt’;namely,thattheracistcontentoftheutterancewasnotcontestedbutthatthespeakerwasfoundnottohaveissuedaracistinsult.Overitscourse,thearticleaddressesthisbroaderissuebymakingreferencetothesystemic‐functionalinterpersonalfunctionoflanguage,particularlytotheconceptsofmodality,polarityandmodalisation.Italsodrawsonmodelsofverbalironyfromlinguisticpragmatics,notablyfromthetheoryofironyasechoicmention(c.f.SperberandWilson,1981;WilsonandSperber,1992).Furthermore,thearticlemakesuseofthecognitive‐linguisticframework,TextWorldTheory(c.f.Gavins,2007;Werth,1999)toexaminethediscoursepositionsoccupiedbykeyactorsandadapts,fromcognitivepoetics,thetheoryofmind‐modelling(c.f.Stockwell,2009)toexploretheconceptualmeansthroughwhichtheseactorsdiscursivelynegotiatetheevent.Itisarguedthatthepragmaticandcognitivestrategiesthatframetheentireincidentgoalongwaytowardsmitigatingtheimpactofsoostensiblystarkanactofracialabuse.Moreover,itissuggestedherethatthereconciliationofTerry’sactionwasaresultoftheconfluenceofstrategiesofdiscoursewithrelationsofpowerasembodiedbythemedia,thelawandperceptionsofnationhoodembracedbycontemporaryfootballculture.Itisfurtherproposedthattheoutcomeofthisepisode,wheretheFAwasputinthespotlight,andwhereboththeconflictanditskeyantagonistswere‘intranational’,wasstronglyimpelledbytheinstitutionofEnglishfootballanditsgoverningbodybothtoreproduceandmaintainsocial,culturalandethniccohesionandtoavoidanysensethattheeventfeaturedadiscernable‘out‐group’.

3

KeywordsIntroduction

OnSundaythe23rdofOctober2011,EnglishPremierLeaguefootballteams

ChelseaandQueen’sParkRangers(QPR)metatLoftusRoad,thehomegroundof

thelatterclub.Thescoreofthatmatchfadedintoinsignificanceinthefaceofan

angryexchangebetweentheChelseaplayer,JohnTerry,andtheQPRplayerAnton

Ferdinand.ThencaptainofbothChelseaandtheEnglishnationalside,Terry

utteredwordsthat(incontrovertibly)includedthephrase‘fuckingblackcunt’

(Riddle,2012:2).AnallegationthatTerryhadcommittedaraciallyaggravated

publicorderoffencewasreferredtotheLondonWestminsterMagistrates’Court

(LWMC),thedeliberationsfromwhichwerepublishedinJulyof2012.TheChief

Magistrate,HowardRiddle,foundinfavourofTerry,althoughasubsequentnon‐

criminalinvestigationbytheRegulatoryCommissionoftheEnglishFootball

Associationlaterruled,inSeptemberofthesameyear,thatTerrywasguiltyof

raciallyabusingFerdinand(TheFootballAssociationandJohnGeorgeTerry

[FAJGT],2012:62).Terrywasthenbannedforfourmatchesandfined£220,000.

OuranalysisfocusesonthewrittenlegalrulingsbybothmagistrateRiddleandby

theFA’sRegulatoryCommission.Weoffercommentsonthediscursiveframethat

embracesthiseventandontheprogressionandshiftindiscoursebetweenboth

rulings.Whererelevant,wecommentonthetelevisionfootageasitintersectswith

thelegalrulings,butwemakenoevaluativeassessmentofproceduresoflaworof

thecourtproceedingsthatformthelegalunderpinningsofthisevent.Inparticular,

4

wedonotcontest,norimplyanycontestation,ofthelegallybindingjudgmentsof

boththeFACommissionandtheWestminsterMagistrate’sCourt.

Footageoftheepisode,oftenineditedorinscatologicalmanipulationsof

theoriginalvisualtext,existsontheinternetandreadersofthepresentarticlecan

easilyfinditatseverallocationsontheweb.Obviously,thefootagewasmade

availableatbothhearings,andtherecordingsformed‘acentralpartofthe

evidence’(Riddle,2012:1).Theencounterbetweenthetwoplayersonthefield

lastedapproximately40secondsinrealtime,withTerry’scontentiousutterance

taking6seconds,althoughatakeymomenttheviewofTerry’sfaceisobscuredby

themovementofteammateAshleyColeacrossthescreen.Figure1isaline

drawingdepictingTerryashedirectshisutterance,leftwardsonscreen,towards

anout‐of‐shotFerdinand.ThisisthemomentjustbeforeAshleyCole,inthe

foreground,movesinbetweenthecameraandTerry.

Figure1:JohnTerryandAshleyCole

INSERTFIGURE1ASCLOSETOHEREASPOSSIBLE

5

Whatwasallegedtohavebeenutteredduringthebriefobscuredsequence

wasspeculateduponatbothhearings.Evidencefromthreeprofessionallip

readerswasconsideredattheLWMChearing,andagreementwasreachedabout

thewordsthatcouldbereadfromthefootage.Thesewere:

‘YeahandI[shortobstructionbyCole]you/yafuckingblackcunt[pause]fuckingknobhead’

Significantly,thelipreaderswereunabletocommentontoneofvoiceor,inthe

magistrate’swords,onhowthewordsweresaid(Riddle,2012:4,ouremphasis).

Ourinitialanalyticfocusispreciselyontheissueofhowthesewordswere

said.Moreover,asignificantpartofbothdefenceandprosecutionevidencewas

implicitlyorientatedtowardsinterpretationofspeakers’andhearers’

understandingofutterances,althoughobviouslynoneofthepartiesinvolvedin

thisinterpretationarticulated,throughanyrigorousmodelofdiscourse

pragmatics,thestrategiesoflanguagetheywereprobingorcontesting.Itisour

positionthereforethatthetoolkitsofpragmatics,cognitivelinguistics,andcritical

discourseanalysisarewell‐equippedto‘unpack’thisdiscursiveevent.Thepresent

studyfurthermorecomplementsagrowingbodyofresearchthatexploresthe

intersectionsbetweenlanguage,discourseandsport.Thisresearchincludes,for

example,Adetunji’s(2013)analysisoftheinteractivestrategiesusedamong

groupsoffootballfans,McDowellandSchaffner’s(2011)studyofgendered

discourseinarealityTVsportshow,orBishopandJaworski’s(2003)exploration

oftheprintandbroadcastreceptionofafootballgamebetweenGermanyand

Englandin2000.Giventheconstraintsposedbyparticipantobservation,

explorationsofon‐fieldlinguisticinteractionarerare,althoughMeân(2001)was

6

abletoexploregenderidentitiesthroughrecordingsoftheon‐fieldofficialsinboth

men’sandwomen’sfootballmatches.Ouroveralltheoreticalstancealignswell

withthepositionadoptedbyMeânandHalone(2010:passim)bothonthe

legitimacyofthemanyinterconnectionsbetweensport,language,andcultureand

onthesocialandculturalsignificanceoftheseinterconnectionsasasitefor

scholarlytheoryandresearch.Wherethepresentstudy,itishoped,makesan

originalcontributionisthroughitssynthesisofdiscourseanalysisandjudicial

ruling,allofwhichissetinthecontextofthe,asnoted,relativelyrareon‐field

linguisticdata.

Thefirststepinthisanalysisinvolvespostulatingthreepragmatic

strategiesthatmightofferdifferentaccountsofthespeechactstatusofTerry’s

controversialutterance,therawlinguisticelementsofwhichareuncontested.The

centralparadox,wehavesuggested,liesintheuseofracistwordsbyaspeaker

whoissubsequentlydeemedbylawnottohaveissuedaracistinsult.Putanother

way,onemightquestionhowaparticipantinonediscourse‐world(seeGavins,

2007:18‐34)isassessedbyparticipantsinanotherdiscourse‐world,insuchaway

thattheLWMChearinglegally‘setaside’theinterpretationthatTerry’sutterance

atLoftusRoadwasdirectlyandunequivocallythreatening,abusiveandinsulting.

Fromourperspective,then,onlythreepossible,andlargelymutuallyexclusive,

interpretationsindiscourseremain:(i)thattheeclipsedsegmentcontainsan

explicitdenial;(ii)thattheutteranceasawholeisanattemptatbanter;(iii)that

byviolatingthepragmaticconditionofsincerity,theutteranceasawholeis

intendedironically.The‘denial’postulateassumesthatthemissingchunkis

somethinglike‘nevercalled’,suchthatTerryoffersarejectionofanearliercharge

7

ofracistabusefromFerdinand:thatis,‘Inevercalledyou/yablackcunt’.The

pronountotherightoftheinsertedsequencenowbecomesmoreofanissue,and

interestingly,itsstatuswasdisputedbycounselintheLWMChearing.Twoofthe

lipreadersagreedthattheymightbemistakenand‘that“you/ya”maybe“a”or

indeedanumberofothersimilarsounds’(Riddle,2012:4).Inshort,defence

counselcontendedthat‘ya’was‘a’,prosecutioncounselthatitwas‘you’.Clearly,

theassumedspeechactstatusofTerry’sutterancewillbealteredaccordingly,

wheretheformerconstruction,withitsindefinitearticle,suggestsperhapsa

statementofgenerality,whilethelatter,withitssecondpersondirectaddress,

intimatesavocativeformulaaimedsquarelyathisdiscourse‐worldco‐participant,

Ferdinand.However,the‘nevercalled’scenariowasplayedoutlargelyinthesocial

mediaandvideositesthatwent‘viral’subsequenttothedayofthematch.Battle

linesweredrawn,predictably,inlinewithclubaffiliation,andunsurprisinglythe

‘nevercalled’explanationappealedmosttosupportersofChelseaFootballClub.

WhatisimportantisthattheChiefMagistrateforeclosedonspeculationthus:

‘TherearemissingwordsandIhavenotbeenpreparedtospeculateastowhat

theymaybe’(Riddle,2012:5).Thebroaderissuethisraises,whereTerrymaybe

respondinginsomesensetoanimpliedutterancefromFerdinand,willbetakenup

furtherbelow.

Thesecondpostulateisthattheutteranceisintendedasbanter.This

pragmaticstrategy,alongsideteasing,inheresinaformof‘mockimpoliteness’,

wheretheeffectsindiscourseofamanifestlyimpolitesurfaceformare

mismatchedwiththeinteractivecontext(Culpeper,2011:208;Leech,1983:142‐

5;seealsoBousfield,2008;BousfieldandLocher,2008).Ofcourse,themismatch

8

indiscourseneedstobeobservedandratifiedsothatthestatusofanotherwise

insultingutterancecanbeinterpretedasunserious.Thissituatedrisk–takingon

thepartofthespeakerexplainsthewelldocumentedsocial‐solidaryfunctionof

banter,wherethepretendinsultscanonlyfunctionbetweenthosewhoknoweach

otherwellorinadiscourse‐worldinteractionwherethereistrustandasenseof

in‐groupmembership.

Thereisnodoubtthatbanterasaninteractivestrategyisenshrinedinthe

discourseofsportandthewell‐attestedbadinagethatembodiescommunication

betweenbothfansandplayershardlyneedsacademicconfirmation(althoughsee

Adetunji,2013:passim).However,keyfactorsofthediscourse‐worldcontextin

thiscasemilitateagainst,andultimatelyinvalidate,thisinterpretation.TheLWMC

rulingclearlydirectsthecourttoformtheviewfromTerry’s‘demeanour’atthe

timeofutterancethathewasundisputedly‘angry’(Riddle,2012:3‐4).Thecontext

ofanangryexchangeisnotanaturalpredispositiontobanter,noristheinclusion

intheutteranceofanexplicitallusiontorace,which,withintheparametersof

socialactoranalysis,constitutes‘identification’(vanLeeuwen,1996:54).Interms

ofthetabooor‘out‐group’implicationsofsuchareferencetocolourbyawhite

speaker,Billig(2001:269)highlightstheproblemsofsocialacceptabilitythat

relatetointeractioninvolvingreferencestorace,andoftheriskofthenegative

ethnicstereotypesthataccruefromattemptsatlight‐heartedhumour.

Thethirdposition,thatthewordscanbeconstruedasironicallyframed,is

morepromisingbecauseitresonateswiththeargumentationdevelopedbythe

legalprofessionalsinvolvedinbothhearings.Moreover,thereisevidencein

linguisticsresearchfortheexistenceofclearpointsofintersectionbetweenlegal

9

rulingsandtheassessmentsbyjudgesandlawyersofcertainformsoflanguage

beingusedironicallyorinsincerely.Forinstance,Little(2009),citingatort

involvingunwanted‘banter’fromacompanyforemantoanotheremployee,shows

howaspeaker’sclaimtobeusinghumourorironycan‘inoculateallegedly

harassingcommunicationsfromliability’(Little,2009:1278‐9).Similarly,Simpson

andMayr(2009)drawattentiontothecaseofaBritishlawyerwhowasdismissed

fromherjobforusing,whatheremploymenttribunalconceded,wasapieceof

manifestlyironicdiscourse(SimpsonandMayr,2009:26‐7).Inthefollowing

sectionweofferamoredetailedaccountofbothironyanditspotential

repercussionsfortheTerrycase.

Ironyand‘[you/ya]fuckingblackcunt’

Thisisnottheplacetoundertakeadetailedreviewofthehugebodyofresearchon

thepragmaticsofirony.Sufficeittosay,ironyindiscoursepresentsandmanifests

inmanytropes,modesandcategoriesandcanbeapproachedandclassifiedwitha

rangeofframeworksofanalysis.(Seetheoverviewsin,forexample,Clark,2013;

Dynel,forthcoming;Simpson,2011.)Forthepurposesofthepresentanalysis,we

drawontheparticularframeworkthatisSperberandWilson’smodelofironyas

echoicmention(e.g.SperberandWilson,1981;WilsonandSperber,1992).This

frameworkisbuiltonthelogicaldistinctionbetweenuseandmentionsuchthata

speakermayechoironicallyanotherspeaker’sdiscoursebymentioningor

repeatingtheirutterance.Consideran‘ironic’exchangesuchasthefollowing:

A:I’mtired. B:You’retired!AndwhatdoyouthinkIam?

(afterSperberandWilson,1981:306,originalemphasis)

10

Here,thepropositionAistiredisusedbythespeakerinthefirstpartofthe

exchangebutisexplicitlymentionedinB’sresponseinthesecond.The‘mention’

versionindicatesthatthepreviousutterancehasbeenheardandunderstood,and

expressesthehearer’simmediatereactiontoit.AsSperberandWilsoncastit,the

use‐mentiondistinctionissuchthatuseofanexpressioninvolvesreferenceto

whattheexpressionrefersto,whilementioninvolvesreferencetotheexpression

itself(SperberandWilson,1981:303).Inotherwords,anutteranceisechoicifitis

intendedtobeunderstoodasimplicitlyattributingathoughtorutterancewitha

similarcontenttosomeoneelse(Clark,2013:281‐2).Theechoedformalso

implicitlyconveysthespeaker’sattitudetothatthoughtorutterance.

AsignificanttheoreticalfeatureoftheSperberandWilsonmodel,pickedup

bymanycommentators,istheirstipulationthatallironiclanguageusageis

reducibletotheechoicformula.Therehavebeenanumberofcogentanddetailed

critiquesofthisratherproblematicprovisionintheechoicmentionmodel(seefor

instanceClarkandGerrig,1984;Giora1997;KreuzandGlucksberg,1989:374‐6;

Toolan,1996:184‐192;Utsumi,2000:1780‐82).Thepositiontakeninthepresent

articleisthattherearequalitativelydistinctformsofironyofwhichtheechoic

typenumbersbutone.Thatsaid,andasweattempttodemonstratebelow,the

echoicmodelofferssignificantexplanatorypotentialwhenappliedtothe

discoursethatframestheRvJohnTerryepisode.

Althoughthetermironyisnevermentionedexplicitly,akeyquestioninthe

LWMCverdict,posedearlyonbymagistrateRiddle,comesveryclosetocapturing

11

theessenceofourthirdpostulateaboutthepotentialspeechactstatusofTerry’s

utterance:

ThequestionformeiswhetherIamsurethatthewordswereusedasaninsult,orwhetheritispossible,asthedefenceassert,thathewas,orbelievedhewas,merelyrepeatinganallegationmadetohim,anddismissingit. (Riddle,2012:3)

Inallbutname,thecaseforthedefenceisembeddedinaframeworkofechoic

irony.Thatistosay,thefeatureofTerry’sutterancewiththepotentialtoblockan

interpretationofracismisthepossibility,entertainedbythecourt,thatheis

echoingsomeanteriorutterancebyAntonFerdinand.ThegistofwhatFerdinand

wasallegedtohavesaidtoTerryonthepitchwasanaccusation;specifically,that

Terryhadpreviouslycalledhimablackcunt.Terry’sechoofthisaccusation

thereforesignalsnotconcurrencebutrejection:Terry‘mentions’Ferdinand’s

purportedaccusationonlytocommunicatehisdistancefromit.Inkeepingwith

thegeneralfunctionindiscourseofechoicirony,theattitudeexpressedthrough

theattributionofanutterancetoanotherspeakerisnormallynegative(Clark,

2013:282).Inotherwords,thespeakermentionstheutterancenottoapproveor

endorseit,buttodisownanddismissit,evencontemptuouslyorsarcasticallyso.

ThepossiblyechoicstandingofTerry’swordswasdeemedenoughbythecourtto

renderatleastinconclusivetheintendedmeaningofhisuseofthephrase‘you/ya

fuckingblackcunt’.ThiswasenoughfortheLWMCtoresolvetheconundrumthat

racistwordswerenotusedinaracistway.EventhoughmagistrateRiddlelaterin

therulingconsideredit‘highlyunlikely’thatFerdinandactuallymadethis

accusationonthepitch,heruledthatitwaspossiblethat‘MrTerrybelievedatthe

time,andbelievesnow,thatsuchanaccusationwasmade’(Riddle,2012:14).

12

Accordingly,itwasthereforepossiblethatwhatTerrysaidwas‘wasnotintended

asaninsult,butratherasachallengetowhathebelievedhadbeensaidtohim’

(Riddle,2012:14‐15).

WhathappenedinandthroughdiscoursetotheLWMCpositionduringits

transformationintothelanguageoftheFAJGTinvestigationreceivesattention

furtherbelow.However,thereremaincertainaspectsoftheTerry‐Ferdinand

exchange,asaspokendiscourse‐worldencounter,thatrequiresomecommentary

here.TheLWMCrulingmakesitclearthatlip‐readinginterpretationswerenot

conclusiveandthataspectsofbodylanguagewerenotaccountedfor,otherthanto

consolidatethebroadassumptionthatTerrywasangry.Thislegalpositionhas

implicationsfortheechoicmodelofironyemployedhere.TheSperberandWilson

modelhasbeenbuiltanddisseminatedlargelyonthebasisofinvented,context‐

lessexamples.Suchexamplesinvariablyfitneatlythethrustoftheargument

advancedbytheresearchers(aperceivedweaknessinthemodelwhichhasbeen

targetedbythelinguistsreferencedabove).Theworldofrealdiscourseis

undoubtedlymoremessy,indeterminateandopen‐endedthanthetenetsofthe

echoicmodelwouldleadustobelieve.However,therehasbeensubsequent

researchontheacousticqualitiesofaggressiveformsofironysuchassarcasm(e.g.

KreuzandRoberts,1995;seealsoAnollietal,2000;BryantandFoxTree,2005).

Thisworksuggeststhatthereisaparticulararticulatorysettingandtoneofvoice

associatedwiththephysicalmanifestationofthisstrategyasdiscourseand

therefore,byimputation,withthesortofironicdeliveryascribedtoJohnTerry’s

utterance.Whatfollowsaresomeobservationsontheinterrelationshipbetween

thevocalfeaturesofspokensarcasmwiththeinterpretationsoftheLWMC.

13

Cauccietal(2014:passim)pointoutthat‘nonsarcastic’utterancesare

typicallylouderonaveragethansarcasticutterances.Theyaddthatthe

prototypicalmake‐upofasarcasticutterancewillincludeacontinuativeparticle

like‘oh’or‘uh’alongsideanadverb‐adjectivepairing,asin‘Uh,yeah’or‘Oh,that’s

justgreat!’.Locatingsarcasmspecificallyintheechoicmentionmodel,Kreuzand

Glucksbergcharacterisesarcasmasanespeciallycrudeformofverbalirony(1989:

374).InanodtowardsSperberandWilson,theycointheexpressionechoic

remindertheoryforsituationswhenaspeakeralludesto,andcritiques,some

originatingstateofaffairs(1989:375).Thus,Terry’sutterance,tobeconstruedas

sarcastic,wouldneedto‘remind’Ferdinandofhisassumedantecedentaccusation

andindoingsosignalTerry’ssarcasticdisapprovalofit.Revealingly,however,

KreuzandGlucksbergestablishacleardirectionoftravelintheirassessmentof

theaffectivedimensionsofsarcasticutterances:onlyapositivestatementcan

functionasanironicevaluationofanegativelyperceivedpersonorevent(1989:

376).Inotherwords,Terry’sutterancewouldbemuchmorereadilyinterpretedas

sarcasmifhehadcoucheditinthesortofformuladescribedbyCauccietal(2014)

above;thatis,throughpositively‐framedsyntacticformssuchas‘niceonemate’or

‘yeah,justfuckin’great’.Moreover,Rockwell’sreadingofthevocalcuesofsarcasm

(2000)militatesfurtheragainstanycredibleinterpretation(arisingfromlinguistic

analysis)thatTerryintendedhiswordstobeironic.Forastart,Rockwell

demonstratesthatsarcasmisconveyedbyavoicesettingthat,interalia,shiftstoa

slowertempoandtoalowerpitchlevel(2000:483),yetevenarudimentary

glanceatthefootageshowsthatTerry’svocaldeliveryisanythingbut‘lowerand

slower’.Moreover,Rockwelloffersfordiscussionthesuggestionthatsarcasmis

14

invokedinsituationsofmoderate‘dislike’whereitisusedtoindicatenegative

emotion.Ifhowever,thedislikeisgreater,thenthis‘mightbeexpressedinaform

muchstrongerthansarcasm,suchadirectinsultoranexpletive‐filledoutburst’

(Rockwell,2000:492).Paraphrasingthisposition,sarcasmthereforegiveswayto

pointedabuseinverbalencounterswhichareepitomisedbyintensedislikeor

resentment,abusewhichmightverywellinhereinanexpletive‐filledutterance

like‘you/yafuckingblackcunt’.

Insum,theanalysisofdiscoursepresentedheredoes,inthespecificcontext

oftheencounter,tendtomilitateagainsttheinterpretationthatTerryintendedhis

wordstobeironic.However,theprincipalfocusthusfarhasbeenonTerry,yethe

isonlyoneofanumberofparticipantswhoplaydifferentdiscursiverolesinthe

event.AnimportantmatteristhepartTerry’sassumedantagonist,Anton

Ferdinand,playsintheconstructionoftheepisode;anotheristheroleof

teammateAshleyColewhoofferscorroborating(butaswillbeobservedlater,far

fromcompelling)evidenceintheaftermathoftheon‐pitchconfrontation.

Moreover,andaswesignalledearlier,animportantquestionconcernsthe

discursivetransformationfromthemagistrate’spositionintothatoftheFA

investigation.Thenextsectionwillnotonlychartthisdiscursivetransformation

but,drawingonafurthersetofanalyticmodels,willalsoexplorethecognitive

positioningoftheotherparticipantsinthisdiscursiveevent.

Mind‐modellingasastrategyfordiscursivereconciliation

InhisJuly2012ruling,theChiefMagistratereportsthathehasreceiveda

‘substantialvolumeofunchallengedevidencefromwitnesses’(Riddle,2012:

15

2)toconfirmthatTerryisnotaracistandthatheunderstandswhyTerry

wishestomakethispoint,hisreputationbeingatstake.However,aswehave

alreadynoted,heiscarefultoestablishfromtheoutsetoftherulingthatheis

concernedonlywithassessingtheintentbehindTerry’sdiscoursalchoices

onOctober23rd2011,ratherthanwithanevaluationofhischaracterasa

whole.Withthisinmind,itisinterestingtoobservethatRiddle’s

representationoftheevidencewhichwasputbeforehimoverthecourseof

thecourtproceedingsdoesinfactincludeseveralextensiveevaluationsof

character.However,thefirstandmostlengthyoftheseevaluationsdoesnot

focusontheaccused,JohnTerry,butonAntonFerdinand.Theextractbelow,

takenfromRiddle’sjudgement,concernstheevidenceprovidedby

Ferdinand,evidencewithinwhichtheChiefMagistratehasjustoutlineda

numberofdiscrepancies.Hegoesontomakeanumberofassessments,not

onlyoftheplayer’scharacter,butalsoofthepossiblemotivationshehadfor

certainbehavioursandchoices,asfollows:

InhisfinalsubmissionsMrPennydescribesMrFerdinandas‘brave’forgivingevidence.Ithinkthisisareasonabledescription.Iamsatisfiedthathewouldhavepreferrednottobeinvolvedinthistrialatall.Iamsatisfiedthattherewaslittleornogoodreasonforhimtolieaboutthecentralissueinthiscase.MrPennyprovidesgoodreasonsforthatconclusion.WhilethereareindeeddiscrepanciesinhisevidenceIthinkitisunlikelythatonthecentralpointheislying.Ihavenosignificantdoubtsabouthisintegrity.Therearedoubtsaboutwhathesaidatthetimeofthesecondfistpumpinggesture.Hemayeasilyhavemisremembered.IalsohaveadoubtwhenhesayshewasunawareofthecrucialcommentmadetohimbyJohnTerry.Theyweredirectedathim.HehadhadeyecontactwithMrTerryandmaywellhavebeenlookingforareactionfromhim.Iaccepthisevidenceaboutthismaywellbetrue,asheturnedhisattentionbacktothegame.However,Icannotdiscountthepossibilitythathewasawareofthecommentsdirectedathim,andfounditeasiertosaythathewasn’t.Ifthatisthecaseitwouldbewrongofhim,butunderstandable.Tomakeitclear,I

16

amnotsayinghewasaware,justthathemayhavebeen,despitehisevidencetothecontrary.

(Riddle,2012:6)

Thereareanumberofparticularlynoteworthycomponentswithinthisparagraph.

Firstofall,RiddlereportsthatPennyhasdescribedFerdinandas‘brave’andadds

thathefindsthisa‘reasonabledescription’.Hethengoesontomakeaseriesof

speculationsaboutFerdinand’sstateofmindbothduringtheincidentonOctober

23rdandduringthecourtcase,commentingforexamplethat‘[Ferdinand]would

havepreferrednottobeinvolvedinthistrialatall’,‘[Ferdinand]mayhavebeen

lookingforareaction’,andthathecannot‘discountthepossibilitythat[Ferdinand]

wasawareofthecommentsdirectedathim,andfounditeasiertosaythathe

wasn’t’.Eachofthesespeculationsinvolvessomedegreeofwhathaselsewhere

beentermed‘mind‐modelling’(seeStockwell,2009).

Theconceptofmind‐modellinghasbeenputforwardwithinthediscipline

ofcognitivepoeticstorefertothecommonabilityofreadersofliterarytextsto

formulatecognitivemodelsofcharacters’thoughts,motivations,perspectivesand

belief‐systemsonthebasisoftextualandcontextualinformation.Although

intendedtoaccountspecificallyforreaders’experiencesofliterarytext‐worlds,the

notionofliterarymind‐modellingitselfisadevelopmentofcognitive‐psychological

accountsofreal‐worldbehaviours.Itbuildsupontheconceptof‘TheoryofMind’

(ToM):thecapacitytounderstandthatotherhumanbeingshaveamindwhich

operatessimilarlytoone’sownandtoimputedifferentbeliefsabouttheworldto

others(seeBelmonte,2008).ToMwasinitiallyandmostprominentlyadaptedfor

literarytheorybyZunshine(2003,2006).However,Belmonte(2008:192)notes

thatZunshine’sreinterpretationoftheconcepttorefertoatemporallyextended,

17

offlineprocessappliedduringreadingdepartssignificantlyfromtheoriginal

psychologicaluseofthetermtoexplainanonline,real‐timeprocessappliedduring

theactofinterpretinghumanbehaviour.Stockwell’s(2009)useofacompletely

differentterm,‘mind‐modelling’,isthusadeliberateattempttodistinguish

betweenthesetwoprocesses,withmind‐modellingencompassingmorethanan

onlineevaluationofthebehaviourofothersandincludingnon‐beliefdomainssuch

astheimagineddesires,wishes,andphysicalneedsofothers,aswellas

considerationoftherespectivefeelingsofcharacterstowardseachother,often

filteredthroughnarrationorauthorialvoice(Stockwell,2009:140).

Thisbroaderconceptionofourabilitytomodelthementalprocessesof

othershasobviousvalueinunderstandingRiddle’snecessaryrecourseto

characterconstructionandassessmentinhisjudgementonthecaseofRvJohn

Terry.Asinalllegalproceedings,theChiefMagistrate,havingnotbeenpresentin

theimmediateenvironmentofthediscourseeventinfocus,mustbasehisdecision‐

makingonarangeoftextualsubmissionsmadebyavarietyofnarratorsatother

spatio‐temporalpointsintheprocess.Thisnarrativisationoftheeventunder

considerationthroughanassortmentofdifferentperspectives,althoughbasedon

real‐worldoccurrences,bearsontologicalsimilaritieswithliteraryfiction.The

cognitivediscourseframeworkofTextWorldTheory(seeGavins,2007;Werth

1999forcomprehensiveaccounts)offersahelpfulmeansofunderstandingthis

ontologicalstructureanditsimplicationsfortheprocessingofthediscourseasa

whole.

TextWorldTheoryprovidesaunifiedanalyticalframeworkthroughwhich

thetextualandconceptualstructuresofdiscoursecanbeexaminedwithinthe

18

contextoftheirproductionandreception.Atvariouspointssofarinthisarticle,

wehavealreadyreferredtotheimmediatesituationsurroundingTerryand

FerdinandduringtheirencounteratLoftusRoadasa‘discourse‐world’(see

Gavins,2007:18‐34),aTextWorldTheorytermwhichrecognisesthatthe

discourseitselfwillbegovernednotonlybyelementsofthephysicalsetting(e.g.a

footballpitch,thefootballplayers,arefereeandcrowdduringamajorleague

game),butalsobythepersonalandculturalbaggageeachparticipantinthe

discoursebringswiththemtotheevent(e.g.theirknowledge,theirbeliefs,their

perceptionsandopinions).Aswehavealreadyseen,therecreationofthis

discourse‐worldinitsfulldetailandcomplexityispracticallyimpossiblepost‐hoc

anditispreciselytheuniqueandsubjectiveexperienceofthediscoursebythe

participantswhichliesattheheartoftheRvJohnTerrycase.Furthermore,as

TerryandFerdinandcommunicatedwithintheirdiscourse‐worldenvironment,

theybothproduced‘text‐worlds’:mentalrepresentationsofthediscoursecreated

notonlyfromthelanguagetheyencountered,butinfluencedbytheirindividual

backgroundsandbeliefs(seeGavins,2007:35‐72).Boththeoriginaldiscourse‐

worldanditsconsequenttext‐worldsareinaccessibletoHowardRiddleexcept

throughthetextual,narrativisedrepresentationsmadeoftheeventbyparticipants

withinaseparatediscourse‐world,thatoftheLWMCcourtcase,takingplaceata

latertimeandinadifferentlocation.Thisdiscourse‐worldisgovernedbya

separatesetofcontextualfactorsandinfluences,despitebeingpopulatedbysome

ofthesamediscourseparticipants:itincludes,forexample,JohnTerry,Anton

FerdinandandAshleyCole,butnottheentireLoftusRoadstadiumcrowd;these

participantshaveverydifferentexpectationsandmotivationswithinthe

19

environmentofWestminsterMagistrates’Courtthantheywouldhaveonafootball

pitch.Thus,theonlywaythemagistratecanpossiblyreachajudgementonthe

intentionsbehindJohnTerry’suncontesteduseofthewords‘fuckingblackcunt’

onOctober23rd2011isthroughthesamesortoftextually‐basedmodellingofthe

mindsinvolvedintheincidentasthereaderofaliterarynarrativewould

undertake,albeitwithinaverydifferentinterpretativeframe.

Theonlypotentiallysurprisingelementtothisisthemarkedlydifferentuse

ofmind‐modellingwhichRiddleemploysinhisdiscussionoftheevidenceput

forwardbyTerrycomparedwiththatwhichheemployswhenassessing

Ferdinand.RiddledoesengageintheconceptualmodellingofTerryatseveral

pointsinhisjudgement.However,thesuppositionshemakesabouttheplayer’s

mentalactivityarecomparativelybriefandtendtofocussolelyonTerry’sonline

perceptionsduringthematch.Forinstance,inaparagraphreflectingonevidence

fromTerrythathesufferedrepeatedtauntsfromotherplayersoverhisaffairwith

ateam‐mate’swife,Riddlecomments:‘Theydidnotangerhim’(Riddle,2012:8);

laterinthejudgement,hesupposesthat‘MrTerrywillhaveknown’thatthere

wouldberecordingsofhisencounterswithFerdinand(Riddle,2012:11);hegoes

tosaythat‘MrTerrywantedtoseeandspeaktoMrFerdinand’(Riddle,2012:12)

afterthematch,andsoon.Eachoftheseinstancesofmind‐modellingislimitedtoa

hypothesisofTerry’sstateofmindatspecificpointsduringandimmediatelyafter

thematch.Bycontrast,inhismuchmoreextensivecommentaryonFerdinandin

theextractquotedabove,Riddleappearstobemoreconcernedwithconstructinga

pictureofthisplayer’senduringcharactertraits,asheconcursthatheis‘brave’

andgoesontosaythathehas‘nosignificantdoubtsabouthisintegrity’.The

20

temporalboundariesaroundRiddle’smind‐modellingofFerdinandaremuch

widerthanthoseheestablishesaroundTerryandencompassFerdinand’s

motivationsandreactionsbefore,during,andafterthematch,throughtherun‐up

tothecourtcase,andthroughoutthelegalproceedings.Observationssuchas‘Iam

satisfiedthathewouldhavepreferrednottobeinvolvedinthistrialatall’and‘I

cannotdiscountthepossibilitythathewasawareofthecommentsdirectedathim,

andfounditeasiertosaythathewasn’t’,pointtoRiddle’sbroadermodellingof

Ferdinand’sreliabilityasawitnessandawider‐reachingassessmentofhisoverall

honesty.

Inthisway,Riddlecanbeseentobedistinguishingconceptuallyand

linguisticallybetweenthecontrastingparticipantrolesheregardsFerdinandand

Terryasinhabitinginthediscourse‐worldofthecourtcase.Asdefendantinthe

case,Terry’sbehaviourmustbeassessedwithinthespatio‐temporalparameters

definedbytheallegedoffence:aracialslurissuedtowardablackplayerduringa

footballmatch.AsRiddlestatesfromtheoutsetofhisjudgement,hiskeyconcern

withTerryisnotwhetherheisracist,inanytemporallycontinuoussense,but

whetherheactedwithracistintentonaparticularoccasion.Arguably,Ferdinand

occupiesanevenmorecomplexpositionintheenvironmentofthecourt,being

boththevictimofandakeywitnesstotheallegedactofracistabuse.Asa

consequence,Riddle’sconsiderationofFerdinand’sevidencemustnecessarily

involveareconciliationofthesetwopotentiallyconflictingdiscoursalroles.This

heachievesthroughamodellingoftheplayer’smindbothwithinthespatio‐

temporalboundariesoftheallegedoffenceandbeyondthis,asthetemporally

extendedphenomenonofperceivedcharacter.Inotherwords,forthepurposesof

21

thelegaljudgement,Ferdinandisgrantedaconceptuallifebeyondthealleged

offence,whereTerry,ineffect,isnot.

Modalisedsubjectivityandtheburdenandstandardofproof

ItisfurtherinterestingtonotetheheavilymodalisedlanguagethatRiddleusesto

framehismind‐modellingofbothTerryandFerdinand,aswellashisfinalverdict

onthecaseasawhole.Anexplicationofthefullrangeofmodalexpressionsin

Englishandthevariedapproachestotheirclassificationinlinguisticsisbeyondthe

scopeofthisarticle(foraselection,seeCoates,1983;HallidayandMatthiesson,

2013:176‐93;Nuyts,2001;Palmer,2001;Perkins,1983;Portner,2009).However,

inthe243‐wordextractexaminedabove,Riddleusesmodalisationofoneformor

anotheratotalof21times.Asonemightexpectinanextendedstatementof

subjectivejudgementandbelief,epistemicmodalityisparticularlyprominentin

theselines.EpistemicmodalityisusefullydefinedbyNuyts(2001:21)asthe

linguisticexpressionof‘anevaluationofthechancesthatacertainhypothetical

stateofaffairsunderconsideration…willoccur,isoccurring,orhasoccurredina

possibleworldwhichservesastheuniverseofinterpretationfortheevaluation

process’.Riddlestates,forinstance,‘Ithinkthisisareasonabledescription’,‘itis

unlikelyonthecentralpointthatheislying’,‘Icannotdiscountthepossibilitythat

hewasaware’(ouremphasis),andsoon,ashesummarisessomeoftheevidence

presentedtohimoverthecourseoftheproceedingsandexpressesthedegreeof

confidencehehasinit.However,themind‐modellingcomponentofthepassage

alsoleadsRiddletoembedtheattitudesofotherswithinthemodaliseddiscourse

throughwhichheexpresseshisownsubjectivity.Forexample,heusesaboulomaic

22

modallexicalverbinhismodellingofFerdinand’swishes(‘hewouldhave

preferrednottobeinvolvedinthistrialatall’[ouremphasis]).Oftenoverlookedin

agooddealofearlyresearchonmodality,boulomaicmodalityisbestunderstood

asthemeansthroughwhichaspeaker’srelativelikeordislikeofaparticularstate

ofaffairsisexpressed(see,forexample,Lyons,1977;Nuyts,2006;Perkins,1983;

Simpson,1993;seealsoGiovanelli,2013foranextensivetreatmentfroma

specificallyTextWorldTheoryperspective).ItisemployedbyRiddlehereto

demonstratehisowninterpretationofFerdinand’sattitudetohisparticipationin

thehearing,alongsidewhichRiddlealsomakesfurtheruseofepistemicmodality

inhisspeculationsonFerdinand’sknowledge(e.g.‘Hemayeasilyhave

misremembered’,‘hesayshewasunaware’,‘hewasawareofthecommentsdirected

athim,andfounditeasiertosayhewasn’t’[ouremphasis]).

ThedensityofmodaloperatorsatworkinRiddle’sdiscoursebecomesof

crucialimportanceinhisclosingparagraphs,inwhichhestateshisfinaljudgement

onthecase:

Weighingalltheevidencetogether,IthinkitishighlyunlikelythatMrFerdinandaccusedMrTerryonthepitchofcallinghimablackcunt.HoweverIacceptthatitispossiblethatMrTerrybelievedatthetime,andbelievesnow,thatsuchanaccusationwasmade.TheprosecutionevidenceastowhatwassaidbyMrFerdinandatthispointisnotstrong.MrColegivescorroborating(althoughfarfromcompellingcorroborating)evidenceonthispoint.Itisthereforepossiblethatwhathesaidwasnotintendedasaninsult,butratherasachallengetowhathebelievedhadbeensaidtohim.

(Riddle,2012:14‐15)

Theepistemicmodalitypresentinthisparagraphexpressesarelativelyweak

commitmentofbelieftoanumberofpropositions,includingthat‘MrFerdinand

accusedMrTerryonthepitchofcallinghimablackcunt’,that‘MrTerrybelieved…

23

thatsuchanaccusationwasmade’(whichitselfcontainsanembeddedepistemic

modal,modellingTerry’sbeliefs),and‘thatwhathesaidwasnotintendedasan

insult’(again,containingembeddeddeonticmodality).Ineachcase,Riddlechooses

amodalisedformoveranalternative,non‐modalisedcategoricalassertion,

consequentlyallowingforanelementofdoubtinhisevaluation.Incognitiveterms,

hepositionsthemodalisedpropositionatagreaterepistemicdistancefromhis

owndiscourse‐worldthanthatwhichanunmodalisedpropositionwouldoccupy.

TextWorldTheoryviewsallmodalityasworld‐formingandarguesthatlinguistic

instancessuchasthoseoutlinedaboverequireanewmentalrepresentation,a

‘modal‐world’(seeGavins,2007:91‐125),tobecreatedinthemindofthehearer

orreaderthroughwhichtheremotenatureofthepropositioncanbe

conceptualisedandunderstood.Figure2illustrates,throughTextWorldTheory

notation,howsuchepistemicdistanceisconstructedinRiddle’sdiscourseatthis

point.

Tothefarleftofthediagramcanbeseenthetext‐worldofRiddle’s

judgement,inwhichhepositionshimself,weighinguptheevidencewhichhas

beenbroughtbeforehimoverthecourseofthecaseandexpressinghisopinionon

it.Fromwithinthis,heexpressesrelativelyweakepistemiccommitmenttothree

separatepropositions,byusingtwoepistemicmodallexicalverbs,‘Ithink’and‘I

accept’,andthemodalisedadjectivalconstruction,‘Itisthereforepossiblethat’.

Thesecanbeseenemergingfromthematrixtext‐worldasepistemic(‘EPS’)

modal‐worlds.Ineachcase,aremoteconceptualspaceiscreatedthroughwhich

theepistemicdistanceofthepropositionconcernedcanbeexpressedand

understood.However,ineachcasethisconceptualdistanceisnoteasilyresolved,

24

asineachcaseafurtherinstanceofmodalembeddingoccurs.Forexample,atthe

topofthediagramisshowntheinitialepistemicmodal‐worldwhichiscreated

whenRiddlestates‘Ithink’inthefirstlineoftheextract.Riddlethenmodalises

whathethinkswithafurtherepistemicadjectivalconstruction,‘itishighly

unlikelythat’.Thisaddsanotherlayerofuncertaintytothecorepropositionthat

‘MrFerdinandaccusedMrTerryonthepitchofcallinghimablackcunt’,whichhas

alreadybeenpositionedremotelyfromRiddleinthematrixtext‐worldasa

productofhisthinking,ratherthanacategoricalassertion.

INSERTFIGURE2ASCLOSETOHEREASPOSSIBLE

AsimilarpatternofembeddedmodalityoccurswhenRiddlemakesthe

statementalreadytoucheduponearlierinthisarticleasplayingacrucialrolein

thepossibleinterpretationofTerry’swordsasechoicirony:‘Iacceptthatitis

25

possiblethatMrTerrybelievedatthetime,andbelievesnow,thatsuchan

accusationwasmade’.Figure2nowprovidesaddeddetailoftheconceptual

structurerelatingtothisstatement,showninthemiddleofthediagram.Once

more,Riddlefollowsaninitialepistemicmodallexicalverb,‘Iaccept’,withfurther

modalisation,‘itispossiblethat’,againcreatingonemodal‐worldembeddedwithin

another.Inthiscase,however,theembeddingreachesafurtherremotepoint,as

RiddlemodelsTerry’sstateofmindattwoseparatetemporalpoints:‘MrTerry

believedatthetime,andbelievesnow’.Themodal‐worldswhichresultareshown

tothefarrightofFigure2,thefirstbearingatemporalsignatureofOctober2011,

signalledbythesimplepasttenseused,andthesecondrelatingtoJuly2012,

signalledbyRiddle’sshifttothesimplepresent.This,itcouldbeargued,istheonly

pointatwhichtheChiefMagistrateappearstoestablishatemporalcontinuityin

Terry’scharacter.However,hearticulatesthisnotasacontinuousprocess(as,for

example,mightbeachievedinaconstructionsuchas‘MrTerryhasalways

believed…’),butbypresentingtwoisolatedtemporalmomentsindistinctmodal‐

worlds.

Finally,Riddleattemptstomind‐modelTerryafurthertime,bystatingthat

itis‘possiblethatwhathesaidwasnotintendedasaninsult,butratherasa

challengetowhathebelievedhadbeensaidtohim’.Theconsequentmodal‐worlds

areshownatthebottomofFigure2.Here,RiddlebeginsbyembeddingTerry’s

beliefsandintentionsatthetimehesaidthewords‘fuckingblackcunt’withinan

epistemicmodal‐worldwhichcouchesthismind‐modellingasapossible

interpretationonly.Hethencreatesafurthertwomodal‐worlds,thefirstofwhich

(‘whathesaidwasnotintendedasaninsult’)isboulomaicinnatureandalso,

26

crucially,negated(signalledinTextWorldTheorynotationthroughtheuseofa

dottedline).Inlinewithothercognitive‐linguistictheories,negationisregarded

fromatext‐worldperspectiveashavingafundamentallyforegroundingeffectin

discourse,sincenegatedpropositionsmustfirstbeconceptualisedaspositive

manifestationsinorderthentobe‘unconceptualised’(seeHidalgoDowning,

2000aforafullexplication;seealsoGavins,2007and2013;GavinsandStockwell,

2012;HidalgoDowning,2000b;Lakoff,2004;andNahajec,2009).Thus,inRiddle’s

finalassessmentoftheintentionsbehindTerry’suseofthewords‘fuckingblack

cunt’,theassessmentonwhichtheentirecourtcasehinges,theChiefMagistrate

firstpositionsTerry’sdefenceasapossibilityrelativelyremotefromthetext‐

world;hethenchoosesasyntacticstructurewhichleadsthepositiveproposition

thatTerrydidintendthewordsasaninsulttobeconceptualisedbeforeits

negativevaluecanbeunderstood.Furthermore,Riddleco‐locatesthisnegated

modal‐worldwiththeepistemicmodal‐worldcontainingTerry’sbeliefaboutwhat

hadbeensaidtohim,providedasamotivationforhisbehaviourandalso

expressedasapossibility.

Itisimportanttonoteatthispointthattheburdenofproofincriminal

proceedingsintheUnitedKingdomtypicallylieswiththeprosecution,whomust

provethecaseagainstadefendantbeyondallreasonabledoubt,thestandardof

proofinsuchtrials.WhatRiddle’suseofmodalityinhisfinaljudgementoutlines

arethepointsatwhichreasonabledoubtremainsintheprosecution’scaseagainst

Terry.ThepossibilityRiddleidentifies,thatTerrydidnotintendtousethewords

‘fuckingblackcunt’towardsFerdinandasaninsult,howeverremotelythismaybe

positionedintheoverallconceptualstructureofhisdiscourse,necessarilymeans

27

thattheChiefMagistratemustfindthedefendantnotguiltyofthechargesbrought

againsthim.Specifically,onthebasisofthecriminalburdenandstandardofproof,

RiddlefindsthatTerryisnotguiltyofusing

threatening,abusiveorinsultingwordsorbehaviourordisorderly behaviourwithinthehearingorsightofapersonlikelytobecaused harassment,alarmordistressandtheoffencewasraciallyaggravatedin accordancewithsection28oftheCrimeandDisorderAct1998. (Riddle,2012:1).

EventhoughRiddlestatesthathefindsit‘highlyunlikelythatMrFerdinand

accusedMrTerryonthepitchofcallinghimablackcunt’,thisepistemicmodal‐

worldexistsonthesameontologicallevelasthatconstructedbythedefence’s

accountofTerry’sintentionsandmotivationsanddoesnot,therefore,negatethis

explanationofeventsasequallypossibleinRiddle’sview.

IncivillegalproceedingsintheUnitedKingdomtheburdenandstandardof

proofdifferfromthoseincriminalcases.Aswehavenotedseveraltimesalready,

followingtheresolutionofTerry’scriminaltrial,andspecificallyfollowinghis

admissionthatheusedthewords‘fuckingblackcunt’duringtheLoftusRoad

match,theRegulatoryCommissionoftheFootballAssociationhelditsown

disciplinaryhearingontheincidentinSeptember2012(FAJGT,2012).The

commissionchargedTerrywith‘MisconductpursuanttoRuleE.3(1)ofitsRules

andRegulations,whichincludedareferencetotheethnicoriginand/orcolour

and/orraceofMr.FerdinandwithinthemeaningofRuleE.3(2)’(FAJGT,2012:6).

Thecommissiongoesontodefinetheburdenandstandardofprooftowhichtheir

hearingaccordswithintheirrulingonthecase,asfollows:

TheburdenofprovingthechargerestswiththeFA…Theapplicablestandardofproofshallbetheflexiblecivilstandardofthebalanceofprobability.Themoreserioustheallegation,takingintoaccountthe

28

natureoftheMisconductallegedandthecontextofthecase,thegreatertheburdenofevidencerequiredtoprovethematter.

(FAJGT,2012:9)

TheshiftherefromthestandardofreasonabledoubtappliedbyRiddleinthe

criminaltrialtoalowerstandardofthebalanceorpreponderanceofprobability

hadsignificantconsequencesforTerry.Mostinterestingly,Riddle’suseofmodality

intheearlierlegalproceedingscomesunderextended,closescrutinyintheFA’s

rulingastheynote,inparticular,that‘Mr.Terry’scredibilityintheeyesoftheChief

Magistrateappearstohavehaditslimitations’(FAJGT,2012:31).

Overthreepagesintheirjudgementonthematter,theFAoutlinetheways

inwhichtheybelieveRiddle’slackofconfidenceinTerry’scredibilitycanbe‘found

inthewaytheChiefMagistrateexpressed[his]findings’(FAJGT,2012:25).Eachof

theexamplesofRiddle’slanguagetheygoontociteisaformofmodalisation,as

theFAquotethemagistrate’srepeateduseof‘highlyunlikely’,‘inherently

unlikely’,and‘possible’,concludingthat

itistolerablyclearfromthepreciseandcarefullanguageinwhichhecouchedtheabovefindingsthattheChiefMagistratewouldnothavebeensatisfied,onabalanceofprobabilities,theMr.FerdinanddidaccuseMr.Terryonthepitchofcallinghima‘blackcunt’.Inparticular,hisuseofthewords‘inherentlyunlikely’inthatcontextwouldobviouslybeinconsistentwithafindingtothecivilstandardofproofthatMr.Ferdinanddidusethewords‘blackcunt’first.

(FAJGT,2012:27)

Indeed,theFAdonotstopatasimpleidentificationoftheepistemicdistanceat

whichRiddlepositionsvariouspropositionsandaninterpretationofhis

consequentruling.TheirownjudgementontheincidentbetweenTerryand

Ferdinandincludesapoint‐by‐pointcommentaryonseveralofRiddle’s

29

assessments,alongsideaseriesofcategoricalassertionsoftheFA’scontrasting

evaluationoftheevidence.TheFAconcludesthefollowingpoints:

(i) ThatMr.FerdinanddidnotaccuseMr.Terryofraciallyabusinghimanddidnotusetheword‘black’oranywordsthatcouldhavebeenheard,understood,ormisunderstoodbyanyonetohaveanykindofreferenceto,orcontextwith,skincolour,raceorethnicity.Wearedriventoconcludenotjustthatitis‘highlyunlikely’thatMr.FerdinandaccusedMr.Terryonthepitchofcallinghima‘blackcunt’,butthathedidnot.

(ii) ThatMr.Terrydidnothear,andcouldnothavebelieved,

understoodormisunderstoodMr.Ferdinandtohaveusedtheword‘black’,oranyword(s)thatmighthavesuggestedthathewasaccusingMr.Terryofraciallyabusinghim.

(iii) ThatMr.Coledidnothear,andcouldnothavebelieved,

understoodormisunderstoodMr.Ferdinandtohaveusedtheword‘black’oranyotherwordbeginningwiththeword‘B’thathadanyreferenceto,orcontextwith,skincolour,raceorethnicity[...]

(iv) ThatinthebrieftimethatittookMr.Ferdinandtoadvanceupthe

pitchtowardsMr.Terry,itisimprobablethatthefocusofMr.Ferdinand’sabuseandinsultsofMr.Terrywouldhavechangedsoquicklyfromanallegationofanaffair,tooneinvolvingskincolour,orrace.

(v) Apartfromtheinitialphaseoftheincidentasawhole,Mr.Terry

andMr.Ferdinandwereneverclosertooneanotherthananestimateddistanceof19metres.Ininterview,Mr.Terryestimatedthedistancebetweenthemtobebetween20and35yardsduringthecrucialphaseoftheirexchange.LoftusRoadisasmall,compactground.Thecrowdisclosetothepitch.Witnessescommentonthenoisethatisgenerated,includingMr.Terryhimself.Accordingly,whenheturnedtofacetheplay,andprepareforthefreekick,Mr.TerrywouldhaveseenthepumpingfistgestureofMr.Ferdinand,butitisunlikelythathewouldhaveheardanythingthatthelattermayhavebeensaying.

(FAJGT,2012:32‐33)

IncontrastwithRiddle’slanguage,themajorityofthisdiscourseisunmodalised.

RatherthanpositioningtheirviewontheTerry/Ferdinandincidentwithinremote

modal‐worldsofpossibilityandlikelihood,theFAconstructrepresentationsofthe

30

eventmainlyatthetext‐worldlevel.Therulingdoes,however,includethreekey

epistemicmodals:‘Mr.Ferdinand…didnotusetheword‘black’oranywordsthat

couldhavebeenheard,understood,ormisunderstood’;‘Mr.Terrydidnothear,

andcouldnothavebelieved,understoodormisunderstoodMr.Ferdinandtohave

usedtheword‘black’’;and‘Mr.Coledidnothear,andcouldnothavebelieved,

understoodormisunderstoodMr.Ferdinandtohaveusedtheword‘black’’.

Alongsidetheeffectofthesyntacticparallelismitselfhere,theepistemicoperator

‘could’isusedinconjunctionwithnegationineachinstance,compoundingthe

foregroundednatureofthesestatements,asoutlinedearlierinthisarticle.

Negationisrepeatedthroughoutthesummary,infact,eachtimewiththesame

foregroundingeffect:‘Mr.Ferdinanddidnot’,‘hedidnot’,‘Mr.Terrydidnot’,‘Mr.

Coledidnot’,andsoon.Onlytwootherepistemicmodalsareusedinthispassage,

whentheFAstatesthatitis‘improbable’thatanyinsultsfromFerdinandwould

haveswitchedtopicsandthatitis‘unlikely’thatTerrywouldhaveheard

Ferdinandanywayfromhispositiononthepitch.Ineachofthesecases,whichare

notaccompaniedbyorembeddedwithinnegatedsyntacticstructures,the

modalisationisusedtosupportabalanceofprobabilitythatTerry’sintentionwas

toinsultFerdinandandthatthisabusewasraciallyaggravated.Itisthroughthis

discursiveconstructionoftheeventthattheFA’sguiltyverdictonTerrybecomes

aninevitability,justasRiddle’scontraryverdictonthesamecasewasitself

inevitablewithinitsownlegalframeworkanddiscursivesystem.Whatis

highlightedbythecomparisonofthelinguisticstrategiesemployedbythe

participantsineachsituationandtheconsequentconceptualstructurescreatedin

theseparateLWMCandFAJGThearingsisnotsomuchtheirinconsistencyas

31

opposingjudgements,buttheirinexorablenessgivencompetingandirreconcilable

standardsandburdensofproof.

ConcludingRemarks

Overthecourseofthisarticle,thelinguistic,pragmaticandcognitivestrategies

thatstructureRvJohnTerry–fromtheinitialverbalencounteronthefootballfield

toitslegalrepercussionsacrosstwoinvestigations–havebeenexploredusinga

rangeoftheoreticalmodels.Ouranalytictoolkithasofnecessitybeenbothcatholic

andeclecticinordertoprobeinitiallythemicro‐dynamicsoftheexchangethat

activatedtheeventandsubsequentlytopositionthisexchangeinthecontextofthe

broader,andultimatelyopposing,positionsindiscourseadoptedbythelegal

parties.Thus,theanalysishasprogressedfromapreliminaryfocusonthe

pragmaticstrategiesofspokendiscourse,exploringamongstotherthingsspeech

acts,echoicmentionandmockimpoliteness,intoabroaderassessmentofthe

development,asnarrative,ofthediscursiveeventitselfandofthedifferent

perspectivesandexperiencesofeachparticipantintheevent.Theexplorationof

narrativisationdrewonmodelsofmodalityandTextWorldTheoryandwas

especiallyconcernedwiththelegalsystem’sconceptualmind‐modellingofthe

participantsFerdinand,TerryandCole.Ofparticularinterestwasthetransition

fromthemagistrate’smind‐modellingandcharacterconstructionintothe

discourseoftheFAJGTdocument,whichrejectstheearlierassessmentofLWMC

andwhichconcludes,onthebalanceofprobability,thatTerry’sintentionwasafter

alltoinsultandthathisutterancewasraciallyaggravated.Moreover,asit

develops,thenarrativebecomesprogressivelymoreself‐reflexiveandmeta‐

32

discoursal.Forinstance,theepistemicdistanceembodiedintheLWMCrulingis

addressedhead‐onbytheFA,whereaseriesofcategoricalassertionssitin

counterpointtotheperceivedlackofconfidenceinmagistrateRiddle’sassessment

ofTerry’scredibility.

ItissuggestedthroughoutthisarticlethatthediscursiveeventthatisRv

JohnTerryissituatedattheconfluencebetweenlanguage,discourseandsociety,

and,moreover,thatitisobfuscatedbyrelationsofpowerandauthoritythrough

themediaandthelaw.Wealsoacknowledgethattheeventisfurthersuffusedby

bothissuesofraceandbyperceptionsofnationhoodembracedbycontemporary

footballculture.Asnoted,TerrywasthethencaptainoftheEnglishnational

footballteam.AntonFerdinandisthebrotherofRioFerdinand,anotherhigh‐

profileinternationalfootballerwhowasregularlyvice‐captain,andonceselected

tobecaptain,ofthesamenationalside.AninjurytoRioFerdinandin2010meant

thatTerrywasre‐instatedaspermanentEnglandcaptain.However,thepossible

allegiancesofAshleyColearemorecomplexagain:ablackfootballerandmember

ofthesamenationalside,butamemberofthesameclubsideasTerryandone

whoofferedcorroboratingevidenceforhisteammate.Thiscreatedadeeply

problematicschismfortheinstitutionofEnglishfootballanditsgoverningbody,

withpressurebothtoreproduceandmaintainsocial,culturalandethniccohesion,

buttoinvestigativerobustlyanyeventthatmightbeconstruedasracist,and

certainly,anyeventthatmightconstitutearaciallyaggravatedpublicorder

offence.

Thepositionsadoptedinthisdiscursiveeventwerearguablyatypicalin

thattheywerecross‐cutbythecompetingconcernsofrace,colour,andallegiance

33

toclubandcountry.Unsurprisingly,thesepositionswerecompoundedbythe

mediatedreactionandcommentaryoffootballsupporters,throughblogs,tweets

andothersocialmedia.Althoughwehavenosolidempiricalevidenceatthisstage,

atrendseemedtobethatthehostilityandabusedirectedtowardsTerryonsocial

mediawasindirectproportiontothedegreeofperceivedrivalrybetweenhisand

otherclubs.ItwasprobablynocoincidencethereforethattwofansofrivalLondon

clubWestHamwerearrestedduringamatchagainstChelseainMarch2013,for

allegedcointhrowingandforotherverbalabusedirectedtowardsTerry.

ThereisnodoubtthenthatthecaseofRvJohnTerrycapturedthepublic

imagination,inthesensethatitwasplayedoutextensivelythroughthediscourse

ofsportspundits,footballsupportersandsocialcommentators.LikeBishopand

Jaworski(2003),weareinterestedinthediscursiveandrepresentationalpractices

(insport)throughwhichmodernnationsareimagined.However,whereBishop

andJaworskiexplorefeelingsofnationalbelonging,theoutcomeofourstudyhas

beenmoretodowithasenseofnationaldisjunctionthatfollowedinthewakeof

thisepisode.Moreover,thefindingsofthepresentarticledosuggestthatfootball

authoritieshaveconsiderablegroundtomakeupwhendealinginaconsistentand

transparentmannerwithallegedracism.Forinstance,Christenson(2012)notes

thatininstancesofconfirmedracistabusebyfansofnationalsides,theaverage

fineimposedbyEuropeangoverningbodyUEFAisaround£15,000.

Contextualisingthepaucityofsuchfines,Christenson(2012:2)comments

acerbicallyonthecaseofDanishinternationalfootballerNicklasBendtner,who

celebratedagoalbyrevealing‘unapproved’underweardisplayingthelogoofan

34

Irishbettingchain.Bannedfromasubsequentworldcupqualifier,Bendtner’sfine

forsuch‘improperconduct’was£80,000.

Insum,itishopedthatthesynthesisinthisarticleoflinguisticpragmatics,

discourseanalysisandcognitivelinguisticsenablesafullerunderstandingofthe

discursiveeventthatplayedoutasRvJohnTerry.Thevarioustheoreticalmodels

employedherehaveprobeddifferentaspectsofitstransformationindiscourse,

fromfootballfieldthroughtotheFAverdict.Itishasbeenourcontentionthatthe

eventconstitutesacomplexweboflinguisticstructuresandstrategiesin

discourse,bestapproachedwithabroadrangeofanalytictools.Atthecoreofthe

analysishasbeenafocusonthediscursivelyenigmaticassumptionthatracist

wordsmaybeusedbyaspeakerwhoisnotracist.Finally,itishopedthatthe

presentstudycomplementsthegrowingbodyofresearchworkincritical

discoursestudiesthatexplorestheintersectionbetweendiscourse,sportand

culture.

References

AdetunjiA(2013)Adiscursiveconstructionofteasinginfootballfandom:the

contextofthesouth‐westernNigerianviewingcenter.Discourse&Society24:

147‐62.

AnolliL,CiceriRandInfantinoMG(2000)Ironyasagameofimplicitness:

acousticprofilesofironiccommunication.JournalofPsycholinguistic

Research29:275‐311.

BelmonteM(2008)Doestheexperimentalscientisthavea‘TheoryofMind’?

ReviewofGeneralPsychology12(2):192‐204.

35

BilligM(2001)Humourandhatred:theracistjokesoftheKuKluxKlan.Discourse

andSociety12:267‐89.

BishopHandJaworskiA(2003)Webeat’em’:nationalismandthehegemonyof

homogeneityintheBritishpressreportageofGermanyversusEngland

duringEuro2000.Discourse&Society14(3):243‐271.

BousfieldD(2008)ImpolitenessinInteraction.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

BousfieldDandLocherMA(eds)(2008)ImpolitenessinLanguage:Studiesonits

InterplaywithPowerinTheoryandPractice.BerlinandNewYork:Moutonde

Gruyter.

BryantGAandFoxTreeJE(2005)Isthereanironictoneofvoice?Languageand

Speech48:257‐77.

Christenson,M.(2012)InUEFA’ssadworldapairofmarketedunderpantsis

worsethanracism.Availableat:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/jun/18/uefa‐

2012bendtner‐fine‐racism(accessed3October2014).

ClarkB(2013)RelevanceTheory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

ClarkHandGerrigR(1984)Onthepretensetheoryofirony.Journalof

ExperimentalPsychology:General113:121–26.

CaucciG,KreuzRJandBuderEH(2014)Acousticanalysisofthesarcastictoneof

voice.Availableat:

http://umdrive.memphis.edu/rkreuz/web/Psychonomics07.pdf(accessed

24March2014).

CoatesJ(1983)TheSemanticsofModalAuxiliaries.London:CroomHelm.

CulpeperJ(2011)Impoliteness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

36

DynelM(forthcoming)Isn’titironic?Definingthescopeofhumorousirony.

Humour:TheInternationalJournalofHumourStudies.

TheFootballAssociationandJohnGeorgeTerry[FAJGT](2012)Rulingofthefull

regulatorycommissionfollowingthesubstantivedisciplinaryhearing

between24thand27thSeptember2012.Availableat:

http://tinyurl.com/kw8y5k4(accessed13November2014).

GavinsJ(2007)TextWorldTheory:AnIntroduction.Edinburgh:Edinburgh

UniversityPress.

GavinsJ(2013)ReadingtheAbsurd.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

GavinsJandStockwellP(2012)Abouttheheart,whereithurtexactlyandhow

often.LanguageandLiterature21(1):31‐50.

GioraR(1997)Discoursecoherenceandthetheoryofrelevance:stumblingblocks

insearchofaunifiedtheory.JournalofPragmatics27:17–34.

GiovanelliM(2013)TextWorldTheoryandKeats’Poetry.London:Bloomsbury.

HallidayMAKandMatthiessonC(2013)Halliday’sIntroductiontoFunctional

Grammar,4thEdition.London:Routledge.

HidalgoDowningL(2000a)Negation,TextWorldsandDiscourse:ThePragmatics

ofFiction.Stanford:Ablex.

HidalgoDowningL(2000b)Negationindiscourse:atextworldapproachtoJoseph

Heller’sCatch‐22.LanguageandLiterature9(3):215‐39.

KreuzRJandGlucksbergS(1989)Howtobesarcastic:theechoicremindertheory

ofverbalirony.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General118:374‐86.

KreuzRJandRobertsRM(1995)Twocuesforverbalirony:hyperboleandthe

ironictoneofvoice.MetaphorandSymbolicActivity10:21‐31.

37

LakoffG(2004)Don’tThinkofanElephant:KnowYourValuesandFramethe

Debate.WhiteRiverJunction,VT:ChelseaGreenPublishing.

LeechGN(1983)PrinciplesofPragmaticsHarlow:Longman.

LittleLE(2009)Regulatingfunny:humourandthelaw.CornellLawReview,94:

1235‐92.

LyonsJ(1977)Semantics:Volume1.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

McDowellJandSchaffnerS(2011)Football,it’saman’sgame:insultandgendered

discourseinTheGenderBowl.Discourse&Society22:547‐64.

MeânLJ(2001)Identityanddiscursivepractice:genderonthefootballpitch.

Discourse&Society12:789‐815.

MeânLJandHaloneKK(2010)Sport,language,andculture:issuesand

intersections.JournalofLanguageandSocialPsychology29:253–60.

NahajecL(2009)Negationandthecreationofimplicitmeaninginpoetry.

LanguageandLiterature18(2):109‐27.

NuytsJ(2006)Modality:overviewandlinguisticissues.In:FrawleyW(ed.)The

ExpressionofModality.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,pp.1‐25.

NuytsJ(2001)EpistemicModality,Language,andConceptualization:ACognitive‐

PragmaticPerspective.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

PalmerFR(2001)MoodandModality,2ndEdition.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

PerkinsMR(1983)ModalExpressionsinEnglish.Stanford,CA:Ablex.

PortnerP(2009)Modality.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

38

RiddleH(2012)Judgment:ReginavJohnTerry.Availableat:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r‐v‐john‐terry‐judgment/

(accessed13thNovember2014).

RockwellP(2000)Lower,slower,louder:vocalcuesofsarcasm.Journalof

PsycholinguisticResearch29:483‐95.

SimpsonP(1993)Language,IdeologyandPointofView.London:Routledge.

SimpsonP(2011)‘That’snotironic,that’sjuststupid!’:towardsaneclecticaccount

ofthediscourseofirony.In:DynelM(ed.)ThePragmaticsofHumouracross

DiscourseDomains.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,pp.33‐50.

SimpsonPandMayrA(2009)LanguageandPower.Abingdon:Routledge.

SperberDandWilsonD(1981)Ironyandtheuse‐mentiondistinction.In:ColeP

(ed.)RadicalPragmatics.NewYork:AcademicPress,pp.295–318.

StockwellP(2009)Texture:ACognitiveAestheticsofReading.Edinburgh:

EdinburghUniversityPress.

ToolanM(1996)TotalSpeech:AnIntegrationalLinguisticApproachtoLanguage.

DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

UtsumiA(2000)Verbalironyasimplicitdisplayofironicenvironment:

distinguishingironicutterancesfromnonirony.JournalofPragmatics32:

1777–1806.

vanLeeuwenT(1996)Therepresentationofsocialactorsindiscourse.In:Caldas‐

CoulthardCRandCoulthardM(eds)TextsandPractices:ReadingsinCritical

DiscourseAnalysis.London:Routledge,pp.32‐70.

WerthP(1999)TextWorlds:RepresentingConceptualSpaceinDiscourse.London:

Longman.

39

WilsonDandSperberD(1992)Onverbalirony.Lingua87:53–76.

ZunshineL(2006)WhyWeReadFiction:TheoryofMindandtheNovel.Columbus,

OH:OhioStateUniversityPress.

ZunshineL(2003)Theoryofmindandexperimentalrepresentationsoffictional

consciousness.Narrative11:270‐91.