Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Participation Configuration of Who Deserves To Be a Millionaire Adetunji I. Ojora University of Ibadan, Nigeria [email protected] Abstract Studies on participation configuration and spacial categorisations have taken different aspects such as TV shows, interviews, talk shows, presidential media chats, virtual game setting, social academic background etc. but hardly has any been devoted to a reality Nigerian TV game show in an attempt to show how the host, audience (station and studio) are categorised based on their participatory roles. This research therefore attempts on analysis of the participation configuration of who deserves to be a millionaire show using Goffman’s participation framework and Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson’s Conversation Analysis as its theoretical framework. For data, 3 editions of MTN who deserves to be a millionaire TV game show were studied and excerpts were extracted and scrutinized for participation forms and spacial descriptions. Owing to the beautifully complex participation structure of the game show, two types of unaddressed ratified hearers were identified- registered and unregistered. The registered unaddressed ratified hearers are the station audience who are within the participation space while the unregistered unaddressed ratified hearers are the studio audience. This study of participation orientation in who deserves to be a millionaire expands the Goffmanian categorisation of participants in interaction and it is also an improvement on the existing literature on Nigerian genre of game shows. Key words: participants, game show, ratified, participation, configuration.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 838

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Introduction Who wants to be a millionaire, is originally a British television quiz show that offered a maximum cash price of one million pounds for correctly answering successive multiple-choice questions, first aired on the 4th of September, 1998 and aired its last episode on 11th February, 2014. This show has been exported to many other countries all of which follow the same general format. This show was exported to Nigeria in 8th October, 2004. Who wants to be a millionaire is one of the most popular TV game shows in Nigeria. The show is anchored by Frank Edoho and both the game show and the host is a replica of what we have in the famous British and American editions. Having bought the franchise to replicate the game show, Ultima studios started the show in Nigeria. MTN’s who wants to be a millionaire Nigeria is designed to conform to the norms of the game show. Each game session has fifteen questions which carries different monetary rewards attached to it. There are three lifelines in the game namely ask the audience, 50/50 and phone a friend. To get into the ‘hot seat’, ten contestants compete against one another on each episode in the fastest finger first in order to determine who gets to play for ten million. Also this game show has special editions where celebrities are called upon to play for charity. In other instances special editions like children special, valentine edition, mother’s day special etc also come up periodically. But for the purpose of this study, who deserves to be a millionaire special edition is selected. This who deserves to be a millionaire special edition is selected because it centres on renowned individuals who have outstanding in their different endeavours but are at the moment faced with a challenge or the other and hitherto need help. Theoretical perspectives The theoretical framework employed for analysis of the show is Erving Goffman participation framework. Goffman was concerned with analysis of talk in relation to participation status of each participant in a social encounter. He posited that “When a word is spoken, all those who happen to be in perceptual range of the event will have some sort of participation status relative to it. The codification of these various positions and the normative specification of appropriate conduct within each provide an essential background for interaction analysis…” (Goffman 1981:3). It is argued by Goffman (1981) that the behaviour of a speaker while speaking and the behaviour of each person present in the social encounter whether engaging or not in that social action are significant to the interaction taking place in any social encounter. Goffman (1981: 137) opines that if one takes one of the participants in an interaction, the speaker, for instance, one can describe the role or function of all the several members of the encompassing gathering from this point of reference. He posits that the relation of any member of the gathering to this point of reference is his/her participation status. For Goffman (1981), when a word is spoken, all people in the visual and/or aural range of it will have a particular participation status relative to the talk and its speaker. Participation framework is therefore the sum of all the participation status of all the people in the aural and/or visual range of the speaker in that moment of the speech. If participants in interaction take turns, it implies that social roles in any interaction are indeed alternating, transient and dynamic. Goffman also deconstructed the traditional model of speaker-hearer of communication that had always been the model of interaction. He argues http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 839

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

that the dyadic speaker-hearer model in grossly insufficient for the categorisation of the everyday talk. It is also incapable of providing a proper representation of the various participatory roles performed by interactants in a conversation. Gofman attempts a decomposition of the dyadic speaker role and he called it the production format. The dyadic speaker role was divided into two namely the animator (which is the sound box), the author (who is the agent who scripts the lines) and the principal (the party whose position the word attest). He however pointed out that the animator is not in all cases the same as the author. This is because the animator can be seen as a channel or a instrument through which the vocalisation of the utterance is done. Goffman also deconstructed the dyadic hearer role. He called it the participation framework which is also known as the reception roles. He subdivided this into two broad categories namely ratified and ungratified. The ratified, according to Goffman (1981:226), can be subdivided into two namely addressed recipient (“the one to whom the speaker addresses his visual attention and to whom, incidentally, he expects to turn over his speaking role”) and the unaddressed recipient (this comprises of the rest of the official hearers who may or may not be listening). He categorised the ungratified into two namely the overhearersor bystanders (who are the inadvertent non-official listeners) and the eavesdroppers (who are the engineered non-official followers of talk). Another important concept in conversation analysis is the notion of recipient design. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) characterise it as “the most general principle of conversational interaction”. Recipient design refers to the idea that participants in talk design their talk in such a way as to be understood by an interlocutor, in terms of the knowledge that participants assume they share (Sacks and Schegloff, 1979). This means that talk is designed with a recipient in mind and the appropriateness of the talk for the recipient is also considered in the construction of the talk. Recipient design is not simply a resource which speakers use to design talk, but it is also a resource listeners can use in interpreting talk, as listeners are motivated to hear a turn that is designed for them, and participants track the trajectory of the talk to hear a turn if a turn is designed for them (Boden, 1994). This means that recipient design is a highly salient feature of talk and the organisation of talk, and therefore one aspect of the produced orderliness of conversation. Orderliness is a very important element in a result oriented conversation. Therefore, before the aim of communication is attained, proper turn allocation process must be put in place. Existing studies Onuegbu (2014) focuses on participation orientation in Nigerian talk show “Sunrise Daily”. She discovered that “the participation structure is context-dependent and constrains participants to act in certain institutional capacity while still allowing for dynamism of communication”. She also found out that “the audience has hitherto been classified as unratified over-hearer or eavesdropper”. Shepointed out, from her analysis, that “the audience is cast as a ratified addressed participant who is also the target of talk”. She concluded by summarising that “participants’ roles and involvements are cast through several linguistic, non-linguistic and

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 840

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

paralinguistic means in different context”. She submits, likewise, that “situating analysis within a sequential context has made it possible to explicate roles of participants and goals of interaction”. From a similar but different perspective, Adeniji (2013) looks at participation framework in the presidential media chat. He argues that most participation frameworks of television interviews are dynamic. This is because it is non-static as it is constantly in a state of flux. He opines that each stage of the interaction displays different participation framework as a result of the change in footing. He further observed that all participants are duly ratified, no bystander, eavesdropper or overhearer. He further strengthens the claim of Levinson (1988), Kerbrat- Orechioni (2004) and Odebunmi (2012) that the audience of television interviews are not eavesdroppers. This is a correction of the error made by Goffman who regarded the audience of television and radio interviews are actually the target of the talk. He also points out that “embodied actions such as pointing, smiling frowning, body postures and direction of gaze index a participant’s stance towards an utterance or question”. Furthermore, Adeniji points out that the host serves as the “hub” or the centre of the interaction “while other participants, including the viewers, are like nodes around this centre”. Gordon (2008) focuses on reaffirming the Goffman’s claim that “Frame are laminated in various way in interaction”. Gordon does this by showing that the “work and play frames on inter related in two distinct ways in naturally occurring family conversation”. She is of the opinion that language is an important tool in reframing the conception of “play” to “work” for parents. She confirms this by analyzing excerpts of interaction from the everyday conversation between parents and young children in three families. She identified two distinct ways of laminating frames of work and play. She concludes by saying that the notion of laminated frames helps us better in the recognition of the linguistic dexterity and paradoxical nature of what we often understand simply as “play”. Odebunmi (2012) looks at “how students’ participation structure together with the activities participants orient to at the participation spaces, evokes shared socio-academic backgrounds and cultural constraints, a major way to gain access unto the student’s cognitive and pragmatic tendencies. The paper focuses on the Nigerian college students and how they participate in conversation and the role they assume. Odebumi makes it clear that Goffman’s participation framework is developed to cater for the inadequacies of the traditional “speaker–hearer” model of communication. He asserts that “these roles, which are tied to contextual factors in large measure, are almost impossible to describe, without considering spatial elements together with other pragmatic constraints such as discovers, reference, cognitive orientation and illocutionary force”. Odebunmi in this paper, attempts to show the legitimacy of the participants. By doing this, he coined the term “endospatiality” and “exospatiality” which he derived from the concept of “endophora” and exophora”. Endospatiality captures the participants, events and other important component of a talk in the immediate participation space. While exospatiality on the other hand, is concerned with objected which are outside the interactional environment of the talk. He observes that “two operational participation roles are performed in the interaction namely, unmarked and marked participation”. Odebunmi points out that in the unmarked participation; we

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 841

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

can have ratified and unratified participants. This will largely depend on their involvement in the talk. Rettie (2004) in her paper attempts the definitions of presence and reality in a virtual game setting in the light of Goffman’s frame analysis. Goffman’s frame analysis is designed to explain the circumstances in which we consider an environment real or otherwise. Rettie argues that frames are used to interpret our experiences. Having considered what presence, types of presence, elements of presence, Reality, Immersion, frame analysis are and the point of divergence and convergences, she concludes that frame analysis helps to clarity the concept of presence and its relationship to reality. She argues that there are three different grounds for considering or determining the reality of an experience. These are “engrossment, containment within a frame, and use of an untransformed frame”. When a phone call is made, this is clearly a part of reality. Although the environment where the interactants meet/converse is “a virtual space”, it is still considered as being real. However, when playing a virtual reality game, the game is a real activity but the environment of the game, no matter how “engaging”, is not a reality. The study: Participation configuration and orientation in the game show The analysis of the participation configuration and orientation of WDTBAM game show is viewed from the Goffman’s perspective to the analysis of an interaction. The conversation of the episodes are analysed using the production format and the reception role (participation framework). This is because it will adequately cater, to some extent, for the configuration of the show. Production format The study reveals that out of the three parts in which the production format can be subdivided, only two of the three are seen in the data. This two are the animator and the author. It is observed that the third production format, the principal, is not found in the data. This is because the game show comes in a question and answer format; therefore there is no room for any form of personal talks or attestation of anyone. The Animator The study takes a look at the configuration of the animator who happens to be the host of the game show. Frank Edoho is the animator through which the questions are asked. He serves as the voice box which carries out the main activity of each episode. He is the first speaker at the three selected episodes and is charged with the responsibility of ratifying the participants under the reception roles. He does this using a lot of means like gazing, pointing, direct naming or a combination of any of the three. Instances of these will be discussed below.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 842

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Gazing Gazing is an important tool in communication. It is an indication that an alignment exist between the speaker and the hearer. The host uses gazing when introducing all the participants both in the studio and at home. This is evident in the plate and excerpt below. Plate 1

Frank fixing his gaze on the camera (station audience)

Plate 2

Gaze fixed on the studio audience

Excerpt 1 Frank: ((gazing into the camera)) Good evening and welcome to who deserves to be a millionaire the second series in 2012 edition (.) and this programme is designed to help people we think deserves to be a millionaire and we bring a couple of celebrities to play and all the money is given to the person we’re playing for (.) just as simple as that (.) so tonight I introduce you to erm::: a glorious actress (.) she has appeared on who wants to be a millionaire ↑who deserves to be a millionaire actually (0.6) and erm::: she played for Samanja (.) they won quite a bundle of money (.) it was an interesting episode people are still talking about it and now she needs our help (2.0) ((turning his gaze now at the seated audience)) ↑a round of applause for Ngozi Nwosu everybody All: ((claps)) In the above excerpt by the host, he tries to give a welcome address and to formally welcome the viewers who are not located within the local participation space to that edition of the game show. This is revealed by the way he deliberately fixed his gaze n the camera which indicates that he is addressing the station audience (viewers at home). The host employs direct gaze at the camera to ratify the audience at home as co-participants and an intended recipient of talk. At each point where the host introduces the participants of the game show, he maintains a http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 843

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

direct gaze with the camera. This shows that the station audience is recognised as being part of the show, but a non-talk contributing participant. By doing this the host attempts to give us background information about the contestant in question. In this case the host is both the animator and the author while Ngozi Nwosu is the principal. The study shows that the host gazing is used by the host to indicate a change in addressee. This can also been seen in the excerpt above when the gaze changes as a result of a change of the target being addressed. The gaze changed from the station audience to the studio audience and the host also made use of the pronominal “everybody” to back up the new gaze direction. The difference between this two audiences will be discussed later on in this chapter. The study also revealed instances where the contestants direct their gaze at the host, especially in anticipation of a question or the answer. Plate 3

Gaze directed at the host by the guest and the celebrities

In the picture above, the three contestants fix their gaze on the host in expectation of the confirmation to the answer they supplied to a question. This shows their level of participation and alignment with the host. Pointing Pointing, which is noticed to be mostly accompanied by gaze and verbal utterance, is another means where the host shows alignment and also directs a question or comment at a participants. Some of the pointing gestures are used to realize deixis, identifying persons either within the participation space or outside the participation space. Some of the deictic gestures are used, in addition to vocatives, to select the next person to take the role of the speaker. This indicates that the occurrence of these two will allow adequate management of the interaction and prevent overlapping form being recorded. In the instance below, the host points to the quiz master, Babatunde Oni, in order to attain alignment with him. The host does this to get his undivided attention and to also ratify him as being the hearer and the target. http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 844

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Excerpt 2 Frank: Yeah I remember you (0.4) ((pointing and directing his gaze at Babatunde)) the thing I remember about you in not how you answered the question (0.2) but how ugly your face looked when you won ₦5,000,000:00 Babatunde: @@@@@@@ Frank: ↑Wow (2.0) ↓so (0.6) you want to use it to build a house or something? Babatunde: Yes Frank : So how is that going? (.) or you changed your mind and married a new wife? Babatunde: [@@@@@@@] Audience : [@@@@@@@] Babatunde: [errr (0.8)] Frank: [how is that going?] Plate 4

Pointing and gazing at the quiz master

The use of the pronominal “you”, which is accompanied by the pointing and the direction of gaze to the quiz master all contribute to the realisation of the participation role. It is used to include the game master and exclude other participants from the interaction. With the gaze an addressee is singled out from the other side ratified participant. Another function of pointing is picking out referent who or which is not within the communicative space. In the excerpt below Pa Ayodele recounts an experience he had in the early 1960s which happened in Ogbomosho, then Oyo.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 845

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Plate 5

Finger pointing to a distance

Apart from the above mentioned instances of pointing, it also is used as a strategic management of turn among the participants. Turn management is not only done by naming and/or gazing the next speaker only, pointing is also a tool employed by the host to manage turns among the participants. Plate 6

Pointing to Ifeayin (who is seated among the studio-audience)

Excerpt 3 Frank: speaking about ring (.) I think I have your boxing gloves somewhere (.) Ifeayin ((pointing to Ifeayin who is seated among the studio-audience)) would you be kind enough to show me his boxing gloves? (.) let me see (0.6) let’s just er::: check it out (.) boxing gloves (.) WO::::W (.) these are mementos (.) this should be put in hall of fame (.) literal hall of fame (2.0) there you have it In the excerpt above the host points to a member of the crew who is seated among the studio-audience for the purpose of bringing the gloves on stage when the need arises. The host made use of pointing as a strategy because he intends to pick out Ifeayin from the crowd where http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 846

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

he is seated. Also he points to strengthen his turn management strategy in order not to have an interruption or overlap. Author The author in this game-show is the “computer”. The study reveals that the host continually refers to the computer as being the “producer” of the questions and also the one who actualises the “50:50” lifeline. The computer in this show is not just a physical entity but a programme which produces and validates the answers given by the contestants. The host looks at the screen when he addresses the computer since it does not have a physical representation. Plate 7

Plate 8

Frank addressing the computer by gazing at the camera and the monitor screen

Excerpt 4 Frank: you have three lifelines (1.0) people Bobby: let’s go 50:50= Frank: ↑50:50 computer take away two wrong alternatives and leave them the correct one and one remaining random wrong one ((three minutes later the computer deletes two of the four options and left them with the remaining two)) To further justify the assertion that the host is not provided with the answer before the contestant answers is seen in the excerpt below. Excerpt 5 Frank: What do you think (4.0) now I’ll have you know that erm:: (2.0) they probably (.) because it’s like (.) since it’s like this spread out nicely (.) it’s like maybe it could be a guess but I don’t know (.) I don’t even have the answer here and I don’t know personally (.) but you can walk away with one million but if it’s right we double our winning to two million and we can continue. Lilian: Yeah ((continues talking)) http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 847

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

The above excerpts shows that the “computer” produces both the questions and the answers while Frank is just an animator, a voice box, who vocalises the scripts. it is worthy of note to state that the “computer” that we mean here is different from the producer of the show or andy other crew member as they have a different responsibility for the “computer”. This will be better discussed under the reception roles in the next segment. Reception roles The reception role which is the same thing as the participation framework is a decomposition of the traditional hearer in the dyadic model of communication into smaller analytically coherent elements. In WDTBAM, the show’s reception role is a very complex and interesting one. This is because of the difference level of participation that exists in the show. The participants in the show can be divided into two namely ratified and unratified participants. Ratified participant Ratification of the participants on the show is done by the host in most cases and also partly by the orchestration of the show itself. The show is designed in a way that allows it to have an addressed audience and an unaddressed audience. The addressed audience are the contestants and the two celebrities who are the ones whom the speaker addresses both his visual and verbal attention to and to whom he expect to turn over his speaking role. The setting and the seating position of the addressed ratified in the game gives a hint on this.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 848

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Plate 9

The participation space

The ratified addressed audience are seated directly opposite the host. This seating position gives room for easy communication between this two parties and will also enable an easy management of turn between this two. The host introduces the ratified addressed participants only. This indicates that they are the major recipient of talk in the programme and also the more important of the two ratified participants. Excerpt 6 Frank: ((gazing into the camera)) Good evening and welcome to who deserves to be a millionaire the second series in 2012 edition (.) and this programme is designed to help people we think deserves to be a millionaire and we bring a couple of celebrities to play and all the money is given to the person we’re playing for (.) just as simple as that (.) so tonight I introduce you to erm::: a glorious actress (.) she has appeared on who wants to be a millionaire ↑who deserves to be a millionaire actually (0.6) and erm::: she played for Samanja (.) they won quite a bundle of money (.) it was an interesting episode people are still talking about it and now she needs our help (2.0) ((turning his gaze now at the seated audience)) ↑a round of applause for Ngozi Nwosu everybody All: ((claps)) Here the host introduces the contestant who deserves to be a millionaire to the audiences at home as well as the studio audience. He does the same to the two celebrities who are to help the contestant in the question-answering process. The show is structured in such a way that only this four people (the host, the contestants and the two celebrities) are allowed to interact freely with one another without any constrains. http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 849

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

The unaddressed participants in this study can be divided into two categories which Goffman’s classification did not cover. The configuration of this show affords the analysis with two levels of unaddressed ratified participants. These two levels are created by the discrepancies that exist between the two sets of audience on the show; the studio audience and the station audience. The main difference that exists between these two audiences is that the studio audience are registered to participate in the question and answering process when called upon to do so while the station audience are not. Also, the friend that is being called in lifeline “phone a friend” is also a participant whom the Goffman’s classification did not cater for. This prompts the need for a revision of Goffmans classification. The unaddressed registered participants, according to this study, are the studio audience and the friend whose number has been registered with the producer to be called when the need arises. They both play active roles in the game. This can be seen in the plate and excerpt below. Plate 10

Lillian calling a friend

Excerpt 7 Frank: The city of Castelo Branco is located in which country? (0.8) Portugal (.) Puerto Rico (.) Mexico (.) Spain (2.0) Lillian: Let’s call a friend Frank: Alright so who do you want to call? (.) phone a friend Lillian: Erm::: let’s call Ngozi Sulaiman Frank: Ngozi Sulaiman (.) okay (.) your friend right? Lillian: Yes

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 850

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Frank: Okay (.) let’s put a call through to Ngozi Sulaiman please (10.0) ((there is a ten seconds pause which is caused by the call ringing and waiting to be picked)) Ngozi: Hello Frank: Hello is this Ngozi Sulaiman please Ngozi: Yes it is Frank: Alright my name is Frank Edoho from who wants to be a millionaire how’re you doing Ngozi: (0.4) Wow! ((in surprise)) hello:::: Frank: Yeah hello (.) how are you:::: Ngozi: I’m fine thank you @@@@@ Frank: Your friend asked me to give you a call (.) Lilian Amah (.) she says you may know the answer to this question Here Lillian calls a friend to help her in answering a question. Although she has no idea in terms of the answer, she has still contributed actively in the show. The friend here is a registered ratified non-audience participant. Also the studio audience also participate in the show when the time comes for the contestants to make use of the “ask the audience” lifeline. Plate 11

Plate 12

The audience answering the question

The plates above show the active involvement of the studio audience in the game. The audience play a major role in helping the contestants to answer a difficult question. At this point they seize to be just hearers of the talk to becoming a contributor in the process of the game. Their response is graded to know the option which has been the choice of most of the audience. The bar chart on the plate above is the representative of the audience’s answers. The contestants can now choose the option with the highest percentage, if they so wish, to be their response. http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 851

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016 Unratified participants

This game show is a well structured show which does not give room for bystanders and eavesdroppers at any point in time to be noticed. The show is not a life transmitted show which means apart from the studio audience outsiders do not get to intrude or eavesdrop in the show. But taking into consideration that there are a few production crew who may not have been sighted in the cause of the show but who are at the back stage and who make the recording and the lightening effect all come out good, they are the bystanders or overhearers. This is because they hear everything that goes on in the show but do not have any official role that is known to a viewer of the show. We can therefore represent the participation configuration of the game show with the schema below:

Interaction/ Talk

Participation Framework

Production format

Animator

Author

Ratified

Principal

Addressed

Unaddressed

Registered

Unratified

Eavesdroppers

Bystanders/ Over-hearers

Unregistered

Participation configuration of Who Deserves To Be A Millionaire

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 852

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

Conclusion This research work attempts an analysis of the participation configuration and orientation of a Nigerian game show, WDTBAM. The study has been carried out in an attempt to explicate the participation structure and participants’ configuration in the game show. Having done this, it is observed that the WDTBAM has a complex participation and audience analytical structure which necessitated the categorisation of the registered and unregistered unaddressed ratified hearers under the reception roles. These shows afford the study a justification for the claim that the unaddressed ratified participants in this game show are of two types. This is because the two types of audience are duly acknowledged by the host in the cause of each of the episodes. Also, the recipient of the life line call is categorised as a registered unaddressed ratified participant. This is because he or she has been registered into the database of the programme therefore they known to both the producers (computer) and the contestant. The over-hearers or bystanders do not play any role in the cause of the game show which is known to the audience at home (in which the researcher is classified as being a part of). The host, which is the animator of the questions, sometimes changes to be both the animator and the author when he gives us background information about the contestant and the celebrities.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 853

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

References Adeniji, 2013. The participation framework of presidential media chats with President Goodluck Jonathan. Unpublished M.A. project. English, Arts. University of Ibadan. Boblett N. 2012. Negotiating Participant Status in Participation Frameworks. The Forum: Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2012. Teachers College, Columbia University Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 45-47 Elhindi, Y. 2009. Conversation analysis. Key idea in linguistics and the philosophy of language. Eds. S. Chapman and C. Routledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 27-35. Goffman, E.1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gordon C. 2008. A(P)PORENT PLAY: Blending Frames as Reframing in Family talk. Language in Society 37, 319–349. Hutchby, I. 2006. Media talk: conversation analysis the study of broadcasting. England: Open University Press. Levinson, S. C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: exploration in Goffman’s concept of participation. Goffman exploring the interaction order. Eds. P. Drew and A. Wootton. Oxford: Oxford Polity Press. 161-227. Odebunmi, A. 2012. Participation configuration in Nigerian university campus. Pragmatics & Cognition 20.1: Germany: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 186-215. Onuegbu C. N. 2015. Participation framework in Nigerian talk show. M.A. Project. English. University of Ibadan. XV+120 Rettie R. 2004. Using Goffman’s Frameworks to Explain Presence and Reality. PRESENCE 2004, Kingston University. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 854

Volume 2 Issue 4 March 2016

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926

APPENDIX Glossary of transcription symbols Jefferson’s (2004) transcription symbols are adopted for the transcription of the conversations.            

(0.4) number in parenthesis indicates elapsed time of silence between and within turns measured in tenth of seconds. (.) This indicates a short silence (± a tenth of a second within or between utterances.) @ This indicates laughter [ A square bracket indicates the onset of an overlapping turn ] A right square indicates the end of an overlapping turn ↓↑ Vertical arrows provide information about local pitch movements within syllables or at the level of a single syllable. A downward arrow signals a falling tone movement while an upward movement indicates a rising one. (()) Double parenthesis indicates transcriber’s description. :::: Colons indicate prolongation of immediate prior sound. The longer the colon the longer the prolongation. = Equal sign indicate no break or gap between two lines. > < This part of the utterance is produced with higher/faster pace than the surrounding talk. < > The pace is relatively slower. WORD Capitals indicate loudness relative to surrounding talk.

http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index

Page 855