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