Differentiation in Pentadic Ratios: TV Talk ShowsDo Different Types of Television Talk Shows have Different Pentadic Ratios?

Rachel Schmidt 100825254

MARCH 20, 2014

COMM 4004: COMMUNICATION AND DISCOURSE

ROSS EAMAN

Schmidt, 1

IntroductionNew media genres like talk shows are implicit discourses about social place,

displace, and symbolic twisting of traditional boundaries between social spaces and social

groups1. Talk shows are organized by the flow of conversation, within three main

categories of discourse: autobiographical stories of participants, analytical prescriptive

speech (experts and ‘experienced’ persons), and the ‘interrogative speech’ of the host and

the studio audience.

When discussing the idea of television talk shows as a discursive site, it is

important to decide what different genres to classify talk shows by. It is not simply that

talk shows vary from one format to another but they embody characteristics that overlap

those of other talk shows depending on the discursive site being examined, these patterns

of language may or may fall into one or more ratio2.

Instead of classifying talk shows by their conversational flow, subgenres of talk

shows have been placed into three categories: host-elicited storytelling & celebrity

confessional talk shows, television phone-in talk shows, and political interview talk

shows. By analyzing these three different types of talk show genres, a discussion can be

created about why different talk shows have different pentadic ratios.

Burke’s PentadIn 1945 American philosopher Kenneth Burke developed a method for analyzing

text. A Grammar of Motives understood texts as motivational logic. Burke pentad argues

that forms of thought that attribute motives can be elaborate in different metaphysical

structures in social settings3. These motives account for why individuals do this and 1 Illouz, Eva. (1999). “’That Shadowy Realm of the Interior…’” P. 1112 Eaman, Ross. (13 February 2014). “Communication 4004 mid-term exercise”. P. 23 Eaman, Ross. (9 January 2014). “Notes on how to apply burke’s pentadic grammar to

Schmidt, 2

attempt to make sense of the world. In any statement about motives, scholars must have

some word that names the act (what took place), the scene (background of act), agent

(person performing act), agency (instrument used) and purpose. “While any complete

statements about motives must make reference to all five elements, it must also prioritize

two of these as their main ratio”4 that constitute the main explanation of why something

has or will happen. Motivational accounts are ratios that distinguish one from the other

within the text (singular comparison within the text compared to others).

In order to fully understand what ratios are, Burke first extended his categories to

practices rather than sites since discursive sites consist of various practices and the

practices are usually related to the ratio as a whole. Dana Anderson attempted to extend

Burke’s pentad to practices, Ross Eaman defined practices as patterns of behavior

established and maintained by those engaged in it and share pursuit of common values in

the face of compromising empirical realities5. Practices are comprised by the nature of the

real world and rules are developed by the best way to achieve goals. Applying Burke’s

five terms to practices, act is considered to be the conforming behavior or pattern of

behavior, the agent refers to the participants engaged in the activity, the purpose is

comprised of values being perused, the scene consists of “facts” or empirical realities

taken into account and accommodated in pursuit of common values and agency

consisting of rules that give rise or make the pattern possible.

What is a Pentadic Ratio?

practices, or engage in practitional grammar analysis”. P. 14 Ibid: P. 15 Supra: P. 2

Schmidt, 3

A ratio can be defined by the grammar of the author’s motivational account6. The

ratio is the Burkean category that accounts for pattern creation and maintenance. Ratios

are the description of where the emphasis should be placed while explaining the practice.

Ratios are not true or false but based on principles of causal determination and are

interpreted by principles of selectivity rather than thoroughly causal relationships (i.e. the

first determines the second). The motivation of a discursive site can be defined as the

main dynamics, which hold its pattern in place (the ratio). Determination occurs as there

is a bias towards a predisposition or result. Determination does not make the situation

occur, only motivates it.

There are four main ratios that are possible for practices, Purpose-act, Scene-act,

Agency-act, and Agent-act. The ratio of a Purpose-act practice consists of values being

achieved through the practice. Within Scene-act, individual’s values are compromised by

‘facts’ and although values are achieved, they can be hard to see. Agent-act ratio of

practices has pressure on the facts that substantially reduces the rules, which the practice

is based on. The Agent-act ratio involves values being substantially compromised by the

personal goals of opposing ideas7.

Discursive Sites as RatiosDiscursive sites are not only patterned communication (i.e. patterned talk) but also

that the pattern languages in question are inherently fragile, impermanent and susceptible

to dissolution8. A discursive site can yet be defined as an arena of discourse in which the

primary communicator (‘figure’) is vulnerable to displacement by the secondary

6 Supra: P. 37 Supra: P. 38 Eaman, Ross. (13 February 2014). “Communication 4004 mid-term exercise”. P. 2

Schmidt, 4

communicatory (‘ground’)9. The primary communicator is the individual whose ends or

goals give rise to the site and the primary communicator is the one whose status is that of

figure to ground. Figure ground is mutually determining, the ground pushes the figure

until it is displaced and the ground becomes the new figure (or primary communicator)10.

The main question when it comes to these patterns is why these patterns stay relatively

intact for a time and then dissolve or move categories.

Agent-act discursive site can be defined by the individual’s easy ability to pursue

their own objectives, determined by themselves. The secondary communicator goals do

not undermine autonomy of primary communicator and the outcome is largely

determined by the characteristics of the primary communicator themselves11. Agent-act

site is also highly conversational and shaped by interpersonal dynamic12. Within the

Scene-act discursive site, the objectives of the primary communicator are partially

displaced or distorted by the secondary whose competing objectives of secondary are still

‘figure’ shaped by physical environment that affects the outcomes and topography aids

the undermining of objectives13. Agency-act is shaped by medium of communication and

its characteristics / effects. The objectives of the primary communicator are displaced by

secondary and secondary communicators goals begin to take precedent over primary

creating an asymmetrical rhetorical resource among the communicators14. Finally

9 Eaman, Ross. (23 January 2014). “Discursive site Analysis: From Cartography to Theory”. P 110 Eaman, Ross. (30 January 2014). “Discursive Site Theory: Two More Laws and aCorollary”. P. 211 Ibid: P. 212 Eaman, Ross. (23 January 2014). “Discursive site Analysis: From Cartography to Theory”. P. 213 Ibid: P. 214 Supra: P. 2

Schmidt, 5

Purpose-act discursive site occurs when values pursued by external party or secondary

institutional communicator overtake the goals of the primary communicator. The

secondary institutional communicator uses the primary to achieve higher objectives15

Using Burke’s terminology to develop categories for classifying discursive sites,

Burkes four categories can help understand what different pentadic ratios television talk

shows have.

Hybridity Hybrid categories are used to break up the spectrum and explain why some cases

are between categories. Hybridity is more or less two or more conflicting characteristics.

When mapping pentadic ratios, it is possible for these characteristics to overlap or for the

practice to straddle two pentadic ratios16. Since discursive sites are comprised of various

practices with different pentadic ratios, it is possible for a practice to move from one ratio

to another.

Talk Shows as a Discursive SiteWithin class we have identified talk shows as an overall assessment of being

between Scene-act and Agency-act17. Analyzing three types of TV talk shows; host-

elicited and celebrity confessional shows, television phone-in talk shows and political

interview talk shows can assist in understanding what type of talk show has a specific

pentadic ratio and overall why talk shows have different pentadic ratios.

Host-elicited Storytelling & Celebrity Confessional Talk Shows

15 Supra: P. 2 16 Eaman, Ross. (16 January 2014). “’How to do’ notes for discursive site analysis”. P. 217 Eaman, Ross. (6 February 2014). “The Question of Social Scientific Laws and Exercise on Talk Shows”. P. 3

Schmidt, 6

Host-elicited and audience evaluated talk shows such as Maury or Montel,

otherwise known as daytime talk television, reject past perspectives of television shows

of cultivation theory and social learning theory18. Within these types of talk shows there

is an overrepresentation of young American female guests and most topics are centered

on family issues, dating, and sexuality. These types of talk shows exaggerate real-life

behaviors and are not organized around current issues19. For many viewers, their first

exposure to certain topics originates with these shows, providing the viewer with an

initial conception of this part of social reality. The host elicits stories to generate

comments and discussion by the audience or guests. Narrative plays an important role in

this type of talk show as these stories are made into issues and are made dramatic through

interaction of the storyteller, host and audience20.

Celebrity confessional talk shows such as Opera follow the same practices as

host-elicited talk shows. Audiences are participants that are active within the discussion.

The host controls what the viewers hear or see and asks specific questions to keep the

discussion moving.

The primary communicator within host-elicited and celebrity talk show is the

guest and the secondary communicator is the host and audience. The host acts as the

primary communicator because they have the ability to mediate the show and ask specific

questions. The guest acts as the primary communicator as they are the one telling their

story and experience with the audience. The secondary communicator may find that

18 Greenberg, Bradley S. et al. (1997) “Daytime Television Talk Shows: Guests, Content,and Interactions” P. 42419 Ibid: P. 41220 Thornborrrow, Joanna. (2007). Narrative, Opinion, and Situated Argument in Talk Show Discourse.” P. 1436

Schmidt, 7

“frequent exposure would increase [their concern for their] own relationship with family

members, friends or romantic partners21. However the main goal of the show is closure of

a discussion and to produce an evaluative stance in order to move the discussion

forward22.

The overall pentadic ratio of host-elicited talk shows is Scene-act or Agency-act.

Host talk shows can be considered to have a pentadic ratio of Scene-act because the site

itself only alters the guest’s objectives. If the staging lights are too bright (the interviewee

gets too hot), the interviewer is not polite, it is too loud on set, or the interviewee is

nervous, the primary communicators objectives can be compromised23. The ratio of

Agency-act can also be applied to host elicited talk shows. The primary communicator

being the guest gets their values and message across to the audience however, the hosts

ability to change and mediate conversation topics and audience opinions displaces the

primary communicator from being able to give their full experience while the host acts as

an institutional medium or opinion leader.

Television Phone-in Talk Shows

Television phone-in talk shows are unscripted and are often broadcast live and

deal with face-threatening taboo topics24 Although there is a lot of reference to talk radio

shows, television phone-in talk shows follow the same values and rules. The host also

constructs their own identity through way in which caller answers questions, what the

21 Greenberg, Bradley S. et al. (1997) “Daytime Television Talk Shows: Guests, Content,and Interactions” P. 42422 Thornborrrow, Joanna. (2007). Narrative, Opinion, and Situated Argument in Talk Show Discourse.” P. 143623 Eaman, Ross. (6 February 2014). “The Question of Social Scientific Laws and Exercise on Talk Shows”. P 2. 24 Illiephone, Cornelia. (2001). “Semi-Institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows”P. 209

Schmidt, 8

host is asking, and how the host asks the question. The caller’s identity transformed by

answering or not answering questions and occasionally exposure to aspects of society by

watching without wanted engagement occurs. Arguments are created based on a power

struggle between host and caller and the host puts their opinion in to fuel an argument.

The primary communicator is the host who lets the caller set the debate topic.

This is a form power from the host, giving status to the caller to create identity. The

host’s power is also seen in their ability to defend views against illegitimacy25.

The pentadic ratio for phone-in talk shows can be considered Agency-act. Within

phone in television talk shows, the environment is set up to introduce topics but places

participants in asymmetrical footings26. The host acts as the primary communicator

because they are able to change topics and give their opinion, often overshadowing the

caller. The host attempts to make secondary communicator appear as primary but

maintains control over guest and show. However, the listener who is made into secondary

communicator can create online conversations as a new primary communicator, called

chaining out.

Political Interview Talk Shows

Political interview talk shows such as E-talk (a Canadian entertainment news

show) have created a shift from traditional news outlets of reporting presidential

candidate information27. This type of talk show creates a positive representation of the

candidate and helps them to shape voting choices. Candidates who go onto these talk

25 Hutchby, Ian. (1996). “Power in Discourse: The Case of Arguments on a British TalkRadio Show”. P. 481.26 Ibid: 481.27 Baum, Matthew A. (2005) “Talking the Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the Talk Show Circuit.” P. 215.

Schmidt, 9

shows talk about themselves more than the issues, attempting to seek out audiences and

create a positive self image for themselves. Candidates repackage their messages “into

forms appealing to a populace with little patience for politics and then moving those

messages to where the target audience has relocated”28 Candidate interviews on TV

shows include fewer references to political parties, partisan themes or divisive images

than traditional news reports or candidate interviews. Within political interviews,

audiences are unlikely to be alienated as the show is based on a personal discussion rather

than political beliefs and opinions. Callers who are invited to put questions to politicians

on talk shows do not have control over the conversation, as authors mediate interaction

structure of these calls and limit the range of possible actions available to caller29. The

The primary communicator within political interviews is the politician or

interviewee trying to get their name and face out to voters. The secondary communicators

are reporters who pick up the story or the shows viewers. Political interviews can be

defined by two different pentadic ratios. A Scene-act ratio can be considered since the

objectives of interviewee are to get out information and manage their impression is

fulfilled but external environmental factors (such as being comfortable) may affect

interviewee from getting goals across. An Agency-act ratio can also be considered

depending on how intrusive the interview questions are. The secondary communicator

(host or interviewer) may start to displace primary goals shaped by the medium of

communication. Although these shows are highly regulated, the overall goals of the

primary communicator are met without much debate.

Chaining Out and Chaining Back in TV Talk Shows28 Ibid: P. 21529 Supra: P. 215

Schmidt, 10

Pan & Kosicki (1997) defined chaining out by the primary communicator (guest

or caller); and the secondary communicator (host), who combine to create a new primary

communicator in relation to new secondary communicator. The new secondary

communicator (audience) becomes the new primary communicator as exposure to talk

shows generates opinion. The audience becomes the primary communicator in relation to

the new secondary communicator30. The process of chaining back works the same way as

chaining out, however, in order to chain back, the primary communicator uses social

media to give opinions that could be followed up on next episodes31.

DiscussionAlthough this paper only covered a few of the many different types of talk shows,

it is important to understand why talk shows have different pentadic ratios. It is correct

that the class decision on what pentadic ratio talk shows generally fall into. The pentadic

ratios of celebrity and host-elicited talk shows are Scene-act or Agency-act. Television

phone-in talk shows are considered to have a pentadic ratio of Scene-act and political

interviews can be said to be Scene-act or Agency-act. Since talk shows fall between two

pentadic ratios, it is important to understand why they are different.

Based on whether or not the host is the primary communicator, the pentadic ratio

can be altered. When the host controls the conversation, the overall goals of the guest are

diminished and the ratio can move from Scene-act to Agency-act.

Chaining out and chaining back can also influence the ratio. Based on viewer

responses by subjectivity of other audience members, biases can be formed creating an

issue in the practices external environment. 30 Eaman, Ross. (6 February 2014). “The Question of Social Scientific Laws and Exercise on Talk Shows”. P. 3-431 Ibid: P. 3

Schmidt, 11

Conclusion

Although talk shows have different pentadic ratios, they follow a similar pattern

of behavior and conformity by the participants involved. The overall analysis of different

types of television talk show subgenre assists in understanding why pentadic ratios differ

from talk show to talk show.

Bibliography Baum, Matthew A. (2005) “Talking the Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the Talk

Show Circuit.” American Journal of Political science 49, no 2): 213-234.

Schmidt, 12

Eaman, Ross. (9 January 2014). “Notes on how to apply burke’s pentadic grammar to

practices, or engage in practitional grammar analysis”.

Eaman, Ross. (16 January 2014). “’How to do’ notes for discursive site analysis”.

Eaman, Ross. (23 January 2014). “Discursive site Analysis: From Cartography to

Theory”.

Eaman, Ross. (30 January 2014). “Discursive Site Theory: Two More Laws and a

Corollary”.

Eaman, Ross. (6 February 2014). “The Question of Social Scientific Laws and Exercise

on Talk Shows”.

Eaman, Ross. (13 February 2014). “Communication 4004 mid-term exercise”

Greenberg, Bradley S. et al. (1997) “Daytime Television Talk Shows: Guests, Content,

and Interactions”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 41, no 3: 412-426

Hutchby, Ian. (1996). “Power in Discourse: The Case of Arguments on a British Talk

Radio Show”. Discourse and Society 7, no. 4: 481-497

Illiephone, Cornelia. (2001). “Semi-Institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows”

Journal of Pragmatics 33, no 2: 209-254.

Illouz, Eva. (1999). “’That Shadowy Realm of the Interior’: Oprah Winfrey and Hamlet’s

Glass” International Journal of Cultural Studies 2, no 1: 109-131.

Nabi, Robin L. and Alexandra Hendriks. (2003). “The Persuasive Effect of Host and

Audience Reactions Shot in Television Talk Shows” Journal of Communication

53, no. 3: 527-543.

Thornborrrow, Joanna. (2007). Narrative, Opinion, and Situated Argument in Talk Show

Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 39, no 8: 1436-1453.

Schmidt, 13