Talk Shows which Employ the Uses of Sociolinguistics - Case Study Example

Uses of Sociolinguistics in Talk Shows Talk shows are completely about ensuring the entertainment value for their audience. If the show as well as the show’s host was not amusing, dramatic, or otherwise engaging to both the guests and the audience, the show will ultimately fail. In the event that viewers are not attached to the show, they will not continue to watch, giving the show much needed ratings to ensure its continued existence (Guerin 2006, 36). Many talk shows also rely on their audience members as well as prominent personalities or celebrities to populate the guest spots on their shows. Without a strong viewer base, there will be no guests. Celebrities and other well-known personalities will not risk appearing on a show that has no influence over their target audience. This is why talk shows employ the use of sociolinguistics when planning their scripts and guests. Talk shows are infinitely more than appealing guests and charismatic hosts. There are a lot of variables taken into account when conceiving the script for a talk show. A strong command of the art of sociolinguistics is required in order to achieve the optimal desired result in the relationship between the talk show and its target audience. Proper use of these common linguistic techniques is essential to assisting promoters and staffs invested in the talk show reap the success of their endeavor. Some of the most common sociolinguistic techniques employed to engage the audience are the shifting use of language, utilizing gender roles, employing command of language to dictate control over the conversation or situation, turning the role of the audience to the advantage of the host, and involving both the live and television viewers in what feels like and intimate relationship with the host and the guest, drawing them in to the situation. The use of narrative while building the script for a talk show is imperative. It is important for the host to build on the stories being told by the guests, to work those stories in such a way that he builds the tension between his guests. The host carefully chooses which factors previously relayed by the guests to highlight when relaying an abbreviated version of the tale to the audience. The host really is not giving the audience any new information, he is simply putting a dramatic spin on the story as he retells it to the audience, emphasizing not only the key points of relevance, but also those that he believes will elicit the most emotional response from both the audience and the guests. In this way, the host is using his role as narrator to serve as a catalyst. He takes what he has learned and tweaks it slightly during the process of his storytelling, enhancing the already argumentative disposition of his guests (Goodwin & Goodwin 2001, 239-258). By repeating this bit of narrative storytelling before and after commercial breaks, the host veritably guarantees that an argument will occur, whether between guests or between guests and the audience. Another fantastic tactic for manipulating both the audience and the guests is to employ the use of generally accepted gender roles when speaking as the host to either your guests or to members of the audience. For example, the host may be more sympathetic or speak in a softer tone when conversing with a female guest. Females are generally presumed to be the softer, more delicate gender, requiring a softer approach by both male and female talk show hosts (Gal 2001, 420-430). By speaking in a lower, more concerned, intimate tone it implies that the host has developed a trust relationship with the female guest. It is important when employing this tactic to remain as sincere as possible through your actions, speech, and facial expressions. The point is to encourage the guest to reveal more than they would under normal circumstances by simply implying that they can trust you as a host. Though this same tactic can be used with a man, it is much more effective when employed during a conversation with a woman. A similar tact used when attempting to relate better with male guests is to speak in an interested, concerned tone (Belz 2003, 36). This can help a man to reveal more of himself to both the host and the audience. However, the most effective sociolinguistic tactic to use with a man is to speak to him in a much harder tone than you would to a female guest. Anger tends to move men to speak more honestly than speaking to them as if you are their friend. Men tend to think more logically than women and as such are more on guard with their speech and emotions than women typically are, so the best way to get them to let that guard down is to slip past it unnoticed by making them lose control a bit (Lebaron & Hopper 1998, 69). Once they begin to open up about their true emotions and feelings, men are more likely to continue with the train of the discussion. The key is to get the male guest to that point, past where he is uncomfortable and defensive with the situation to where he is more emotionally available to both the audience and the host. Some men may even become more comfortable with the openness of the situation once the initial confrontation has occurred (Goodwin & Goodwin 2001, 239-258). Another way to ensure this through the application of sociolinguistic techniques is by bringing a false sense of security to the situation through initializing a more intimate relationship between the guests and the audience. When people feel more comfortable in the company of others, they are much more likely to not only speak the truth, but also to divulge more of their secrets (Goodwin & Goodwin 2001, 241). This is where the relationship between the guests, the host, and the audience comes into play. Think about it for a moment. There are very few people who truly enjoy speaking in public and fewer of those that will willingly divulge their deepest, darkest secrets to a room full of strangers. While there is always an exception to every rule, there are still many talk show guests that need a little bit more persuading in order to get them to share every detail of the experience that they are on the show to illuminate or discuss. If the talk show host is successful in creating a more intimate environment for the guests, the host has a much better chance of engaging the guests in a more responsive conversation than they would otherwise by simply playing interviewer with the guest while the subject was consciously watched by hundreds of people in the live audience setting in which the vast majority of talk shows take place. The way in which a talk show host can employ this bit of sociolinguistic science is by masterfully controlling the conversation in response to the guests’ reactions (Hutchby 1999, 243-268). The best way is to engage the guest with the audience by allowing a dialogue to be conducted between different guests and various audience members. When the guest has begun entertaining questions and comments from audience members that are in the same vein as the guest’s opinions or beliefs, they are more likely to not only start talking more, but to give away more than what they previously intended throughout the course of the conversation, adding to the dramatic scope of the program. By allowing the guest to have someone in the audience, a supposed neutral third party individual with their own, unbiased opinion of the situation, who agrees or sides with them, it creates a type of camaraderie between the two unrelated individuals, giving another element of depth to the conversation which ultimately leads to more discussion throughout the entirety of the show episode (Guerin 2006, 58). This is also a good opportunity for the talk show host to further engage the guest. After waiting for the audience member to get the guest loosened up, the talk show host can interject themselves into the conversation by playing on the newly formed intimacy between the guest and the audience. In this way, the talk show host manages to insert himself into the role newly formed by the audience member, allowing the guest to feel more comfortable talking openly with the host and less like they are being intimidated and interviewed (Tolson, 2001). This allows the intimacy to continue between the guest and the audience, but on a more passive plane while moving the action of the conversation back to the stage and under the control of the talk show host. The talk show host has the option to take back control of the situation by redirecting the comments of the guest to himself rather than the audience. Though the audience serves a valid purpose in the development of the storyline that is the talk show, the host must not give control of the show to the audience or he will lose the viewing audience and render himself virtually ineffective as a host. In order to get the maximum amount of response from both the audience and the guest with a minimal amount of effort on the talk show host’s part, the host will often employ the use of language as a control mechanism along with fostering the intimate relationship between the audience and the guests (Whorf 2001, 374). There are many different uses of language that the host can apply to each individual situation that he may face both with the audience as well as with his guests. One of the best ways to address the situation and remain in control is to be both friendly and engaging while also being authoritative and direct (Spitulnik 2001, 109). When attempting to gain the trust of the guests while also maintaining an air of authority with both the guests and the audience, the talk show host is walking a very fine line. The most persuasive way to employ this technique is to alternate your focus between the audience and the guests, depending upon whom you as the host are gaining the most interaction from at the time and how that interaction is pushing along the storyline of the show. If the audience is carrying more of the dramatic intent of the show, it is prudent for the talk show host to seemingly turn to audience members for support with the guests, fostering the intimate relationship between the audience and the guest. When addressing the audience in a familiar, friendly tone that almost seems as if the host is appealing to the audience for help, the best way to react to the guests is by speaking to them in a more authoritative tone. By almost chastising the guest, the host is putting them into an unfamiliar territory within the context of the show. This sets the guests back into a defensive place where they feel as if they are not being allowed to speak on their own behalf while the host is appealing to the audience. When the host’s attention shifts back to the guest he virtually swaps roles, giving his entire attention to the guests, sparing none for the audience. Essentially the host is using his command of the situation to elicit the most information out of the guests. Even with his manipulation of the conversation with the audience, the host is ensuring that the guests are revealing as much of themselves and their present situation as possible by seemingly changing his role within the dialogue of the show. During this time, the host is very mindful of the control factor of the show as a whole and of his immediate situation. However, by seemingly shifting the balance of power within the dialogue by shifting back and forth between his different roles in the dialogue, the host is effectively developing the intimacy relationship between himself, the audience, and the guests (Hutchby 1999, 260). By combining these two sociolinguistic elements, the host is very nearly guaranteeing himself a dramatic retelling on behalf of the guests, which is sure to please the audience who has come whether in person or through the television for the juicy dramatic program content. In addition to fostering the intimacy between the guests and the audience, the host can also employ the use of language to help him either seem to identify with the guest and audience or he can use language as a dividing line, allowing it to distinguish him from the other groups involved, depending solely upon what type of reaction he is trying to promote (Milroy 1992, 169). For instance, the host is more likely to speak differently using different pronunciations of words along with different words all together depending upon what type of image he is trying to project. The host may adapt a more cultured tone, speak clearly in complete, concise sentences when addressing someone of an obvious higher intelligence such as a prominent businessman. However, when the host is having the exact same type of conversation with a different type of individual, such as someone who is seemingly of lower class and less intelligence, he may speak in a less refined tone, use cultural vernacular, and slang terms in order to make himself more appealing to a larger variety of individuals (Guerin 2006, 36-65). When speaking, the host must be ever mindful of who he is speaking to or with in order to keep the attention and trust of his guests and audience. It is the host that sets the tone for the entire show. How he speaks and to whom will determine for the participants how they behave and react to one another. The harder that the host pushes his live participants, the more likely he is to receive the desired dramatic reaction. In addition to the importance of the language and how it is used within the terms of the show, it is also important for the host to remember and utilize the vast importance of the audience throughout the show’s progress. The audience is the foundation upon which the host builds both his trust relationship between himself and his guests as well as the catalyst that the talk show host employs in order to elicit the desired, combustible, dramatic response from the guests. Without the dramatic content, the show would not be as sensational, nor would the host be able to command as much attention, either from his live audience or from the audience at home. Therefore, the inclusion of the audience is an integral part of the entire talk show process. The host relies on the audience to fulfill roles that he may not be able to either fill or create himself, such as the role of comrade with the guest. The host can attempt this role and often succeeds to an extent; however, he is still there in an obvious, official capacity. The audience members are not in this capacity, so when they approach the situation in an understanding manner with the guest, it seems more likely to the guest that this unknown person is more easily trustworthy in that capacity. In order to maintain his level of control without seeming overbearing, the host must at some points relinquish a small amount of control to the audience at varying points throughout the show. The live audience exists in the realm of the talk show to serve as a supplement to the host. Whether the audience members realize it or not, they are actually being employed by the host to fill these missing sectors of his job to emphasize the story carrying out on stage. Being a member of the audience is almost as engulfing as being a guest (Tolson, 2001). Everyone is a participant in the show, whether as a guest, host, or audience member. Talk shows employ the uses of sociolinguistics in order to ensure that their show is successful in its entertainment of the live and the viewing audience as well as the guests. The main driving force behind a talk show is the dramatic content and it is up to the talk show host to facilitate interactions between all three components to make sure that the appropriate reactions occur to create the necessary drama on set during filming. The host can use varying types of techniques including mastering language, understanding the role of the audience, and varying his degree of control over the proceedings. Dependent upon the different types of sociolinguistics applied, the host can control the audience and the guests as well as move the action occurring through the dialogue in the desired direction. The mastery of these uses of sociolinguistics is imperative to the success of any talk show, making a clear understanding of these principles very important to anyone expecting to participate in a talk show. Works Cited Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic Perspectives on the Development of Intercultural Competence in Telecollaboration. Language, Learning, and Technology, Vol. 7 , 26-41. Gal, S. (2001). Language, Gender, and Power: An Antrhopological Review. In A. Durante, Linguistic Anthropologie (pp. 420-430). New York: Blackwell Publications. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2001). Emotion Within Situated Activity. In A. Durante, Linguistic Anthropologie (pp. 239-258). New York: Blackwell Publisher. Guerin, B. (2006). Analyzing Rumors, Gossip, and Urban Legends Through Their Conversational Properties. The Psychological Record, Vol. 56 , 36-65. Hutchby, I. (1999). Rhetorical Strategies in Audience Participation Debates on Radio and TV. Research on Language and Social Interaction, Vol. 32 , 243-268. Lebaron, C., & Hopper, R. (1998). How Gender Creeps into Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 31 , 59-75. Milroy, L. (1992). New Perspectives in the Analysis of Sex Differentiation in Language. In K. Bolton, & H. Hwok, Sociolinguistics Today (pp. 163-179). New York: Routledge. Spitulnik, D. (2001). The Social Circulation of Media Discourse and the Mediation of Communities. In A. Durante, Linguistic Antropology (pp. 95-118). New York: Blackwell Publishing. Tolson, A. (2001). Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, and Spectacle. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Whorf, B. L. (2001). The Relation of Habitual Though and Behavior to Language. In A. Durante, Linguistic Anthropologie (pp. 363-381). New York: Blackwell Publisher. Read More