1. Differentiation in Pentadic Ratios: TV Talk Shows
Do Different Types of TelevisionTalk Shows have Different
Pentadic Ratios?
Rachel Schmidt
100825254
MARCH 20, 2014
COMM 4004:COMMUNICATION AND DISCOURSE
ROSS EAMAN

2. Schmidt, 1
Introduction
New 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 Pentad
In 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
1 Illouz, Eva. (1999). “’That Shadowy Realm of the Interior…’” P. 111
2 Eaman, Ross. (13 February 2014). “Communication 4004 mid-term exercise”. P. 2

3. Schmidt, 2
structures in social settings3. These motives account for why individuals do this and
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?
3 Eaman, Ross. (9 January 2014). “Notes on how to apply burke’s pentadic grammar to
practices, or engage in practitional grammar analysis”. P. 1
4 Ibid: P. 1
5 Supra: P. 2

4. 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 Ratios
Discursive 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. 3
7 Supra: P. 3
8 Eaman, Ross. (13 February 2014). “Communication 4004 mid-term exercise”. P. 2

5. 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 1
10 Eaman, Ross. (30 January 2014). “Discursive Site Theory: Two More Laws and a
Corollary”. P. 2
11 Ibid: P. 2
12 Eaman, Ross. (23 January 2014). “Discursive site Analysis: From Cartography to
Theory”. P. 2
13 Ibid: P. 2
14 Supra: P. 2

6. 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 Site
Within 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. 2
17 Eaman, Ross. (6 February 2014). “The Question of Social Scientific Laws and Exercise
on Talk Shows”. P. 3

7. 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. 424
19 Ibid: P. 412
20 Thornborrrow, Joanna. (2007). Narrative, Opinion, and Situated Argument in Talk
Show Discourse.” P. 1436

8. 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. 424
22 Thornborrrow, Joanna. (2007). Narrative, Opinion, and Situated Argument in Talk
Show Discourse.” P. 1436
23 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

9. 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 Talk
Radio Show”. P. 481.
26 Ibid: 481.
27 Baum, Matthew A. (2005) “Talking the Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the
Talk Show Circuit.” P. 215.

10. 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 Shows
28 Ibid: P. 215
29 Supra: P. 215

11. 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.
Discussion
Although 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.
30 Eaman, Ross. (6 February 2014). “The Question of Social Scientific Laws and Exercise
on Talk Shows”. P. 3-4
31 Ibid: P. 3

12. Schmidt, 11
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.
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.

13. Schmidt, 12
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.
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

14. Schmidt, 13
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.