
































Exchange Structure and Topic Development in Selected Igbo Phone-in Media Programmes

Thecla Udemmadu & Juliana Akpulu

Abstract

Exchange structure is a sequence of discourse moves -by at least two speakers - that forms a
topical or subtopical unit. A minimal exchange comprises of initiating move plus a contribution
by another speaker, and topic negotiation is the act of selecting or highlighting a topic for
deliberation in a discourse. This study focusses on the exchange structure and topic development
in selected Igbo phone-in programme as little or no research has been done on the topic using
Igbo phone-in programmes for illustrations. The purpose of this academic exercise is to
investigate how Igbo phone-in programmes are arranged, and to highlight how topics are
developed in Igbo phone-in programme using Sinclair-Coulthard (1975) ‘Birmingham model’.
Data for this study were collected from Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN), Enugu.
The fingings show that phone-in programme is organized hierarchically into act, move, exchange
and transaction structures, also, that in phone-in programme, as a conversation, the presenter was
the host of the programme, the guests (if any) were the resource persons, while the listener/caller
was the target audience. The researcher recommends more researches on similar topics.

Keywords: Exchange, structure, topic development, Igbo phone- programmes

Introduction

Discourse analysis studies how people achieve certain communicative goals, perform certain
communicative events and present themselves to others through the use of language. It focuses
on how people do things beyond language and the ideas and beliefs that they communicate as
they use language, (Paltridge, 2006, p.6). Discourse also focuses on the structure of naturally
occurring spoken language as found in such ‘discourses’ as conversation, interviews,
commentaries and speeches, (Crystal, 1987, p. 116). This study investigates the structure and



topic development in broadcasting in the Igbo language with particular reference to selected
phone-in radio programmes.

The methodology for data collection was through on-the-spot monitoring of the programmes,
dubbing of some interactive live-programmes from the selected electronic media station. Sinclair
and Coulthard’s (1975) theoretical framework was adopted. The data illustrate the various
features of interactions in the phone-in programmes, and the strategies used by participants in the
negotiation of meaning. The findings of this work would go a long way in defining the different
roles different participants play in broadcast live-programmes.

Emphasis of this study is only on phone-in programmes. The phone-in programme selected is
titled “Ka Ọra Malụ”, the topic discussed is “Global Food Crisis” presented by Mr. Nat. Obikpo
of Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria, (FRCN), Enugu. This form the bases of the analysis.
The study is segmented into: The introduction, concept of phone-in programme, theoretical
framework, analysis of data, then, the findings and the conclusion

Concept of Phone-in Programme

Phone-in programme is a type of media programme recently introducedin Nigeria’s electronic
media stations (that is, radio and television) in the late 1990s. It is a programme in which the
members of the public are given the privilege of participating in a live media discussion through
the use of telephones or cellphones. Lawan (2008,p.9) affirms that one of the remarkable
innovations which technology has brought into the media industry in the recent times is the
phone-in programme. It is a device which allows the listening audience to participate in radio
and television programmes live and direct through the use of the telephone. It therefore, allows
the audience to air their views about government activities, to participate in ongoing discussions,
to debate as well as inform the public and government of what is happening in their environment.
He further says that with the recent influx of various types of cellphones, and easy access to call
centres, this type of programme has helped the less-privileged and the poor to be heard and their
needs addressed by the government.

The radio and television broadcasting is that aspect of mass communication that involves a
simultaneous transmission of information, idea, knowledge, belief etc. to a dispersed and
heterogeneous audience through the electro-magnetic spectrum or airwave. Radio disseminates
audio signals through the air wave while television transmits audio-visual signals through a
similar process. (Agbanu and Nwammuo, 2009,pp. 17-18)

Theoretical Framework

Sinclair-Coulthard (1975) ‘Birmingham model’ of exchange structure will be discussed under
this section as it will aid the analysis of the data of this study. McCarthy (1991,p.22) states that,



one of the models for the analysis of spoken interaction is Sinclair-Coulthard ‘Birmingham
model’. This is because it is useful for describing talk in and out of the classroom. It captures
patterns that reflect the basic functions of interaction and offers a hierarchical model where
smaller units can be seen to consist of these smaller ones. The ‘act’ is at the bottom of the
hierarchy. Different ‘acts’ form a ‘move’, which is the next at the hierarchy. It is followed by
‘exchange’. ‘Exchange’ is made up of different ‘moves’. The different ‘exchanges’ form a
‘transaction’. ‘Transaction’ is at the apex of the hierarchical model.

The Structure of Discourse

A rank at any point in time is made up of one or more units below it. Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975) write that the basic assumption of a rank scale is that a unit at a given rank, for example, a
word is made up of one or more units of the rank below the morpheme, and combine with other
units at the same rank to form one unit at the rank above a group. The unit at the lowest rank has
no structure. The smallest unit at the level of discourse will have no structure although it is
composed of words, groups or clauses at the level of grammar.

Each rank above the lowest has a structure which can be expressed in terms of the unit next
below. The unit at the highest rank is one which has a structure that can be expressed in terms of
lower units, but does not itself form part of the structure of any higher unit. It is for this reason
that ‘sentence’ is regarded as the highest unit of grammar.

The bare bones of the hierarchy (or rank scale) can be expressed as follows:

Transaction

Exchange

Move

Act



The lowest rank is what is referred to as ‘speech acts’. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, p.20)
simply call them ‘acts’. The model is very useful for analyzing patterns of interaction where talk
is relatively in structures, such as between doctors and patients. All sorts of complications arise
when one tries to apply the model to talk in more informal, casual, and spontaneous contexts. So,
this model has been adopted to this study as it could provide insight into the analysis of face-face
interactions in Igbo phone-in programmes.

According to Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, p.21), utterance is defined as everything said by one
speaker before another begins to speak. Exchange has two or more utterances.

(102) Teacher- ‘Can you tell me, why do you eat food?’

(103) Pupil- ‘To keep you strong’

(104) Teacher- ‘To keep you strong’. ‘Yes, to keep you strong.’ ‘Why do you want to be strong?’

The obvious boundary occurs in the middle of the teacher’s second utterance, which suggests
that there is a unit smaller than utterance. Following Bellack (in Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975),
this feature is called a ‘move’. However, the example above is not an isolated one; the vast
majority of exchanges have their boundaries within utterances. A typical exchange in the
classroom consists of an ‘initiation’ by the teacher, followed by a ‘response’ from the pupil,
followed by ‘feedback’ to the pupil’s response from the teacher. These categories correspond
very closely with Bellack’s moves (in Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975); soliciting, responding and
reacting.

While looking at exchanges one noticed that a small set of words- ‘right’, ‘well’, ‘good’, ‘o.k’,
‘now’ recurred frequently in the speech of all teachers. It is realized that these words functioned
to indicate boundaries in the lesson; the end of one stage and the beginning of the next.

Exchanges combine to form transactions and it seems probable that there will also be a number
of transactions types concerned mainly with giving information, or directing pupils’ activity, or
question-and-answer routines.It is realized that ‘moves’ were structured and so another rank is
needed with which to describe their structure. This is called ‘act’. ‘Act’ and ‘move’ in discourse
are very similar to morphemes and words in grammar. By definition, ‘move’ is the smallest free
unit although it has a structure in terms of ‘acts’. There are three major acts which probably
occur in all forms of spoken discourse. They are elicitation, directive, and informative. They
appear in classroom discourse as the head of ‘initiating moves’.

An elicitation is an ‘act’, the function of which is to request a linguistic response. But, sometimes
the response may be a non-verbal surrogate such as a nod or raised hand. A directive is an ‘act’,
the function of which is to request a non-linguistic response. It is simply an acknowledgement
that one is listening. An informative is, as the name suggests, an act whose function is to pass on



ideas, facts, opinions, information and to which the appropriate response is simply an
acknowledgement that one is listening. Elicitation, directives, and informatives are very
frequently realized by interrogatives, imperatives, and declaratives respectively, but there are
occasions when this is not so.

Our focus in this work is to see whether the Sinclair and Coulthard rank scale can fit into Igbo
phone-in programme.

Move

‘Move’, according to Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) is made up of ‘acts’. ‘Move’ itself occupies
places in the structure of exchanges. It is also the minimal interactive unit; that most analytical
problems centre on this rank first and foremost.

There are five classes of ‘move’ and these realize two classes of exchanges- ‘Framing’ and
‘Focusing’ moves realize boundary exchanges. ‘Opening’, ‘Answering’, and ‘Follow-up’ moves
realize teaching exchanges. Each of these ‘moves’ has a different function.‘Framing moves’ are
indications by the teacher that he regards one stage in the lesson as ended and that another is
beginning. ‘Framing moves’ is one of the features of all spoken discourse. Shop assistants often
use them to indicate that they have finished serving one customer and are ready for the next.
They occur more frequently in classroom language because they are carefully structured by one
participant. Framing moves are realized by a marker followed by silent stress, ‘Right’.

‘Framing moves’ are frequently, though not always, followed by ‘focusing moves’ the function
of which is to talk about the discourse, to tell the children what is going to happen or what has
happened. ‘Focusing moves’ have an optional ‘marker’ and ‘starter’, a compulsory ‘head’,
realized by a metastatement. An opening move ends after the responder has been selected.

‘Prompt’ and ‘clue’ can also occur in a ‘post-head’ position in opening moves. This means that
the structure of a teacher’s opening move is- (Signal) (pre-head) head (Post-head) (Select).

This can be illustrated below:

Class of move Structure of move Classes of act

Opening A group of people
use symbol to do
their writing. They
use pictures instead

Pre-h(ead) Starter



of writing in words.

Do you know who
these people are?

H(ead) Elicitation

I’m sure you do Post –h(ead) Prompt

Joan Sel(ect) Nomination

Table 1

Topic Development

The issue of topic raises two basic questions: ‘How do participants in a conversation introduce
new topics? ‘How do they move from topic to topic?’ Topic is defined, on the formal level, as
stretches of talk bounded by certain topic and/or phonological one. It could take a semantic
framework and try to express the content of different segments of talk according to single-word
or phrasal titles. It could use interactive criteria and say that something is only a topic if more
than one speaker makes an utterance relevant to it. An overall pragmatic approach is to say that
topics are strings of utterances perceived as relevant to one another by participants in a talk.

A purely surface cohesional view states that topics end where chains of lexical cohesion peter
out. Topics can be the reason for talk or they can arise because people are already talking. The
interactive features of topics can also be taught and practised, such as the use of markers, both
opening ones (by the way, incidentally, I meant to ask you, talking of x) and closing ones (still,
anyway, so there we are), or summarizing a stretch of talk and reacting to it with an evaluation
(sounds awful, it was all rather resettling, quite strange, really), (McCarthy, 1991,p.91). In
support of the above assertion, Coulthard and Montgomery (1981, pp. 68-71) point out that pre-
topic acts include the following: markers, summonses, metastatements. Topic-carrying acts
include the following: informative, elicitations, directives and accusations.

Bloor and Bloor (2007, p. 107) add that one of the attributes of power is some degree of control
over input to a discourse which is topic control. In the case of face to face interaction in some
situations it includes control over turn-taking and hence, over the content of the discussion.

McCarthy (1991,p.69) notes that topics unfold interactively, rather than ‘existing’ as static
entities. In the same vein, Wardhaugh (1985,pp.139-140) refers to topic as a ‘consensual
outcome’. Speakers can throw topics into the ring, but whether they are taken up or die depends
on the speaker(s), if one speaker insists on pursuing his topics, ignoring the wishes of others.
This is precisely when deviance into monologue or complain to friends is recognized. Topics
unfold, and the vocabulary used by the speakers offers openings for possible development, which
may or may not be exploited.



Turn-taking

In the classic ethnomethodological setting, discourse analysts have observed how participants
organize themselves to make turns at talk. In any piece of natural English discourse, turns will
occur smoothly, with only little overlap and interruption, and only very brief silences between
turns/on average (less than a second). People take turns when they are selected or ‘nominated’ by
the current speaker, or if no one is selected, they may speak of their own accord (self selection).
If neither of these conditions applies, the person who is currently speaking may continue, (Sack
et al., 1974). While the current speaker is talking, listeners are attentive to the syntactic
completeness or otherwise of the speaker’s contribution, and to clues in the pitch level that may
indicate that a turn is coming to a close. There are specific linguistic devices for getting the turn
when one is unable to enter the normal flow of turn-taking or when the setting demands that
specific conventions be followed. These vary greatly at the level of formality and appropriacy to
different situation, (for example, ‘If I may, Mr. Chairman’, ‘I wonder if I might say something’,
‘Can I just come in here’, ‘Hang on a minute’, ‘Shut up will you, I can’t get a word in edgewise’).

There are many linguistic means of ‘not’ taking the turn when one has the opportunity, or simply
of making it clear to the speaker that one is attending to the message. These are usually referred
to as ‘back channel’ responses. These responses consist of vocalizations such as ‘m m, ah-ha’,
and short words and phrases such as ‘yeah’, ‘no’, ‘right’, ‘sure’. Back-channel realizations vary
interestingly from culture to culture.

Another feature of turn-taking is the way speakers predict one another’s utterances and often
complete them for them, or overlap with them as they complete (McCarthy, 1991,p.69).
Utterances by one speaker are an invitation to a response by another; the initiating utterance puts
an obligation on the responding speaker to make his turn both relevant to the previous turn and a
positive contribution to the forward moving of the discourse.

One of the problems associated with turn-taking is the fact that some dominant and garrulous
speakers often grab too many turns (gender can be a factor here). The other problem is the
question of culture-specific conventions. Problems of dominant speakers can be partially solved
by giving people with such tendencies restricted rules in activities so that other participants will
often rise to the challenge of a major speaker role. The culture-specific problems are more
complex, for instance, in some cultures, silence has a more acceptable role than in others.



Other features of how turns are given and gained in English may also prompt specific awareness
training where necessary. These include body language such as inhalation and head movement as
a turn-seeking signal, eye contact, gesticulation, etc. as well as linguistic phenomena such as a
drop in pitch or rise of grammatical tags.

Paltridge (2006,p.5) contributes by saying that in an ordinary conversation for example, the
overlapping of speech may be an attempt by one speaker to take over the conversation from the
other person. If the other person does not want them to take over the conversation, he may
increase the volume of what he is saying and just keep on talking, not letting them interrupt him.
In a different situation, however, overlapping speech may just be a case of co-operative
conversational behavior such as when one speaker gives a feedback to another speaker, mirroring
what they are saying as they speak.Firth (1935) in Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, pp.2-7) says that
people’s interests again were in the function of utterances and the structure of discourse. Such
questions as the ones below are asked about turn-taking: ‘How are successive utterances
related?’ ‘Who controls the discourse?’ ‘How does he do it?’ ‘How, if at all, do other participants
take control?’ ‘How do the roles of speaker and listener pass from one participant to another?’
‘How are new topics introduced and old ones ended?’ ‘What linguistic evidence is there for
discourse units larger than the utterance?’ (See also Johnstone, 2008).

In normal conversations, for example, changes of topic are unpredictable. Participants are of
equal status and have equal rights to determine the topic. Thus, while one speaker can usually
control the direction of the discourse as long as he is actually talking, a succeeding speaker, who
is bored, bemused, or has something only partly relevant that he wants to contribute, can change
the topic completely. The dominated person will tend to use the items that the person in control
gives him, only if he tries to reverse the roles will he try to introduce new vocabulary.

Bloor and Bloor (2007,p.105) state that it is self-evident that people who engage in spoken
dialogue have to take-turns in speaking. About five percent (5%) of speakers’ contribution
overlap, and sometimes speakers may try to shout each other down, but, if the interaction is not
to breakdown completely or change into a monologue, they must grant each other opportunities
to contribute. In informal spoken discourse practices such as public debates, committee meetings
and legal trials, turn taking is tightly controlled and is in some instances conventionally recorded
(as in a religious service) or has its control assigned to a participant.

Bloor and Bloor (2007) further remark that within the boundaries of a media interview, the
interviewer has considerably more power than the interviewee and has right, within limits, to
choose topics, and turns, although this can be challenged. A major situational factor is the
audience. The participants are aware that this is not a private conversation but a performance.



Topic Development in Igbo Phone-in Programme

This section covers the exchange structure in radio phone-in programme which includes: topic
negotiation, turn taking and adjacency pairs.

Topic Negotiation in Igbo Phone-in Programme

Topic negotiation is the act of selecting or highlighting a topic for deliberation in a discourse.
The role of topic selection in a phone-in programme is mainly that of the presenter. The
presenter determines the topic of the discourse and how to go about it. He poses the questions to
the resource persons.

The listener to a great measure also helps in selecting the topic by his questions. But, it is left for
the presenter to decide whether to or not to highlight a caller’s idea or question. The presenter
uses all the available techniques to make sure that the topic is well addressed. He does this with
caution so as not to flout any of the co-operative principles, (Grice,1975). The presenter is solely
in charge. He calls the guests or the caller to order, should they deviate from the topic or pattern
of the rule of the game. Sometimes, if a desired answer is not given by the resource person, the
presenter reframes the question. For instance,



Structure
of Move

Classes
of Act

Presenter Kedụ nkwadebe gọọmentị
Enugwu steeti nke ị bụ
onye isi n’ụlọ nzukọ omebe
iwu Enugwu steeti ji dị
ọkpụrụkpụ gbakwụnyere
nke ‘chairman’ kwuruiji
wee chedo nri. Kedụ ebe a
ga-adọba nri a ụdị na ụtụtụ,
efifie, anyasị ụmụaka na
okenye ga na-erinri. O
nwere, gwa anyị ma ụnụ
erugo n’atụmatụ a n’ihe
ụnụ ji n’akamaka ọrụ ugbo?

H Elicit

Hon.

Ugwuja

Daalụ, eeem S Marker

Ọ dị m ka gọọmentị Enugwu
steeti gbara na mmadụ adị
ewe ihe o deberọ. Ichekwa



nri bụ nke abụọ mana nke
izizi bụ i nwete godu ya bụ
nri. ‘So’, ọ dị m ka gọọmentị
Enugwu steeti bido godu
run’inwete ya bụ nri. Kee ka
e si bido na nke ahụ? Ka
anyị sirikwu e n’izizi, anyị
ekwugo ‘pasentị’ atụmatụ
ego ọrụ e debego duru maka
ịkọpụta ya bụ nri.

pre-h Clue

Anyị ma na mbido afọ a,
ozugbo gọọmentị Enugwu
steeti batara n’ọchịchị dịka
‘chairman’ si kwu, igwe e ji
akọ ya bụ nri yabụ ‘tractor’
ọ dịiri anọ na abụọ gọọmentị
Enugwu steeti butere kesaa.
O kwere ndị mmadụ nghọta
na ọ bụrụ na Chukwu nye
aka ‘by September’ a ga-
ebido ụlọakwụkwọ nri.
Ịmụta ka e si arụ ọrụugbo
bụ‘the agricultural aspect’
mana ịkọpụtabụ ‘the
farming’. Ihe a na-eme nke
ahụ bụ maka na onye ọ bụ
na jechara

Ya bụ ụlọ akwụkwọ pụta ị
chọghịzi ma a ga-ewe gị na
‘RedioNaịjirịa’ ka ị bịa
kwube maka ọrụ ugbo. Ọọ
gị nwa ejebezie n’obodo gị
Akụma ọ bụ Igboetiti ma ọ



bụ Nsụka ma ọ bụ Anịnri.
Mgbe ị na-eruzi na ya bụ
Anịnri ma ọ bụ Igboetiti
‘tractor’ adịgo, gọọmentị
Enugwu steeti bunyere ndị
kansụl….

H Reply

Presenter Daalụ sọọ eem S Marker

Ọ pụtaziri na onye ọ bụrụ
ụmụakwụkwọ, sị wee yandị
IMT nọ anyị nso ma ọ bụ
ndị ESUT, ijee ebe
ụmụakwụkwọ na-erinri a
sịgị na ọ bụ ‘zero,one, zero’,
ma ọ bụ ‘zero, zero, one’,
ma ọ bụ ‘zero’ nụnwa bụna
e rirọn’ụtụtụ, e rirọ n’efifie.
‘One’ bụ nke anyasị. Ị ma na
ihe m chọrọ ka m si n’ọnụ gị
mata bụ ma mbọ Enugwu
steeti na-agba m aka nriọọ
nkwa e kwere ekwe bụ
kwuoro olileanya, maka na a
sị na ogoli nwaanyị ṅụọ iyi,
o gbughị ya egbu ọ nara ya
nwa.

pre-h Clue



Table 2

Here, the resource person who is also a politician is busy outlining all the efforts of the
government in increasing food production and ignored or paid less attention to the preservation
of food which was the presenter’s question. The presenter, being in control of topic negotiation,
later called his attention back by reframing the question. As the pilot of the programme,
whenever the presenter feels he is satisfied with a particular topic, he switches over to another.
For example,

a)

Structure
of Move

Classes
of Act

Presenter O nwereife m chọọịjụ
‘chairman’

pre-h Clue

Kedu maka ndị okenye
anyị? Ike ọ ka dị fa ịkọ
ọrụ ugbo ugbua? H Elicit

Table 3

b)

Structure
of Move

Classes
of Act

Hon. A ma ntufuya, a ma
ntufuya.

H Reply

Presenter Ọ dị mma. Daalụ sọọ S Marker

Ị ma na mmm. O nwee ife
m chọọ ị jụ ‘chairman’
tupu m anabata onye nụ
nwa. Kedụ ka, ị ma oge
ụfọdụ fa na-aga bịa ịfụ

Ị̀ na-agwa anyị n’ebe a na
onye ọ bụ na nọ n’Enugwu
steeti kwadobe na a ya
aracha aka, nri ga-adị….

H Elicit



ụnụnwana-anọ na ntụoyi.
E megheeụzọ “ndịaa
nwaaanyị.”

pre-h Clue

Kedụ agbamume ụnụ ga-
enye fa ka fa nwee ike ị
bata? Kama ka a gbanyụọ
ntụoyi ka ụnụ wee nụrụ
onu fa, karịa ma e tinye
ntụoyi “ndịa anwaa m” ọ
nachighaa azụ

H Elicit

Table 4

In the above examples, the presenter switched over to another topic when he felt satisfied with
the previous one. So, the presenter is in-charge of the topic negotiation.

Turn-Taking in Igbo Phone-in Programmes

In turn-taking, it is the sole responsibility of the presenter to determine who speaks at a particular
time. He nominates the speaker and directs the discourse. For instance-

a)

Structure
of Move

Classes
of Act

Presenter Daalụ.

Eee ọ dịkaonyesiimeobodo
wee bịabụ ‘chairman’
Nsụkakansụlga-azaya.

S

sel

Marker

Nomin
ate

Table 5



b)

Structure
of Move

Classes
of Act

Presenter Kedụ etu e si wee gbaa
ogige? Kedụ ihe ị kpọrọ ya
oge a? H Elicit

‘Honorable’, ị gbara ogige? Sel Nomina
te

Table 6

c)

Structure
of Move

Classes
of Act

Presenter Eee daalụ sọọ

Ajụjụ a ọ jụrụ dị ka otuto
toro ngwere n’isi ma ọ bụ
ube a sụrụ n’afọ. Ị ma a
naejinka were ewepụya

S

pre-h

Marker

clue

Kedụ ife ị ga-aza
‘chairman’?

Sel Nomina
te

Table 7

When any of the participants (the resource person or the listener) is deviating from the tune of
the discourse, it is the responsibility of the presenter to call him to order. This is seen in the
exchange below-



Presenter Eloo

Caller 12 Ọọ Chinọnso Ugbọka

Presenter Ugbọka, gaa n’iru Chinọnso

Caller 12 Biko nna m ukwu, achọrọ m ka m ‘mekie
contribution’

Presenter Biko gaan’iru

Caller12 N’ebe ndị Ugbọka nọ, ị ghọtaraihe m na-ekwu?

Presenter Gaan’iru na ha na-egentị. Ndị Ugbọka na-egentị

Caller12 Ugbọka so na ndị na-akọpụta nri n’Enugwu steeti
‘more especially’ n’ebe a na-akọpụta ‘rice’. Ha
na-akọpụta ‘rice’ ọfụma mana o nweghị ‘any
support’ ndị Enugwu steeti gọọmentị na-enye ha
‘more especially’ ha anaghị ewetere anyị ihe e ji
akọta ‘like tractor’ ụnụ na ‘emention’ taa ‘there’.
Ya ka m chọọ, ọ bụrụ na gọọmentị anyịbụ
Sullivan Chime ka o nyetụrụ anyị aka kwụsị
afụfụ ụmụ nwaanyị na-atacha n’imeobodo dịka
akpụ, ịkọpụt aakpụ. Anyị na-akọpụta ya
gbanyụụ. Ka ọ bụziị chọta ‘means’ a ga-eji wee
na-ebupụtaya ‘the thing’ bụ ‘the issue’. Ị ghọtara
ihe m na-ekwu?

Presenter Eee anyị na-anụ ife ị na-ekwu. Daalụ

Caller 12 Ọọya ka m na-ayọgị. Ọ bụrụ na ụnụ bịara,
‘Honorable member’ nọebe a. Ọọ ka ozi ruoro
anyị gọvanọ ntị. Ka o nyeturu anyị aka ‘sọlvụọ
problem’ anyị na-enweriebe a.

Presenter ‘Honorable member’, onye a rụrụ aka n’ọnụ ji
ọgụ. Kwa ị nụrụife ọ gwaragị n’Ugbọka.

Hon. Eee biko Chin.........

Caller 12 (Interrupted) Gọvanọ anyị bịa........

Hon. Chinọnso, Chinọnso. Ihe anyị na-ekwu.........



Caller 12 (Interrupted) Ọọ

Presenter (Interrupted) Gee ntị na ‘Honorable member’ na-
aza gị

Hon. O ru Mọnde

Caller 12 (interrupted) A aa

Hon. I jekwuru ‘kansụl chairman’ unujụọya

Caller 12 (Interrupted) Aaa

Hon. Yabụ ‘tractor’ e bunyere

Caller 12 Aaa

Hon. Enugwu steeti butere kee ka e si eme ya?

Caller 12 (Interrupted) Yaa ị na----

Hon. Chee chee

Presenter (Interrupted) Chere ka a bịa. Gee ntị

Table 8

In the above discussion, the over-zealous caller was interrupting the resource person (Honorable
member) unduly, but the presenter mediates by politely calling him to order.

The presenter, as the host, helps in making his programme lively and interesting by highlighting
any important point raised by any of the participants. For instance,

Caller 8 Eee mmụnwa na-echesị ka e jee n’imeime obodo
kọwatara ha mkpa ọdịijiọ́gụ̀ na-arụ ugbo kama i
debereya ‘tractor’ n’ihi na ọ ga-eme ka agụụ
kakwue njọ.

Presenter Hahaha (laughs). Daalụ. Eee ọ dị ka onye si ime
obodo wee bịabụ ‘chairman’ Nsụka ga-aza.Ọ sị, ị
nụrụ ife o kwuru nu maka ọ́gụ̀ maka na ndị ji



‘tractor’ a ana-ekwu okwu ya ọ bụrụ ojezuruigbo
mana ọgụjezuru Igbo. Kedụ nkwado o kwesịrị ka e
nye ndị ji ọgụ na mmaakọ maka na ife ọ bụ na
nwere uru ọ bara.

Table 9

b)

Caller 11 Ife ụnụ na-ekwudịmma. Mana ana m a sị na
gọọmentị ga-enyere ndị ọrụugbo aka, maka na o
nwere onye ọrụ ugbo na-arụ ‘one, two, three’.
Maka o nwere onye ị ga-asị yarụba ugbo ọ ma na ọ
gaghịarụta ‘one, two, three’ o yereekwe.

Presenter Daalụsọọ. Eeem, ọ na-ekwu ọ bụrụ na e wete ego
wee kwado ndị ọrụ ugbo ha enwee ike rụọ ‘one,
two, three’. Eeem, onye aghọtarọya. Ị ma na asụsụ
a ọ sụrụ dịka nke ndị mmmm ndị mgbago mgbago.
A sịgị na ọ rụrụụ ‘one, two, three’, ama m nọọ
ụnọenu ka a na-ekwumakaya.

Table 10

c)

Caller 2 Ee, onye erubere ogo ịnụ nwaanyị. Ị ma na
okorobịa na o nwere onye kụrụ egwu sị na
okorobịa iji nwaanyị sikwere ike. Eee m agbọghọ
iji di sikwere ike

Presenter Okorobịa iji nwaanyị siri ike. Agbọghọ iji di
sikwuru ike.

Table 11

d)

Caller 6 ….N’ime onwe ha ka ha ga-anọkwanụ dozie ya.



Nne gị tinye ya ọnụ o kwue ihe i mere ‘expect’.
Nne nke nwaanyị tinye ya ọnụ, ha agaba ebe a na-
emere ‘expect’

Presenter ‘Yes and’ onye na-ekwu a na-ene ya ọnụ ka ọ mara
na ọ ya ekwu nke ye ewe iwe. E ye asịna
ọ‘sidegoru’ mmadụ. Ọ bụrụzie na ọọ onye kọrụ,
onye nyụrụ ife na-esi o bedozie aka ebe ahụ wee
mebibe ife. “A marịnaoye ‘a support’ nwaya . Na a
marịama.”

Table 12

The above examples are illustrative of how the presenter helps to project or highlight some
questions or contributions of the caller. From all indications, it has been established that the
presenter has the responsibility to initiate exchanges, control and pilot the affairs of the discourse.
He is in-charge of turn-taking and negotiation of topics.

Adjacency Pairs in Igbo Phone-in Programmes

In conversation analysis, the most basic pattern is the ‘adjacency pair’, which is a pair of turns
that mutually affect one another. Examples of everyday adjacency pair are greetings- greeting,
compliment-thanks, and apology-acceptance.

Such pairs consist of two parts: a first pair- part and a second pair- part.

First pair-part Second pair-part

A: Good morning B: Hi, good morning

A: Congratulations on the new job B: Oh, thanks.

These adjacency pairs proceed smoothly and are well formed in terms of the cultural context in
which they typically occur in English. A greeting gets a greeting in return, and congratulations
prompt a thank you. These are examples of ‘preferred sequences’. But consider this:

A: Hi, how’s it going? B: Drop dead!



This would probably be perceived as a ‘dispreferred sequence’, which is a problem for the
speakers. (Schmitt, 2002).For McCarthy (1991,p.119), some examples might be, greeting-
greeting, congratulations-thanks, apology-acceptance, inform-acknowledgement, leave-taking-
leave-taking.

In the Igbo phone-in programmes, there are instances of adjacency pairs as in the discussions
below:

First pair-part Second pair-part

Caller 2- O tego aka m ji, m na Presenter- … I gbune emeri,

I gbune emeri gaa n’iru…

Chorus- Ewene iwe, iwe gị adịna ọkụ

Caller 2- Daalụnụ. Ana m ekene

In the above interaction, the caller was complaining that he had been calling the line to
participate in the programme but all to no avail, but the presenter charged him not to regret but to
go ahead with his submission to the programme, in the same vein, the resource people
unanimously pleaded to him not to be annoyed. The caller then thanked them. Here, there is an
indication of adjacency pair; apology goes with acceptance.

First pair-part Second pair-part

Caller 4- Baịbaị Sa Hon.- Daalụ

This is an example of leave taking which goes with leave taking.

There are several instances of greeting which is accompanied with greeting, as in:

First pair-part Second pair-part

Presenter- Helo Caller 5- Helo

Presenter- Eloo Caller 9- Helo

Another evidence of adjacency pair is where greeting is immediately followed by greeting,



First pair-part Second pair-part

Caller 2- Kedụ? Presenter- Ọ dị mma

Presenter- Kee ka unu mere n’Alọ Lọndọn? Caller 5- Anyị dị mma

Caller 6- Kee ka I me? Presenter- Adịkwa m mma ooo

In adjacency pairs, compliment moves with thanks as in,

First pair-part Second pair-part

Caller 12- … tenkị yuu Presenter- Daalu sọọ

First pair-part Second pair-part

Presenter- Toochukwu, I ye Caller 3- Amemmm

anụta ezigbo di oo

Presenter- Toochukwu, I ye anụta Caller 3- Oo

nnene di oo nne

Caller 3- Ka chi vo Presenter Ka o fo

In the first segment of this discourse, the presenter wished the caller a good husband which the
caller accepted by responding ‘amemmm’. When the compliment was repeated she accepted.
Then the second segment was leave taking ‘Ka chi vo’ followed by another leave taking ‘Ka o
fo’

First pair-part Second pair-part



Caller 17- … Don, jisiike ooo Presenter- Daalụ oo nne oo

Here, there was ‘compliment’ which moves with ‘thanks’

Summary and Conclusion

It was discovered that phone-in programme is organized hierarchically into act, move, exchange
and transaction structures. Apart from ‘act’, others such as ‘move’, ‘exchange’ and ‘transaction’
have structure. ‘Act’ is at the lowest rank, followed by ‘move’ which has elements like ‘select’
(sel), ‘signal’ (s), ‘pre-head’ (pre-h), ‘head’ (h), ‘post-head’ (post-h). ‘Head’ is the only
compulsory element in the ‘move’ structure. Other elements are optional. ‘Act’ has different
classes such as the ‘marker’, ‘elicit’, ‘clue’, ‘nominate’ and ‘reply’.

Investigation carried out indicated that in phone-in programme, as conversations,the presenter
was the host of the programme, the guests (if any) were the resource persons, while the
listener/caller was the target audience. In the hierarchy of a social stratification, the resource
person is regarded higher than the presenter. This is because of his position in the society and his
wealth of knowledge especially as it concerns the theme of the day’s discussion. On the other
hand, the presenter is higher when it comes to topic-negotiation and turn-taking. The presenter is
in full control, as he is the pilot of the airwave at that point in time. He introduces the topic and
changes it at will. He determines who speaks and when.

The research recommends that the electronic media houses in the South-East geo-political zone
should create more phone-in programmes in the Igbo language. This would avail Igbo listeners
of the opportunity to participate in such programmes in their indigenous language.

References

Agbanu, V. &Nwammuo, A. (2009). Broadcast media. Enugu: RhyceKerex Printers.

Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (2007). The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction.

London: Hodder Arnold.

Bussmann, H. (1996). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London:Routledge

Coulthard, M. & Montgomery, M. (Eds.) (1981). Studies in discourse. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.

Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Grice, H. (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’. In P. Cole & J. Morgan(Eds.). Syntax and semantics
vol. 3:s peech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 76-88.



Firth, J.R. (1935). On the analysis of conversation: Sequence and social, retrieved on 1st July.
2022

Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lawan, B. (2008). ‘Media and indigenous language: their roles in achieving the millennium
development goals in Nigeria’. A Paper presented at the annual national conference of the
School of Languages, Federal College of Education, Obudu, Cross River State, 7th-11th

July, 2008.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Owuamlam, E. (2008). Elements of broadcasting: An introduction. Owerri: Top Class Agencies.

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.

Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, & G. Jefferson (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of
turn-taking for conversation.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schmitt, N. (Ed.) (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Hodder Arnold.

Sinclair, J. &Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse, the English used by
teachers and pupils.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wardhaugh, R. (1985). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell


