1

The Socialization of Variety Show Tarento on Japanese Television Gavin K. Furukawa University of Hawaii, Mnoa

2 Introduction Many linguists and discourse analysts often use data from television programs for their analyses. Certainly, televised data is easy to obtain and its very nature gives a variety of benefits for the analyst. Dramas in particular have been drawn upon in previous linguistic research based on the ideas that dialog found in this genre are either part of a legitimate speech event involving a large segment of the culture (Maynard, 2001; 2007), or are representative of larger language ideologies and therefore a conduit through which such macro discourses are reproduced in society (Barke, 2010; Lee, 2008). News and talk programs have also proved to be a popular source of data for discourse analysts (Clayman & Heritage, 2002; Hutchby, 2006). By examining the genre of the news interview, conversation analysts have explored tools used by interviewers and interviewees for managing their roles in interaction (Clayman, 2010). Similarly, by examining the talk program format, discourse analysts have shown the variety of linguistic resources people use to invoke various frames of talk (Guillot, 2008; Ilie, 2001), and discovered key differences between genres as far as how interviewing is accomplished (Thornborrow, 2007). Other discourse analysts have used televised data as a means of examining larger social issues relating to gender (Tanaka, 2004), or issues of power and social justice (Fairclough, 1995; Jalbert, 1999). Despite the wide range of studies that have been done on televised discourse, few studies have examined data from variety shows. Although the popularity of the variety format has waned in the United States, this genre enjoys a healthy popularity in many Asian countries. In particular, Japan has a large number of these variety shows which then get repackaged and consumed by other countries through the internet or through the creation of new shows that draw upon key elements from this genre. Data from this genre can also be used, like the studies mentioned above to gain key insights into

3 language use and social interaction. By examining data from a Japanese variety show, this paper will show how certain Japanese variety programs are excellent environments for studying social interaction because of their overall structures or frames. I will also show how these frames are used as resources by experts and novices to accomplish language socialization. As developed by Ochs and Schieffelin (1984), language socialization can occur in two basic ways. There is socialization into language where novices are taught how to use language through regular routines with experts. There is also socialization through language where language is used with routine activities to aid novices in becoming full members of society. As a lifelong process (Duff, 1995), socialization never really stops. In particular, workplace studies can emphasize the lifelong aspect. Despite the strong potential gains through this type of research, workplace studies of language socialization are few in number (Roberts, 2010). By examining new cast members socialization on Japanese variety shows, my study will hopefully aid in answering this need. The term variety show can reference many different types of shows that air at many time slots during the day. Earlier research has looked at two distinct types of Japanese variety shows. The first type, seems to be bound, often by its own title, to a specific subject matter. For example television shows like Berabera Station or Eigo de Shaberanaito by their very title limit the contents to relating to speech or language (Moody, 2006). Similarly, shows like Koko ga Hen da yo Nihinjin or Nodo Jiman must focus on the perceptions of gaijin living in Japan (Iwabuchi, 2005) or on singing (Hosokawa, 2010) to make any sense. To change the content beyond this focus would create a schism between the title and the show itself. The second type of variety show is much more difficult to categorize. We might call these open-format variety shows. These are shows that feature a variety of segments ranging from skits or shooto konto, musical

4 performances, practical jokes, talk segments and so forth. Darling-Wolf (2004) gives an example of this in her analysis of media featuring the popular idol group SMAP. She describes their popular, long-running variety program SMAP X SMAP as featuring a mixture of contests, skits and singing (p. 358). Similarly, when Painter (1993) looks at the daytime variety show Waratte ii tomo, he describes the show as a hodgepodge of skits, quizzes, monologues, dialogues, and performances (p. 301). Just from looking at these two examples we can see that the open-format variety as a genre is a study in mixtures and blending. Furthermore, by examining a typical variety show interaction we can see that these different elements are also frequently combined together. Example 1
VS Arashi 12/1/2011 01 OS: ore, kitsui na: to omotte 02 UR: NANde, sore jibun ga hakanai nara ore ga 03 haite kuru yo ja:: 04 jm: kore wa . . . 05 AM: O? [ O? 06 MJ: [O? O? 07 MM: sore ** ore mo yaru yo ((raises right hand)) 08 HK: sore dattara ore mo yaru ((steps forward and raises hand)) 09 O: iya ore ** yaru ((raises hand and steps forward)) 10 UR: ee, ee ((faces KU and HT and throws down hat)) 11 YATTE KURE YO:! 12 KU: [((laughs and covers face)) 13 HT: [((laughs)) 14 Au: [((laughs)) 15 MM: shiranai, shiranai kara 16 jm: (wakai kara neta) shiranai kara

As can be seen in the above extract from the variety show VS Arashi, after O gives a reason for wearing the garish pants that he currently has on, UR (Ueshima Ryuuhei of the comedy trio Dachou Kurabu) uses this as an opportunity to launch into a well known skit in everyone else volunteers to do something and when UR volunteers at the end after everyone else has already offered the skit ends with the punchline of everyone else telling UR doozo doozo doozo. After

5 UR says in lines 2 through 3 that he would wear the pants, the jimaku calling attention to the possible invocation of a skit frame is offered to the home viewing audience in line 4. Two other Arashi members orient to the possible reframe as well in lines 5 and 6. Three other guests begin the skit by offering to wear the pants in lines 7-9, leaving only two other guests who have not joined in to the skit, KU and HT. Their failure to join in the completion of the well-known skit is held accountable by UR, the initiator of the sequence and technical owner of the skit in lines 10 and 11. The overlapping laughter in lines 12-14 shows that KU, HT and the audience orient their failure to complete the sequence and to the URs apparent distress. MM who helped to invoke the skit frame in line 7 offers an excuse for KU and HT in line 15 which the production staff rephrases for the home viewing audience through jimaku in line 16 which sites the youth of KU and HT as the reason for them ultimately not taking their parts in the skit performance. As this short extract shows, two young actors, KU & HT are constructed by the shows producers and the other guests as not having completed their socialization. It should also be noted that although UR is a comedian all of the other participants in extract 1 are actors or aidoru. Despite this, MM (a popular aidoru himself) finds the failure to perform the comedic skit as needed an account, which as stated earlier was given in line 15. Similar to extract 1, most variety shows are based around the goal of being funny even when the cast members may not be considered to be comedians by the average viewer. Similar situations can be found in many variety shows because the format requires those who are not comedians (geinin) to still perform owarai. This makes a situation where non-geinin employed as cast members or guests on variety shows must on many occasions become socialized into the owarai practice. Professional comedians by their chosen professions become default experts whereas non-owarai geinoujin become novices and ippanjin or average people

6 who would typically be found more in the audience than on stage may be seen as ber-novices being outside the larger geinoujin group (see figure 1).

geinoujin
aidoru

geinin

ippanjin

Figure 1 geinoujin in relation to ippanjin Given this as a premise, finding a situation where ippanjin and other non-geinin geinoujin become cast members on an open-format variety show presents an ideal situation for examining the types of resources are used in adult language socialization. Given that this socialization occurs within the public eye, on television, and is meant to be there, this type of data would avoid any observers paradox issues and still be naturally occurring in nature. Such an event occurred in Japan during Fall 2010. Before going into a detailed description of the data, I will explain the tools used in my analysis. Method As many people have said to me on different occasions, televised data is difficult to analyze. I believe that this difficulty can be turned into a strength by using what is unique to televised data to tease apart the various levels of activity that are occurring. Perhaps the ideal device for doing this is the concept of framing. Furthermore, the types of frames which are unique to the open-format variety shows must also be explained. Frame Theory

7 As first introduced by Bateson (1972), framing was a psychological concept to explain how signals get exchanged in communicative interaction that allow the participants to agree on the level of abstraction at which any message is int ended (Tannen, 1993, pp. 18-19). This allows people in a given situation to give context to a set of actions or words. One such example of this might be a frame of sarcasm which allows us to attach an opposite meaning to whatever words might be uttered in this framework. Tannen (1993) compares frames to other concepts such as schema, scripts, categorization, organized settings, and modules (pp. 15-16). Viewed in this way, framing is a powerful tool in use, relevance, and flexibility to a multitude of situations. DeLens (2011) research on the Zinacantek Mayans shows how framing can be used to inform Language Socialization research. Using Clarks (1996) interpretation of Goffmans (1974) participation frameworks that expand our understanding of conversation beyond the simple dyadic level, DeLen works with frames in the physical sense by examining the body positions of children and their caregivers while also looking at the discourse level that examines the role of the overhearer/observer in Language Socialization. Another type of frame analysis is Ensink (2003), who notes how framing can be both cognitive and social. In one sense, a frame can be a thought pattern that peoples behaviors align to and are created by, perhaps closes to Batesons original idea. However, a frame can be seen as social patterns or ways of arranging the world that that exist on many levels from the physical to the ideological which speakers use to establish understanding in their talk. One example of cognitive framing can be seen in the concept of intertextuality. Ensink provides a cognitive example, that reveals the multi-layered meanings in the German phrase sudden death that was used in an advertising campaign. The German company Bayer, tried to advertise an insecticide in Guatamala using the German phrase sudden death with the idea that this would trigger two

8 indexicalities for consumers: 1) relate to theidea of what an insecticide does, i.e. killing insects quickly, and 2) the fact that the German soccer team had won the world championship the same year as the advertising campaign through sudden death. The campaign had an unfortunate sideeffect because the phrase also evoked for many people the memory of the holocaust. The images associated with the phrase sudden death changed due to which cognitive frame is invoked by the recipient, a soccer championship or the horrors of concentration camps in World War II. Ensink (2003) illustrates the social type framing similar to Goodwin (2007) by analyzing parentchild interaction. For my analysis I will also look at various types of cognitive and social frames and will add to them the idea of cultural frames given the well-established, institutional nature of Japanese comedy (Inoue, 1981). Another essential variant to the basic theory of frames that I will be examining are embedded frames. Goffman (1974) explains the notion of embedded frames by looking at narratives (pp. 505-506). According to Goffman, embedded frames are often confusing because of their complex nature. Televised data is by their nature a series embedded frames. When a program is watched in a living room, the broadcast is shown in the frame of the television set. Within the picture shown on the set, other frames such as what occurs in the television studio or what is added by the producers in the form of visuals and sound effects are also made visible for the viewing audience. Frames in Variety Shows Key to understanding the Language Socialization process in variety shows is the understanding of some basic genres used by these programs for their basic purpose of entertaining the audience. Two such genres are that of the konto and the dokkiri.

9 As mentioned earlier, the konto/shooto konto/skit is a basic element found in many variety shows. Coming from the tradition of ritual manzai, the modern Japanese konto often features two types of characters, a boke or buffoonish character who amuses through foolishness and a tsukkomi who makes sharp jibes (Inoue, 1981). The existence of the konto frame makes it arguably difficult for many to analyze Japanese comedy data, however it is possible that this frame can be used to aid in the analysis of interaction. It is important to remember that the creation or invocation of a konto frame in interaction is often the creation of a falsehood within reality. A skit performed on stage is the performance of the story (falsehood) by actors at work (reality). By remembering this, it is possible to see that when there is a created or scripted story at work in the variety show there is also at the same time a layer of reality in which the interactions are contextually bound but not scripted in existence at the same time. In addition to the konto frame, another key frame in the open-format variety is often the dokkiri. The dokkiri or practical joke is frequently seen as difficult to analyze because it involves a victim who is typically unaware of what is occurring or about to occur and helpers or instigators who are completely aware and perhaps involved in the planning. Key to the dokkiri frame is some form of ijime or itazura (teasing or torture). Common dokkiri might involve an announcer or host serving as helper/instigato r breaking into a celebritys hotel room at 4 or 5 in the morning with a camera crew in order to catch the celebrity victim asleep or just awakened with no make-up and messy hair. Formal dokkiri may even involve the very direct statement either verbally or on a sign saying dokkiri daiseikou (completely successful dokkiri). The dokkiri frame may be analyzed easier by seeing it as the opposite of the konto. Where the konto is falsehood created in reality, the dokkiri is a level of reality within falsehood. The construct of the dokkiri involving the helpers and investigators can be completely false because the set up may

10 require the pretense that nothing unusual is occurring. At the same time, the reaction of the victim who is unaware may be quite real. When a dokkiri is occurring, if the analyst remembers that there is an inner reality within a pretend exterior it can help to distinguish what interactions must be focused on. For the purposes of researching the language socialization of new cast members on a variety show, it is important to focus on the real aspects and not to be misled by the constructed pretenses of both the dokkiri and konto frames. Data The television program Mechamecha Iketeru! (often shortened to Mechaike) has been a popular program airing on Saturday nights during primetime. From its start in 1996 until last year, the show had the exact same cast with the exception of one comedian who was forced to quit show business due to scandal in 2006. In the September of 2010 it was announced that since one of the shows stars, Okamura Takeshi, was on medical leave for an unknown length of time that the show would hold auditions to hire a new cast member. Throughout September of that year, auditions were held in both the Kanto and Kansai regions. An enormous amount of people, comedians, singers, actors, and average citizens auditioned for the show. In the end, the show decided to hire seven people from the auditions, four comedians, a male model, a female tarento, and a young male ippanjin nicknamed San-chan. The inclusion of San-chan, an ippanjin, makes Mechaike an ideal source of data to examine language socialization as a lifelong process as he goes from a clearly outside individual to the category of geinoujin as seen in Figure 1. Furthermore, given the earlier assertion that regardless of category, all people on variety shows are often expected to do owarai it may also be possible to argue that he is shifting two levels simultaneously from ippanjin to geinoujin and then to geinin. Extract 2 Mechaike 11/20/2011
429 YH: ugokunnayo.

11
430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 SM: MY: ?: O: jm: YH: KK: SM: MY: O: YH: HM: YH: ?: SM: O: YH: jm: KK: YH: O: KK: O: ((breathes fast and makes a strange face)) ki o tsuke [ki o tsuke [ki o tsuke ((KH & YH laugh, YH claps hands)) ((lowers hand and starts to laugh)) Sanchan ni hen na suichi hairimashita. ((grabs SMs arm)) ((KK and other cast members move to look at SM)) sugoi suttemashita. ((breathes and flinches staring at O)) doozo! ((lowers hand and laughs)) ((laughs and claps)) DOOzo! IKU YO. uwa:: A::. ((breathes faster, stares at Os hand)) ((laughs and lowers hand)) ((laughs and claps, then hits SM on head)) jikan kakari sugi NANde? NANde da yo? wara** dekihen, Okapii ((moves hand closer to SMs face)) SOO SOO SOO. ((slaps SM))

The above extract is from Sanchans (SM in the transcript) first day recording for Mechaike. The set is decorated to look like a drivers education classroom and one of the senior members, KK is dressed in a suit running a licensing course for new members of the show. After failing in a test to identify production staff members by photograph, SM is made to get slapped by the effeminate makeup artist for the show who is known from other corners has having a very painful slap. At this point, SM is the third new member to fail the test and get slapped as punishment. In line 429 YH, the shows leader gives SM the instruction not to move. This episode takes place within an konto frame. The konto is the new member training class. The signs on the classroom and KKs suit help to construct the psychological frame that references a drivers educational course. Based on this pyschological frame is part of the internal falsehood of the

12 konto frame. KK, as the teacher, is in charge of the students. By giving the instruction not to move, YH breaks the embedded false environment/frame of the konto and can thereby be seen as orienting to the external reality by giving the ippanjin, who by definition lacks television experience, explicit instruction. The explicit nature of this can be seen in his use of the particle yo which is a means of ensuring attention from the recipient. Using the abbreviated negative form also serves to give it an admonishing tone. In line 430 SM has labored breathing and a strange facial expression. Two female cast members give a warning to be careful in lines 431 and 432. In lines 433-434 KK, YH and O begin to laugh after seeing SMs fearful reaction. The production staff orients to this as being the cause of the breakdown in the activity through the jimaku in line 435 which orients to SMs behavior as strange. YH grabs SMs arm and KK along with the rest of the cast shift positions to get a better look at SMs face. The fact that KKs physical movements put him with the rest of the cast as well as his actions shows how the physical frame of the placement as well as the reality frame away from the konto of the classroom and teacher are being utilized. KKs descriptive comment in 438 shows that SMs breathing is a part of what constructs the programs notion of strange in terms of the earlier analysis that the producers give regarding the hen na suichi. The invitations by MY and HM in lines 440 and 443 respectively no only show an alignment but they show a similar status that for this episode as the first taping for new members as well as the konto frame of new members licensing that senior members who are not teacher or leader are still in a position to suggest action to the staff. YHs use of yo again in line 444 shows that he is again requiring attention from the novice. The staring and the breathing again result in laughter in lines 446-448. After YH hits the novice SM in line 448, the production staff reformulates this with the jimaku in line 449. By

13 doing this, the jimaku helps to attribute a knowledge of what is appropriate or inappropriate for the ongoing activity. This is done through the use of the verb sugiru. This verb creates an assessment and also gives a voice to YHs actions, translating them for the viewing audience at home. KK chimes in asking why in 450 but since this can be interpreted as belonging to either konto or reality frame I have chosen to not rely on it. Suffice it to say that it is possible that he speaks as an older member much as MY and HM did in 440 and 443 but it is also equally possible for KK to be speaking as the teacher in the constructed falsehood of the konto. In line 451, YH gives an explicit analysis that O cannot do his work of slapping SM because hes laughing too much. Such statements are similar to ones used in omoiyari training (Clancy, 1986) in that they require the recipient to contextualize their actions. KKs words in 453 again can be seen in both lights. Given the placement just before the competing action it may be a reference to the konto frame in an effort to re-establish his teacher role. The action is finally completed in 454 allowing the program to return to the konto frame. Extract 3
088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 YH: OT: Au: YH: SM: YH: OT: SM: YH: saigo wa (.) koi-tsura. doomo Osaka kara kimashita Okamura Takashi des. migi nage migi uchi des:. ((bows)) ((laughs and applauds)) kiitemasen. kiitemasen yo. DOOMO Osaka kara kimashita Sannaka Motokatsu des:. konshuu mo Okamurasan to issho ni kanbarimas::. kanderu kedo ne. girigiri seefu. girigiri ha::i.

In Extract 3, YH is introducing contestants within the konto frame as a game show host. The last couple of contestants he introduces are a pair consisting of his real life comedic partner OT and Sanchan. From the time of his audition, SM has repeatedly stated that his OT is his favorite celebrity. Indeed, SMs usual manner of dress creates a cognitive frame reference to an

14 outfit that OT wears in one of the long running segments of the show. Immediately after OT returned to the show from his medical leave, he made a point to begin scaffolding SM as both a cast member and a new geinoujin by including him in several paired segments. The data from this extract is one of these occasions. In line 88, YH gives his introduction. Given that YH when paired with OT always takes the tsukkomi role and OT that always takes the boke role, the use of the bureigo pronoun koitsu is not terribly unusual. The use of the ra plural marker at the end of it, however is unusual. By naming them thusly, he effectively casts SM as boke. Although some might try to argue that the role of a game show host is easily affiliated with characteristics similar to tsukkomi as well, it is important to remember that this is happening in a konto frame. Within a konto frame, it is quite easy for the role of game show host, normally witty and in control, to be either tsukkomi or boke as can be seen in skits on various other shows. It is therefore not the konto role which requires YH to act as tsukkomi but the external frame surrounding the falsehood in which he is the tsukkomi half of an owarai kombi. OT takes up the designated boke role in lines 89-90 by giving an self-introduction with the needless information that he pitches and bats with his right hand. Pointless or context inappropriate utterances are part of the bokes traditional role (Inoue, 1981). This fact is shown clearly in the response of the audience in line 91 and the tsukkomi appropriate jibe from YH in line 92. In lines 93-94, SM gives his introduction at an accelerated rate which possibly leads to the mispronunciation at the end of 94. YH comes in with a comment in line 95 pointing out a source of trouble as an expert to a mentor. The act of stumbling on lines is often specifically noted by comedians using this specific verb, possibly coming from the shabekuri manzai tradition which heavily emphasizes speaking ability. OT reassesses SMs utterance is

15 being just barely passable in line 96 which SM aligns to in 97 through repetition. YH then moves on to the next segment in 98. In the process of socializing SM as a variety show cast member, YHs use of the verb kamu to critically evaluate SMs utterance shows that the normative expectations of the variety show bear strong similarities with that of comedians in general. The fact that YH and OT are able to make their own assessments and SM is only able to agree in line 97 shows that there is some peripheral participation occurring here as SM learns how to take part in the shows. The scaffolding that occurs in this peripheral area can also been seen in the next extract which comes later in the same segment as Extract 3. Extract 4
203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 YH: OT: OT: YH: OT: YH: SM: YH: SM: YH: SM: YH: SM: YH: SM: YH: YH: HM: YH: SM: YH: HM: YH: hoka? ((hits button several times)) ((buzzer goes off)) ((taps SMs right arm 3 times)) hai? Okamura? Sanchan ga aa, >Sanchan.< eeto ((looks at OT)) chotto matte kuda[sai [nandemo ee yo ano: mm. tsukue no ue ni oite aru, hi ga deru yatsu de:, a- gasu baanaa ka, hai uh. Shiratorisan no, ago (.) aburu [mechakucha [((OT, HM, and SS laugh)) mechakucha yuuna! hidoi na aburu- ii- ii kanji no hidoi koto yuuna. iya, Sanchan, sono bijuaru de do es: yattara hiku de. ((smiles and laughs)) chigau chigau, abuna sugiru sore wa. ((hits buzzer)) hai

16 Extract 4 occurs further into the konto frame as YH performs as a game show host trying to elicit answers from the previously introduced pairs of contestants. In the konto frame, the goal in this quiz is to come up what will happen next in scene being performed live by two other cast members pretending to be in a prerecorded video segment at a science classroom. If we break the konto frame to look at the external reality, the goal here is to come up with something amusing for the two cast members who are pretending to be in the video to do, a dokkiri frame in itself. In this segment, new member SS is also paired with a more experienced member HM. SS and HM are seated next to OT and SM and are trying to reach the same goals. In line 203, YH tries to elicit another answer for the konto frame which for the external reality frame will involve something amusing for the two waiting cast members to do. OT hits his game show buzzer button several times causing a buzzer to sound which casts him as ratified speaker in both the konto and external reality frame. In line 206, by hitting SMs arm OT nominates SM to the speaker role of the konto within their personal interaction, a reality constructed in the falsehood of the konto in the reality of the show performance. The act of nominating someone to speak without any preparation can be seen in this segment as constructing a dokkiri within the konto frame where OT is the instigator and SM is the victim. A standard type of dokkiri, as mentioned earlier, is one where the victim is caught unprepared. YH then prompts OT for his answer in 207. In 208, OT furthers the dokkiri frame by putting pressure on SM to speak while passing the responsibility of speaking in the konto frame and forcing the non-comedian new member to come up with something amusing in the external reality frame (see Figure 2). In line 209, YH aligns with OTs offering of SM as a candidate interactant. SM gives several displays that orient to his novice status such as the word search in line 210 coupled with the glance toward the expert boke and his request for more time in 211. YH orients to the

17 apparent difficulty by giving explicit clarification/instruction. He then gives a possible response with the potential ochi or punchline in line 219. The others all orient to this as an inappropriate response because the act of firing someones chin with a gas burner would not count as amusing, a requirement for the response in the external reality, even though such a nonsensical idea could classify as appropriate for the konto frame as a boke. The breaking of the konto frame can be seen in the responses of YH and HM. YH then responds to the external frame of reality/new member socialization by giving his comment in 225-226 saying that people will pull away from him for having such a sadistic mindset.

reality/ socialization

konto

dokkiri

Figure 2 OTs dokkiri As can be seen in the above analysis, scaffolding can occur within the konto frame within shows like this where the activity serves multiple purposes. Teaching a relative ippanjin how to do owarai can be used as a variety show appropriate activity (dokkiri) and within yet another variety appropriate activity (konto). Discussion

18 As seen in my analysis, constructed falsehood and reality within televised discourse can be distinguished through a thorough understanding of the placement of the various genres within the frame of the specific program and format. In this case, by identifying the show as an openformat variety show, familiarizing ourselves with the various elements such as konto and dokkiri that commonly occur within such shows, and understanding how these elements can be embedded within other existing cognitive and cultural frames. By distinguishing the frames of fact from the embedded fiction frame, standard for the konto framework, we can see socialization occurring though use of jimaku and explicit instruction that is given when novices fail to see members actions, such as laughter and inability to complete a slapping action as implicit cues for socialization. We have also seen how address terms and work with frames to assign roles to novices. Furthermore, the analysis of extracts 3 and 4 showed that experts may construct additional frames, such as dokkiri, to create training opportunities for novices in an on-the-job context. While some people being socialized into new workplaces may receive explicit instruction and training in a training class environment, much learning occurs while doing the actual job itself. Much of learning how to be a sales clerk is done by selling things to people and similarly, much of learning how to be funny happens for people like Sanchan while he is on camera. Once again, although the embedded nature of the frames involved makes it difficult to analyze the fact that they are frames complete with signals that help participants (Tannen, 1993), including ratified overhearers/viewers such as the television audience to make sense of what is happening in the shows that they are watching. By including this understanding, the very factor that makes such data difficult to analyze can be used to aid in its analysis.

19 Regardless of how many layers of embedded frames there are, by remembering where the constructed falsehood lies, the site of the actual socialization that occurs can be examined by the analyst. It is important to remember that Goffmans framing was partially a critique of the myth of dyadic simplicity (DeLen, 2011, p. 82; Goffman, 1974). As such, the normalcy of embedded frames should be taken as a given and analyses that contain only a single level of framing should be questioned. Conclusion Through use of frame analysis and ethnographic understanding of the genre, I have attempted to show how televised data, especially variety shows, can be a great source of data for examining instances of adult language socialization. Sanchans example shows how regardless of how many times he may be referred to as ippanjin, he is clearly being socialized to the norms of owarai in the variety show context. By examining this readily available source of data and having a clear understanding of where the reality of the interaction occurs great insight into the nature of teaching, learning and belonging can be gained. Variety shows can be more than just a source of light entertainment, they can be examples of life, brought to the living room to be shared with us as ratified overhearers and observers or the phenomenon.

20 References Barke, A. (2010). Manipulating honorifics in the construction of social identities in Japanese television drama. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(4), 456476. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson, Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 138-148). San Francisco: Chandler. Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language Socialization Across Cultures (pp. 213-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Clayman, S. E. (2010). Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication, 4(2), 161-183. doi:10.1177/1750481310364330 Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview : Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press. Darling-Wolf, F. (2004). SMAP, sex, and masculinity: Constructing the perfect female fantasy in Japanese popular music. Popular Music and Society, 27(3), 357-370. doi:10.1080/03007760410001733189 DeLen, L. (2011). Language socialization and multiparty participation frameworks. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 81111). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 505-537.

21 Ensink, T. (2003). The frame analysis of research interviews: social categorization and footing in interview discourse. In H. Vandenberg, M. Wetherell, & H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (Eds.), Analyzing Race Talk (pp. 156-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Publishing. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse Society, 18(1), 53-73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457 Guillot, M.-N. (2008). Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 179204. Hosokawa, S. (2010). The uses of routine: NHKs amateur singing contest in historical perspective. In M. Yoshimoto, E. Tsai, & J. Choi (Eds.), Television, Japan, and Globalization (pp. 51-72). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Japanese Studies, The University of Michigan. Hutchby, I. (2006). Media talk: Conversation analysis and the study of broadcasting. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Ilie, C. (2001). Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 209-254. Inoue, H. (1981). Manzai: Osaka no warai. Kyoto, Japan: Sekai Risousha. Iwabuchi, K. (2005). Multinationalizing the multicultural: The commodification of ordinary foreign residents in a Japanese TV talk show. Japanese Studies, 25(2), 103-118. doi:10.1080/10371390500225987

22 Jalbert, P. (1999). Critique and analysis in media studies: Media criticism as practical action. In P. Jalbert (Ed.), Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches (pp. 31-51). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Lee, J. S. (2008). The battle of the sexes in Korean entertainment media: Husband vs. wife in TV drama. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 21752196. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.05.009 Maynard, S. K. (2001). Mitigation in disguise: Te-yuu-ka as preface to self-revelation in Japanese dramatic discourse. Poetics, 29, 317329. Maynard, S. K. (2007). Linguistic creativity in Japanese discourse: exploring the multiplicity of self, perspective and voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moody, A. (2006). English in Japanese popular culture and J-pop music. World Englishes, 25(2), 209-222. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In R. A. Shweder, & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 276-320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Painter, A. A. (1993). Japanese Daytime Television, Popular Culture, and Ideology. Journal of Japanese Studies, 19(2), 295-325. Roberts, C. (2010). Language socialization in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 211227. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000127 Tanaka, L. (2004). Gender, language and culture: A study of Japanese television interview discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tannen, D. (1993). What's in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Framing in Discourse (pp. 14-56). New York: Oxford University Press.

23 Thornborrow, J. (2007). Narrative, opinion and situated argument in talk show discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 14361453.