Heckling in Hyde Park: Verbal audience participation in popular public discourse

McIlvenny, Paul

doi:10.1017/s004740450002042x

Cited by 59 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Large crosses indicate louder applause, and small crosses indicate quieter applause. Laughter was transcribed in a similar fashion, but using the character "h" in place of "x" (following McIlvenny, 1996). Cheering was simply marked "cheers."…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invitations to Affiliative Audience Responses in Japanese Political Speeches

Bull

Feldman

2011

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports the first investigation outside the United Kingdom of rhetorical devices used by political speakers to invite applause. Fourteen techniques for inviting affiliative audience responses were identified from 36 speeches delivered during the 2005 Japanese general election. Notable differences in audience reactions between the two cultures were observed: In response to Japanese speeches, there was an absence of isolated applause and a greater diversity of affiliative responses (laughter and cheering, as well as applause). Seven rhetorical devices identified as implicit applause invitations in British speeches were used by the Japanese politicians, but accounted for only 29% of applause incidents and 17% of all affiliative responses. A distinction between implicit and explicit rhetorical devices is proposed for future cross-cultural research on audience reactions to political speeches: In this study, explicit invitations received the highest proportion of applause incidents (68.1%) and of all affiliative audience responses (71.2%).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invitations to Affiliative Audience Responses in Japanese Political Speeches

Bull

Feldman

2011

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I show that the First Officer orients to his accountability to the Captain for both the technical content of various parts of the plan and for the claims he makes as these parts are addressed and completed by coordinating the timing of his talk and nontalk activities in particular ways. In this article, I therefore further interest in the interactive features of monologic talk, for example, Atkinson (1984Atkinson ( , 1985, McIlvenny (1996), and Rendle-Short (2002) who considered speakers' gaze, gestures, and use of various tools in seminar presentations. In the article, I develop such interest in that I consider a new site for such monologic talk, the airline cockpit, a site that is different because the participants are members of a team performing a task for which they are both professionally accountable.…”

Section: Communication In the Cockpitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims About Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing

Nevile¹

2004

Research on Language & Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toward the end of every airline flight, the pilots must prepare and agree on a plan for how the final stages of the flight-the descent, approach to the runway, and landing-will proceed, for what it is that they will do and know, as a crew, to bring their plane safely and unremarkably (all going well) to the ground. This plan emerges from a specific cockpit task called an approach briefing, which the pilots complete. In this article, I used transcriptions from video recordings of pilots at work on an actual scheduled passenger flight to examine in microdetail processes of talk-in-interaction as pilots conduct an approach briefing. My main interest is to show how the approach briefing emerges as talk and nontalk activities (e.g., writing, touching displays) are precisely coordinated to constitute a series of embodied claims, by the pilot leading the briefing, about his progress in conducting the various parts of the task. I suggest that this coordination is constitutive of work in the airline cockpit and most likely other sociotechnical work settings. In these settings, it is critical to perform and complete tasks and the talk and nontalk activities required for them in strict sequence, and

show abstract

“…The third stream of research focuses on the ways in which public speakers interact with their audiences, paying particular attention to the social organization of collective audience responses such as applause, laughter and booing. With very few notable exceptions (e.g., Greatbatch & Clark, 2003;McIlvenny, 1996) this latter group of studies has focused on leader oratory within a political context.…”

Section: The Nature Of Charismatic Oratorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most cases, the speakers then confirm the relevance of applause by ceding the floor until audiences' responses end or begin to subside (Atkinson, 1984a). Atkinson (1984a, b) and Heritage and Greatbatch (1986) identify seven rhetorical devices (contrasts, lists, puzzle-solution, headline-punchline, combinations, position taking and pursuits) through which speakers elicit applause from their audiences (see also Brodine, 1986;Clayman, 1993;Grady & Potter, 1985;McIlvenny, 1996). These devices can be used by public speakers to facilitate applause by emphasizing messages and by providing clearly projectable message completion points around which individual audience members can coordinate their actions.…”

Section: Speaker-audience Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%