Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:39:03.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

Paul McIlvenny
Paul McIlvenny
Affiliation:
Department of Engilsh, University of Oulu, PL III, Oulu SF-90571, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speakers' Corner is a multicultural setting in a London park at which the general public can actively participate in popular debate. A successful “soap-box” orator should attract and keep an audience, elicit support from the crowd, and gain applause; indeed, a mastery of the crowd, the discourse, and the message is highly valued. However, although talk resources are deployed sensitively by speakers to elicit group affiliation and response, they are also exploitable by hecklers as resources for launching heckles and disaffiliative responses. Audiences at Speakers' Corner are not passive receivers of rhetorical messages; they are active negotiators of interpretations and alignments that may support, resist, or conflict with the speaker's and other audience members' orientations to prior talk. Using transcribed examples of video data recorded at Speakers' Corner, the timing, format, and sequential organization of heckling are described and analyzed with the tools and methods of conversation analysis. (Conversation analysis, audience response, popular public discourse, political speech, heckle)

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 27 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Apte, Mahadev L. (1985). Humor and laughter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell (1984a). Our master's voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell (1984b). Public speaking and audience responses: Some techniques for inviting applause. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. 370–409. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell (1985). Refusing invited applause: Preliminary observations from a case study of charismatic oratory. In van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, 3:161–81. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Carbó, Teresa (1992). Towards an interpretation of interruptions in Mexican parliamentary discourse (1920–1960). Discourse & Society 3:25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven (1993). Booing: The anatomy of a disaffiliative response. American Sociological Review 58:110–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25:219–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul & Heritage, John (1992), eds. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1986). Audience diversity, participation and interpretation. Text 6:283–316.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Goodwin, Marjorie (1990). Interstitial argument. In Grimshaw, Allen D. (ed.), Conflict talk, 85–117. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Greatbatch, David (1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology 92:110–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20:441–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text 13:213–45.Google Scholar
Livingstone, Sonia, & Lunt, Peter (1994). Talk on television. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIlvenny, Paul; Mettovaara, Sari; & Tapio, Ritva (1993). “I really wanna make you laugh”: Stand-up comedy and audience response. In Suojanen, Matti K. & Kulkki-Nieminen, Auli, (eds.), Folia fennistica & linguistica: Proceedings of the Annual Finnish Linguistics Symposium (May 1992), 225–47. Tampere: Tampere University, Finnish and General Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, & Thompson, Sandra A.. (1996). What can conversation tell us about syntax? In Davis, Philip W. (ed.), Descriptive and theoretical modes in the alternative linguistics, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, volume II. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schenkein, Jim (1972). Identity negotiations in conversation. In Schenkein, Jim (ed.), Studies in the organisation of everyday conversational interaction, 57–78. London: Academic.Google Scholar