Lecture 7: Audience Responses

Question 1

Atkinson 1984

Answer 1

Theory:
Limited range of rhetorical devices (RDs) used to invite applause (e.g., 3-part lists & contrasts):
Add emphasis.
Project completion points.
RDs often excerpted in political speeches selected by the media, e.g., for news broadcasts.

Question 2

Heritage and Greatbatch 1986

Answer 2

476 speeches:Contrasts - 33.2% of collective applause.
Lists - 12.6%.
Almost half the applause associated with Atkinson’s RDs. Five other RDs: Puzzle-solution. Headline-punchline. Position taking. Combination. Pursuit.
Over 2/3 of collective applause associated with 7 rhetorical devices.

Question 3

Bull and Miskinis 2015

Answer 3

Ten speeches in swing states from 2012 American presidential election: RDs mainly implicit – 82% cf. Japan (70%+ explicit)
American audience responses varied: cheers (63%), applause (12%) laughter (9%), booing (7%) and chanting (4%). Constant flurry of individual remarks
Cross-cultural differences interpreted in terms of individualism/ collectivism (Hofstede)
Affiliative response rate and electoral success (r = .67, p = .017).

Question 4

Clayman 1993

Answer 4

Booing: Differs from applause:
Delayed/staggered onset. May follow other audience behaviour – positive or negative. Asynchronous with speech.
Invited applause occurs through independent decision-making: Respond to RDs.
Booing occurs through mutual monitoring

Question 5

Bull and Miskinis 2015

Answer 5

Booing invited/uninvited; affiliative/ disaffiliative:
Affiliative – invited by speaker (RDs) to boo political opponent (94%):
Negative naming (56%)
Disaffiliative booing – uninvited/invited (make speaker look good for another audience).

Question 6

Eriksson 2009

Answer 6

TV interviews with party leaders - 2006 election campaign in Sweden.
Basic pattern: question-answer-applause.
Political speeches (7-9 secs)
Interviews (3-4 secs) (interrupted by interviewer)
Laughter at completion points
Not usually overlapped by next question (like theatre audiences)

Question 7

Wells and Bull 2007

Answer 7

4 televised stand-up British comedy routines analysed:
Laughter invitations,Rhetoricality, Synchrony and Results
Affiliative audience responses – 84.6% invited, 15.4% uninvited; cf. politicians 86.2% invited
Speaker-audience synchrony - 64.4%;
RDs – 67% to 80% of utterances prior to audience response include one of the 7 RDs.
Other RDs:
Putting questions to the audience and Asides / stepping out of character – comedian comments on performance

Question 8

Rutter 2000

Answer 8

Introduction of stand-up performers by compères:
1 Contextualisation (background) e.g., where comedian comes from.
Clues to performer’s identity.
2/3. Framing of response – how audience is to respond.
2/3. Evaluation of comedian – always favourable.
4/5. Request for applause
4/5. Introduction – identity of performer revealed; cf. namings
6 Applause – 7 seconds
Dual purpose: Compère’s exit-Comedian’s entry