Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper analyses the phenomenon of participatory ambiguity in aggressive ritualistic interactions. One can ‘participate’ (Goffman 1979, 1981) in an interaction in different statuses, and these statuses entail different interactional constraints and obligations, also within the realms of language aggression and conflict. We are interested in a specific aspect of participation, namely ratification — the assumed right to participate in an interaction. ‘Ambiguity’ describes forms of behaviour which deviate from participant and observer expectations of interacting in certain discursive roles, without clearly violating (un)ratified participation roles. Examining the relationship between participatory ambiguity and language aggression fills an important knowledge gap in the field, as this area has been relatively ignored. We take heckling in experimental performing arts as a case study.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Agha, Asif
    1997 “Tropic Aggression in the Clinton-Dole Presidential Debate.” Pragmatics7 (4): 461–497. doi: 10.1075/prag.7.4.02agh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.4.02agh [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, Jeffrey C
    2003The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195160840.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195160840.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Agyekum, Kofi
    2002 “The Communicative Role of Silence in Akan.” Pragmatics12 (1): 31–51. doi: 10.1075/prag.12.1.03agy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.12.1.03agy [Google Scholar]
  4. Baxter, Judith
    2002 “Competing Discourses in the Classroom: A Post-structuralist Discourse Analysis of Girls’ and Boys’ Speech in Public Contexts.” Language in Society13 (6): 827–842.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bell, Catherine
    1997Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berger, Israel
    2011 “Support and Evidence for Considering Local Contingencies in Studying and Transcribing Silence in Conversation.” Pragmatics21 (3): 291–306. doi: 10.1075/prag.21.3.01ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.01ber [Google Scholar]
  7. Broadhurst, Susan
    1999Liminal Acts: A Critical Overview of Contemporary Performance and Theory. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Buder, Eugene H
    1991 “A Nonlinear Model of Social Interaction.” Communication Research18 (2): 174–198. doi: 10.1177/009365091018002003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365091018002003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clayman, Steven E
    1993 “Booing: The Anatomy of a Disaffiliative Response.” American Sociological Review58: 110–130. doi: 10.2307/2096221
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2096221 [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins, Randall
    2004Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400851744
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400851744 [Google Scholar]
  11. Culpeper, Jonathan , and Oliver Holmes
    2013 “(Im)politeness and Exploitative TV in Britain and North America: The X Factor and American Idol .” InReal Talk: Reality Television and Discourse Analysis in Action, ed. by Nuria Lorenzo-Dus and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich , 169–198. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137313461_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313461_9 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dynel, Marta
    2008 “No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics of Teasing and Banter.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics4 (2): 241–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eelen, Gino
    2001A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    (ed.) 2010 “Impoliteness across Cultures”. Special Issue ofIntercultural Pragmatics7 (4).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1979 Footing. Semiotica25 (1): 1–29. doi: 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles
    2007 “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse & Society18 (1): 53–73. doi: 10.1177/0957926507069457
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, Charles , and Majorie Goodwin
    1990 “Interstitial Argument.” InConflict Talk, ed. by Allen D. Grimshaw , 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1992 “Context, Activity and Participation.” InThe Contextualisation of Language, ed. by Peter Auer and Aldo di Luzo , 77–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.22.07goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.07goo [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1997 “Byplay: Negotiating Evaluation in Storytelling.” InTowards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, Volume 2, ed. by Gregory R. Guy , Feagin Crawford , Deborah Schiffrin , and John Baugh , 77–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.128.08goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.128.08goo [Google Scholar]
  23. Hatch, Mary Jo , and Sanford B. Erhlich
    1993 “Spontaneous Humour as an Indicator of Paradox and Ambiguity in Organizations.” Organization Studies14 (4): 505–526. doi: 10.1177/017084069301400403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400403 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haugh, Michael , and Derek Bousfield
    2013 “Mock Impoliteness, Jocular Mockery and Jocular Abuse in Australian and British English.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (9): 1099–1114. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Haworth, Kate
    2006 “The Dynamics of Power and Resistance in Police Interview Discourse.” Discourse & Society17 (6): 739–759. doi: 10.1177/0957926506068430
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506068430 [Google Scholar]
  26. Huang, Shu-Hui
    2013 “What Do You See and Why? A Look into the Perspective of Documentaries.” GFTS International Journal on Media & Communications1 (1): 90–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ilie, Cornelia
    2010 “Strategic Use of Parliamentary Forms of Address: The Case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (4): 885–911. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackson, Keith
    1987The Dilemma of Parliament. New York: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jacobs, Scott
    1982The Rhetoric of Witnessing and Heckling: A Case Study in Ethnorhetoric. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacobs, Scott , and Sally Jackson
    1993 “Failures in Higher Order Conditions in the Organization of Witnessing and Heckling Episodes.” InReconstructing Argumentative Discourse, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , Scott Jacobs , and Sally Jackson , 140–169. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kádár, Dániel Z
    2012 “Relational Ritual.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman , 1–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hop.16.rel2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.16.rel2 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2013Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230393059
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230393059 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2014 “Heckling: A Mimetic-Interpersonal Perspective.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict2 (1): 1–35. doi: 10.1075/jlac.2.1.01kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.2.1.01kad [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017Politeness, Impoliteness, and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kádár, Dániel Z. , and Melvin De La Cruz
    . In press. “Rituals of Outspokenness and Verbal Conflict.” Pragmatics and Society7(2): 265–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kádár, Dániel Z. , and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaegi, Stefan
    2014 “Provoking Audience.” TDR58 (3): 2–3. doi: 10.1162/DRAM_a_00368
    https://doi.org/10.1162/DRAM_a_00368 [Google Scholar]
  38. Linguistic Politeness Research Group
    (ed.) 2011Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Livingstone, Sonia M. , and Peter Kenneth Lunt
    1994Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Markel, Sherry
    1999 “Gendered Voices: Provocateur in an On-line Virtual Conference Course for In-service Teachers.” InProceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999, ed. by J. Price , 332–336. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. McIlvenny, Paul
    1996 “Heckling in Hyde Park: Verbal Audience Participation in Popular Discourse.” Language in Society27: 27–60. doi: 10.1017/S004740450002042X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450002042X [Google Scholar]
  42. Mogg, Karin , and Brendan P. Bradley
    1999 “Orienting of Attention to Threatening Facial Expressions Presented under Conditions of Restricted Awareness.” Cognition and Emotion13 (6): 713–740. doi: 10.1080/026999399379050
    https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379050 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nakane, Ikuko
    2006 “Silence and Politeness in Intercultural Communication in University Seminars.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (11): 1811–1835. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Orum, Anthony M. , Joe R. Feagin , and Gideon Sjoberg
    1991 “Introduction: The Nature of the Case Study.” InA Case for Case Study, ed. by Joe R. Feagin , Anthony M. Orum , and Gideon Sjoberg , 1–26. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pickering, Lucy
    2009 “Intonation as a Pragmatic Resource in EFL Interaction.” Intercultural Pragmatics6 (2): 235–255. doi: 10.1515/IPRG.2009.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.013 [Google Scholar]
  46. Planken, Bridgette
    2005 “English as a Lingua Franca in International Business Contexts.” English for Specific Purposes24 (4): 367–80. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rao, Sameer
    2011 “‘Joke’s on You!’: Stand-up Comedy Performance and the Management of Hecklers.” M.A. thesis, [online] Available at: triceratops.brynmawr.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10066/7385/2011RaoS_thesis.pdf?sequence=1
  48. Reiman, Tonya
    2008The Power of Body Language. New York: Simon and Schuster.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rook, Dennis W
    1985 “The Ritual Dimension of Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research12 (3): 251–264. doi: 10.1086/208514
    https://doi.org/10.1086/208514 [Google Scholar]
  50. Saville-Troike, Muriel
    2008The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. New York: Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sifianou, Maria
    2012 “Disagreements, Face and Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (12): 1554–1564. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sinkeviciute, Valeria
    2013 “Decoding Encoded (Im)politeness: ‘Cause on My Teasing You Depend.’” InDevelopments in Linguistic Humour Theory, ed. by Marta Dynel , 263–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/thr.1.13sin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/thr.1.13sin [Google Scholar]
  53. Stein, Nancy L. , Ronan S. Bernas , and David J. Calhiccia
    1997 “Conflict Talk: Understanding and Resolving Arguments.” InConversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives, ed. by Talmy Givón , 233–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.34.09ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.34.09ste [Google Scholar]
  54. Stopfner, Maria
    2013Streitkultur im Parlament. Linguistische Analyse der Zwischenrufe im Österreichischen Nationalrat. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Tannen, Deborah
    1981 “New York Jewish Conversational Style.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language30: 133–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Terkourafi, Marina
    2001 “The Distinction Between Generalised and Particularised Implicatures and Linguistic Politeness.” InProceedings of the Fifth Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, ed. by Peter Kühnlein , Hannes Rieser , and Henk Zeevat , 174–188. Bielefeld: ZiF.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2005 “Beyond the Micro-level in Politeness Research.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (2): 237–262. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237 [Google Scholar]
  58. Thomas, Jenny
    1983 “Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied Linguistics4 (2): 91–112. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91 [Google Scholar]
  59. Turner, Victor
    1969The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New Brunswick and London: Transactions.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 1982From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. (ed.) 1987The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Vine, Bernadette
    2004Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.124 [Google Scholar]
  63. Walcott, William H
    2007Knowledge, Competence and Communication: Chomsky, Freire, Searle, and Communicative Language Teaching. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zimmerman, Don
    1998 “Identities, Context and Interaction.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. by Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe , 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): heckling; participatory ambiguity; performing arts; ritual
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error