Discovering Interactional Authenticity: Tracking Theatre Practitioners Across Rehearsals

  • Spencer Hazel
Chapter

Abstract

This study follows a group of actors over the course of a rehearsal period, as the theatre ensemble goes about the business of transforming a play-script into a performance. The analysis focuses on one short section of dialogue in the play, and follows the work that the actors do from their earliest attempts at staging this section through to the dress rehearsals. The chapter demonstrates how the actors modify the ways in which they format their actions, as they look to settle on a choreographed routine for representing the particular social actions described in the play-script.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted within the research project Social Objects for Innovation and Learning, funded by the Velux Foundation and the University of Southern Denmark (2014–2017). The author is especially grateful to the members of That Theatre Company in Copenhagen.

References

  1. Allain, P., & Harvie, J. (2006). The Routledge companion to theatre and performance. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Broth, M. (2011). The theatre performance as interaction between actors and their audience. Nottingham French Studies, 50(2), 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, E. (1972). Theatricality: A study of convention in the theatre and in social life. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Deppermann, A. (Ed.). (2013). Conversation analytic studies of multimodal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–172.Google Scholar
  5. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Garfinkel, H., & Wieder, L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 175–206). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Haberland, H. and Mortensen, J., 2016. Transcription as second-order entextualization: The challenge of heteroglossia. In: A. Capone and J.L. Mey, eds., 2016. Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society. Dordrecht: Springer. pp.165–185.Google Scholar
  8. Herman, V. (1991). Dramatic dialogue and the systematics of turn-taking. Semiotica, 83(1–2), 97–121.Google Scholar
  9. Herman, V. (1995). Dramatic discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Park, J. S.-Y., & Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction. Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk, 29(5), 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rasmussen, G., Hazel, S., & Mortensen, K. (Eds.). 2014. Special issue: A body of resources – CA studies of social conduct. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 1–156.Google Scholar
  12. Rawls, A. (2002). Editor’s introduction. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism (pp. 1–64). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Reza, Y. (2008). God of carnage. New York: Dramatist’s Play Service.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schmitt, R. (2010). Verfahren der Verstehensdokumentation am Filmset: Antizipatorische Initiativen und probeweise Konzeptrealisierung. In A. Deppermann, U. Reitemeier, & R. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.), Verstehen in professionellen Handlungsfeldern (pp. 209–362). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  15. Schmitt, R. (2012). Körperlich-räumliche Grundlagen interaktiver Beteiligung am Filmset: Das Konzept “Interaktionsensemble”. In H. Hausendorf, L. Mondada, & R. Schmitt (Eds.), Raum als interaktive Ressource (pp. 37–87). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  16. Simpson, P. (1998). Studying discourses of incongruity. In J. Culpepper, M. Short, & P. Verdonk (Eds.), Exploring the language of drama. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Stokoe, E. (2008). Dispreferred actions and other interactional breaches as devices for occasioning audience laughter in television “sitcoms”. Social Semiotics, 18(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stokoe, E. (2013). The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual interaction and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2), 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stokoe, E. (2014). The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction. Language and body in the material world. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spencer Hazel
    • 1
  1. 1.Newcastle UniversityNewcastle-upon-TyneUK

Personalised recommendations