SPID 2.3 - political communication

What did heritage and greatbatch find in their studies of political speeches?

• 1981 live conference of conservative, labour and liberal speeches

• 476 speeches

• Contrasts = 33.2% of collective applause

• Lists = 12.6%

• Almost half of all applause was associated with contracts and lists so they’re most effective

• Over 2\3 associated with these 7 rds

What other rhetorical devices did heritage and greatbatch identify?

• puzzle-solution

• Headline-punchline

• Position taking

• Combination

• Pursuit

What critique is there of Atkinson’s analysis?

• if 2/3 applause = RD then 1/3 still needs to be explained

• Need a more comprehensive analysis

What 5 factors are needed to conduct a more comprehensive analysis?

• Synchrony

• speech content

• uninvited applause

• delivery

• culture

How did Bull and Wells’ study the importance of synchrony?

• Atkinson says displays of approval are rarely delayed for more than a split second after a competition point and frequently start just before one is reached

• Bull and Wells analysed all applause in 15 party leader speeches but only 65% of applauded synchronised with speech like Atkinson said

• Overestimation of synchrony by Atkinson and applause isnt so orchestrated

How did Bull study the importance of content?

• analysed 15 instances of applause not associated with 7 RDs

• Applause usually asynchronous with speech and is often interruptive

• All 15 examples were statements of policy and found applause occurs in r episode to statements praising their party or attacking opposition

• Importance of RDs can be overestimated and content can be important

What did Atkinson say about content?

• Audiences more likely to applaud continue if used with appropriate RDs

• Bull argues some content is so potent that applauses occurs anyways

• Politicians would prefer to think of applause as spontaneous responses to their words but evidence shows they don’t and it is often invited

• However spontaneous applause can occur in absence to RDs in response to speech content

What did Bull and Wells say about invited and uninvited applause?

• 86% of applause instances invited

• 14% uninvited

• Two main reasons for uninvited being direct response to content or misreading of RDS

• Atkinson’s didnt discuss this

What did Atkinson say about delivery?

• body movement and various vocalisations

• Delivery increases the chance of a RD receiving applause

What did bulls and wells say about delivery?

Delivery indicates whether or not a RD is to be taken as an applause invitation

• when delivery indicated invitation - 98% synchronous applause

• When delivery didnt indicate invitations - 98% synchronous applause

What did bull and Miskinis say about culture?

• analysis of 2012 US election speeches

• Applause for 8%, cheering for 66% but also had chanting and booing

• Large cultural variations in audience responses

What did Bull and Feldman say about culture?

• analysis of 36 speeches from 2005 Japanese general election

• Common use of explicit invitations

• 68% of applause instances and 71% of all affiliation responses

• Implicit in UK but not all cultures

What is equivocation?

• ambiguous language to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself

How did Bull study politicians equivocating?

• Assessment of reply rate in interviews with leaders of 3 main parties in UK

• Mean reply rate = 46%

• Others found 39%, 38%

• 43 ways found or not replying to a question

Why do politicians equivocate?

• personality or response to questions if questions is conflictual and create pressure

• Eg Dr Kelly identified by ministry of defence as source or leaks to BBC and Blair doesn’t answer the question

What is communicative conflict?

• threats to face to make person look bad

What are face threats in questions?

• modified equivocation theory

• Questions in interviews pose threat to face to make them appear in a bad light

• Communicative conflict occurs if all responses present threats to face

• Threats to face are a prime cause of communicative conflict

How did Bull study face threats?

• 19 types in 3 categories

• Personal face, face of representative party, face of significant others

• Assessed CC questions and non-conflictual questions

• 41% for CC and 59% for non conflcitual

How did Bull study audience participation?

• voters could questions party leaders

• CC questions are more complex so voters will pose fewer of these than professional interviewers so voters get more replies

• Answered sig more voters (73% v 47%)

• CC questions = equivocation

What wider implications does the concept of face have?

• explains why CC occurs in political interviews

• Explains prevalence of equivocation by politicians

• Explains why politicians do answer questions

Conclusion of equivocation and CC

• equivocation theory talks about CC questions which creates pressure

• Modified to idea of face where CC threatens face and occurs if all principal responses present threats to face

What are the 3 types of interrogative syntax?

• yes-no/polar (did u go cinema)

• Alternative/disjunctive (did u go vue or grants)

• Wh-/interrogative word (which cinema u go to)

What are the 3 types of non-interrogative syntax?

• declarative (u went to cinema last night?)

• Moodless (the vue cinema?)

• Indirect (i was being asked why you weren’t home until midnight)