Political Communication

Question 1

what are rhetorical devices [Atkinson (1984)]

Answer 1

• features of constructed speech which indicates when applause is appropriate
• is the project of a completion point
• close synchrony between speech and applause (fairly smooth interchangeably)

Question 2

What two particular devices did Atkinson (1984) discover?

Answer 2

contrasts and three-part lists

Question 3

what are criticism of Atkinson’s research?

Answer 3

Atkinson’s research is based on selected extracts which may not be representative of political speech-making as a whole.

It’s also not generalisable so there is a need for comprehensive sampling

Question 4

Heritage and Greatbatch (1986) studied 476 speeches from the 1981 conferences of three main UK political parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal). What did they find?

Answer 4

Contrasts were associated with 33.2% of collective applause and lists 12.6%
* means almost half of applause was associated with Atkinson’s two rhetorical devices

Question 5

Heritage and Greatbatch (1986) identified 5 other rhetorical devices, what were they?

Answer 5

• puzzle-solution
• headline-punchline
• position taking
• combination
• pursuit

Question 6

what did they find?

Answer 6

2/3 of collective applause were associated with these seven rhetorical devices. Although, most effective were contrasts and lists

Question 7

A critique of Atkinson’s Analysis is that if 2/3 of applause in political speeches are associated about Rhetorical Devices, there is still 1/3 to explain; we need a more comprehensive analysis:

Answer 7

1. Synchrony (Extent applause occurs at completion point?)
2. Speech content (How important? E.g., any 3-part list?)
3. Uninvited applause (How much applause not via RDs?)
4. Delivery (E.g., speech rate, loudness, emphasis, body mvmt, hand gestures)
5. Culture (Beyond UK, same RDs used? Etc.)

Question 8

1. Synchrony

Answer 8

Atkinson (1984, p.33): “displays of approval are seldom delayed for more than a split second after a completion point, and frequently start just before one is reached”

Bull & Wells (2002) analysed all applause in 15 party leader speeches (1996-2000)
Finding: Only 65% of applause instances synchronised with speech in the way Atkinson described (level of synchrony only occur in 65% of cases)

**Might be an Overestimation of synchrony by Atkinson? So, not quite so orchestrated

Question 9

2. Content

Answer 9

Bull (2000) analysed 15 instances of applause not associated with the 7 RDs (1996 conferences):
* Applause typically asynchronous with speech (i.e., not at completion point, often interruptive)
Speech content:
* All 15 examples were statements of policy
* cf. Atkinson: applause occurs in response to statements praising the politician’s own party, or attacking the opposition (recognise content is important but it isn’t always the case
* So, w/o RDs, not just about group membership

Importance of RDs can be overestimated
Content can also be very important

Question 10

Atkinson acknowledges the role of speech content in evoking applause:

Answer 10

Audience or more likely to applaud content if used with appropriate RDs

Question 12

What is Bull’s Alternative position about the role of speech content evoking applause?

Answer 12

some content may be so significant that applause occurs whether or not rhetorical devices are used

Question 13

Atkinson (1984, p.45-46): “Professional politicians would no doubt prefer us to think of displays of approval as wholly spontaneous responses to the depth and wisdom of their words. Unfortunately, however, the available evidence provides few grounds for so doing” (spontaneous applaud can occur in the absence of speech devices). What does this mean?

Answer 13

There’s essentially, an orchestrated phenomenon / by invitation. but, spontaneous applause can occur in the absence of RDs in response to speech content

Question 14

3. Invited and Uninvited Applause.

While uninvited applause is not discussed by Atkinson. But Applause can also occur uninvited. Bull & Well (2002) found 86% of applause instances invited and 14% uninvited. What are the main two reasons for uninvited applause:

Answer 14

1. Direct response to speech content
2. Misreading of RDs

Question 15

4. Delivery i.e. body movement, various vocalisation

Atkinson suggests delivery increases the chance of rhetorical devices receiving applause. Bull and Wells (2002) looked at whether or not a RD is to be taken as an applause invitation. What was found?

Answer 15

When delivery indicates applause invitations -> synchronous applause was 98% but similarly when delivery did not indicate applause invitations -> asynchronous applause was 98%

This suggests that delivery is just as important as RDs for synchrony
* (even if delivery doesn’t indicate applause, applause may follow asynchronous)

Question 16

5. Culture (Atkinson and Heritage & Greatbatch studies were based in the UK)

Bull and Feldman (2011) analysed of 36 speeches from the 2005 Japanese general election. It was found that:

Answer 16

Common use of explicit invitations (i.e. ‘let hear it for them now, the new generation of the conservative parliament’)
* 68% of applause instances (explicit invitations associated with this)
* 71% of all affiliative responses were

Question 17

What does this suggest about explicit and implicit devices in order to invite applause?

Answer 17

the use of implicit devices may be more common in UK speech-making but not all cultures

Question 18

Bull and Miskinis (2015) analysed the audience responses in the 2012 US presidential election speeches. What did they find?

Answer 18

• applause accounted for only 8%
• cheering the most common – 66%
• chanting, booing, etc.

There ma be large cultural variations in affiliative audience responses

Question 19

Ken Livingstone (former Mayor of London) was asked in a radio interview what he thought of Atkinson’s analysis:
Public speakers are born, not made. People shouldn’t worry about all these techniques, they should just be themselves.”

But how many RDs did Atkinson find in this speech?

Answer 19

2! Consecutive Contrasts so even in denying the importance of rhetorical devices, Livingstone was using the exact kind of technique identified by Atkinson

Question 20

Equivocation in Political Interviews. What is this?

Answer 20

use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself

Question 21

Bull (1994) analysed 33 interviews with 3 main UK political parties, assessing the reply rate to see if politicians equivocate:

Answer 21

• The proportion of questions that receive an explicit answer: 46% of questions (only half the questions received an explicit reply)
• Harris (1991) – different set of interviews: 39%
• Waddle & Bull (2020) 26 recent interviews with UK party leaders: 38%
• Bull & Waddle (2023) typology of equivocation:
  43 ways of not replying to a question

Question 22

Describe some ways that equivocation might be seen as?

Answer 22

• an aspect of politicans’ personality
• response to questions in political interviews i.e. if posed a high proportion of conflictual questions (CC)
• CC questions create pressure to equivocate

Question 23

Equivocation Theory (Bavelas et al., 1990)

Answer 23

Qs in political interviews can often create communicative conflicts

Question 23

What is communicative conflict?

Answer 23

CC can be understood in terms of threats to face (potential to make TB look bad):
* “Yes” – TB & the government look incompetent
* “No” – lacks credibility; TB may be seen as unsympathetic
* Equivocation – looks evasive (but arguably, it’s the response that avoids yes and no)

Question 24

Face-threats in Question; Bull et al. (1996):
Questions in interviews pose “threats to face”: Make the politician and/or their political allies appear in a bad light

Answer 24

• CCs occur if all principal responses present threats to face
• Threats to face regarded as a prime cause of CCs in political interviews

Question 25

Bull et al. (1996) analysed face-threats in interviews from 1992 General Election:
New typology of questions
* 19 types of face-threat distinguished, grouped into 3 superordinate categories:
▪ Personal face
▪ Face of the party they represent
▪ Face of significant others
* Assessing two types of question:
▪ CC questions
▪ Non-conflictual questions

What was found?

Answer 25

Interviewers’ questions: 41% – CC
▪ Equivocation the modal response to 64% of these questions
59% – non-conflictual
▪ Replies the modal response to 60% of these questions

Note how the CC% contrasts with everyday conversation
Re. the stereotype (they never answer a straight Q):
* Need to consider the nature of the Qs

Question 26

Bull (2003) during the 2001 GE campaign, some voters had the opportunity to question party leaders on both major TB channels.
They hypothesised that:
* CC questions are more complex
* Voters wil pose fewer such questions than professional political interviewers
* Voters will receive more replies

It was found that:

Answer 26

• Politicians answered sig. more voter questions – 73% (cf. 47% for interviewer Qs)
• Interviewers asked sig. more CC questions – 58% (cf. 19% from voters)
• Correlation between CC questions & equivocation:
• Sig. for interviewers (φ = .76) ∴ CC questions strongly associated with equivocation
• So, interviewers asked sig. more CC questions & received sig. fewer answers
• Again, highlights the nature of the Qs

Face of interviewers may also be at stake

Question 27

What are some wider implications of CC?

Answer 27

Concept of face can be used to explain:
* Why CCs occur in political interviews
* Prevalence of equivocation by politicians
* Why politicians do answer questions:
* e.g., if asked to justify a specific policy, equivocation more face-threatening than a reply

Face-threatening structure of questions (Bull, 2008)

Question 28

what are some types (and examples) of interrogative syntaxes?

Answer 28

Yes-no/polar – Did you go to the cinema?

Alternative/disjunctive – Did you watch Oppenheimer or was it Barbie?

Wh-/interrogative word – (Who, why, when, which, what, where, or how) – Which cinema did you go to?

Question 29

What are some types (and examples) of non-interrogative syntaxes?

Answer 29

Declarative – You went to the cinema last night? (searching clarity)

“Moodless” – The Everyman cinema? (don’t contain verbs)

Indirect – Sharon was asking why you decided against the Barbie movie. (asking for the words of someone else)

Question 30

So modification in terms of face…

Answer 30

*CCs can be understood in terms of threats to face
*CCs occur if all principal responses present threats to face
*Politicians want to save face

THIS CREATES PRESSURE TO EQUIVOCATE