Political Communication Flashcards
what are rhetorical devices [Atkinson (1984)]
- 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)
What two particular devices did Atkinson (1984) discover?
contrasts and three-part lists
what are criticism of Atkinson’s research?
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
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?
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
Heritage and Greatbatch (1986) identified 5 other rhetorical devices, what were they?
- puzzle-solution
- headline-punchline
- position taking
- combination
- pursuit
what did they find?
2/3 of collective applause were associated with these seven rhetorical devices. Although, most effective were contrasts and lists
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:
- Synchrony (Extent applause occurs at completion point?)
- Speech content (How important? E.g., any 3-part list?)
- Uninvited applause (How much applause not via RDs?)
- Delivery (E.g., speech rate, loudness, emphasis, body mvmt, hand gestures)
- Culture (Beyond UK, same RDs used? Etc.)
- Synchrony
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
- Content
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
Atkinson acknowledges the role of speech content in evoking applause:
Audience or more likely to applaud content if used with appropriate RDs
What is Bull’s Alternative position about the role of speech content evoking applause?
some content may be so significant that applause occurs whether or not rhetorical devices are used
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?
There’s essentially, an orchestrated phenomenon / by invitation. but, spontaneous applause can occur in the absence of RDs in response to speech content
- 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:
- Direct response to speech content
- Misreading of RDs
- 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?
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)
- 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:
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
What does this suggest about explicit and implicit devices in order to invite applause?
the use of implicit devices may be more common in UK speech-making but not all cultures
Bull and Miskinis (2015) analysed the audience responses in the 2012 US presidential election speeches. What did they find?
- applause accounted for only 8%
- cheering the most common – 66%
- chanting, booing, etc.
There ma be large cultural variations in affiliative audience responses
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?
2! Consecutive Contrasts so even in denying the importance of rhetorical devices, Livingstone was using the exact kind of technique identified by Atkinson
Equivocation in Political Interviews. What is this?
use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself
Bull (1994) analysed 33 interviews with 3 main UK political parties, assessing the reply rate to see if politicians equivocate:
- 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
Describe some ways that equivocation might be seen as?
- 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
Equivocation Theory (Bavelas et al., 1990)
Qs in political interviews can often create communicative conflicts
What is communicative conflict?
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)
