1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

An analysis was conducted of the discourse of South Korean political speakers in relation to collective audience responses, based on three situational contexts. Results showed marked contextual differences in the formatting of messages used to invite audience responses. In campaign speeches, explicit (dialogic) rhetorical devices (RDs) occurred most frequently, thereby supporting Bull and Miskinis’ (2015) hypothesis that such RDs are characteristic of political speech-making in collectivist far eastern societies. However, this hypothesis was substantively qualified by findings that (1) in the acceptance and inauguration speeches, implicit RDs were utilized more frequently than explicit (dialogic) RDs, and (2) in those two contexts, it was non-formatted messages that occurred more frequently than either explicit or implicit RDs separately.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00090.cho
2021-03-18
2021-10-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, John Maxwell
    1984aOur Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 1984b “Public speaking and audience response: some techniques for inviting applause.” InStructure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byAtkinson John Maxwell, John Heritage, and Keith Oatley, 370–409. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bull, Peter
    1986 “The use of hand gesture in political speeches: Some case studies.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology5(2): 103–118. 10.1177/0261927X8652002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8652002 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 “Collectivism and individualism in political speeches from the UK, Japan and the USA: a cross-cultural analysis.” Politics, Culture & Socialisation6(1–2): 71–85. 10.3224/pcs.v6i1‑2.06
    https://doi.org/10.3224/pcs.v6i1-2.06 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bull, Peter and Ofer Feldman
    2011 “Invitations to affiliative audience responses in Japanese political speeches.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology30(2): 158–176. 10.1177/0261927X10397151
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X10397151 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bull, Peter and Karolis Miskinis
    2015 “Whipping it up! An analysis of audience responses to political rhetoric in speeches from the 2012 American presidential elections.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology34(5): 521–538. 10.1177/0261927X14564466
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14564466 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bull, Peter and Merel Noordhuizen
    2000 “The mistiming of applause in political speeches.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology19(3): 275–294. 10.1177/0261927X00019003001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X00019003001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bull, Peter and Pam Wells
    2002 “By invitation only? An analysis of invited and uninvited applause.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology21(3): 230–244. 10.1177/0261927X02021003002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X02021003002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Choi, Hyangmi, Peter Bull, and Darren Reed, D.
    2016 “Audience Responses and the Context of Political Speeches.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology4: 601–622. 10.5964/jspp.v4i2.618
    https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.618 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven E.
    1992 “Caveat orator: Audience disaffiliation in the 1988 presidential debates.” Quarterly Journal of Speech78(1): 33–60. 10.1080/00335639209383980
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639209383980 [Google Scholar]
  11. 1993 “Booing: The anatomy of a disaffiliative response.” American Sociological Review, 110–130. 10.2307/2096221
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2096221 [Google Scholar]
  12. Clayman, Steven E. and John Heritage
    2002aThe News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2002b “Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of US Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan.” Journal of communication52 (4): 749–775. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02572.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement20(1): 37–46. 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cockcroft, Robert and Susan Cockcroft
    2005Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew, Paul
    1991 “Asymmetries of Knowledge in Conversational Interactions.” InAsymmetries in Dialogue, ed. byIvana Markova and Klaus Foppa, 21–48. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fairclough, Norman
    2002New Labour, New Language?. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203131657
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203131657 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fein, Steven, Goethals R. Goethals, and Matthew B. Kugler
    2007 “Social influence on political judgments: The case of presidential debates.” Political Psychology28(2): 165–192. 10.1111/j.1467‑9221.2007.00561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00561.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Feldman, Ofer and Peter Bull
    2012 “Understanding audience affiliation in response to political speeches in Japan.” Language and Dialogue2(3): 375–397. 10.1075/ld.2.3.04fel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.3.04fel [Google Scholar]
  20. Greatbatch, David and Thimothy Clark
    2003 “Displaying group cohesiveness: Humour and laughter in the public lectures of management gurus.” Human Relations56(12): 1515–1544. 10.1177/00187267035612004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035612004 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, John and David Greatbatch
    1986 “Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences.” American Journal of Sociology92(1): 110–157. 10.1086/228465
    https://doi.org/10.1086/228465 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hofstede, Geert
    2001Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 The Hofstede centre: Cultural tools and country comparison. RetrievedAugust, 4 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hofstede, Geert H., Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov
    2010Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Iversen, Stine and Peter Bull
    2016 “Rhetorical devices and audience responses in Norwegian political speeches.” Politics, Culture and Socialization, 97–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lang, Gladys Engel and Kurt Lang
    1976 “Immediate and mediated responses: First debate.” The Great Debates: Carter vs. Ford, 298–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ledoux, Sarah and Peter Bull
    2017 “Order in disorder: Audience responses and political rhetoric in speeches from the second round of the 2012 French presidential election.” Pragmatics and Society8(4): 520–541. 10.1075/ps.8.4.03led
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.4.03led [Google Scholar]
  28. McIlvenny, Paul
    1996a “Heckling in Hyde Park: Verbal audience participation in popular public discourse.” Language in Society25: 27–60. 10.1017/S004740450002042X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450002042X [Google Scholar]
  29. 1996b “Popular public discourse at Speakers’ Corner: negotiating cultural identities in interaction.” Discourse & Society7: 7–37. 10.1177/0957926596007001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007001002 [Google Scholar]
  30. McQuarrie, Edward F. and David Glen Mick
    1992 “On resonance: A critical pluralistic inquiry into advertising rhetoric.” Journal of Consumer Research19(2): 180–197. 10.1086/209295
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209295 [Google Scholar]
  31. Psathas, George
    1995Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781412983792
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983792 [Google Scholar]
  32. Shaiq, Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah, Hafiz Muhammad Sufyan Khalid, Aisha Akram, and Bakhtiar Ali
    2011 “Why not everybody loves Hofstede? What are the alternative approaches to study of culture?” European Journal of Business and Management, 3(6): 101–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Stewart, Patrick A.
    2015 “Polls and elections: Do the presidential primary debates matter? Measuring candidate speaking time and audience response during the 2012 primaries.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(2): 361–381. 10.1111/psq.12191
    https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12191 [Google Scholar]
  34. Stewart, Patrick A., Reagan G. Dye, and Austin D. Eubanks
    2018 “The Political Ethology of Debate Humor and Audience Laughter.” Political Humor in a Changing Media Landscape: A New Generation of Research, 117.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. West, Darrel M.
    1984 “Cheers and jeers: Candidate presentations and audience reactions in the 1980 presidential campaign.” American Politics Research12(1): 23–50. 10.1177/1532673X8401200102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8401200102 [Google Scholar]
  36. Yonhap News
    Yonhap News 2012Comparing Presidential Candidates’ Approval Ratings. Retrieved fromhttps://www.yna.co.kr/view/GYH20121213000500044?section=search
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00090.cho
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00090.cho
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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