1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127

Abstract

Abstract

English (an SVO language) and Korean (an SOV language) are polar opposites in terms of grammatical order. Studies show that rhetorical devices (RDs) are effective in generating collective audience responses in British political oratory. This article attempts to study the functions of RDs in Korean oratory and the importance of speech delivery. Through the analysis of the speaker-audience turn-taking systems, it is suggested that RDs do not function as cross-cultural universals in the invitation of audience responses but rather depend on the syntactic structure of a given language and the use of nonverbal factors. Thus, due to SOV language features, RDs do not play a predominant role in inviting audience responses in Korean oratory, whereas speech delivery is crucial.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00137.cho
2023-02-17
2024-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ld.00137.cho.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00137.cho&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

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
    2000 “Do audiences only applaud claptrap in political speeches? An analysis of invited and uninvited applause.” Social Psychological Review21: 32–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2016 “Claps and Claptrap: The Analysis of Speaker-Audience Interaction in Political Speeches.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology4(1), 473–492. 10.5964/jspp.v4i1.436
    https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i1.436 [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. Bull, Peter and Maurice Waddle
    2021 “Speaker-audience intercommunication in political speeches: A contrast of cultures.” Journal of Pragmatics1861: 167–178. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi, Hyangmi, Peter Bull, and Darren Reed, D.
    2016 “Audience Responses and the Context of Political Speeches.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology41: 601–622. 10.5964/jspp.v4i2.618
    https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.618 [Google Scholar]
  11. Choi, Hyangmi and Peter Bull
    2021 “Speaker’s verbal behavior and collective audience responses in Korean political oratory.” Language and Dialogue11(2):271–299. 10.1075/ld.00090.cho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00090.cho [Google Scholar]
  12. Clayman, Steven E.
    1993 “Booing: The anatomy of a disaffiliative response.” American Sociological Review110–130. 10.2307/2096221
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2096221 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cockcroft, Robert and Susan Cockcroft
    2005Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi, and Robert Jasperson
    1996 “Resources and Repair: a Cross-Linguistic Study of Syntax and Repair.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 185–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Hayashi, Makoto
    2005 “Joint turn construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities.” Semiotica1561: 21–53. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.21 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Hofstede, Geert
    2001Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. McIlvenny, Paul
    1996 “Heckling in Hyde Park: Verbal audience participation in popular public discourse.” Language in Society25(1): 27–60. 10.1017/S004740450002042X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450002042X [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Mothersbaugh, David L., Bruce A. Huhmann, and George R. Franke
    2002 “Combinatory and Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on Consumers’ Effort and Focus in Ad Processing.” Journal of Consumer Research28(4): 589–602. 10.1086/338211
    https://doi.org/10.1086/338211 [Google Scholar]
  24. Rutter, Jason
    1997Stand-up as interaction: Performance and audience in comedy venuesUniversity of Salford (UK). usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/14688
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2000 “The stand-up introduction sequence: Comparing comedy comperes.” Journal of Pragmatics32(4): 463–483. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00059‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00059-4 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1987 “Recycled turn-beginnings.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. byGraham Button and John. R. E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Tanaka, Hiroko
    2000 “Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33(1): 1–38. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Weigand, Edda
    2000 “The dialogic action game.” InDialogue Analysis VII: Working with dialogue, ed. byM. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, and F. Rock, 1–18. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110941265‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-002 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wells, Pam and Peter Bull
    2007 “From Politics to Comedy: A Comparative Analysis of Affiliative Audience Responses.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology26(4): 321–342. 10.1177/0261927X07306978
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07306978 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00137.cho
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00137.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