* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
   [1]LINGUIST List logo [2]Eastern Michigan University [3]Wayne State
   University *
   * [4]People & Organizations * [5]Jobs * [6]Calls & Conferences *
   [7]Publications * [8]Language Resources * [9]Text & Computer Tools *
   [10]Teaching & Learning * [11]Mailing Lists * [12]Search *
   * *




   [13][mail-logo-9.gif] E-mail this message to a friend

                    Title: The Rhythm of Political Oratory
                   Author: [14]Varvara Danilina
                    Email: [15]click here to access email
           Degree Awarded: Moscow State University , Department of Foreigh
                           Languages
              Degree Date: 2002
   Linguistic Subfield(s): Discourse Analysis
                           Sociolinguistics
      Subject Language(s): [16]English
              Director(s): [17]Ludmila Minaeva
                     ___________________________________

   Abstract:
   My doctoral dissertation was completed after four years of research on
   the rhythm of British and American political oratory. I sought to
   establish the rhythmic norm for political public speech and to find
   out, whether any deviations from this norm (i.e. from an expected
   rhythmic model) influence listeners and provoke their verbal reactions
   or bursts of applause. To accomplish this task I used a variety of
   linguistic and rhetorical methods, and drew upon social psychology and
   political science.
   There is no single linguistic perspective on speech rhythm. For
   instance, such distinguished scholars as D. Crystal and D. Abercrombie
   regard it as a purely phonetic phenomenon. At the same time, according
   to Moscow University school of thought, to which I belong, speech
   rhythm is created by a blend of phonetics, syntax and meaning of an
   utterance. As a result of my research, I established rhythmic
   regularities for political oratory at five levels.
   Firstly, I analyzed pauses that divide the stream of speech into
   segments (syntagmas), and classified all the pauses into syntactic,
   rhetorical or unintentional (unintentional pauses are caused by
   hesitation, deliberation, stammering, interruptions by listeners, etc).
   Secondly, I established the relative frequency of short, medium and
   long syntagmas between pauses, and thirdly, analyzed the rhythmic
   structures constituted by linear sequences of syntagmas. Fourthly, I
   studied the alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables inside
   syntagmas. And finally, I considered all kinds of repetitions, both
   rhetorical and unintentional. This method of rhythmic analysis is based
   on earlier analytical models designed by my university colleagues. My
   own contribution consisted in adapting this method to the study of
   public speech, describing the typical rhythm of political oratory, and
   challenging some popular assumptions about speech rhythm.
   As for the impact of speech rhythm upon listeners, I started by
   analyzing audiences in order to understand psychological, social and
   political conditions of that process. G. Le Bon, Z. Freud and other
   scholars demonstrated conclusively that members of a crowd (and the
   audience of a public speech is a crowd) are connected with each other
   and with their leader (in our case, a speaker) by strong subconscious
   ties. However, the degree of unity or polarization of an audience may
   differ. Besides, each audience can be characterized according to
   several other criteria that determine listeners' responsiveness and the
   nature of their responses: their emotional state, the level of
   expertise in a particular subject, the demographic and social
   characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, social status, occupation,
   education), the existing evaluation of discussed issues, which is
   largely determined by listeners' ideologies, and finally, the attitude
   to the speaker, which can be positive, negative or indifferent. I have
   applied this model of audience analysis to determine peculiarities of
   the British parliamentary audience in October 1996, and of the US
   Congress in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.
   To analyze the reactions of these audiences to the rhythm of Prime
   Minister Major and President Bush's parliamentary addresses I used M.
   Atkinson's version of the conversation analysis method. I showed the
   two speeches as dialogues between the speakers and their listeners, and
   singled out phrases and syntagmas that immediately preceded audience
   responses, such as cheering, booing, laughter or bursts of applause.
   These phrases and syntagmas happened to be quite similar in terms of
   rhythm to other stretches of speech in the same addresses. Moreover,
   there proved to be little rhythmic difference between John Major and
   George Bush's speeches. In short, my research demonstrated that there
   is no direct interconnection between the rhythm of a public address and
   audience responses.
   [18]Add a dissertation
   [19]Update dissertation
                          Page Updated: 19-Jan-2010

                             [20]Print This Page
     __________________________________________________________________

   [21][transp.gif]
   [22][transp.gif] Please [23]report any bad links or misclassified data
     __________________________________________________________________

         [24]LINGUIST Homepage | [25]Read LINGUIST | [26]Contact us

                                [27]NSF Logo
   While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic
   relevance of sites listed
   on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.

Références

   1. LYNXIMGMAP:http://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/browse-diss-action.cfm?DissID=2849#m_index_r1_c1
   2. LYNXIMGMAP:http://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/browse-diss-action.cfm?DissID=2849#m_index_r1_c11
   3. LYNXIMGMAP:http://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/browse-diss-action.cfm?DissID=2849#m_index_r1_c17
   4. http://linguistlist.org/people/index.html
   5. http://linguistlist.org/jobs/index.html
   6. http://linguistlist.org/callconf/index.html
   7. http://linguistlist.org/pubs/index.html
   8. http://linguistlist.org/langres/index.html
   9. http://linguistlist.org/tools/index.html
  10. http://linguistlist.org/teach/index.html
  11. http://linguistlist.org/lists/index.html
  12. http://linguistlist.org/search/index.html
  13. JavaScript:;
  14. http://linguistlist.org/people/personal/get-personal-page2.cfm?PersonID=13454
  15. JavaScript:;
  16. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=eng
  17. http://linguistlist.org/people/personal/get-personal-page2.cfm?PersonID=13455
  18. https://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/diss-abs-input1.cfm
  19. https://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/diss-update-user1.cfm
  20. Javascript:window.print();
  21. http://linguistlist.org/antispam/
  22. mailto:cranston@linguistlist.org
  23. http://linguistlist.org/forms/broke.cfm
  24. http://linguistlist.org//
  25. http://linguistlist.org/issues/
  26. http://linguistlist.org/contact.html
  27. http://www.nsf.gov/

[USEMAP]
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/browse-diss-action.cfm?DissID=2849#m_index_r1_c17
   1. http://www.wayne.edu/

[USEMAP]
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/browse-diss-action.cfm?DissID=2849#m_index_r1_c11
   1. http://www.emich.edu/

[USEMAP]
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/diss/browse-diss-action.cfm?DissID=2849#m_index_r1_c1
   1. http://linguistlist.org/