the dissertation - full
TRANSCRIPT
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Communication and Media Studies
A dissertation in part fulfilment of the regulations governing the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Communication and Media Studies,
of Loughborough University
Faculty of Social Sciences March 2015and Humanities
The Language and Body Language of American Politicians: The Microanalysis of Political Communication
Toby Pughe
1
Contents
CONTENTS 2
ABSTRACT 3
ILLUSTRATIONS 4
INTRODUCTION 6
THE DISSERTATION OUTLINE 7
LITERATURE REVIEW 8
ARISTOTLE 8
POLITICAL RHETORIC 9
CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL ORATION 11
METAPHORS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE 13
PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC 17
METHODOLOGY 22
ANALYSIS 27
POLITICAL MYTHS 27
CLAPTRAP 31
INVITED AND UNINVITED APPLAUSE 38
BODY LANGUAGE 43
CONCLUSION 60
APPENDICES 62
REFERENCES 66
2
Abstract
How is it that politicians encourage audience applause and invite their
appreciation? How do they use gestures and non-verbal communication to aid
their ability to invite applause? Why do they do this, and what are the results of
their actions?
Questions such as this are posed and answered in my study on political speeches.
They were based on presidential nomination acceptance speeches at The
Democratic National Convention (1960 and 2008) and The Republican National
Convention (1980) in the United States of America. Both non-verbal and verbal
aspects are examined; these include the use of claptrap, audience applause,
audience interruption and hand gestures.
By using the technique of microanalysis, we have a better understanding of how
political orators use techniques to invite applause, as well as a greater awareness
of how and why uninvited applause occurs. We can evaluate more effectively
how and why political orators use non-verbal communication to add emphasis to
what they are saying and how they go about presenting themselves in the best
possible light. Political speeches are often dismissed as mere ‘claptrap’, but this
detailed microanalysis brings fresh ideas and visions into both the use of
claptrap and non-verbal communication in political speeches.
This analysis gives an interdisciplinary insight of politics, communication and
microanalysis. The findings will be suitable reading for students and academics
in the field of linguistics, communication studies, social psychology and political
science.
3
Illustrations
Table 1 Details regarding Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) 22 and Obama’s (2008) speeches
Table 2 Atkinson’s (1984) claptrap techniques used to 26analyse Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s (2008) speeches
Table 3 Example of hand gestures noted 26
Table 4 Duration of speeches, claptraps used and audience 32applause details
Table 5 Atkinson’s (1984) claptrap techniques used in 32analysis of Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s (2008) speeches
Table 6 Shows when audience applause took place during 38 Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s (2008) Speeches
Table 7 The number of and type of hand gestures used in 56Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s (2008)speeches
Table 8 28 hand gestures used in Kennedy (1960), Reagan 57(1980) and Obama’s (2008) speeches
Table 9 What each hand gesture looks like and means 63
Figure A Crowd member, Kennedy’s (1960) speech 24
Figure B Aristotle’s (1806) human sphere 43
Figure C Aristotle (1806) hand gestures 43
Figure D Hand gestures in Obama’s (2008) speech 44
Figure E Hand gestures in Obama’s (2008) speech 46
Figure F Kennedy (1960) speech hand gestures 52
Figure G Kennedy (1960) assertive hand gesture 53
Figure H Kennedy (1960) sincere smile/pride 53
Figure I Reagan (1980) neutral hands 55
4
Figure J Reagan (1980) small shoulder extension 55
Figure K Obama (2008) finger jab (political point) gesture 59
Figure L Obama (2008) left handed fast ball gesture 59
Figure M Obama (2008) crowd quieting gesture 59
Figure N Obama (2008) the claw hand gesture 59
Figure O Obama (2008) finger gun hand gesture 59
Figure P Kennedy (1960) self touch pacifier 59
Chart 1 Atkinson’s (1984) claptrap techniques used in 35analysis of Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s (2008) speeches
Chart 2 Number of external and internal attacks in 38Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s (2008)speech
Chart 3a When audience applause took place (Bull, 2003) 40in Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s speech
Chart 3b When audience applause took place (Bull, 2003) 42in Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama’s speechwith annotations
Extract 1 Reagan discussing the four previous years 33
Extract 2 Reagan creating the ‘monster’ 36
Extract 3 Obama ‘last, best, hope’ 45
Extract 4 Kennedy, we cannot afford such a luxury 50
Extract 5 Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt 53
Appendix A Obama vs. McCain and Obama vs. Romney results 62
Appendix B Table 9 63
Introduction
5
The digital boom of television, smart phones and tablets has brought politicians
directly into our lives. Whether we choose this or not is unavoidable, with them
now becoming part of the background noise of everyday life. Progression in
technology has allowed politicians to share their views with the world more than
ever before. But with these improvements has also come aids to us, the audience,
allowing us to scrutinize politicians themselves, how they conduct themselves
and go about winning the hearts and votes of their given nation. Therefore, the
aim of this dissertation is to show what can be learned from political
communicative techniques by watching and listening to them in ways that the
everyday viewer is not familiar with. Where the everyday onlooker would
merely see a politician giving a speech, I am going to delve deeper and observe
each and every movement and word that American politicians use to encourage
their audience to perform their desired actions, which is to applaud.
With the aid of video recordings and transcriptions, the workings of claptrap
devices and non-verbal communication can be bought into view and provide
evidence for questions such as: how do some political speakers generate more
audience applause than others? How do political speakers use their bodily
movements and gestures along with their words to generate applause? Does
simply using ‘trick’ devices and non-verbal communicative techniques always
result in applause? How do they do it, how do they capture the minds of people
they don’t know and persuade them that they are the person who should be
leading the country? Observing political speeches has left wondering all of these
questions. It is obvious that the ability to capture the minds of strangers plays a
vital role in winning or losing an election, but what isn’t so obvious is how
political speakers can correctly differentiate between successful and
unsuccessful oratory. Students of politics are therefore deprived of any
noticeable clues as to what it is that political speakers have that strikes chords
with their audience and through my dissertation, I aim to educate the reader on
being able to spot these techniques and how political orators go about using
them successfully.
Since political speeches are widely available with relative ease, it gave me a
variety of speeches to choose from. The reason for choosing three American
6
presidential candidates is because America is the most powerful country in the
world and those who take office immediately cement themselves as one of, if not
the, most powerful human beings on earth. Therefore, who better to analyse than
a group of the most powerful and influential people on earth. The simple desire
of knowing how these elite orators persuade audiences has led to the writing of
this dissertation.
The dissertation outline
My literature review is made up of five sections: Aristotle, political rhetoric,
contemporary political oratory, metaphors in political discourse and presidential
rhetoric. The first section, discusses the different elements involved in achieving
good persuasive oratory, such as the ethos, pathos and logos, according to
Aristotle. Secondly is political rhetoric, this section draws on research to form a
discussion of the best ways for political speakers to use rhetoric to capture the
attention of the audience, drawing on examples such as Petty and Cacioppo’s
(1981) elaboration likelihood theory. Then comes contemporary political
oration, this section discusses the reliability of the information discussed in
political rhetoric and contemporary political oratory and whether these same
methods can be applied to modern day political oration. This section also
touches on how modern day audiences are viewing politicians as ‘stars of
political show business’ (pg. 9) and whether we, as the audience, are now
holding the form of the orator in a higher regard than their content. The fourth
section is metaphors in political discourse and covers what metaphors are and
how politicians use them to tell the audience the ‘right’ story, for example the
American Dream. The final section of my literature review is, presidential
rhetoric. In this section I draw on authors who have written essays on previous
presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. In these essays
they discuss the character of each president and look at how they were
successful in their use of rhetoric and what personality traits are suitable to be a
successful president of the United States.
Literature Review
7
Firstly, this chapter will discuss Aristotle’s ideas surrounding oratory, the
different types and what is required to become the perfect orator. I will then go
onto discuss briefly, the history of rhetoric and its recent developments. Then I
shall discuss political rhetoric by drawing on research such as the Yale Studies of
Persuasion and Petty and Cacioppo’s elaboration likelihood model (1981).
Thirdly, I will discuss the reliability of these studies and whether they are still
applicable in modern day political oratory. I will also discuss audience’s
perception of politician’s character. Then comes metaphors in political discourse,
how and why politicians use metaphors during their speeches. And finally is
presidential rhetoric, which covers written essays about past presidents and
looks at why they were so successful.
Aristotle
Aristotle states there is three forms of oratory, deliberative/political oratory,
forensic oratory (used in the court of law) and epideictic oratory, which he
suggested was, comprised ‘of praise delivered at the funerals of notable figures’
(Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 222). Aristotle states that for differing types of
oratory, as seen above, different persuasive strategies should be adopted. Firstly,
the quality of a speech depends on the moral character of the speaker (ethos);
the second concerns the observers and putting them into a suitable frame of
mind (pathos), and finally the quality of the speech and whether it gives the
intended message (logos). If these are achieved to a high standard then,
according to Aristotle, the orator ‘persuades by moral character when his speech
is delivered in such a manner as to render him worthy of confidence’ (Freese,
1926, pg. 17). Although confidence is important, he suggests that the confidence
must come from the speech itself and not from a ‘preconceived view of the
speaker’s character’ (Freese, 1926, pg. 17), Aristotle is in disagreement about
this and states ‘moral character, so to say, constitutes the most effective means of
proof’ (Freese, 1926, pg. 17).
Until about 150 years ago, rhetoric was a specialty of Western education. The
discipline of rhetoric began to be replaced by psychology, sociology and
8
linguistics. It wasn’t until the mid twentieth century that rhetoric returned to the
public domain with scholars such as Kenneth Burke, who was one of the first to
divert away from traditional rhetoric and view literature as symbolic action in
which human behaviour and language combines (Burke, 1962). The so-called
‘return’ of rhetoric has continued in several new directions, such as the creation
of discursive psychology in the 1990s, which is a form of discourse analysis that
focuses on psychological themes (Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003)
Political Rhetoric
Social psychological experiments have offered answers in the hope that
questions surrounding rhetoric are finally answered. Scientific evidence can
potentially determine when pathos is most effective and suggest how important
the ethos of a speaker is. These were the main goals of The Yale Studies of
Persuasion, in which Brewster Baxter has noted as ‘constituting the new
rhetoric’ (Smith, 1981, pg. xii). The ideas surrounding this research came from
World War ll, where Carl Hovland was hired by the Information and Education
division of the United States War Department to perform analysis and to come to
a conclusion on the quality of propaganda film. The department aimed to
‘persuade the troops that the war still might continue for a long time’ (Sears,
Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 223). The problem the department had, was they were
unsure whether both sides of the argument should be present in the pieces of
propaganda or whether the intended point of view should be communicated on
its own. After creating two films, Hovland found some interesting results
regarding one-sided and two sided messages, that were to be tested on viewers.
He concluded that the one sided message was less effective on people with a
better education. After the war Hovland et al (Hovland, Janis and Kelley, 1953;
Hovland, Lumsdaine and Sheffield, 1949; Hovland and Weiss, 1951) continued
intensive research during the 1950s at Yale University, although in these future
studies a number of the stimuli were not political, some of the studies continued
to surround themselves in political rhetoric (Sherif & Hovland, 1961)
The purpose of the Yale Studies of Persuasion was to find broad laws of
persuasion, and even though Hovland’s work on persuasive communication was
9
influential ‘the program of results initiated by the Hovland group… produced
very few generalizable conclusions’ (Fishebein & Ajzen, 2010, pg. 339). To
support this claim, one study conducted by Hovland and Weiss (1951) wanted to
show that having a good ‘ethos’ (high credibility) increased the quality of
persuasion. However, research has found that when focusing on behavioural
change and not just attitude, a less credible source is more effective than a
source that has high credibility (Dholakia and Sternthall, 1977; Tybout 1978).
The main issue was their experimental research wasn’t constructed around
psychological theory of thinking, if it was, then these theories could be used to
understand the contrasting findings.
Important findings have been gathered by experimental attitude research, which
indicates that ‘the relationship between political message and audience can be
seen as a form of rhetorical dialogue in which the nature of argumentation is
crucial’ (Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 224). These findings include William
McGuire’s ‘inoculation theory’ (1964). This is similar to the Yale Studies in that
research ideas arose from practical issues. The issue here was the American
governments concern surrounding the capture of American troops in the Far
East, and potential brainwashing through intensive propaganda which would
lead to them supporting communism. The American government wanted the
development of psychological techniques to counteract the effect of propaganda.
McGuire hypothesized that the soldiers who were most susceptible to political
propaganda were those who’s ‘basic ideological beliefs had never been
challenged’ (Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 224). He and colleagues suggested
these soldiers were especially vulnerable because they ‘…exist in a kind of “germ
free” environment in which their validity is never challenged’ (Baumeister &
Bushman, 2010, pg. 294). Therefore, they concluded that soldiers should be
exposed to small doses of propaganda, which allows them to create counter
arguments intrinsically. McGuire’s research underlined the importance of
Aristotle’s notion of logos or rhetorical argument. Argumentation wasn’t just a
message given by someone but also ‘of recipients thought process’ (Sears,
Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 224). Therefore McGuire showed that the connection
10
between a given message and a recipient is extremely rhetorical, built around
logos and anti-logos (Billig, 1987)
Further research that contributed to the movement of the Yale Studies, towards
a better rhetorical and psychological understanding, was Petty and Cacioppo’s
elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Elaboration refers to
how motivated individuals are in thinking about the arguments presented in
persuasive communication. This model is very popular in understanding the
difference between persuasion by content and persuasion by form and focuses
on attitude change. The model states there are two ways to change attitude. First
of all is the central route, this route involves thoughtful elaboration processes.
Elaboration can be acknowledged by ‘evaluating the quality of arguments
presented in the persuasive communication’ (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2005, pg.
26). Petty and Cacioppo hypothesized that when individuals take an interest in a
topic and give it their full attention, then the strength of the argument (logos)
will influence their final behaviour. With the central route individuals are likely
to create counterarguments when the argument being presented to them is
weak, the central route requires a great amount of cognition (Petty & Cacioppo,
1984). When an individual is not interested in a topic then they are more likely
to be persuaded by the peripheral route. According to Petty and Cacioppo’s
model, this route is much shallower than the central route. The level of
persuasion involves presentation, the use of humour and the credibility of the
persuader. This being what Aristotle called ethos and pathos, where individuals
relate to the presenter as a person rather than the details of their message
(Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 225).
Contemporary Political Oration
In contemporary politics, it’s debatable whether the traditional discrepancies
between an orator’s ethos, pathos and logos can still be upheld in today’s
political environments, which in turn affects the applicability of Petty and
Cacioppo’s (1981) model. Kathleen Jamieson (1988) states the new digital age
11
has severely changed the style of political oratory. It would seem that the
traditional style of political oratory, which included loud voices and powerful
gestures to a large audience, is no longer required with a more conversational
style being adopted. Political interview has, to some degree, always been a form
of conversation with turn taking (Bull et al., 1996), however with strict time slots
and the requirement to keep audiences engaged, the editing of political
interviews on television may give the impression that politicians answers are not
replies to questions (Ekström, 2001). Parliamentary debates can be used as an
example, there is turn taking, which is controlled by formal and informal codes of
practice (Carbó, 1997; Shaw, 2000). Furthermore the differences between
private and public life have become unclear (Meyrowitz, 1985). According to
Jamieson (1988), politicians are encouraged, and almost expected, to showcase
the ‘true’ them to the public. Castells (1999) named this expectation the
‘personalization of politics’.
It would be understandable to see politics in this light. Becoming trivialized, with
audiences viewing political figures as stars of political show business, who are
becoming increasingly influenced by peripheral characteristics rather than the
argument they are proposing (Postman, 1985). The arguments presented here
are suggesting that in an era of personalized politics, audiences are putting form
over content, regarding the peripheral influence of ethos and pathos over the
central factors of logos (Postman, 1985). Nevertheless, Petty and Cacioppo’s
elaboration likelihood model does have its flaws and other interpretations have
raised doubt about its applicability to politics. Nowadays the difference in
mainstream political parties ideologies and beliefs are often very small, which is
a reason as to why personalization of political orators is occurring. Voters want
to vote for a leader who they believe they can trust and one whom will have the
ability to rise above hysteria in the face of crisis. In the 1992 presidential
campaign, Simons (1996) analysed the Gore-Perot debates and stated it was very
important for both speakers ‘to appear reasoned and knowledgeable on an issue
like North American Free Trade Agreement’ (Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 226)
because it would be unlikely that the audience had read the 12,000 page
document before congress. After the speech Perot was seen to come out of it
12
much worse than Gore because of his piercing tone and his personal attacks on
Gore. In a speech where extremely complex political issues were being discussed,
it shows that ethos, much to the contrary of Aristotle and Petty and Cacioppo’s
ideas, is a central issue to viewers.
In addition, an alternate interpretation could be that visual imagery is ‘the
semantic and technical unit of the modern mass media at the heart of the post-
war popular culture’ (Evans & Hall, 1999, pg. 2). Jamieson (1988) stated that
voters have now gained knowledge of how to interpret a politician’s character
from close up shots of televised political speeches. This idea shows us the
significance of what Roland Barthes (1977) called the ‘rhetoric of the image’ that
hasn’t been covered in the verbal form of traditional rhetoric (see Barthes and
Lavers, 1972). In a situation where the visual imagery of politicians is as
important, if not more so, than their words, then their credibility is not a
peripheral issue that might only ‘…influence those uninterested in politics’
(Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 226). As an alternative it may be something that
voters are specifically looking at and politicians are now aware of this. If this is
the case, then the customary difference between content and form which makes
up the foundation of Petty and Cacioppo’s model may not be suitable for rhetoric
in present day politics. It is not to say that this research ignores the impacts of
visual rhetoric, but that the suggested differences between peripheral and
central routes of persuasion may not be enough to cater for the complicated
verbal and visual rhetoric in modern day politics.
Metaphors in Political Discourse
In political discourse, a technique commonly used by orators is the use of
metaphors. They can be used for ideological purposes, as ‘it advocates
unconscious emotional associations and thereby contributes to myth creation:
politicians use metaphor to tell the right story’ (Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 28).
Rhetorical metaphors play a part in how political issues are represented in the
minds of the audience, which makes the issues being presented more difficult to
understand. Looking at how metaphors impact political speeches enables us to
13
understand how they contribute towards our knowledge of political rhetoric and
how politicians use persuasive language to communicate worldviews. According
to Aristotle, a metaphor is ‘giving the thing a name that belongs to something
else’ (Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 31). The idea of metaphor is that meanings are
transferred from and to (Charteris-Black, 2005). I will interpret the term
metaphor as a word or phrase that is used with the sense that is different from
another common sense of that word or phrase. When we are using a metaphor
but are referring to the common sense, literal meaning understanding of the
word then the term ‘source domain’ is used. When we are using the metaphorical
sense of the word, this is referred to as the ‘target domain’ of the metaphor
(Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 31). Therefore from this we can define a metaphor, as
a change in the use of a word to give it new meaning. It is the adaptation of
meaning that allows metaphors to conjure up emotional responses and since the
terms ‘emotion’ and ‘motion’ come from the same source, we can appreciate
metaphors as the carriers of meaning.
Audiences usually know what the literal meaning or the common sense meaning
of a word is. Metaphors come from audiences’ expectations about their existing
knowledge of how words are usually used. So a metaphor is a phrase or word
that changes from the literal, common sense understanding to another sense that
is different from the typical use (Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 31). For that reason,
metaphor only becomes apparent with discourse knowledge. The use of the
common senses of words can be understood differently between individuals
according to their experience, education and understanding of English. What is
unusual for one may be well known for another, and these understandings can
be down to social influences. An individual may not immediately understand that
a word has been used metaphorically, since they may not recognize the use of
the common sense word in a different way to its basic form. However, if they
understand more about the original sense of the word then they may accept the
word as a metaphor. If individuals don’t have this understanding then political
metaphors will often be missed. It’s harder to understand and immediately
recognize the use of a metaphor. For example, when a politician uses the term
‘milestone’, an audience who know the literal use of the word ‘milestone’ may
14
consider it a metaphor, but those who only ever hear the term used in political
speeches may think it isn’t a metaphor (Charteris-Black, 2005). This is why
certain audiences pick up on metaphors and others do not.
With regards to political rhetoric, metaphors are used to ‘frame how we view or
understand political issues by eliminating alternative points of view’ (Charteris-
Black, 2005, pg. 32). Metaphors are used by politicians in negative situations that
are seen as troublesome and positive situations that look towards future
scenarios that are created as solutions to negative problems. Metaphors are also
used for the negative representation of the out-group (e.g. opponents) and
positive representations of the in-group (e.g. supporters). Chilton (2004) gives
an outline of the politician’s motivation in discourse:
‘… political discourse involves, among other things, the promotion of
representations, and a pervasive feature of representation is the evident
need for political speakers to imbue their utterances with evidence,
authority and truth, a process that we shall refer to in broad terms, in the
context of political discourse, as ‘legitimization’. Political speakers have
the guard against the operation of their audience’s cheater detectors and
provide guarantees for the truth of their sayings.’ (Chilton, 2004, pg. 23)
In much agreement with Aristotle’s ideology of ethos and pathos, the use of
metaphor in political speeches is to prove the speaker as a rightful source of
authority by ‘sounding right’. ‘Sounding right’ can also involve criticizing
opponents (out-groups) behaviour and their policies verbally, Chilton (2004)
again explains this further:
‘Delegitimization can manifest itself in acts of negative other presentation,
acts of blaming, scapegoating, marginalizing, excluding attacking the
moral character of some individual or group, attacking the
communicative cooperation of the other, attacking the rationality and
sanity of the other. The extreme is to deny the humanness of the other’
(Chilton, 2004, pg. 47)
15
For most people, a lot of political issues are complex and difficult to understand.
Therefore, it’s important that political audiences are presented with image-based
metaphors to aid their understanding on abstract topics. This ensures the
message becomes better defined. Explained further by Mio (1997), ‘because of
information-processing demands, people cannot pay attention to all aspects of
political evidence. Therefore, something is needed to simplify decision making,
and metaphor and other shortcut devices (e.g. cognitive heuristics) address this
need’ (Mio, 1997, pg. 130). A metaphor like ‘changes in the wind’ is more
understandable than describing the whole concept of ‘decolonization’. The aims
are therefore to simplify potentially confusing, abstract issues by encouraging
audience’s pre-existing knowledge to help them understand.
The metaphors that politicians tend to use the most are between contemporary
and familiar uses of language. Politicians are unlikely to have the language
capabilities of a poet so tend to apply conventional metaphors such as ‘the road
to victory’ (Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 34). In a study by Charteris-Black (2009),
he compared male and female politicians use of metaphors, and concluded that
males used more conventional metaphors than females. He attributed this to
male politicians having a longer experience of using political discourse
(Charteris-Black, 2009). He did however find that occasionally they spoke of ‘an
iron curtain descending across Europe’ (Churchill, 1946), ‘the winds of change
(Macmillan, 1960) or ‘a river of blood’ (Powell, 1968). At first these expressions
were seen as creative, but they eventually became traditionalized to become a
fast way of talking about the Cold War, decolonization and immigration anxieties.
Nevertheless, according to Charteris-Black (2009) this will happen on numerous
levels, for example comparing ‘the Iron Curtain’ and the ‘Iron Lady’. The first
became popular among the mainstream significantly quicker in contrast to the
‘Iron Lady’ that kept its status as an original metaphor for a longer period of
time. This may be down to the fact that it’s less likely a woman is made of metal,
than curtains that are made of metal (Musolff & Zinken, 2009)
16
Depending on what certain words mean in their literal term is a deciding factor
in whether they will be used metaphorically in different cultures. For example
the use of ‘fight’ and ‘battle’ hold negative connotations in many cultures and
therefore they avoid metaphoric use. In Asia the term ‘Iron Curtain’ was replaced
with the “Bamboo Curtain’ when referring to the boundaries between non-
communist and communist China, because in Asia bamboo is more of an
everyday occurrence than iron (Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 34). If audiences are
to be persuaded, it’s important they know the difference between the common
sense of words/phrases and the unfamiliar use of a word/phrase as a metaphor,
otherwise metaphors will only be understood by linguists who know the dual
purpose of the word. When other ways of talking are replaced with a metaphor,
language has impacted the world by settling contrasting ways of thinking, and by
doing this ‘aids our understanding of the political world’ (Charteris-Black, 2005,
pg. 35).
Presidential Rhetoric
Rhetoric is something that is a key component to leadership. Political leaders do
not simply command commitment from individuals and encourage them to
follow a direct action simply because of their status in a political group. Neither
do they have special abilities in persuading people ‘… that is beyond human ken’
(Dorsey, 2002, pg. 252). Leaders must participate in the method of investigation
that will allow them to find the most suitable option for their audience, and use
this knowledge to construct a message that would allow the audience to
associate themselves with that alternative. At the heart of presidential rhetorical
leadership is prudence. In one sense, presidents should be rational and level
headed when applying their knowledge to the future goals and policies of their
country. On the other hand, presidents must have a noble character to ensure
that the decisions they make are not done so without careful consideration to
ethical sense, as well as the technical ones. The most important, however, is the
president must possess the skill set to ‘express these inner virtues of thought and
character as well as the awareness of how to balance them in a public
performance’ (Dorsey, 2002, pg. 253). The performative element of a president’s
17
discretion shouldn’t be seen as them ‘acting’ in the negative sense, but rather it
means that they must capture the audience to underline their understanding of
the connection between people, opportunities, future goals and other
occurrences. This needs to be done before the audience would be prepared to
take on board the presidents argument and follow them in pursuing a common
goal.
The best examples of rhetorical leadership by presidents are shown in the
moments where they are seen to be able to balance their decision-making skills
and their intentions of good will (Dorsey, 2002). In Zarefsky’s (2002) essay he
concludes that the most successful presidents in history showed their astuteness
and personal character by taking serious political moments and transforming
them into some of the most memorable speeches of all time, that brought nations
together and united them as one. In his essay about the first US president George
Washington, Lucas (2002) describes his ability to communicate his humble
character, his bravery and use his knowledge of historical events to lead the
nation forward. According to H. W. Brands in ‘The Last Romantic’, Theodore
Roosevelt was able to control the public’s perception of him, as his rugged
character added to the credibility of his underlined intentions, which as a result
caused his often-uncompromising opponents to reconsider their positions (H. W.
Brands, 2002). James R. Andrews and J. Michael Hogan write that the legacy of
Woodrow Wilson’s rhetorical leadership and strong character came from his
ability to express his vision of American citizens to become part of a morally
responsible nation (Andrews & Hogan, 2002). In his critical essay on Franklin
Roosevelt’s last speech, Thomas Benson suggests that the president positively
encouraged his beliefs about the New Deal by showcasing his level-headedness
and his kindness (Benson, 2002). G. Thomas Goodnight states, that using the
American Dream but with some reconsideration, Ronald Reagan was able to
show his morality and to encourage the audience by showcasing his
trustworthiness on the world stage (Weilder, Barnett & Pearce, 1992). In his
essay, John Murphy demonstrates how Bill Clinton used ‘cunning’ as a way of
survival. This was along with his ability to take on the character and roles of
18
admired past presidents and to evoke feelings of shared emotion or belief among
audiences that made them more open to his leadership (Dorsey, 2002).
It would be foolish to believe that presidents always succeed in positive
rhetorical leadership. If a president cannot balance their practical knowledge
and their personal character, then it is unlikely they can persuade others. In
order to understand rhetorical leadership further, it is important to give these
instances some attention.
According to Farrell, John Adams was concerned about the public’s perception of
him as president, especially when it came to the relations between the
Americans and the French (Dorsey, 2002). Adams was so concerned about his
public perception that he wrote essays and letters whilst in office, to ensure the
public perception of him would be positive and he was viewed as a ‘… Ciceronian
ideal of a prudent leader’ (Dorsey, 2002, pg. 254). This raises the question that if
Adams felt it was important to defend his time in office to the degree he did, was
his standard of rhetorical leadership sub-par? Adams own recollection of his
presidency made him ‘certain he had done the right thing, whether or not we, as
his posterity, would be prepared to recognize his prudence’ (Dorsey, 2002, pg.
254) and Farrell therefore implied that his performances were indeed weak.
From Farrell’s statements they show a detachment between the audience’s
judgment of his performance and Adam’s performance itself. In other words, the
performance of an orator can only be so good when they feel compelled to tell
the audience of its merit. Therefore it’s understandable that Adam’s oratory
skills were seen as self-serving and not of aid to the situation. Farrell notes, ‘for
Adams, fame remained a powerful motive, and drove him always to conduct
himself with an eye toward posterity and the historical record’ (Dorsey, 2002, pg.
254). Therefore the lesson here for successful rhetorical leadership is perhaps
that leaders should be cautious in situations that require them to be so.
Regarding his essay on Thomas Jefferson, Lawrence Kaplan clearly shows how
Jefferson failed in his attempt for successful rhetorical leadership. Undeniably,
Kaplan does state that external forces that affected his rhetorical ability were not
19
always under his control. Lloyd Bitzer called these situations needs that cannot
be modified (Bitzer, 1968). These forces did however help Jefferson as well as
obstruct him. But Kaplan states that Jefferson’s performances weren’t good
enough in situations that were open to his influence (Kaplan, 2002), this was
down to a combination of his pride getting in the way of his rational decision
making ability and his undervalued attention of Napoleon Bonaparte’s deceitful
plans. For example, Cicero (1951) says a leader ‘anticipates the future, calculates
the chances for good or for evil, decides how to meet every contingency, and is
never reduced to the necessity of saying: ‘this is not what I expected’ (Cicero,
1951, pg. 32) and in the case of Thomas Jefferson these challenges were not met.
In contrast to Jefferson, and detailed by Fred Greenstein and Meena Bose (2006)
in their essay about Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, Eisenhower was an
example of successful rhetorical leadership. Unlike Jefferson, Eisenhower was
able to adapt to the situation and prospered in the limelight of political arenas.
But Greenstein and Bose did spot that Eisenhower didn’t perform in his usual
manner when confronted with the missile-gap controversy and they concluded
that his behaviour appeared to neglect the American citizens anxiety
surrounding the Soviet Union launch of Sputnik (Greenstein & Berman, 2006).
During the time Eisenhower should have been showing empathy to citizens of
America he appeared to be unaware of their concerns. Greenstein & Berman
(2006) suggested that in the testing times, Eisenhower should have revealed his
plans for the future that would have settled the nerves of the public. As a result
of Eisenhower not taking into consideration the concerns of others, and simply
focusing on his own sense of rationality, he missed the chance to showcase
effective ‘… prudential leadership’ (Fishman, 2001, pg. 48).
From the points covered, it demonstrates that during the course of leadership
presidents need to consider a number of variables if they want to be successful.
Successful oratory calls for leaders who are able to act rationally in a given
situation but also ethically, while also being able to show their personal
character and their balance of reason. In successful examples of persuasion, and
those not so, the important lesson behind good judgment and successful
20
rhetorical leadership is a speaker’s ability to adapt their style to the moment. It’s
the opportunities that political speakers seize and those that they do not. If a
president wants to be a successful rhetorical leader then it is vital they are able
to distinguish between the two.
21
Methodology
The findings in this dissertation are concerned with how American politicians
use rhetoric, specifically political myth and claptrap, and non-verbal
communication to encourage audience applause. The sample used is three
presidential nomination acceptance speeches at either the Democratic National
Convention or the Republican National Convention. Analysis on applaudable
message techniques such as three part lists and contrastive pairs have taken
inspiration from Atkinson’s (1984) work. Also, analysis on when the audience
chose to applaud is an extension of Bull’s (2003) work on invited and uninvited
applause. The three speeches chosen for analysis can be seen below:
Table 1: shows detail regarding the speeches
The reason I have chosen to analyse presidential nomination acceptance
speeches is because I wanted to study a speech that was important to the future
of the speaker. In other words, a speech where they had to perform a high
standard or risk being questioned whether they should have been nominated for
the presidency. The reason I have chosen these three presidents specifically is
because they are three of the most recognizable names to take office in recent
time. Also, because they are a similar distance away from each other in terms of
years (Kennedy - Reagan 20 years, Reagan - Obama 28 years), which enables me
to measure any changes or developments in the techniques, I have chosen to
analyse over time.
A rhetorical analysis was used for the three chosen speeches. Rhetorical analysis
examines ‘content to understand the nature of persuasion and argumentation’
(Treadwell, 2014, pg. 252) and is used here with the aim of ‘examining
22
When did it take place?
Where did it take place?
Speech duration
John F. Kennedy
1960 Democratic National Convention
22 minutes 26 seconds
Ronald Reagan
1980 Republican National Convention
42 minutes 23 seconds
Barack Obama
2008 Democratic National Convention
44 minutes 58 seconds
communication content to identify and assess its persuasive strategies’
(Treadwell 2014, pg. 234) in the three speeches outlined. The goal of a
rhetorical analysis is to understand both what a speaker says, and how they say
it. To do this, speeches will be analysed for the strategies used to achieve the goal
of being a persuasive speaker. Rhetorical analysis will allow me to study not just
rhetoric as a whole, but specifically the techniques underlined by Atkinson
(1984) that play a critical role in how orators invite applause. Also, rhetorical
analysis will aid me in analysing body language and how American politicians
use this to enhance their persuasiveness. Below are details regarding rhetoric as
a whole, claptrap and the analysis of body language.
Rhetoric is the parallel to dialectic. Everybody uses both to discuss and support
their ideas, to stand for their point and to condemn others. Every person does
this whether it be unintentional or by rehearsal, some with more success than
others. Rhetoric has multiple meanings. It can allude to not only the ways in
which a speaker tries to persuade audiences but also the scholastic ‘study of
oratorical persuasion’ (Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 222). Rhetoric originated
in ancient Greece, Sophists believed the teaching of rhetoric would ‘equip pupils
with the skills of persuasion’ (Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 222). Aristotle
disagreed in that he believed rhetoric should be approached in an analytical
spirit and not as a practical discipline, he claimed rhetorica was ‘not to persuade,
but to discover the available means of persuasion in each case’ (Benson and
Prosser, 1988, pg. 56). The work done by Aristotle on rhetoric was the
foundation of European education from the Roman times to the late 19th century
(Matsen, Rollinson & Sousa, 1990).
Claptrap works in a way similar to ‘hip, hip, hooray!’. This phrase is used to
encourage a group of people to perform the same action at once. It’s clear when
it comes to political speeches it would be far too obvious for orators to say hip,
hip, hooray after they have said something that warrants approval. Therefore,
they use more discrete techniques that are often just as reliable, yet less
identifiable. The technical term for this technique is claptrap. Claptrap is defined
as a ‘trick, device or language designed to catch applause’ (Atkinson, 1984, pg.
23
48). It is important to note that claptrap is not ‘one thing’ as such; it is made up of
many things such as hand movements, posture, voice projection and many more.
Orators have to treat their audience like a choir of which they are the conductor.
Table 2 (see below) is copied from my claptrap chapter and shows an example of
the claptrap techniques I have chosen to look for in each of the political speeches.
Audience applause is measured by the starting point of applause until the same
segment of applause has come to an end.
The use of body language cues alongside words
can heavily influence the quality of delivery.
Politicians are well known for their use of hand
gestures, therefore to give myself a wide range of
resources I deemed political speeches appropriate
for my analysis. Previous research such as Bull and
Connelly (1985) focused their attention on
conversations that used students in laboratory
settings. Therefore, the aim of my analysis was to conduct similar research to
theirs, but in a naturalistic setting which gave me the chance to see whether
hand gestures are used more often than in a strict controlled environment.
Gestures are mainly seen during the speech itself but they are also ‘synchronized
with linguistic units’ (Bull, 2003, pg. 27). Gesture and speech work alongside one
another in creating meaning, for example, gestures can clarify the meaning of
speech and speech can clarify the meaning of gesture (Kelly et al., 1999). In other
words, gesture shouldn’t be viewed as an alternative to speech, but as an
additional aid, which is just one part of a ‘multichannel system of
communication’ (Bull, 2003, pg. 27). The cohesion of gesture and speech
provides skilled speakers with further routes to convey meaning to their
audience. Figure A is a screenshot from Kennedy’s speech, and shows how
important not only orator’s words are, but also their body language, dress and
posture.
The table below is just a few of the hand gestures I have noted in full detail
within the body language chapter. The gestures noted in this table, and
Figure A(Kennedy, 1960)
24
throughout the analysis, are regarded as a single act, for example a single finger
point is counted as one gesture. If in the same pointing gesture there is a
stabbing motion where five smaller points are made, this is counted as five more
gestures. Every time a gesture changes in appearance it is counted as a new
gesture. Bilateral movements are counted as one gesture unless each arm is
performing a different motion, if a bilateral movement is conducted with, for
example, a right finger point and a left hand open palm chop, this would be
classed as two separate gestures. Gestures can also fit more than one category at
once, for example a left-handed brush away with an open palm, a gesture to
quieten the audience with an open palm and a left handed multiple finger point
with a left handed chopping motion.
25
Hand gesture John F. Kennedy Ronald Reagan Barack ObamaLeft hand jab 0 0 25 (2%)Left finger point 1 (0.3%) 0 250 (20.%)Right hand jab 137 (40.9%) 0 70 (5.7%)Right finger point 34 (10.1%) 0 101 (8.3%)Two handed point 0 0 3 (0.2%)Two handed spread 4 (1.2%) 5 (50%) 175 (14.5%)
President List of three
Projecting a name
Contrastive pairs
Reference to “us” “we”
“ourselves”
Negative towards
opposition
Rhetorical questions
John F. Kennedy
15 18 4 48 18 3
Ronald Reagan
27 11 2 166 56 14
Barack Obama
23 23 2 77 34 4
26
Table 3: an example of some of the hand gestures that have been identified and tallied for each of the orators during their speech
27
Analysis
Political Myths
A main goal of using a metaphor is to play a part in evolving political myths. A
value of the metaphor is that since it isn’t specific or exact in what is being talked
about, it leaves an open interpretation and alongside other persuasive
techniques, gives the listener the opportunity to create their own meanings. This
idea can be suitable applied to the myth of the ‘American Dream’:
‘I came to this hallowed chamber two years ago on a mission:
to restore the American dream for all our people and to make
sure that we move into the 21st century still the strongest force
for freedom and democracy in the entire world’
(Bill Clinton, 24th January 1995)
‘This is our time-to put our people back to work and open doors
of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote
the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm
that fundamental truth-that out of many, we are one, that while
we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism
and doubt,And those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond
with that timelessCreed that sums up the spirit of a people:
yes, we can.’
(Barack Obama, 15th June 2008)
Like all myths, the American Dream is a story that has been told and lived by
people throughout history, and therefore there is a great level of inevitability.
Positivity is associated with the myth, but the hopes of a nation are different
depending on individuals themselves, and groups they belong to. ‘Dream’ is used
metaphorically and is a flexible concept that can be applied to anyone regardless
of his or her aspirations. The narrative of the American dream is based on the
apparent ‘…golden age of the past’ (Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 39). This is
28
supported by elements of the passage above, the use of ‘restore’ and ‘acclaim’
give the impression that ‘we’ the people can get something back and be the next
person to reclaim glory. The myth of the American Dream is in the minds of
many American's to this day, who have moved to North America to enhance their
lives, whether it be financially or to prevent further suffering, however, it cannot
be applied to the wider population within America, as there are those who
haven’t achieved the ‘American Dream’ and are living their lives far from what
they would want (Charteris-Black, 2005). Nevertheless, since how flexible the
‘dream’ metaphor is it can be applied to individual hope or social hope and this
flexibility is what allows it to be exploited easily in political debate. This
versatility is what underlines what has been described as a logico-rhetorical
module (Sperber, 2001). The explanation of a ‘dream’ in a personal context is
very much a right wing republican myth, whereas the concept of a dream being
social is a democratic, left wing myth, as a result of a dream being either is why
the logico-rhetorical module is activated. Political arguments have arisen as a
result of differing views, as to who has access to the American Dream. After the
Vietnam War, it’s claimed by the Baby Boom generation that everybody has
access to the American Dream, which differs to followers of an American global
hegemony, which stems from capitalism who hold the view that the American
Dream ‘…had to be earned’ (Charteris-Black, 2005, pg. 40) and therefore
suggested that it could only be achieved by those who work hard. Something that
both these narratives share is that while the dream is seen in the future, they
indicate that the experience is in the present. Rhetorically the influence of
metaphors originates in the meanings created by the original sense of the word,
the literal meaning. ‘Dream’ often means ‘hope’ and when it does, positive
connotations are felt that are not completely clear in the ordinary sense of
‘dream’, as can be seen in Obama’s use of the word on page 36 and 37.
Nonetheless, the optimism placed on the American Dream and the positive links
to hope and success, surround the word ‘dream’ which shows us the potential
the metaphor can have in mythic narrative.
Although the American Dream is different for each person, as was showed by
Stud Terkel who spent years travelling around the United States finding out what
29
people’s interpretation of the American Dream was (Terkel, 1980). From his
findings it appeared that explanations share certain foundations. The American
Dream looks towards the future since the metaphor refers to situations that
don’t exist yet and couples personal ambition, with social aspiration. The
American Dream is the belief that one’s future life will be better than it currently
is and has been. The myth of the American Dream is, and has been used
frequently by current commander in chief Barack Obama, and it shouldn’t be a
surprise that his first published book in 2004 had ‘dream’ in the title, ‘Barack
Obama: Dreams from my Father’ (Obama, 2004). Before this book was released
however, Obama touched upon the American Dream in his civil rights speech on
October 25th 2005 in which he said:
‘It’s a simple dream, but it speaks to us so powerfully because
it is our dream – one that exists at the very centre of the American
experience. One that says if you’re willing to work hard and take
responsibility, then you’ll have the chance to reach for something
else; for something better’
(Obama, 25th October 2005)
The central ideologies of the American Dream are if individual effort is shown,
then rewards will follow. During this speech the word ‘dream’ is used 35 times,
and was repeatedly used as a synonym of ‘hope’. The use of ‘dream’ was also
used along with other metaphors that were often based on the values of the
nation being a family:
‘It is that promise that has always set this country apart, that
through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our
individual dreams but still come together as one American Family,
to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well’
(Obama, 28th August 2008)
Here Obama shows no struggle between the individual aspiration and the
achievement of society. If we look at several presidents/political leaders
30
throughout history, lots of them used myths to empower their speeches, for
example Ronald Reagan and his myth ‘From the swamp to the stars’. But as
Fairclough (1992) has noted, metaphors can also be used during ‘politics as a
war’, and found that in the British general election discourse ‘naturalized’ how
the audience think about and understand politics. Looking at Austrian political
discourse, De Cillia, Reisigl and Wodak (1999) found that the use of metonyms
such as ‘the foreigner’ could reduce individualism and therefore approving ‘…
nationalist generalizations’ (Sears, Huddy, Jervis, 2003, pg. 228). Although it
should be noted that not all political metaphors in discourse have such a
traditional effect. Chilton and Ilyin (1993) looked at the roots of metaphor when
used to describe Europe as a ‘common house’, showing how it worked between
the western and Russian political discourse, they suggested that new metaphors
‘can break up the rigid conceptual frames of an existing political order’ (Chilton
& Ilyin, 1993, pg. 10).
31
Claptrap
This chapter will look at the use of claptrap devices in Kennedy (1960), Reagan
(1980) and Obama’s (2008) presidential nomination acceptance speeches
through techniques underline by Atkinson (1984), and how they use these
techniques to encourage audience applause. In this chapter I have purposely
analysed Reagan’s speech more than Kennedy and Obama’s. This is because
Kennedy and Obama have very prominent displays of non-verbal communication
and it will therefore be beneficial to my analysis if they make up the majority of
the body language chapter.
When the audience observe and understand when an insult to another party or a
boast about their own has occurred, they can prepare themselves to applaud at
the completion of the orators point. For the audience to understand when to
applaud the speaker must make it obvious when they have entered the final
stages of their message early on in the speech so the audience can anticipate
when the point is coming to an end. This can be done by using techniques such as
projecting names, using contrastive pairs such as ‘us’ and ‘them’ and by using
lists of three. Highlighting the importance of these techniques for example, is
Barack Obama who uses a list of three in his first sentence of his speech, ‘To
Chairman Dean (1) and my great friend Dick Durbin (2), and to all my fellow
citizens of this great nation… (3)’. This is just one example of claptrap
techniques; I will refer to more examples later on.
According to Atkinson (1984) the typical applause length is seven, eight or nine
seconds (+/-1). It should be noted the results gathered by Atkinson (1984) were
from actual audience members and not under experimental conditions.
Kennedy’s speech had a duration of 22 minutes and 26 seconds and had a total of
26 claptraps, the audience spent a total of 189 seconds (3 minutes 9 seconds)
clapping with the longest period of applause being 33 seconds and the longest
time in-between claptraps was 134 seconds (2 minutes 14 seconds). Ronald
Reagan’s speech had a duration of 42 minutes 23 seconds and had a total of 50
32
claptraps, the audience spent a total of 512 seconds (8 minutes 53 seconds)
clapping with the longest period of applause being 30 seconds and the longest
time in-between claptraps was 124 seconds (2 minutes 4 seconds). During
Barack Obama’s speech there were 75 claptraps in 44 minutes 58 seconds, the
audience spent a total of 994 seconds (16 minutes 56 seconds) clapping with the
longest period of applause being 47 seconds. The longest time between the uses
of claptrap was 58 seconds (table 4).
Table 4: shows various detail regarding the three chosen speeches President List of
threeProjecting a name
Contrastive pairs
Reference to “us” “we” “ourselves
Negative towards opposition
Rhetorical question/question
John F. Kennedy (1960)
15 18 4* 48 18 3
Ronald Reagan (1980)
27* 11 2 166* 56* 14*
Barack Obama (2008)
23 23* 2 77 34 4
President Duration of speech (Min/Sec)
Total number of claptraps
Total duration of audience applause (Min/Sec)
Longest period of applause (Sec)
Largest time in-between the use of a claptrap (Min/Sec)
John F. Kennedy (1960)
22 minutes 26 seconds
26 3 minutes 9 seconds
33 seconds 2 minutes 14 seconds
Ronald Reagan (1980)
42 minutes 23 seconds
50 8 minutes 53 seconds
30 seconds 2 minutes 4 seconds
Barack Obama (2008)
44 minutes 58 seconds
75 16 minutes 56 seconds
47 seconds 0 minutes 58 seconds
Table 5: shows the number of occurrences of Atkinson’s (1984) applaudable message techniques with the addition of ‘rhetorical questions’ (* marks the highest out of the three speakers in each category)
33
Looking at the three politicians in a ranking order of hand gestures used, Reagan
comes last by a long shot. My point here is, that Reagan isn’t as dominant when it
comes to non-verbal communication, but when it comes to content, he is head
and shoulders above the rest. Looking at table 5 we can see that Reagan uses
Atkinson’s (1984) applaudable message techniques far more than Kennedy and
Obama. Out of the six techniques I have analysed, Reagan used the most in four
(list of three, reference to “us”, “we” or “ourselves”, negative towards the
opposition and rhetorical questions). This doesn’t always equate to the audience
applauding as much as they did in Obama’s speech (50 claptraps vs. 75), but
considering Reagan’s lack of hand gestures, it shows that the content is just as
important.
Reagan uses more emotive language than Kennedy and Obama, although they
too use emotive language, Reagan uses it in a way that includes his audience into
his speech. Supported by the fact he referred to “us”, “we” or “ourselves’ 216%
(89) more than Obama and 346% (118) more than Kennedy. He also involved
the audience in his speech more than either Obama or Kennedy, and did so a
total of 14 times through asking questions or rhetorical questions in contrast to
Obama’s 4 and Kennedy’s 3. According to Atkinson (1984) the use of both of
these techniques is likely to encourage applause and this proved correct for
Reagan, and at times worked too well since he was interrupted by collective
applause more than either Obama and Kennedy at 17 times (table 6, pg. 39).
Below is an example of how Reagan involved the audience in his speech by
asking them questions:
Extract 1
Reagan: ‘Can anyone look at the record of this Administration and say “well ‘well done’?
Audience: NO!
Reagan: ‘Can anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are today and say ‘keep up the good work’?
Audience: NO!
34
Reagan: ‘can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, ‘lets have four more years of this’?
Audience: NO!
Reagan: ‘I believe the American people are going to answer these questions the first week of November and their answer will be, ‘no – we’ve had enough’ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(Republican National Convention, 1980)
This extract is unlike anything in Kennedy and Obama’s speeches. Through the
use of a three-part list not only has Reagan involved the audience so they are
collectively answering his questions, but he also gets the audience to contribute
their own three-part list. The combination of this applaudable technique and the
fact Reagan is actively communicating with his audience and not just too them,
leads 14 seconds of applause, double what Atkinson (1984) described as the
typical length. It’s extracts like this that have allowed me to suggest that Reagan
uses more emotive language than Obama and Kennedy. Within this passage
Reagan also says ‘… we’ve had enough’, consider if this message was worded
differently and instead Reagan said: ‘… America you’ve had enough’. This has
nowhere near the same emotional appeal. The term ‘you’ distances the speaker
from those who they are referring to, whereas the use of ‘we’ involves his fellow
people, it shows them that he’s on their team, he understands what they want
and that he can be the man to lead them forward.
The fact that Reagan involves his audience so much through the use of questions
and reference to ‘us’ leads me to my next point, which is how often they
interrupted his speech and forced him to stop speaking (17). This was more than
either of the other orators analysed. Usually when the audience interrupts a
speaker it can mean two things, the claptrap has been poorly delivered so the
audience don’t know when to applaud, or because they agree with what the
speaker says so much they cannot contain their applause. For Reagan the later is
definitely the case. This is supported by my findings, as isolated applause is likely
to occur at the end of a poorly delivered claptrap, yet Reagan’s speech produced
35
the least incidents of isolated applause (2) in contrast to Obama (7) and Kennedy
(9). Therefore, these results lead me to believe that although the audience
interrupted Reagan often, this was to show their agreement as opposed to being
unsure when to applaud.
Chart 1
Another claptrap technique that Reagan used to great effect was attacking the
opposition (referred to in table 5 as ‘negative towards opposition’). Reagan
spoke about the opponent negatively 167% (22) more than Obama and 312%
(38) more than Kennedy. By highlighting the mistakes that the opposition have
made it allows him to form a strong ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ mentality among his party.
Below is an extract that highlights this:
List of t
hree
Projec
ting a
name
Contrasti
ve pair
s
Refere
nce to
“us”
“we”
“ours
elves
”
Negati
ve towar
ds opposit
ion
Rhetoric
al ques
tions
0
40
80
120
160
Chart to show the number of occurrences of Atkinson's (1984) applaudable message techniques in Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama's (2008)
presidential nomination acceptance speeches
John F. KennedyRonald ReaganBarack Obama
Applaudable message technique
Nu
mb
er o
f occ
urr
ence
s
36
Extract 2
Reagan: ‘they tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens I utterly reject that value’
XXXXXXXX
(Republican National Convention, 1980)
Aaaaaa Represents the use of ‘they’Aaaaaa Represents ‘us’, ‘we’, ‘our’Aaaaaa Represents children, future, use of negative word and three part list Represents emphasis
As can be seen in table 5, Reagan uses Atkinson’s (1984) applaudable message
techniques more often than either Kennedy or Obama (the most in 4/7
categories). This passage from Reagan highlights his constant use. He refers to
the opposition party as ‘they’ 5 times, made reference to ‘us’/’our’ 3 times, the
emotional capture and fear for ‘your’ children's future and speaks about the
future using an aggressive word that carries no positive connotations, ‘sacrifice’.
Reagan creates a metaphorical monster out of the opposition party, one that has
ruined lives in the past, one that impacts your children's future, and one that is
attacking ‘our America’. Countries justify going to war by using a similar
technique, Reagan is going to war, but in a different context.
This extract comes early in Reagan’s speech, so the audience is on his side from
the start and they are clear on whom the ‘enemy’ is. By doing this Reagan is
showing the audience his first point that should be applauded (i.e. when he
attacks the opposition). He does this (also done in the previous example) by
speaking with a steady vocal pitch when talking about the opposition, but when
he says ‘I utterly reject that value’ his vocal pitch deepens and becomes more
assertive. This is done not only to add emphasis to what is being said but also to
tell the audience that he has come to the end of his applaudable message.
Constantly attacking the opposition may bring people to question Reagan’s
character, to combat this he talks about ‘us’, ‘we’ and ‘ourselves’ frequently, far
37
more than Kennedy and Obama (table 5 and chart 1). Put simply, if Reagan spent
the whole speech openly attacking the opposition his character may come into
question, therefore by using ‘we’ he can pass of his negative views towards the
opposition as a shared, collective opinion.
So how do Kennedy, Reagan and Obama attack the opposition without coming
across as too aggressive? They did it in a way that is far less aggressive than has
been seen with Reagan’s example above, by attacking the opposition implicitly.
Chart 4 below shows how all three politicians balance their strong external
attacks and their implicit attacks. If they were to attack the opposition openly
throughout the whole speech it would come across as too strong and give the
impression they have a personal vendetta against their opponents (e.g. Gore vs.
Perot). Through implicit attacks they can attack the opposition but in a much
more subtle way as can be seen in Obama’s example below.
Obama: ‘We’re a better country than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up his equipment that he's worked on for 20 year and watch as it’s shipped off to China … We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty’
(Democratic National Convention, 2008)
If this statement were to fit the external attack category it would read something like this:
‘What sort of government takes away a man’s job after working hard for 20 years? The Republicans don’t care about you, but we do. We won’t let our veterans sleep on the street or our family’s slip into poverty. We will look after you’
Although on its own this isn’t too strong, if Obama attacked the opposition with
the same bluntness in all of his 34 examples then its more than likely going to
reflect his personality in a negative light rather than the opposition. All three of
the speakers I have analysed follow this trend with them all having an almost
equal balance between external attacks and implicit attacks to combat any
potential questions about their personal character.
38
Chart 2
Invited and uninvited applause
Table 6: shows when audience applause took place during the three speeches
John F. Kennedy Ronald Reagan Barack ObamaApplause at completion point
28 45 36
Applause not at completion point
0 6 47
Interruptive applause (speaker pauses)
3 17 12
Speaker talking over applause
0 11 61
Isolated applause 9 2 7Clapping an applaudable message
0 4 12
Clayman (1993) suggested that audiences can co-ordinate their behaviour in two
ways. One is ‘independent decision-making’, where people in the crowd act
independently but still manage to co-ordinate their behaviour with others.
John F. Kennedy
Ronald Reagan
Barack Obama
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
8
24
16
10
32
18
The number of external attacks and implicit attacks on the opposition by Kennedy (1960),
Reagan (1980) and Obama (2008)
External attacksImplicit attacks
Speaker
Nu
mb
er o
f occ
urr
ence
s
39
Secondly, there is ‘mutual monitoring’ where individual responses are guided by
the behaviour of others in the audience. In Obama’s speech the audience fall into
the independent decision making category. Strong collective applause often
occurred before he had finished speaking (120), in contrast to Kennedy’s
audience who at times, had an awkward pause at the end of a poorly delivered
applaudable message. This led to a ‘staggered’ onset or isolated applause (9)
(table 6) which then prompted others to respond. The staggered beginning to
applause in Kennedy’s speech gives the impression that mutual monitoring is
also involved in applause. At times the audience had a 1 second pause before
isolated applause occurred, this may be down to the fact that some individuals
simply agreed with what was being said rather than copying the behaviour of
others to prevent feeling uncomfortable. Isolated applause was seen in Obama’s
speech more than was expected, however, the audience was eager and loud
throughout the speech (arrow 1). With such a large crowd it’s expected that
small sections would applaud on their own, so the incidents of isolated applause
(arrow 2) is more to do with the audience than the quality of Obama’s claptrap
delivery. For example, Obama had to speak over applause 61 times (arrow 1),
some statements were so popular with the audience they applauded regardless
of whether a rhetorical device was used (arrow 4). For example, Obama’s
statement on health care, ‘Now – now is the time to finally keep the promise of
affordable, accessible health care for every single American’. This was followed
not only by audience applause but also cheering. This statement doesn’t contain
a rhetorical device yet still produces rapturous applause, this goes to show that
the speech content, i.e. the policy, is so popular it would receive applause
regardless of whether rhetorical devices were used or not. Such results raise
serious question marks about Heritage and Greatbatch’s argument that
audiences are much more likely to applaud a message if it’s delivered with a
rhetorical device. It also suggests that Atkinson et al (Atkinson, 1984; Heritage
and Greatbach, 2006) have seriously underestimated the importance of speech
content when using techniques to encourage applause.
Chart 3a
40
Another implication regards the occurrence of spontaneous audience applause,
which Atkinson had some doubt about. He states: ‘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’ (Atkinson, 1984, pg. 45-
46). Looking at the results from Obama’s speech, it suggests there is now
available evidence because Obama’s audience showed more examples of
spontaneous applause (arrows 1, 3, 4, 5) than applause that came when,
according to Atkinson, it should (arrow 6). Suggesting the content of the speech
had more of an impact than rhetorical devices used.
Nevertheless, it would be naïve to assume that uninvited applause is completely
spontaneous, the use of claques (a group hired to applaud a performance) in
French theatres in times gone by is well known, and it would be hard to believe
political activists do not collude in the same way. Nonetheless, it’s noteworthy
that the most occurrences of uninvited applause in this study came in Barack
Obama’s speech (61), who compared to his battle against Mitt Romney in 2012
Applause
at co
mplet
ion poin
t
Applause
not at c
omplet
ion point
Interru
ptive a
pplause
(spea
ker pau
ses)
Spea
ker ta
lkin
g over
applau
se
Isolat
ed ap
plause
Clappin
g with
out it b
eing a
n applau
dable
mes
sage
0
20
40
60
Chart to show when audience applause took place in John F. Kennedy (1960), Ronald Reagan (1980) and Barack Obama's presidential nom-
ination acceptance speeches
John F. KennedyRonald ReaganBarack Obama
Applause timing
Nu
mb
er o
f occ
ure
nce
s
41
won by a landslide in 2008 (see appendix A) and therefore suggests that the
uninvited applause may just be a sign of his popularity at the time. This opens up
a whole new debate of whether levels of applause have a direct correlation to the
popularity of the speaker’s character.
42
Chart 3b
Applause
at co
mplet
ion poin
t
Applause
not at c
omplet
ion point
Interru
ptive a
pplause
(spea
ker pau
ses)
Spea
ker ta
lkin
g over
applau
se
Isolat
ed ap
plause
Clappin
g with
out it b
eing a
n applau
dable
mes
sage
010203040506070
Chart to show at what points the audience began clapping dur-ing Kennedy (1960), Reagan (1980) and Obama (2008) presi-
dential nomination acceptance speeches
John F. KennedyRonald ReaganBarack Obama
Nu
mb
er o
f occ
urr
ence
s
Arrow 1: Obama's eager audi-ence
Arrow 2: Obama's isolated applause
Arrow 3: uninvited ap-plause
Arrow 4: un-invited ap-plause
Arrow 5: uninvited ap-plause
Arrow 6: invited ap-plause
43
Body Language
Gilbert Austin, a pioneer of Chironomia,
describes gesture as the ‘action and
position of all the parts of the body’ (Austin,
1806, pg. 133) and highlights the
importance of gesture to convey meaning. It
should be noted that gestures are different
to non-verbal physical communications,
which don’t convey specific messages, such
as proxemics (Wilkins, 2006). By following
guidelines set by Austin, orator’s can
improve their performance by combining
their gestures and words. Austin highlights
the importance of gesture in speaking
spontaneously but also warns that gesture
should only be used when appropriate and
with restraint (Austin, 1806).
Austin created a system of notations; the
first stage is the idea that the body is placed
in an imaginary sphere (figure A). He states
that the speaker then moves their hands, feet or body in the direction of one of
the points in the sphere. Each of the movements, whether that is towards a
certain section of the sphere or movements of the arm, body or head, is given a
notation that states the direction and the way in which the speaker should move.
These movements should, according to Austin, be noted within the speech itself
so the speaker knows the exact
moment when to perform the
desired action. If the required
movement is to do with the hands
then the notation is written above
Figure CClasped hands, crossed hand, and folded hand positions (Austin, 1806)
Figure B“The human figure being supposed to be so place within this sphere, that the centre of the breast shall coincide with its centre, and that the diameter of the horizontal circle perpendicular to a radius is drawn to the projecting point, shall pass through the shoulders, the positions and motions of the arms are referred to and determined by these circles and their intersections” (Austin, 1806, pg. 510)
44
the text and if it’s to do with the legs then below. Austin uses this example, ‘Bcl. E
f sh. above a word indicates that the speaker should clasp both hands and extend
them forward at shoulder height in a shaking motion. The notation L 1 x under a
word indicates that the speaker should advance the left foot and bend the right
knee’ (Austin, Robb and Thonssen, 1966, pg. 4) (see figure B). After much
influence across Europe and America, Chronomia fell out of favour by the end of
the 19th century because it was believed to be too mechanical for modern
political oratory. However these techniques, although maybe to a lesser degree,
are still used in political speeches and it could be said they always will be.
Condon and Ogston (1966) suggested that the body of orators and people in
general move closely in time with their words, they termed this ‘self-synchrony’.
Self-synchrony is not solely to do with hand gestures. The movement of other
areas of the body are also closely linked with speech. However, this doesn’t mean
that every bodily movement is associated with discourse.
Watching the speeches and
viewing the transcriptions to
look at the relationship between
vocal pitch and hand gestures,
the speeches by Kennedy (1960),
Reagan (1980) and Obama
(2008) have been analysed and
the findings can be found in table
7 (pg. 58). Two out of the three
speakers, especially with Kennedy, showed a considerable number of hand
gestures in direct relation with vocal stress, in other words the majority of their
gestures were timed to take place at a similar time to vocal stress. The remaining
hand gestures cannot be labelled as unrelated to vocal stress, as some are
considered to be preparatory gestures. For example Kennedy would often use a
right hand jab (40.8%) for the first two elements of a three part list and then use
a right handed finger point (10.1%) to emphasize the stressed and most
important word. Similarly so for Obama, who used a right hand jab to build
suspense (5.8%) and then switched to his dominant left hand and performed a
Figure D (Democratic National Convention, 2008)
45
left finger point (20.6%) to emphasize the word. This contrasts to his right-
handed jab (5.8%) and the right finger point (8.4%) (table 8). Obama uses these
gestures in a similar way in which a boxer throws a jab before throwing a power
punch on his strongest hand. By looking at an example of Obama using a 3-part
list this can be explained in further detail.
Extract 3
Obama: And I will restore our moral standings so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXfreedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXfuture
Audience: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxx
Hand begins to chopHand rises higher and chops again, open palmFinger points and jabs down 4 times XXX marks audience applause Marks emphasis
Figure E
‘… so that American is once again that…’
‘And I will restore our moral standings…’
46
At the precise point where Obama says the word ‘restore’ this is the start of the
applaudable message. Obama performs the first in a series of sharp chopping
motions with his left hand (7.5%). His voice is raised firstly at ‘restore’ and again
at ‘American’ and ‘last, best hope’, with him continuing to shout the rest of the
message at the same volume before applause commences. Pointing gestures, as
can be seen in figure E, occur in time with stressed vowels. Obama is beating the
rhythm of the word out with the aim of making sure that his point is driven into
the audience and therefore taken on board. Obama’s left arm reaches maximum
point of extension when it comes to the last of the 3 part list (hope) before the
camera pans out to the audience, it’s a safe prediction that Obama carries on this
sharp finger pointing in his second 3 part list. This same hand gesture was seen
in 20% of all of Obama’s hand gestures.
From the early stages of this sequence, the audience is littered with many signals,
all of which are done to encourage the audience to follow in the same direction.
‘Hope’ is underlined by Obama as the place where the audience should respond
since it comes at the end of the applaudable message. This first arises with an
increase in tone and volume, rhythmic emphasis and hand gestures. ‘Hope’ is
also the third word in the list which is made especially clear by both the deeper
vocal pitch on the last beat, and by the most vigorous pointing gesture so far.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising the audience began clapping at the end of
‘hope’. It didn’t matter that Obama had not finished his main applaudable
message and it was likely done on purpose so it sounded as if the audience could
no longer contain their agreement with the smaller claptrap snowballing into
one huge ovation at the end of ‘future’ which resulted in 13 seconds of applause,
almost double what Atkinson (1984) stated was normal for audience applause.
If we look at table 7 and the total hand gestures used by Kennedy and Obama,
why is it that Obama uses more gestures than Kennedy? Despite the fact that
Kennedy’s speech was half the length of Obama’s, Obama had used considerably
more gestures by the same time that Kennedy’s had concluded. One reason why
47
Obama was able to use such a variety of hand gestures (25/28) compared to
Kennedy (16/28) was because he wasn’t referring to a written script. When it
comes to using non-verbal signals orators who rely entirely on scripts are ‘much
more restricted…’ (Atkinson, 1984, pg. 66). This is because gestures can have a
shortage of natural, fluid movements and not be as coordinated as words that are
off the cuff (Atkinson, 1984). From Kennedy’s point of view, referring to notes
makes it harder to produce flamboyant hand gestures while also looking down
and reading a script. If Kennedy was to look up and perform the appropriate
gesture after he had finished speaking, it’s extremely likely to be badly timed and
potentially raise suspicion from the audience that gestures have been written
into the speech itself (i.e. following Austin’s technique). Another problem is if
Kennedy was to stray too far from his structured script then there is the chance
he may lose his place, this could be a reason as to why Kennedy had more speech
errors (4) and more incidents of isolated applause (9) than either of the other
two speakers. When it comes to Obama, he uses modern day technology to aid
with script reading. This allows him to use gestures more freely than those who
use written scripts. Transparent teleprompter screens are two Perspex screens
to the left and right of the speaker where the words are transmitted from the
back of the room allowing only the speaker to see what is written, to the
audience it simply looks like two sheets of glass. An advantage of this technology
is it gives the appearance that the speaker is constantly addressing the audience,
as their heads move from side to side (i.e. one screen to another).
Although improved technology can be used to explain why Obama used more
gestures than Kennedy, why is it that Reagan who also used Teleprompters only
used 8 hand gestures (none of which occurred during the actual speech, just
before in an attempt to quieten the audience) in a speech that was just over 2
minutes shorter than Obama’s? It’s understandable that one might presume the
more gestures a speaker uses the more natural and forthcoming they seem, but
this opinion comes into question if we were to look at a British survey in which
47 academics who specialize in American history and politics were asked to rate
all US presidents (not including Obama) on five categories: domestic leadership,
moral authority, positive historical significance of their legacy, vision/agenda
48
setting and foreign policy leadership. From their findings Reagan, who used no
hand gestures other than thanking the audience and attempting to quieten them
before the speech began, was ranked as high as 8 and was dubbed ‘The Great
Communicator’ (Young, 2003). These findings are supported by an article in
Time magazine (Atkinson, 1984, pg. 93), which highlighted Reagan’s success in
speaking spontaneously and suggested that despite the amount of work that
went into preparing the speech, it wasn’t noticeable during his delivery. This is
the first piece of evidence that suggests there is more to the quality of an orator’s
performance than gestures and rhetorical devices.
“The entire speech sounded as though it was delivered off the top of
Reagan’s head, that the thoughts had just occurred to him and, darn it, he
was going to share them with his friends all over America. Said
Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Lee Dreyfus, a Ph.D. in
communications: ‘I’d give him an A if he were in my class.’ That was the
mark generally awarded to Reagan … Iowa’s G.O.P. Governor Robert Ray
… called the address ‘dynamite. He touched the soul of America. He's off to
a flying start.”
(Atkinson, 1984, pg. 93)
In the first example below, which covers Kennedy’s use of hand gestures,
Kennedy uses a smaller applaudable message before a bigger one in the same
way Obama has above. The applaudable message begins when Kennedy says the
word ‘but’. After this point Kennedy’s hand gestures are far more prominent than
the text leading up. He uses a series of hand gestures that begins with the closed
palm right hand jab (40.8%) and as he progresses through the three-part list he
begins to use more sharp chopping motions with his right hand (29.5%). To
highlight an early difference to Obama’s hand gestures, the majority of Kennedy’s
gestures are with his right hand where the majority of Obama’s are with his left;
this is because they have opposing dominant hands (Obama is left handed,
Kennedy right).
49
Extract 4
‘ … But this nation cannot afford such a luxury. Perhaps we could afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore …’
Hand rises up to chin heightHand begins to chop down with a closed palm and political pointHand rises to chest height with an open palmOpen palm chops down towards the groundHand returns to chest height and chops with an open palm Marks emphasis
Kennedy raises his voice when he says the word ‘but’ which tells the audience
that he has something important to say and requires their full attention. The
deepening of vocal pitch is used along with the raising of his right hand, which
acts as an attention cue. A physically visible cue for the audience to look at in the
same way clicking the fingers would capture a person’s attention. There is a
distinctive pattern in this passage between vocal stress and hand gestures.
Kennedy utters two words with extra emphasis here, both being ‘afford’. This
word is the reason Kennedy didn’t seek applause during this first three-part list,
but rather the second. Here Kennedy’s referring to previous presidents who
were, in his opinion, not fit for purpose. He’s reminding the audience of those
who have made mistakes, and by repeatedly emphasizing the word ‘afford’
Kennedy is reminding the audience of his rival parties inadequacy to run the
country. Put simply, he’s planted the seed and is building the applaudable
message. The two times Kennedy says the word ‘afford’ is when his strongest
hand gestures and vocal stress are seen and heard. As can be seen in figure F,
Kennedy’s hand reaches the highest point when the word ‘afford’ is uttered and
this coincides with the fastest and longest chopping motion. The right hand chop
is used 29.5% (99) of the time only second to the right hand jab (137/40.8%)
which was often used in preparation to the right hand chop.
Similarly to Obama, Kennedy beats out the rhythm of the words early on, before
building to larger hand gestures. This can be seen in figure F, where Kennedy is
50
using the right hand jab (political point). His right hand doesn’t come as high as it
does in the second picture, and the length of extension is also far smaller. If he
were to use expansive gestures for all words then no real emphasis would be
added to the final, most important word. Kennedy’s hand gestures, which from
my research is atypical for delivering three-part lists, reduce towards the third
segment. This technique, as was shown in my analysis of Obama, is commonly
used by political speakers to draw the audience into an applaudable message and
then take it away at the last minute so they are left wanting to applaud.
Therefore, when his second three-part list is delivered the audience is ready to
perform rapturous collective applause. Obama used this same technique, but
where he was unable to contain the excitement of his audience who began
applauding before he had finished his three-part list, Kennedy’s audience waited
for the message to be complete before applauding at the completion point (table
6 pg. 39). It’s difficult to know whether this is down to the speaker or the
audience, as a different audience on a different day may have reacted differently.
Figure F
‘ … perhaps we could afford …’
‘ … but this nation cannot afford such a luxury …’
51
Extract 5
‘ … But after Buchanan this nation needed Lincoln; after Taft we needed Wilson; and after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt’ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Hand rises up to chin height with open palmOpen palm chops downRight hand jab Political point rises to shoulder heightPolitical point chops downChin rises Marks emphasisXXX marks loud audience applause
This passage immediately followed and is the
true applaudable message. Here Kennedy
shows a similar extension from his shoulders
and elbow when performing gestures during
his first three-part list. He combines assertive
gestures (figure G) alongside contrasting
pairs and a three-part list in a passage that is
littered with techniques that are likely to
encourage applause. Kennedy uses
contrastive pairs to compare less popular
presidents (Buchanan, Taft and Hoover) with presidents that were ranked in the
top 10 US presidents of all time (Morgan, 2011). When he mentions the popular
presidents (Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt) his hand gestures come to life. His
elbows are fully extended, the chopping
motion is far more rigorous
than seen in his preparatory
gestures and the tempo of his speech is faster
to mirror the speed of his hand movements.
Figure H: sincere smile and pride(Democratic National
Figure G: assertive hand gesture (Democratic National Convention, 1960)
(Democratic National Convention, 1960)
52
He concluded his three-part list by mentioning one of the most notable
Democratic leaders of all time, Franklin Roosevelt. The most notable non-verbal
behaviour I found from Kennedy’s speech is what I believe made him so popular
among fellow Democrats and the American people. When Kennedy says ‘Franklin
Roosevelt’ (figure H) he shows a sincere smile, which is seen by ‘crow feet
wrinkles’ appearing at the corner of the eyes, a relaxed forehead and only his top
teeth visible (Nevid, 2006). If this wasn’t enough to show his fondness for
Roosevelt, Kennedy also shows a big display of pride. Pride is seen when the
head is tilted back and the chin is raised whilst displayed with positive facial
emotions such as smiling (Ekman, 1975). This is likely to go down well, as the
majority of people at Kennedy’s speech will be democrats and appreciate the
historic actions of Roosevelt. Some people may show signs of jealousy when
talking about a person that achieved so much success in terms of public
appreciation, therefore these two body language signals show Kennedy’s
sincerity and warmth towards fellow party affiliates. This is likely to be
appreciated by the audience, as it shows he can put his ego to one side and show
appreciation for others.
It is difficult to cover Reagan in this section of analysis because, as can be seen in
table 7, Reagan used next to no hand gestures throughout his speech. When
Reagan did display non-verbal gestures, they occurred before the speech had
begun in an attempt to quieten the audience who applauded him for well over a
minute. It’s hard to believe how Reagan’s hands are positioned in figure I is how
they remained for the rest of the speech, but this is the case. Even when he does
display a gesture to quieten the crowd it is still a small one in comparison to
Obama (figure M, pg. 65). Where Obama has large extension from the elbow and
shoulder, Reagan has a smaller extension that doesn’t get to shoulder height, as
can be seen in figure J. With Reagan’s acting career before his journey into
politics it would be understandable to think he would be the master of gesturing,
but as has been talked about in my claptrap chapter he puts far more emphasis
on what he is saying and how he says it, not that Kennedy and Obama don’t, just
that Reagan’s style is very different to theirs, but is just as effective.
Figure H: sincere smile and pride(Democratic National
53
Figure IReagan’s neutral hand positioning
(Republican National Convention, 1980)
Figure JHand gesture to quieten the audience
54
John F. Kennedy Ronald Reagan Barack Obama
Vocal stress with gesture 253 (76.3%) 0 424 (48.1%)
Gesture indirectly used with stress1) Preparatory gesture2) Terminating gesture3) Pacifier/self touch
17 (5.1%)24 (7.2%)7 (2.1%)
01 (12.5%)0
197 (22.4%)75 (8.5%)5 (0.5%)
Gesture unrelated to stress, including the touching of notes 31 (9.3%) 7 (87.5%) 180 (20.5%)
Speech errors 4 2 2
John F. Kennedy Ronald Reagan Barack Obama
1 handed gestures 326 (98.2%) 3 (37.5%) 595 (67.5%)
2 handed gestures 6 (1.8%) 5 (62.5%) 286 (32.5%)
Total gestures 332 8 881
Table 7: shows the number of hand gestures used in Kennedy, Reagan and Obama’s presidential nomination acceptance speeches, looking at how many gestures were related/unrelated to vocal stress, whether the gestures were used in a preparatory, terminating or self touch way and finally how many gestures occurred on each hand. Note: all of Reagan’s hand gestures were before his actual speech had started, i.e. saying thank you to the audience for the introduction and attempting to calm them down
55
56
Hand gesture John F. Kennedy Ronald Reagan Barack ObamaLeft hand jab 0 0 25 (2%)Left finger point 1 (0.3%) 0 250 (20.6%)Right hand jab 137 (40.8%) 0 70 (5.8%)Right finger point 34 (10.1%) 0 101 (8.4%)Two handed point 0 0 3 (0.2%)Two handed spread 4 (1.2%) 5 (45.4%) 175 (14.5%)Resting crossed hands 1 (0.3%) 0 27 (2.4%)Left hand palm showing 4 (1.2%) 0 77 (6.4%)Right hand palm showing 31 (9.2%) 2 (18.2%) 37 (3%)Left hand multiple finger point 0 0 52 (4.3%)Right hand multiple finger point 5 (1.5%) 0 12 (0.9%)Left handed brush aside 6 (1.8%) 0 20 (1.6%)Right handed brush aside 0 0 62 (5.2%)Two handed brush aside 0 0 4 (0.3%)Left hand fast ball 0 0 16 (1.3%)Right hand fast ball 0 0 2 (0.1%)Left handed claw 0 0 3 (0.2%)Right handed claw 0 0 10 (0.8%)Left hand chop 7 (2.1%) 0 90 (7.5%)Right hand chop 99 (29.5%) 0 29 (2.3%)Two handed chop 1 (0.3%) 0 129 (10.7%)Gesture to quieten audience 0 2 (18.2%) 11 (0.9%)One handed body touch 1 (0.3%) 0 6 (0.4%)Two handed body touch 0 0 2 (0.1%)Two hands closing together 1 (0.3%) 1 (9.1%) 0Microphone rearrangement 1 (0.3%) 0 0Self touch pacifier 3 (0.8%) 1 (9.1%) 0Red flag gestures 0 0 1 (0.1%)Total 336 11 1214
Above: table 8 shows the number of hand gestures used in the speeches and what hand gestures specifically were used. In total 28 different gestures have been recorded
Note: there are more types of specific hand gestures than the number of gestures recorded, as one gesture could be performed in more than one motion, for example a right hand jab could have been performed in a chopping motion, therefore fitting the ‘right/left hand chop’ and the ‘right/left hand jab’ category
57
Images below are examples of gestures that may be harder to visualize (Democratic Nation Convention, 2008; 1960)
Figure L – an example of the left-handed fastball, note the difference to the claw
Figure M – gesturing to quieten the audience
Figure K – the finger jab aka the political point
Figure P – example of the self-touch pacifier, Kennedy putting his hand in his pocket
Figure O – the finger gun, a hand gesture that carries negative connotations
Figure N –the claw, subtle difference in appearance to the fastball, big difference in meaning
58
Conclusion
One distinguishing feature from the results I have gathered, is that if we are to consider
communication as a skill then we can safely presume that it can be improved through
forms of training. Although this dissertation wasn’t concerned directly with political
communicative training, the findings may be considered to have some practical
significance. Results can help potential politicians and orators become, in general, more
perceptive. By analysing these techniques it made it possible for us to recognize
whether a politician is using techniques to invite applause in their speech.
From the viewpoint of the politician, it is easy to see how the microanalysis of political
communication in this dissertation could be used to their advantage. In recent decades
politicians have given more thought to their presentation and how the quality of this
can impact their public perception. The presentation of party National Conventions, for
example, has developed drastically over the years. Speeches by presidential candidates
are broadcast on multiple media platforms around the world and are therefore reaching
a wider audience than ever before. The microanalysis of these speeches has provided
politicians with tips on how they can improve their oratory performance. The study of
rhetorical devices in Atkinson’s (1984) Our Masters’ Voices is basically a manual on how
a script should be written to encourage applause at certain points of the speech. The
findings I have gathered can also provide useful tips. For example, in both the claptrap
(page 32) and body language chapter (Page 44) it shows how the use of gestures and
vocal pitch can specify when a rhetorical device is used with the intention of inviting
applause, but also when they are used with the intention not to invite immediate
applause. In general the delivery of rhetorical devices was vital if audience applause
was to be synchronous with speech. Therefore, if rhetorical devices are to be delivered
with full effect, the mastery of effective delivery is vital for political orators.
Another valuable source of information for political orators is the quality of audience
applause. Cases of uninvited applause can carry great significance. If while the orator is
still speaking the audience interrupt with uninvited passionate applause, this can be a
useful gauge of agreement and popular feeling, and as was seen with the vast amount of
interruptive applause in Obama’s speech, it can signify strong support on certain issues.
59
Again, the timing of applause deserves attention. Members of the audience may
accommodate the speaker by applauding at the end of a message, i.e. the completion
point. Whereas Obama’s audience often applauded before the completion point,
Kennedy’s audience fit this category, who only ever applauded at the completion point.
But as was seen in Reagan’s speech, the audience started to applaud before, during or
after a completion point. Interruptive applause is usually a sign of audience enthusiasm,
whereas delayed applause, which was seen in Kennedy’s speech, can be quite the
opposite.
In this dissertation, an original study of American politicians use of political myth,
claptrap devices and non-verbal communication has been presented. The aim of this
research has been to show how politicians use techniques that may not be known to the
everyday onlooker to encourage audience applause. In conclusion, the use of rhetorical
devices does lead to an increase in audience applause. However, my results suggest that
audience applause still occurs without the use of these devices, which implies
Atkinson’s (1984) theory that audience applause is very rarely spontaneous is now out-
dated. Results also suggest that non-verbal communication, especially hand gestures,
does encourage audience applause when used as part of an applaudable message
technique.
With the regular occurrence of political speeches and the increasing number of
recordings of them, the possibility for analysis is endless. If I were to take this
dissertation further I would continue to study the orators I have. As I have only studied
their presidential nomination acceptance speeches, I would continue my analysis from
the time they took office to the end of their spell. I would analyse their speech content
and body language to see if their performance as orators changes when they become
president and try to find reasons as to why. By doing this, a verbal and non-verbal
communication timeline could be formed, highlighting when and why certain
techniques and behaviours are more likely to occur. For example, potential findings
could suggest that the content of speech is more important when trying to win an
election, but once president, dominant and assertive body language becomes
increasingly important.
13,697
60
Appendices
Appendix A
United States presidential results 2008 election
(Realclearpolitics, 2012)
United States presidential results 2012 election
(Realclearpolitics, 2008)
61
Appendix B
Table 9: table to show what gestures look like and what they connote
Type of Hand gesture What the gesture looks like and meansLeft/right hand jab This is known as the political point and is the thumb pressed on the outer
side of the index finger, with the index finger curling round the thumb, the same motion as a point but not with the sharp ended finger. This is said to be a softer, less aggressive motion and can be seen in figure K
Left/right finger point This is when all fingers with the exception of the index finger are curled into the palm of the hand and the index finger is fully extended pointing ahead. Used in the wrong context this gesture can be offensive, but in the context of hammering down a point it can be used in a positive way. Therefore due to the potentially damming connotations, this gesture should not be overused, if overused rapport between speaker and audience can be destroyed
Two handed point This is the same as described above however both hands are pointing either the thumbs or the index fingers forward bilaterally. Like the single-handed finger point this gesture can be offensive/aggressive if used to point at the target with negative intent. Like the single finger point if used alongside words that are not aggressive this gesture can have positive, enthusiastic connotations
Two handed spread This is where the hands are taken from a neutral position and separated laterally, this is usually to at least the width of a basketball to as wide as the arms can extend. Often you will see politicians with both their palms facing one another as if they are holding an imaginary basketball. Also known as the basketball steeple, it is the alpha-beta hybrid to the more conventional steeple, where by the fingertips on each hand touch at their ends, this gesture connotes assertiveness, strength and confidence
Resting crossed hands This is the crossing of hands in a neutral position with fingers interlocking while placed on the lectern. This doesn’t carry detailed connotations apart
62
from if the hands are crossed and the fingers are moving/stroking the hand. If this is the case it would be a sign of anxiety and therefore fit the self-pacifier group
Left/right palm showing This is where the palm is visible when a hand gesture has occurred. Connotations of open palms suggest honesty and openness. If you hug someone you would separate your arms with palms showing to invite them into your personal space. In ancient times, open palms signalled to people that you were not in possession of a weapon
Left/right hand multiple finger point This is the same idea as an individual finger point but with all four fingers pointing towards the target at the same time. Using multiple fingers to point has the same connotations as an individual finger but applies greater emphasis to what is being said.
Left/right hand brush aside This motion is the movement of the hands from their starting point moving laterally in a sweeping motion, as if to swat away a fly. This gesture is mostly used to brush aside others behaviour/views which is found mildly annoying
Two handed brush aside The same motion as above but bilaterallyLeft/right handed ‘fast ball’ This is where the palms are facing forward and the index finger, the
middle finger and the thumb are curled as if to be holding a baseball, the outer two fingers are curled into the palm, and this can be seen in figure L below. This is a softened version of ‘the claw’. This gesture is not as aggressive but is the perfect balance of an alpha-beta hybrid, not too aggressive not too reserved
Gesture to quieten the audience This can be done through a variety of gestures, but is usually in the style of figure M, one or two hands raised with palms showing moving in a downward motions as if to turn down the volume with ones hand
Left/right hand claw This gesture is palms facing forward with all four fingers spread as if to be imitating a bear claw and is a very dominant alpha display. Much like the finger point this gesture should be used with caution as if it’s displayed too regularly it will come across as too strong and destroy rapport between speaker and audience (figure N)
Left/right hand chop This involves the hands moving in a downward motion towards the floor
63
in a fast movement in a similar fashion to chopping something with a knife, it can be done with fingers spread of with a close fist. It is often used alongside the hand jab (political point). Chopping motion is an authoritative gesture and is used by a person who has made their mind up and is unlikely to change their mind. Using this gesture too much will be seen as too aggressive and potentially destroy rapport
Two handed chop The same motion as above but bilaterallyOne/two handed body touch This is where the hand/s touches the body of the orator, and is usually
done by the palm touching the chest and is used to emphasize a point about themselves, for example ‘I believe this policy’, ‘I believe in this nation’. A person using this gesture is likely to have a desire to be believed by their audience
Two hands close together This is the opposite of the two handed spread. The hands are naturally set wider and move in a lateral motion towards the centre of the body, as if to squash the imaginary basketball. This is mostly seen where the hands are returning to their neutral position just outside the centre of the body and touching notes or the lectern
Microphone rearrangement Rearrangement of the microphone by the oratory and is sometimes considered a pacifier
Finger gun This gesture is where a person uses their fingers and thumb to mimic a gun. If this gesture is directed towards persons then it can have connotations of violence/threat, elite orators should avoid this gesture (figure O)
Self touch pacifier This is the touching of the face, nose, hand stroking, hand/s in the pocket, tie rearrangement etc. and is a sign of anxiety and is usually carries negative connotations. A person using a self-touch pacifier is attempting self-reassurance that ‘everything is going to be alright’. Kennedy used a self-touch pacifier when he put his hand in his pocket on two occasions; this gives off negative connotations and is associated with mistrust and reluctance (figure P)
64
References
Andrews, J. and Hogan, M. (2002). Presidential Leadership and National Identity: Woodrow Wilson and the Meaning of America. In: L. Dorsey, ed., The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership, 1st ed. Texas: Texas A&M University Press, pp.129-144.
Atkinson, J. (1984). Our masters' voices. London: Methuen, pp.45, 46, 48, 66, 93Austin, G. (1806). Chironomia; or, A treatise on rhetorical delivery. London: Printed for T.
Cadell and W. Davies in the Strand; by W. Bulmer, and Co, pp.133, 510.Austin, G., Robb, M. and Thonssen, L. (1966). Chironomia. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, p.4.Barthes, R. and Lavers, A. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang.Barthes, R. and Heath, S. (1977). Image, music, text. New York: Hill and Wang.Baumeister, R. and Bushman, B. (2010). Social psychology and human nature. London:
Cengage learning, p.294.Benson, T. and Prosser, M. (1988). Readings in classical rhetoric. California: Hermagoras
Press, p.56.Benson, T. (2002). FDR at Gettysburg: The New Deal and the Rhetoric of Presidential
Leadership. In: L. Dorsey, ed., The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership, 1st ed. Texas: Texas A&M University Press, pp.145-183.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, 1 (1968): 1-14.Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Brands, H. (2002). Politics as Performance Art: The Body English of Theodore Roosevelt. In:
L. Dorsey, ed., The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership, 1st ed. Texas: Texas A&M University Press.
Brown, J. (2015). Body Language Success. [online] Bodylanguagesuccess.com. Available at: http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com [Accessed 18 Jan. 2015].
Bull, P. and Connelly, G. (1985). Body movement and emphasis in speech. J Nonverbal Behaviour, 9(3), pp.169-187.
Bull, P., Elliott, J., Palmer, D. and Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), pp.267-284.
Bull, P. (2003). The microanalysis of political communication. London: Routledge, p.27.Burke, K. (1962). A grammar of motives, and A rhetoric of motives. Cleveland: World Pub.
Co.Carbó, T. (1997). Who are they? The Rhetoric of Institutional Policies Toward the
Indigenous Populations of Post revolutionary Mexico. In S. H. Riggins (Ed.)., The Language and Politics of Exclusion (pg. 88-108). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Castells, M. (1999). An Introduction to the Media Age. In H. Mackay & T. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The Media Reader (pg. 398-410). London: Sage.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40.
Charteris-Black, J, (2009) ‘Metaphor and Political Communication’, in Musolff, A. and Zinken, J. (2009). Metaphor and discourse. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave Macillan, pp.97-115.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. London: Routledge, pp.23, 47.Chilton, P. and Ilyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of the `Common
European House'. Discourse & Society, 4(1), pp.7-31.
65
Churchill, W. (Director) (1946, March 5). Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech. General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre . Lecture conducted from , Missouri.
Cicero, M. (1951). The Basic works of Cicero. New York: Modern Library, p.32.Clayman, S.E. (1993) Booing: the anatomy of a disaffiliative response. American
Sociological Review, 58, 110-130Clinton, B. (Director) (1995, January 24). Bill Clinton at the 1995 State of the Union address.
State of Union Address. Lecture conducted from , Washington.Condon, W. and Ogston, W. (1966). Sound Film Analysis Of Normal and Pathological
Behaviour Patterns. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143(4), pp.338-347.De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National
Identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), pp.149-173.Democratic National Convention, (1960). Democratic National Convention Nomination
Acceptance Address "The New Frontier". [video] Available at: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfk1960dnc.htm [Accessed 24 Jan. 2015].
Democratic National Convention, (2008). Barack Obama Democratic National Convention 2008. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmEI9Doctqs [Accessed 24 Jan. 2015].
Dholakia, R. and Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly Credible Sources: Persuasive Facilitators or Persuasive Liabilities?. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), p.223
Dorsey, L. (2002). The presidency and rhetorical leadership. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, pp.252, 253, 254.
Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression. New York: Academic Press.Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. (1975). Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.Ekman, P. (2004). Emotions revealed. London: PhoenixEkman, P. (2007). Emotions revealed. New York: Henry Holt.Ekstrom, M. (2001). Politicians Interviewed on Television News. Discourse & Society, 12(5),
pp.563-584.Evans, J., & Hall, S. (1999). What is Visual Culture? In J. Evans & S. Hall (Eds.), Visual
Culture (pg. 1-7). London: SageFairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Fishebein, M. and Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior. New York:
Psychology Press, p.339.Fishman, E. (2001). The Prudential Presidency: An Aristotelian Approach to Presidential
Leadership. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, p.48.Freese, J. (1926). Aristotle, with an English translation. London: W. Heinemann, p.17Greenstein, F. and Berman, L. (2006). The art of political leadership. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.Hagger, M. and Chatzisarantis, N. (2005). Social psychology of exercise and sport.
Maidenhead, England: Open University Press, p.26.Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (2006). On the institutional character of institutional talk.Hovland, C., Lumsdaine, A. and Sheffield, F. (1949). Experiments on mass communication.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.Hovland, C. and Weiss, W. (1951). The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication
Effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), p.635.Hovland, C., Janis, I. and Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven:
Yale University Press.Jamieson, K. (1988). Eloquence in an electronic age. New York: Oxford University Press.
66
Kaplan, L. (2002). Jefferson vs. Napoleon: The Limits of Rhetoric. In: L. Dorsey, ed., The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership, 1st ed. Texas: Texas A&M University Press.
Kelly, S.D., Barr, D.J., Church, R.B. and Lynch, K. (1999) Offering a hand to pragmatic understanding: the role of speech and gesture in comprehension and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, pp. 440-505
Lucas, S. (2002). George Washington and the Rhetoric of Presidential Leadership. In: L. Dorsey, ed., The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership, 1st ed. Texas: Texas A & M University Press, pp.42-72.
Macmillan, H. (Director) (1960, February 3). Harold Macmillan: The Wind of Change. Tour of Africa. Lecture conducted from , Cape Town.
Manusov, V. and Patterson, M. (2006). The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Matsen, P., Rollinson, P. and Sousa, M. (1990). Readings from classical rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary Approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1, (pg. 191-229). New York: Academic Press
Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No Sense of Place: The Impact of the Electronic Media on Social Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mio, J. (1997). Metaphor and Politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(2), pp.113-133.Morgan, I. (2011). The top US presidents: First poll of UK experts. [online] BBC News.
Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12195111 [Accessed 24 Jan. 2015].
Müller, C. (2013). Body, language, communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Musolff, A. and Zinken, J. (2009). Metaphor and discourse. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave
Macillan, pp.97-115.Nevid, J. (2006). Essentials of psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., p.288.Obama, B. (2004). Dreams from my father. New York: Three Rivers Press.Obama, B. (Director) (2005, October 25). Civil Rights . Death of Rosa Parks Senate Floor
Statement. Lecture conducted from , Detroit.Obama, B. (Director) (2008, June 15). Barack Obama: Father's Day Speech. Father's Day
Speech. Lecture conducted from , Chicago.Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion. Iowa City, IA: Brown.Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument
quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), pp.69-81.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York: Viking.Powell, E. (Director) (1968, April 20). Enoch Powell - Rivers of blood. General Meeting of
the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre . Lecture conducted from , Birmingham.
Realclearpolitics.com, (2008). 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama | RealClearPolitics. [online] Available at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html [Accessed 24 Jan. 2015].
Realclearpolitics.com, (2012). 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama | RealClearPolitics. [online] Available at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html [Accessed 24 Jan. 2015].
Sears, D., Huddy, L. and Jervis, R. (2003). Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.222, 223, 224, 225. 226, 228.
67
Shaw, S. (2000). Language, Gender and Floor Apportionment in Political Debates. Discourse & Society, 11(3), pp.401-418.
Sherif, M. and Hovland, C. (1961). Social Judgement. Connecticut: Yale University Press.Simons, H. (1996). Judging a policy proposal by the company it keeps: The Gore‐Perot
NAFTA debate. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82(3), pp.274-287.Smith, M. B. (1981). Foreword to R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive
responses in persuasion (pp. xi-xii). Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp.xiiSperber, D. (2001). An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.
Philosophical Topics, 29(1), pp.401-413.Terkel, S. (1980). American dreams, lost and found. New York: Pantheon Books.Treadwell, D. (2014). Introducing communication research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE
Publications, pp.234, 252.Tybout, A. (1978). Relative Effectiveness of Three Behavioral Influence Strategies as
Supplements to Persuasion in a Marketing Context. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), pp.229.
Weiler, M. and Pearce, W. (1992). Reagan and public discourse in America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Wilkins, D. (2006). Adam Kendon (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Gesture, 6(1), pp.119-144.
Young, J. (2003). Great communicator. Greensboro, N.C.: Morgan Reynolds Pub.Zarefsky, D. (2002). The Presidency Has Always Been a Place for Rhetorical Leadership. In:
L. Dorsey, ed., The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership, 1st ed. Texas: Texas A&M University Press, pp.20-41.
68