When preparing a message, the speaker analyzes the audience in order to . your audience to step into their minds, create an imaginary scenario, and test your. Jul 15, Audience-centered communication is a type of communication where a speaker analyzes the audience to determine the content, language. Communication emphasizes content and relationships. Communication is Public communication occurs when a speaker address a gathering of other people to inform, persuade, or entertain. . Words that reflect bias toward other cultures can create barriers for listeners. Step 5: Test and Implement the Solution.
Miliband then nodded his head during the pause, and the audience applauded. Arguably, the head nod might be understood as a nonverbal form of pursuit, indicating to the audience that Miliband was inviting applause at this point Bull, In the same speech, the following example can also be seen of a position taking, combined with a three-part list, and a contrast.
A The Labour Party lost trust on the economy. B I am determined we restore your trust in us on the economy. Two further devices have been identified by Bull and Wells They argued for the inclusion of jokes, since jokes often receive applause as well as laughter, and also for another device which they termed negative naming. Whereas in naming, the audience are invited to show their appreciation for a particular individual e.
Typically, this is a politician of an opposing political party, although negative naming may also be used to castigate a social group, such as another political party.
In summary, his key theoretical insight was the analogy between audience applause and conversational turn-taking. Just as people take turns in conversation by anticipating when the speaker will reach the end of an utterance e. This enables them to applaud at appropriate moments, and is reflected in the close synchronization between speech and applause. The only effective answer to this criticism is comprehensive sampling.
This was the intention of Heritage and Greatbatchwho analysed all the speeches televised from the British Conservative, Labour and Liberal Party conferences in They found that contrasts were associated with no less than Heritage and Greatbatch also analysed collective applause in response to all seven rhetorical devices outlined above contrasts, lists, puzzle-solutions, headline-punchlines, position takings, combinations, and pursuits.
Most effective were contrasts and lists, the two devices originally identified by Atkinson as significant in evoking applause. However, if over two-thirds of collective applause occurs in response to the seven rhetorical devices, what about the other one-third of applause incidents?
Furthermore, audiences produce other responses than applause; they may, for example, laugh, cheer, chant, and even boo. Thus, for a truly comprehensive analysis of speaker-audience interaction in political speeches, all these other audience responses need to be considered, including isolated as well as collective responses, uninvited as well as invited responses.
Notably, although Atkinson e. The relative importance of all these factors need to be considered in any model of speaker-audience interaction, and are reviewed below.
How to Build Rapport with Your Audience
In addition, consideration is given to cross-cultural differences in speaker-audience interaction. On the basis of all these studies, an analysis of cross-cultural differences between British, US and Japanese speeches is proposed in terms of differences between collectivist and individualist societies, following Hofstede e.
It can also include the vocal delivery of a speech, for example, tone of voice, loudness, pitch and speech rate. It has long been recognized that delivery plays an important role in oratory. But can we be more specific about the role of delivery in speech-making? Atkinsonp. Stress was evaluated in terms of whether the speaker was gazing at the audience at or near the completion point of the message, whether the message was delivered more loudly than surrounding speech passages, or with greater pitch or stress variation, or with some kind of rhythmic shift or accompanied by the use of gestures.
An alternative viewpoint has been put forward by Bull and Wells These authors proposed that delivery tells us whether or not the rhetorical device is an applause invitation. So, for example, a speaker may deliver a three-part list, each item accompanied by a hand gesture, and receive tumultuous applause.
The Content of Speech [ TOP ] Of course, audiences do not simply applaud rhetoric, they also respond to the content of a political speech. Atkinson never sought to deny this. He conducted an analysis of the kind of content that received applause, and found that predominantly it took the form of what he called ingroup praise praise of your own partyand outgroup derogation criticism of others. Atkinson took the view that audiences are much more likely to applaud if applaudable speech content is expressed in an appropriate rhetorical device.
A content analysis was also conducted by Heritage and Greatbatch They too found that applause was reserved for a relatively narrow range of message types. Heritage and Greatbatch also analysed external attacks in further detail.
Thereby, speakers may also be seen to facilitate their interaction with the audience, given that there are strong normative expectations that audience members should applaud at party political conferences. However, what this analysis does not address is the role played by speech content in the absence of applause invitations. In one study, instances were identified from leader speeches at British party political conferences where collective applause occurred in the absence of any of the seven rhetorical devices described above Bull, In every case, the applause occurred in response to statements of political policy, that is, what the leader proposed to do if returned to power.
Thus, for some messages, speech content may be so significant that it will receive applause in the absence of rhetorical devices. The following example comes from a speech by Tony Blair 1 October,his last party conference speech before he became Prime Minister. Applause is indicated by lower case crosses, louder applause by upper case crosses following Atkinson, e. Nor did his delivery suggest that he had reached a completion point; he was not gesturing, and he continued to look straight ahead at the audience.
That is to say, Blair was not making use of any of the rhetorical devices described above, nor did his delivery suggest an applause invitation. To identify uninvited applause was relatively unproblematic; reliability between the two raters was 0. For example, the following extract comes from a speech by William Hague 7 October,at that time Leader of the British Conservative Opposition.
Thus, from this perspective, uninvited applause may occur not only as a direct response to the content of the speech, but also through a misreading of rhetorical devices as applause invitations, when the associated delivery suggested that the politician intended to continue with his speech. Rhetorical Devices [ TOP ] The seven rhetorical devices originally identified by Atkinson and Heritage and Greatbatch referred to subsequently as the seven traditional devices were all identified from British political speeches.
But these devices may not be characteristic of political oratory worldwide, they may be specific only to British political culture. Hence, it was found necessary to devise seven new categories of rhetorical device. These additional categories are listed and defined below, together with illustrative examples based on Bull and Feldman, Following an introduction by the master of ceremonies, the candidate will usually appear from behind the audience, and walk through the room while shaking hands with several of the people attending the meeting.
The audience always responds to this statement with applause. Are you all well? To this utterance, the audience will respond with applause. I want to express from my heart my feelings of gratitude to all of you who came here today. And that is why, trying to keep this familiar financial window safe, I oppose the privatization of posts and telecommunication. We will show that there is security and stability for our lives at the end of these reforms.
In the following example, the audience respond with laughter to this joke from Shimizu Koichiro about his personal appearance August 26, These requests may be quite direct and straightforward.
Dear all, I sincerely thank you! Or such appeals may be more elaborate, detailed, and emotional. I will put all my energies to it and I, Izawa Kyoto, will win the seat in the Diet. And for this I am asking for your support. By doing so, candidates may demonstrate their commitment, their communication skills, and their ability to work hard and sincerely. Thereby, they may seek to persuade as many voters as possible to support their candidature.
For example, the following extract comes from a speech by Izumi Kenta September 6, I distributed the manifesto [of his political party] to all of them. Other [ TOP ] Miscellaneous statements from the candidates that receive an audience response, not included in any of the categories listed above. In contrast, the seven new devices are predominantly explicit, in the sense that the speaker is overtly asking for an audience response.
Two further devices may be seen as formulaic. To this utterance, the audience also responds with applause. All the above devices can be seen as ways in which the speaker is explicitly inviting an audience response. Of the remaining two categories, description of campaign activities is more similar to the seven traditional devices, in that it can be construed as an implicit response invitation. The final category Other comprised miscellaneous statements from the candidates that receive an audience response, not included in any of the other six categories listed above, nor treated as either explicit or implicit response invitations.
The results showed that the distribution of rhetorical devices used by speakers between the two elections of and was highly similar, hence that the findings of the first study were not just confined to one general election, but were arguably more typical of Japanese political speech-making in general. Furthermore, the majority of applause incidents occurred in response to explicit invitations from the speaker: The overall distribution of rhetorical devices as used by both Obama and Romney was highly similar, thus indicating a distinctive style of US political rhetoric.
Thus, the results of this analysis were strikingly similar to those found in British speeches. Both candidates predominantly made use of the seven traditional devices, and most of the techniques were implicit.
Arguably, it is thus possible to speak of an Anglo-American style of speech-making, which contrasts markedly with that of Japanese politicians. However, there were also noticeable cultural differences between the UK and the US, not in rhetorical devices, but in audience responses, as described below. Audience Responses [ TOP ] All the early interactional research on political speeches was focussed principally on applause e.
But of course audiences do other things beside applaud.
They may, for example, cheer or laugh. In the two studies of Japanese politicians, laughter and cheering were analysed, as well as applause. In Japanese, this term refers to what in English has been called listener responses e.
Aizuchi are considered reassuring to the speaker, showing that the listener is active and involved in the discussion. However, audiences typically responded to such phrases not with aizuchi but with applause.
Actual aizuchi responses were relatively infrequent only 3. Another notable feature of Japanese audience responses was the total absence of what is termed isolated applause. This occurs when only one or two people clap, in contrast to collective applause, either from the audience as a whole, or from a substantial proportion of it. Isolated applause has been noted in several studies of British political speeches e.
In the US, individualized responses are even more pronounced. Such responses were never observed in the analyses of Japanese political meetings. The collective US audience responses were coded into applause, cheering, laughter, chanting and booing. There were also a noticeable proportion of responses that could not be assigned to any category because of their infrequency and variance, hence there was a sixth category of others.
Another distinctive feature of audience responses in the US was the occurrence of booing. In one study of speeches from the US presidential campaign ofthe occurrence of booing was noted as well as that of applause West, In another study, Clayman gathered data on booing from a wide variety of public speaking environments, including US Presidential debates, Congressional floor debates, TV talk shows, and British party conference speeches.
Clayman observed that booing occurs quite differently from applause.
Build Rapport with Your Audience
Booing is typically preceded by a substantial delay or by some other audience behaviour such as heckling, jeering, clapping or shoutingor by both of these in combination. It was further observed that booing can follow affiliative responses such as applause and appreciative laughter as often as it follows disaffiliative responses. In this context, booing can be seen as a reaction to such affiliative responses, indicating that support for the speaker is not universal; furthermore, this reaction can be seen as decidedly competitive.
From this analysis, Clayman proposed that there are two principal ways in which an audience can coordinate its behaviour, referred to as independent decision-making, and mutual monitoring. In independent decision-making, individual audience members may act independently of one another yet still manage to coordinate their actions, for example through applause in response to rhetorical devices. In mutual monitoring, individual response decisions may be guided, at least in part, by reference to the behaviour of other members.
Thus, once it becomes evident that some members of the audience are starting to applaud, this drastically alters the expected payoff for other audience members: In contrast, in the study of speeches from the US presidential election, Bull and Miskinis identified two distinctive types of booing: Overall, in the 11 speeches, there were 48 instances of booing 45 affiliative, 3 disaffiliative. All 48 instances of booing were preceded by rhetorical devices characteristically used to invite applause.
Hence, this raises the question as to whether booing like applause can be regarded as an invited response. An example of affiliative booing can be seen in the following statement from a speech by Obama in Ames, Iowa 29 August, Sticking with one person for each point is painful and nearly impossible if you are not truly connecting your material to that person.
Some people ignore it, or trick themselves into thinking there is a connection: This tactic alienates an audience, and makes reestablishing a connection very difficult.
Then you get another try. If you smile at your audience, they are likely to smile back. And a smile engenders good feelings and a true connection — even if the smile is forced, because we are pretty bad at recognizing a fake smile. This is because when we are forcing a smile, we are still genuinely trying to make a positive connection, so most people will read the nonverbal cue as positive.
Relax A fake smile is okay. But overwhelming nerves is not.A Speaker's Relationship with Their Audience
There are lots of ways to get yourself to relax before you connect. One is, of course, to know your material well. But a lot of relaxation is physical, not mental.
Stuart Brody, a psychologist at the University of Paisley found that a reliable way to decrease nerves is to have sex before speaking. There are many physical activities that work to decrease the stress of speaking. For example, Ku prepares for a show by jumping up and down for two minutes before she goes on stage.