Back to quiz

6. How does delivery affect applause according to Atkinson?

  • Delivery increases the chance of a rhetorical device receiving applause
  • Delivery indicates whether or not a rhetorical device is to be taken as an applause invitation

7. What is a critique of Atkinsons (1984) analysis of rhetoric?

  • Does not use comprehensive sampling- may not be representative of political speech making as a whole
  • Does not use statistical tests to support claims and so lacks empirical support
  • Does not use the correct populations and so may not be culturally relevent
  • Based on selected extracts and has low internal validity

8. Was uninvited applause described by Atkinson?

  • No
  • Yes

9. In Bulls & Wells (2002), what % of applause was uninvited due to direct response to speech content or misreading of rhetorical devices?

  • 14%
  • 60%
  • 20%
  • 10%

10. In Bull et al (1996s) analysis of face threats in political interviews, what were the three superordinate categories?

  • Face of the party they represent, face of significant others, conflictual face
  • Conflictual face, personal face, impersonal face
  • Personal face, face of the party they represent, face of significant others
  • Non-conflictual face, personal face, impersonal face

11. In a study of audience participation by Bull (2003), what were there correlations between?

  • CC questions and ambiguity
  • CC questions and equivocation
  • Direct responses and ambiguous questions
  • Equivocation and direct responses

12. When may politicians equivocate?

  • If posed a high proportion of communicative conflict situations
  • Only as a personality factor
  • Specific contexts (gender and cultural) will increase the likelihood of equivocation

13. How much of collective applause was associated with 7 rhetorical devices?

  • 1/3
  • 1/5
  • 2/3
  • 1/2

14. Which two devices made up the majority of collective applause in Heritage & Greatbatch (1986)?

  • Lists and negative naming
  • Contrasts and lists
  • Contrasts and negative naming
  • Lists and headline-punchlines

15. In a study of audience participation by Bull (2003), what did interviewers do significantly more?

  • CC questions
  • Answered voter questions
  • Gave ambiguous responses
  • Equivocated

16. In Bull et al (1996s) analysis of face threats in political interviews, what was the modal response to non-conflictual questions?

  • Replies
  • Equivocation
  • Direct response
  • Ambiguous response

17. In Bull et al (1996s) analysis of face threats in political interviews, to CC questions what was the modal response?

  • Equivocation
  • Replies
  • Direct response
  • Ambiguous response

18. Which of these characterises interrogative syntax?

  • Yes/no/polar, alternative/disjunctive, indirect
  • Yes/no/polar, alternative/disjunctive, wh-/interrogative word
  • Declarative, moodless, indirect
  • Moodless, indirect, Yes/no/polar