Establishing Common Ground with the Audience: An Analysis of American Commencement Addresses
Abstract
Successful communication requires establishing common ground with other participants through shared knowledge and experiences, whether in private conversations, workplace meetings, or speeches given to large audiences. The aim of the study is to analyze strategies of establishing common ground employed in American commencement addresses. The data used in the analysis comes from the corpus of 100 commencement addresses delivered in American universities and colleges. Commencement address, which constitutes an important element of commencement ceremony, is deeply rooted in the American university tradition. It is a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purposes, such as celebrating academic achievements, honoring graduates, and giving them advice for the future. The audience comprises graduates, their families, friends, and faculty, while the speakers are notable figures in American society. The analysis adopts the Discourse-Historical Approach, committed to Critical Discourse Studies. The data has been analyzed in terms of strategies of establishing common ground, argumentation schemes and linguistic means used to realize the strategies. In the analyzed discourse, five strategies of establishing common ground have been identified: reference to similar/common experiences; self-disclosure; reference to common beliefs, values and practices; reference to common identity; and the use of humor. The findings emphasize the importance of claiming common ground with the audience for public addresses (including commencement speeches) to be successful. Despite the diversity of cultural backgrounds, social status and professions, and generational differences among the speakers, the interaction between them and the audience, the graduates in particular, generally proceeds smoothly, although the speakers' attempts to establish common ground with the audience are not always successful.
Keywords: common ground; commencement address; American culture; the Discourse-Historical Approach
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Astington, J. W. (2020). The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality (pp. 179-206). London: Routledge.
Barr, D. J. (2004). “Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?” Cognitive Science, 28(6), 937–962.
Bogdanowska M. (2008). Topika [The topics]. In P. Wilczek (Ed.), Retoryka (pp. 35–56). Warszawa: PWN.
Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, E. (2018). The discursive construction of high achievers’ identities in American culture. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 14(2), 249-271. DOI:10.1515/lpp-20180013
Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, E. (2020). Work ethos in American ceremonial discourse addressed to the young. Discourse & Communication, 14(6), 561-579. DOI:10.1177/1750481320939709
Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, E. (2021). The discursive representation of places significant for an individual: An analysis of Polish academic year inauguration speeches and American commencement addresses. In P. Biały, M. Kuczok & M. Zabawa (Eds.), Various Dimensions of Place in Language Studies (pp. 118-137). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5). 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445605054407
Clark, E. V. (2015). Common ground. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence (pp. 328-353). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colston, H. L. (2008). A new look at common ground: Memory, egocentrism, and joint meaning. In I. Kecskés & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer (pp. 151-87). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Eckert, P., & Wenger, E. (2005). What is the role of power in sociolinguistic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(4), 582-589.
Elliott, A. (2020). Concepts of the Self (4th Edition). Medford, MA: Polity Press.
Enfield, N. J. (2008). Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In I. Kecskés & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer (pp. 223-254). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Faiclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language (2nd Edition). London/New York: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless Speech. J. Pearson (Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
Hazaea, A. N., Ibrahim, N. & Nor, N. F. M. (2014). Discursive legitimation of human values: Local-global power relations in global media discourse. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 14(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1401-11
Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A. & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Sciences, 11(1), 32 –38. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.00211
Kienpointner, M. (1991). Rhetoric and argumentation: Relativism and beyond. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 24(1), 43–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40237655.
Levinson, S. C. (2020). On the human "interaction engine". In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Human Interaction (pp. 39-69). London: Routledge.
Reisigl, M. (2008). Rhetoric of political speeches. In R. Wodak & V. Koller (Eds.), Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere (pp. 243-270). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Reisigl, M. (2009). Spoken silence – bridging breaks: The discursive construction of historical continuities and turning points in Austrian commemorative speeches by employing rhetorical tropes. In R. Wodak & G. Auer Borea (Eds.), Justice and Memory: Confronting Traumatic Pasts: An International Comparison (pp. 213–240). Vienna: Passagen.
Reisigl, M. (2018). The discourse-historical approach. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 44-59). London/New York: Routledge.
Rosen, S. (1987). Hermeneutics as Politics. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psatchas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15-21). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Slavičkova, T. (2013). The rhetoric of remembrance: Presidential Memorial Day speeches. Discourse & Society, 24(3), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0957926512471762
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1990). Spontaneous deduction and mutual knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13(1). 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00078237
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6), 701–721. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001871
Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2018). Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 26-43). London/New York: Routledge.
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 63-94). London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (2011). The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Wodak, R. & Boukala, S. (2016). Talking about solidarity and security in the age of crisis: The revival of nationalism and protectionism in the European Union–a discourse-historical approach. In C. Carta & J.-F. Morin (Eds.), EU Foreign Policy through the Lens of Discourse Analysis (pp. 171-190). London/New York: Routledge.
Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. & Liebhart, K. (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity (2nd Edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2302-02
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021