Abhishek Aravind IEM1201N Group 2

Expository Essay (Final) 17 November 2013

Analyzing the Influence of Context on the Authenticity of Persona by studying footage of Obama in different contexts
Context is defined as the overlap of the material and abstract, material referring to the location and setting while abstract points to the unspoken rules of conversation inherent to the nature of interaction. Context is built on the foundation of institutional talk(Heritage and Clayman, 2010,36) in that discourse in particular circumstances differ from natural conversation through a system of distinctions and consequently plays a large part in defining discourse. This paper, looks to explore the influence of context on authenticity. I will look at authenticity in two broad senses: authentic speech representing naturally occurring language, being fully owned by the speaker, unmediated, and encoding fact and truth (or what is perceived to be so by the speaker)(Coupland, 2003, 421). An authentic speaker also represents the union of principle, author and animator (Goffman, 1981). These two distinct definitions by Coupland and Goffman help us to identify authentic speech and an authentic speaker respectively. Context, therefore, as understood by the speaker, plays a role in influencing, consciously or subconsciously, the authenticity of content in the discourse that results from that context by providing specific motivations in relation to the goals and objectives of the speaker that are distinct to that context. To explore how context provides these motivations, we look at video footage of Barack Obama as president of the United States in three different contexts. This allows us to look at differences in discourse, keeping the speaker a constant. The three genres of context analyzed are speech, interview and debate(Obamas White House Correspondents Dinner speech, Obamas Interview on Syria with Gwen Ifill and Obamas First Presidential Debate of 2013). There are two sets of distinctions observed: The first is the level of interaction or contradiction the speaker has with his listener and thereby the dynamic quality associated with that context. The second refers to the pressure exerted by listeners to the speaker which correlates directly to the speed of delivery (assumed to be minimum speed of delivery as speakers may choose to speak faster than a context necessitates). Figure A: Information on genres of context Genre Minimum Speed/Pace of Delivery Speech Slow Interview Intermediate Debate High
*Data based on random sampling

Level of Contradiction/Interjection Low Medium High

Words/min* of reviewed video footage 96.6 149.8 182.1

In the case of speech, the speed of delivery need not be high and there is almost no interaction, let alone contradiction with the audience. This gives the speaker an autonomy on content. The interview however, adds a certain pressure on the speaker, as he is required to (subscribing to the rules of the interview) respond in a prompt manner. The interview however, does still allow the speaker to often deviate from his original topic of discourse, again depending on the conversational ability of said

speaker. The debate represents the polar opposite of the speech. It imposes a heavy time constraint on the speaker, forcing him to adopt a certain pace to remain competent in the debate. Furthermore, the interjection from the listener, his opponent, is often, by necessity a contradiction of what he says and his every section of discourse therefore becomes at least in part, a rebuttal, in response to his opponent. These salient differences become important when analyzing the level of linguistic reflexivity in these contexts. It is easy to identify at this juncture that the speech, interview and debate also represent an ascension, in that order, of the level of linguistic reflexivity in the form of interaction/contradiction from the audience. However, this is restricted to external reflexivity or a dynamism with parties other than the speaker. Coupland, however observes that there is an internal element to reflexivity in that the speaker internally negotiates with consideration to the potential reaction of the audience. In the context of the speech this is most apparent. In Obamas speech, this can be observed when he makes a joke about Conan OBrien, Do you offer it to him now, or wait for five years and then give it to Jimmy Fallon? His joke is not well received and he is forced to reconsider and apologize as a gesture(6m24s). The debate in contrast involves a time constraint and requires the speaker to directly answer the questions posed by the previous speaker. In the case of Obama vs Romney, immediately after the first exchange between the two, Obama is forced to elaborate and validate his trickle-down approach (7m10s). Due to the nature of the debate, he is required to answer in a prompt manner, for fear of appearing inferior to his opposition. This added pressure, a consequence of the context of debate, allows little time for the speaker to internally negotiate a viewpoint that would both appeal to his audience/listeners and at the same time, help the speaker, here Obama, to achieve his goals and objectives. Referring to the aforementioned criteria of authenticity, we can see that, in all cases, Obama acts as both animator and author. However in consideration of his speech being internally dialogic, it can be seen that, in the case of speech, Obama shares the role of principle with his audience in that, the content of his speech is partially, but not wholly(the distinction is pertinent), affected by the potential viewpoint of the audience. The debate however, allows the speaker less time for internal dialogue and therefore, forces spontaneity in his discourse, consequently forcing the content of his discourse to be more authentic. The motivation provided by context, therefore, directly related to the time given for a speaker to convince or manipulate his audience, based of course on the assumption that there is a purpose, from the speakers perspective, to the speech. Liebes(2009,503) argues that to do so, speakers often use a tool known as pseudo-gemeinschaft. Pseudo-gemeinschaft involves creating a false bond between a speaker and his audience. In so doing, they are able to also pass on their viewpoint, helping them accomplish their objective. This, however, violates the ideology of linguistic isolation. The most authentic language is removed from and unaffected by other influences, and thus the most authentic speaker belongs to a well-defined, static, and relatively homogeneous social grouping that is closed to the outside. The principle of the speaker is no longer isolated but rather, represents a negotiated persona that best achieves this pseudo-connection with the audience. Establishing this false bond, therefore, requires firstly, a preliminary assessment of the audience and secondly, an assessment of their dynamic reaction to the content of his discourse. This again ties back to the concept of linguistic reflexivity in that, the speaker is required to evaluate the effectiveness of his delivery mid-speech. Naturally, a delivery that is slower and more deliberate allows the speaker more time to evaluate and therefore develop pseudo-gemeinschaft. In Obamas White House Correspondents Dinner speech, this is evident in his entrance. He builds on the positive reaction received to the music played and builds a rapport with his audience(0m20s), this is in contrast to the

incident involving Conan OBrien(refer above), where he backs out on his ill-received joke. The debate however, does not allow as much time for Obama to evaluate the reaction of his audience as it is not based solely on his discourse but is also affected by Romneys. This is evident in the conclusion of the first section of the debate(21m20s), when Obama is forced to defend his own stance on jobs while at the same time rebutting Romneys opinion. This contradiction forces Obama to think on his feet, often causing him to stutter, consequence of the spontaneity of his speech. This however, does, imply that the content of his discourse, is immediate and therefore authentic, encoding the truth and fact that the speaker believes is such. It is also the least owned by the audience, as the spontaneity requires and forces the animator to bring forth his genuine opinion on the topic of discussion. Context, therefore, defines the rules, explicit or implicit of discourse and in doing so defines the approach taken by a speaker to deliver his content. In the cases identified, it is confirmed that context, and the speakers understanding of the context plays a role in influencing the content of discourse and thereby the authenticity of the speaker itself. However, this analysis is restricted to a political context and it remains undetermined if this will apply to speakers in different fields. Furthermore, this analysis holds to discourse with a well-defined and identifiable objective/goal. Furthermore, different genres of context may expose more factors, other than pace of delivery and audience contradiction, that affect the motivations that compel the speaker towards authentic or inauthentic content. Nevertheless, the analysis of the videos of Obama clearly shows that the pace of delivery enforced by context and the pressure applied on the speaker in that context, influences, directly, the authenticity of the speaker and his content.

References
Montgomery, M. (2001). Defining `authentic talk'. Discourse Studies, 3, 397-405. DOI: 10.1177/1461445601003004004 Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Dimensions of Institutional Talk. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions, 4, 34-50. DOI: 10.1002/9781444318135 Coupland, N. (2003). Sociolinguistic Authenticities. Journal of Sociolinguistics, Volume 7 (Issue 3), 417431. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9481.00233 Bucholtz, M. (2003). Sociolinguistic Nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, Volume 7 (Issue 3), 398-416. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9481.00232 Liebes, T. (2001). Look me straight in the eye The political discourse of authenticity, spontaneity and sincerity. The Communication Review, Volume 4(Issue 4), 499-510. C-Span. (2013, 27 April). President Obama at 2013 White House Correspondents' Dinner (C-SPAN). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON2XWvyePH8 PBS Newshour. (2013, 9 September). Obama Says Diplomatic Solution to Syria 'Overwhelmingly My Preference'. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmBl7GNWvZo The Daily Conversation. (2012, 3 October). First Presidential Debate: Obama vs. Romney (Complete HD Quality Audio). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKKsRxhcro