Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Think-Aloud Reading: Selected Audiences’ Concurrent Reaction to the Implied Audience in Political Commentary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric

Part of the book series: Rhetoric, Politics and Society ((RPS))

Abstract

This chapter investigates how selected audiences react to the implied audience in Danish political print newspaper commentary. When introducing the concept of second persona, Edwin Black only uses vague expressions like “vector of influence” and “the pull of an ideology” about the impact of the discursive audience construction, but instead of taking this for granted. Bengtsson uses think-aloud protocol as a way of studying an audience’s reaction, getting a better grasp of how people understand, interpret and negotiate commentator discourse. The study finds that while some people engage in the implied audience offered, others have strong negative reactions refusing to take it upon them. The study shows how readers react to the commentators postulating manner and call for arguments to use in discussions with family and friend.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The analysis is presented in a full version with examples of substantive claims and stylistic tokens in the article “Det indskrevne publikum i politiske kommentarer” [“The Implied Audience in Political Commentary”] in Rhetorica Scandinavica no. 71/72 2016.

References

  • Aalberg, Toril, Jesper Strömbäck, and Claes H. de Vreese. 2011. The Framing of Politics as Strategy and Game: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings. Journalism 13: 162–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afflerbach, Peter. 2000. Verbal Reports and Protocol Analysis. In Handbook of Reading Research, ed. Michael L. Kamil, et al., Vol. 3, 163–179. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afflerbach, Peter, and Peter Johnston. 1984. Research Methodology: On the Use of Verbal Reports in Reading Research. Journal of Reading Behavior 16: 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbunan-Fich, Raquel. 2001. Using Protocol Analysis to Evaluate the Usability of a Commercial Web Site. Information and Management 39: 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, Mette. 2014. For borgeren, tilskueren eller den indviede. En praksisorienteret retorisk kritik af avisens politiske kommentarer. PhD diss., University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Det indskrevne publikum i politiske kommentarer. Rhetorica Scandinavica 71 (72): 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Edwin. 1965. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1970. Second Persona. Quarterly Journal of Speech 56: 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, Carole. 2015. We Are All Just Prisoners Here of Our Own Device. In The Effects of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of Effects. Past, Present, Future, ed. Amos Kiewe and David W. Houck, 31–58. Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumler, Jay. 1997. Origins of the Crisis of Communication for Citizenship. Political & Communication 14: 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. 2005. Agency: Promiscuous and Protean. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 2: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, Joseph N., and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 1997. Spirals of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli, Leah. 2001. Shaping Science with Rhetoric. The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, B.J., and G.D. Logan. 1991. The Transition from Algorithm to Retrieval in Memory-based Theories of Automaticity. Memory & Cognition 9: 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condit, Celeste Michelle. 1989. The Rhetorical Limits of Polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6: 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, A. 1965. Thought and Choice in Chess. Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncker, K. 1945. On Problem Solving. Psychological Monographs 58: 1–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert Simon. 1980. Verbal Reports as Data. Psychological Review 87: 215–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1984/1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, John. 1986. Television: Polysemy and Popularity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 3: 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, Aviva, and Peter Medway, eds. 1994. Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentikow, Barbara. 1997. Retorikk og resepsjon. Et medievitenskapelig perspektiv. Rhetorica Scandinavica 3: 26–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Stuart. 1980. Encoding/Decoding. In Culture, Media, Language, ed. Stuart Hall. London: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, John R., and Linda Flower. 1977. Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process. College English 39: 449–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitlin, Paul A. 2005. A Content Analysis of Television Political Pundits. PhD diss., Georgetown University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjarvard, Stig. 2008. En verden af medier—medialisering af politik, sprog, religion og leg. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Fra sporhunde til spåmænd. Journalister i ny fortolkningsindustri. Tid og tendenser 5: 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. The Views of the News: The Role of Political Newspapers in a Changing Media Landscape. Northern Lights: Film and Media Studies Yearbook 8: 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm, Julia, and John Lloyd. 2008. The Power of the Commentariat: How Much Do Commentators Influence Politics and Public Life? Oxford: Editorial Intelligence Ltd in association with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoff-Clausen, Elisabeth. 2007. Online Ethos. Retorisk kritik af karakterfremstilling i politikere, bloggere og brugerfællesskabers webretorik. PhD diss., University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Online Ethos: Webretorik i politiske kampagner, blogs og wikis. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasinski, James. 2001. The Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism. Western Journal of Communication 65: 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Klaus Bruhn. 2012a. A Handbook of Media and Communication Research. Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. Lost, Found, and Made: Qualitative Data in the Study of Three-Step Flows of Communication. In The Handbook of Global Media Research, ed. Ingrid Volkmer, 435–450. Aberdeen: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Elihu. 1959. Mass Communication and the Study of Culture. An Editorial Note on a Possible Future for this Journal. Studies in Public Communication 1: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Elihu, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. 1974. Uses and Gratifications Research. The Public Opinion Quarterly 37: 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiewe, Amos, and David W. Houck, eds. 2015. The Effects of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of Effects. Past, Present, Future. Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjeldsen, Jens. 2015. Det virkelige retoriske publikum. In Retorik og lärande. Nordiska konferensen för retorikforskning (NKRF) 2014, ed. Anders Sigrell and Sofi Qvarnström, 263–276. Lund: Lunds Universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kussmaul, Paul, and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. 1995. Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis in Translation Studies. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction 8: 177–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leff, Michael. 1986. Textual Criticism: The Legacy of G.P. Mohrmann. Quarterly Journal of Speech 72: 377–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leff, Michael L., and Gerald P. Mohrmann. 1974. Lincoln at Cooper Union: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Text. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60: 346–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Clayton. 1982. Using the “Thinking Aloud” Method in Cognitive Interface Design. New York: IBM TJ Watson Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, Anne Katrine. 2003. Jeg er vred, så hør på mig! Om et uudnyttet potentiale i kundekontakten. Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger: Strategi og ledelse. Børsen Forum A/S.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCroskey, James. 2016. An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication. 9th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNair, Brian. 2000. Journalism and Democracy—An Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Carolyn. 1984. Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., and Herbert Simon. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. 1954. Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning. Induction and Analogy in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand, Erin. 2008. An Inflammatory Fag and a Queer Form: Larry Kramer, Polemics, and Rhetorical Agency. Quarterly Journal of Speech 94 (3): 297–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Why We Love to Hate Larry Kramer. In The Effects of Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of Effects. Past, Present, Future, ed. Amos Kiewe and David W. Houck, 193–214. Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, Barbara. 2010. Review of Helen Woods Talking with Television: Women, Talk Shows and Modern Self-Reflexivity. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 7: 180–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schryer, Catherine. 2002. Genre and Power: A Chronotopic Analysis. In The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change, ed. R. Coe, L. Lingard, and T. Teslenko, 73–102. New York: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R.S. 1987. The Perils of Averaging Data Over Strategies: An Example from Children’s Addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 6: 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Hazards of Mental Chronometry: An Example from Children’s Subtraction. Journal of Educational Psychology 8: 497–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, Nanna Vestgård. 2016. Sammenhængen mellem vokale kendetegn og lytteres opfattelse af en talers personlige egenskaber. In Stemmen og tilhørerne, ed. Jette Barnholdt Hansen and Hanne Smith Pedersen, 158–178. Ödåkra, Sweden: Retorikforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömbäck, Jesper. 2005. In Search of a Standard: Four Models of Democracy and their Normative Implications for Journalism. Journalism Studies 6: 331–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromer-Galley, Jennifer, and Edward Schiappa. 1998. The Argumentative Burdens of Audience Conjectures: Audience Research in Popular Culture Criticism. Communication Theory 8: 27–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso, T., and S. Suh. 1993. Understanding Text: Achieving Explanatory Coherence through Online Inferences and Mental Operations in Working Memory. Discourse Processes 6: 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wander, Philip. 1984. The Third Persona: An Ideological Turn in Rhetorical Theory. Central States Speech Journal 35: 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winther Nielsen, Sigge, Jesper De Hemmer Egeberg, and Martin Vinæs Larsen. 2011. Vi er alle spindoktorer. Økonomi og politik 84: 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Helen. 2009. Talking with Television: Women, Talk Shows and Modern Self-Reflexivity. Urbana: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication and Arts, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    Mette Bengtsson

Authors
  1. Mette Bengtsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Jens E. Kjeldsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bengtsson, M. (2018). Think-Aloud Reading: Selected Audiences’ Concurrent Reaction to the Implied Audience in Political Commentary. In: Kjeldsen, J. (eds) Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric. Rhetoric, Politics and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61618-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation