Objective
The picture of the 20th century leaderships in social sciences and humanities is still dominated by a number of uncritically accepted postulates such as (1) ascription of special manipulative) properties to Nazi, Soviet or Fascist language; (2) fixation on vocabulary only(G.Orwell's ‘newspeak’) and (3) belief in suggestive power of classical rhetoric projected onto semi-literate masses.
These theses find little empirical support in recent scholarship. It turns out that (1) manipulation is typical for political communication even in modern democracies, (2) fuzzy logic has proved more useful in swaying public opinions than ‘wrong’ vocabulary, and (3) the image of scarcely educated people enjoying Ciceronian rhetoric of tyrants does not pass serious scrutiny: Hitler's speeches in German regions were negatively related to his popularity up to 1933, and influenced positively only those who knew and supported his views.
Still, few attempts at isolating informational flows between chief executives and their constituencies have been made, so we are still in the dark about the knowledge gained by an average listener of Roosevelt's fireside chat or a participant of a Nazi rally in Nuremberg. The first samples show that preexisting knowledge about the speaker, communicative setting, voice or gestures could play a crucial role, whereas the verbal content would mostly fill the gaps. To prove or disprove this hypothesis, a set of linguistic and anthropological methods is applied to the model of direct communication constructed by pairing messages (political speeches of Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill) with feedbacks (direct responses to those speeches in private letters).
The importance of knowing how communication between political leaders and their audiences actually worked may be of significant interest for European political practitioners and their constituencies, mutually dependent on better understanding and more efficient interaction.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
- social sciences political sciences political communication
- humanities languages and literature literature studies literary genres essays
- social sciences political sciences government systems democracy
- natural sciences computer and information sciences artificial intelligence computational intelligence
You need to log in or register to use this function
We are sorry... an unexpected error occurred during execution.
You need to be authenticated. Your session might have expired.
Thank you for your feedback. You will soon receive an email to confirm the submission. If you have selected to be notified about the reporting status, you will also be contacted when the reporting status will change.
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IEF
See other projects for this call
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Coordinator
E1 4NS LONDON
United Kingdom
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.