Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2019

When 'They' Are Listening: Sociolinguistic Variation in John F. Kennedy's Cold War SpeechesSteven John Pope during 1961

Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION & INFORMATION

WHEN ‘THEY’ ARE LISTENING: SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIATION IN JOHN F.

KENNEDY’S COLD WAR SPEECHES DURING 1961

By

STEVEN JOHN POPE

A Thesis submitted to the School of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

2019

Steven Pope defended this thesis on April 15, 2019. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Davis W. Houck Professor Directing Thesis

Arthur Raney Committee Member

Gretchen Sunderman Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii

Dedicated to Judith “Juju” Cooley, from whom I inherited my desire to teach

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Soli Deo Gloria.

I would like to thank my wife, Alex, for all the hard work she has put into helping me obtain my Master’s degree. For all the editing she has done on my research papers— she deserves her own Master’s degree. Thank you Alex for your close attention to my work and for putting up with my never-ending monologues of the everyday rhetoric that surrounds us.

I would also like to thank my parents, Cade & Beth, for promoting an interest in higher education. Thank you Mom and Dad for always taking an interest in my research endeavors and even helping me come up with a few areas of interest worth studying.

I am thankful for the opportunity to learn and grow under my Master’s advisor Dr. Davis W. Houck. Thank you Dr. Houck for taking an interest in my research interests and helping me obtain them. Additionally, thank you for introducing me to rhetoric.

Also, to Dr. Gretchen Sunderman I am thankful. Thank you Dr. Sunderman for introducing me to linguistics. I may have stumbled into Linguistics by accident, but you helped recognize just how impactful linguistic research can be; I have come to love linguistics thanks to you.

Thank you Dr. Laura Arpan, Dr. Arthur Raney, and Dr. Jessica Wendorf Muhamad for introducing me to new theories and research methods to challenge my academic perspective.

To Dr. Jennifer Proffitt, I am thankful for the opportunity to produce academic research under her guidance. Thank you Dr. Proffitt for helping me develop my first research project worthy of a conference presentation.

Beyond research, I am grateful for Professor Mark Zeigler who has served as my mentor when it comes to teaching and educational instruction. Thank you Professor Zeigler for showing me how to lead a classroom and show compassion to students.

iv

Again, I would like to give another word of thanks to my wife, who by the end of this sentence has already done something to correct me, teach me, or help me. Thank you Alex for your grace and love.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... viii Abstract ...... ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Research Questions ...... 3 Literature Review ...... 3 Rhetorical Foundations ...... 3 Presidential Rhetoric...... 7 Rhetoric and the Cold War ...... 8 Rhetoric and Orality ...... 11 Rhetoric and John F. Kennedy ...... 14 Methodology ...... 20 Chapter Outline ...... 24

CHAPTER TWO: THE COLD WAR AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY ...... 27 The Cold War Situation...... 27 Kennedy’s Identificatory Conglomerate ...... 32

CHAPTER THREE: KENNEDY’S INAUGURAL ADDRESS ...... 37 Medhurst’s Situational Constraints (Inaugural) ...... 38 Audience – National/Televised ...... 40 Inaugural /ing/ v. /in/ ...... 40 Inaugural Final /t/ ...... 41 Inaugural Final /r/ ...... 43

CHAPTER FOUR: KENNEDY’S CONGRESSIONAL ADDRESS ...... 45 Medhurst’s Situational Constraints (Congressional)...... 46 Audience – Congressional ...... 48 Congressional /ing/ v. /in/ ...... 48 Congressional Final /t/ ...... 49 Congressional Final /r/...... 50

CHAPTER FIVE: KENNEDY’S UNIVERSITY ADDRESS ...... 53

vi

Medhurst’s Situational Constraints (University) ...... 54 Audience – University ...... 55 University /ing/ v. /in/ ...... 56 University Final /t/ ...... 57 University Final /r/...... 58

CHAPTER SIX: KENNEDY’S SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIATION IN SIGNALS ...... 61 Inaugural Signals ...... 61 Congressional Signals ...... 62 University Signals ...... 64

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ...... 66 RQ1 ...... 66 RQ2 ...... 69 RQ3 ...... 70 Future Studies ...... 71 Constraints ...... 73 Implications ...... 74

APPENDICES ...... 78

A. INAUGURAL LIST OF VARIBALES ...... 78 B. CONGRESSIONAL LIST OF VARIABLES...... 80 C. UNIVERSITY LIST OF VARIABLES ...... 83

References ...... 86 Biographical Sketch ...... 98

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 “Impact” spectrogram ...... 21

1.2 “Fulfillment” spectrogram ...... 21

1.3 “Failure” spectrogram and formant levels ...... 22

1.4 “Nuclear” spectrogram and formant levels ...... 22

2.1 John F. Kennedy’s proposed Identificatory Conglomerate ...... 34

3.1 Inaugural /ing/ v. /in/ distribution ...... 41

3.2 Inaugural Final /t/ distribution ...... 42

3.3 Inaugural Final /r/ distribution ...... 43

4.1 Congressional /ing/ v. /in/ distribution ...... 48

4.2 Congressional Final /t/ distribution ...... 49

4.3 Congressional Final /r/ distribution ...... 51

5.1 University /ing/ v. /in distribution ...... 56

5.2 University Final /t/ distribution ...... 57

5.3 University Final /r/ distribution ...... 59

7.1 Sociophonetic variation in three of Kennedy’s 1961 speeches ...... 67

viii

ABSTRACT

When John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, the United States entered a new era of Cold War diplomacy. During the era ridden with propaganda and imminent nuclear apocalypse, the presidential address served as a powerful tool to promote international peace while simultaneously threatening the opposition. Rather than fixate on President Kennedy’s rhetorical initiatives as they appear in transcriptions, the following identifies President Kennedy’s sociophonetic initiatives through linguistic methodology. By utilizing the phonetic software tool, Praat, the succeeding analysis produces a speaking profile for three of Kennedy’s 1961 speeches. With consistent content and context across each speech, President Kennedy’s ability to adapt his speaking style - dependent on the present audience - is distinguished. Considering Kennedy’s speeches were often influenced by speech writers, the President’s orality and sociophonetic variation provides evidence to his individual attempts to appeal to specific audiences. To further critique Kennedy’s use of language when appealing to his constituents, specific “signals” directed to the opposition are additionally analyzed. Beneficial to historians, rhetoricians, and linguists this work returns to a basis in orality in an effort to promote linguistic methodologies in the rhetorical domain.

ix

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION In the wake of recent relational and diplomatic changes between the United States and Russia, including conspiracy to defraud the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, disagreement over action taken in Syria, and a fairly unsuccessful summit in Helsinki, it has become increasingly important to analyze past United States-Russia relations in order to understand how previous relations have brought about the current discourse that surrounds the global superpowers. The Cold War and its diplomatic importance has brought about research from historians,1 economists,2 and rhetoricians3 alike. The majority of Cold War rhetorical research has sought to critique and document what rhetorical strategies were employed in presidential speeches and propaganda campaigns. Examples of Cold War rhetorical analysis include Medhurst’s (1997) analyses of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Crusade for Freedom campaign4 and Kimble’s (2009) critique of John F. Kennedy’s style employed in his commencement address at American University.5

Unlike the rhetorical analyses of past, the present report aims to analyze presidential discourse from a sociolinguistic perspective to add to the methodologies employed by rhetoricians. Similar to Wolfram et al.’s (2016) sociolinguistic speech analysis of Martin Luther King Jr.,6 this report will document how John F. Kennedy explicitly and implicitly varied style and language to accommodate different audiences. By limiting the analysis to presidential speeches during the Cold War, this report focuses on an era of diplomatic tension and scrutiny that invited vivid prose and strategic rhetoric. It is hoped that the resulting language analysis will

1 Visit the Wilson Center Digital Archive at digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org for collections of international documents related to the Cold War. 2 James L. Clayton, “The impact of the Cold War on the economies of California and Utah, 1946- 1965,” Pacific Historical Review 36, no. 6 (1967): 449-473. 3Shawn Parry-Giles, The rhetorical presidency, propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002). 4 Martin J. Medhurst, “Eisenhower and the Crusade for Freedom: The Rhetorical Origins of a Cold War Campaign,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1997): 646-661. 5 James J. Kimble, “John F. Kennedy, the Construction of Peace, and the Pitfalls of Androgynous Rhetoric,” Communication Quarterly 57, no. 2 (2009): 154-170. 6Walt Wolfram, Caroline Myrick, Jon Forrest, & Michael J. Fox, “The Significance of Linguistic Variation in the Speeches of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,” American Speech 91, (2016): 269-300. 1 produce a speaking profile for Kennedy that reflects his overall linguistic background and rhetorical abilities.

Beyond the language profiles, this report seeks to understand how language varies when conveying “signals” to an opposition—a signal being any form of communication, either direct or cryptic, that conveys a message of force or intention. Jervis (1970) states that “the most obvious example of signals are a state’s direct statements of intention,”7 to which Bose (1998) adds “presidential statements are of utmost importance in the nuclear era, when careless or ill- planned signals from the White House can provoke a disastrous response.”8 The potential impact for change following a signal warrants further analysis and will be individually scrutinized within the sociophonetic analysis. Cluster criticism9 as outlined by Foss (1989) will be implemented to identify the signals by pin-pointing recurring phrases and central key words in Kennedy’s speeches. This critical perspective alongside a textual analysis will be necessary to identify the signals directed to the American opposition within the Cold War speeches.

Though rhetorical criticism and discourse analysis will take the forefront in designing the research framework, including the Pedantic model10, the Neo-Aristotelian11 perspective, and Presidential rhetoric genre,12 the sociolinguistic literature on style will also play a pivotal role in differentiating language variations within the presidential speeches. A communication theory that doubles as a linguistic theory, Communication Accommodation Theory13 will serve as the uniting framework that links rhetorical criticism to the linguistic style research.

Prior to the speech analysis, it is necessary to first establish both Kennedy’s linguistic upbringing and the speaking context for each speech analyzed. To do so, an identificatory

7Robert Jervis, The Logic of Images in International Relations, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 21. 8Meena Bose, “Words as Signals: Drafting Cold War Rhetoric in the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations,” Congress & the Presidency 25, no. 1 (1998): 24. 9Sonja J. Foss, Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice, (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1989). 10 Kenneth Burke, A grammar of motives, (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1969). 11 Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925). 12 Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996). 13 Cynthia Gallios, Tania Ogay, & Howard Giles, “Communication Accommodation Theory,” in Theorizing about communication and culture, ed. W. B. Gudykunst (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005), 121-148. 2 conglomerate based on Worthington’s (2013) model14 will be proposed for Kennedy. An identificatory conglomerate is a model based on social network theory that produces a visual depiction of the multifaceted background of an individual. As far as establishing context, historiographic research methods will be employed to chart the greater historical context for each speech analyzed.

Research Questions RQ1 - Within the sociolinguistic analysis, how does Kennedy’s language vary across populations?

RQ2 – When sending signals, what language variations occur? Do signals carry variations similarly across each speech?

RQ3 – Following the recognition of variations, how might the accommodations to audiences effect the overall rhetorical reception of the speech?

Potential findings for a rhetorical analysis that employs a sociolinguistic methodology is threefold: a better understanding of the verbal associations presidents make with various populations, recognition of the language variation that occurs when speakers send signals, and documentation of the possible rhetorical impact of language variation on speech reception. The contextual presentation of speech events alongside an in-depth description of Kennedy’s style will likely benefit historians and scholars looking to fully represent Kennedy’s presidential administration.

Literature Review Rhetorical Foundations Contemporary rhetorical theory on discourse and accommodation will form the basis for this analysis, but it would be a mistake to neglect classical rhetoric as the starting point for any rhetorical study. In following Croft (1956), who asserts that rhetorical research “ought to proceed from some clearly conceived set of relations between rhetorical theory, rhetorical criticism, and

14 Bruce Worthington, “Martin Luther King Jr. as Identificatory Conglomerate,” Black Theology 11, no. 2 (2015): 219-239.

3 the history of public address,”15 this analysis will first establish a theoretical basis in rhetoric and rhetorical criticism before reiterating the previous research in presidential and Cold War rhetoric.

In the first Greek dialogues that speak of rhetoric, the Phaedrus16 and Gorgias17 depict Socrates as defining rhetoric as a method of oratory used to guide the souls of man. Arguing with the Sophist, Gorgias, Socrates states there are two types of rhetoric, “one part of it would be flattery, I suppose, and shameful public harangue, while the other— that of getting the souls of the citizens to be as good as possible and of striving valiantly to say what is best…”18 This position of rhetoric as a form of flattery was Socrates’ way of pointing out Gorgias’ use of poetry and rhythm to corrupt the audience and capture their attention using delivery rather than sound argument. From Socrates’ critique of poetic oratory, rhetorical studies took a large step away from the study of linguistic variables and toward the study of content. Considered the first speech critique, the Phaedrus recounts Socrates’ critique of the Sophist, Lysias, and his speech on love. Socrates describes the speech as “flat, monotonous, repetitive composition…”19 based on praising and flattering the audience alone. The Platonic writings of old may have focused on rhetoric as a tool for manipulation or spiritual guidance, but in Aristotle’s On Rhetoric,20 the younger Greek philosopher steps away from “souls” and toward quasi-science.

Stepping away from heaven-bound discussion, Aristotle established what is still to this day considered the foundation of rhetoric: the three means of persuasion. Introducing the world to logos, pathos, and ethos, Aristotle in On Rhetoric also discusses delivery, organization and style when in the Agora. Rather than argue that rhetoric is a science in itself, Aristotle (2006) describes it as the science of applying science to speech making, he writes, “but rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us… it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects.”21 Aristotle’s newfound theories

15 Albert Croft, “The functions of rhetorical criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 42, no. 3 (1956): 283. 16 Plato & Harvey Yunis, Plato’s Phaedrus, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972). 17 Plato & Donald Zeyl (Translator), Gorgias, (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009). 18 Plato & Donald Zeyl (Translator), Gorgias, (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009), 81. 19 Plato & Harvey Yunis, Plato’s Phaedrus, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 31. 20 Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006). 21 Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 55. 4 on rhetoric helped legitimize the science and usher in a new appreciation for the science to be utilized in all sciences.

Before stepping away from the classical foundations of rhetoric, it is relevant to discuss Aristotle’s ideas on style and delivery. Different from sociolinguistic theory on style, Aristotle defines style as the necessary component of speech making that aims to convey meaning clearly and plainly.22 Out of style comes speech components like delivery and language. Aristotle (2006) defines delivery as, “a matter of the right management of the voice to express the various emotions-of speaking loudly, softly, or between the two; of high, low, or intermediate pitch; of the various rhythms that suit various objects.” 23 Aristotle (2006) goes on to describe delivery as the element of speech making that holds the attention and entertains an audience, but can neglect sound argument and organized thought.24 Different than delivery, language is the composition of current and ordinary nouns and verbs to produce clarity in meaning. When the development of a speech puts emphasis on delivery and language, a speaker can obtain the appropriate style per audience. For a final note on style, Aristotle places great emphasis on choosing a style that is appropriate per audience, “it is like having to ask ourselves what dress will suit an old man; certainly not the crimson cloak that suits a young man.”25

Returning to Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Herbert Wichelns (1925) published his work, “The Literary Criticism of Oratory,”26 that gave rise to the neo-Aristotelian perspective and the birth of rhetorical criticism. Wichelns (1961) argues that rhetorical criticism is not the same as literary criticism, which is focuses solely on interpreting the permanent value and beauty of written texts.27 Instead, a rhetorical critic is concerned with “the audience and occasion; [the] task is persuasion, [the] form and style are organic with the occasion.”28 Unlike the literary critic who looks to define the aesthetic beauty of a work that will span multiple generations, the rhetorical critic aims to document the adaption to the audience, argument of expression, habits of

22 Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 111. 23 Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 109. 24 Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 110. 25 Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 111. 26 Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925). 27 Herbert Wichelns “Some differences between literary criticism and Rhetorical criticism,” in Historical Studies of Rhetoric and Rhetoricians, ed. Raymond F. Howes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1961): 217-224. 28 Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925), 211. 5 preparation, and manner of delivery at a single moment in history. Wichelns (1925) goes on to describe the neo-Aristotelian perspective as one that views rhetoric at the boundaries of politics and literature, focused on how oratory is born out of a social situation and how oratory influences its audience.29 Within the Neo-Aristotelian perspective, Foss (1989) summarizes the elements each critic should analyze:

The speaker’s personality, the public character of the speaker or the public’s perception of the speaker, the audience, the major ideas presented in the speech, the motives to which the speaker appealed, the nature of the speaker’s proofs, the speaker’s judgement of human nature in the audience, the arrangement of the speech, the speaker’s mode of expression, the speaker’s method of speech preparation, the manner of delivery, and the effect of the discourse on the immediate audience and its long term effects.30

The introduction of the term “effect” brought about necessary dialogue and debate and later brought forth a new generation of rhetorical scholars interested in rhetorical criticism and discourse analysis. Unlike classical rhetorical theory, the Neo-Aristotelian perspective invited the analysis of a single speaker. In the final words of Wichelns’ (1925) foundational work, he concludes with a statement that has divided scholars and spawned new theoretical perspectives:

Finally, the effect of the discourse on its immediate hearers is not to be ignored, either in the testimony of witnesses, nor in the record of events. And throughout such a study one must conceive of the public man as influencing the men of his own times by the power of his discourse.31

In the 1960’s, rhetorical criticism saw a boom in rhetorical scholarship from scholars like Edwin Black and later David Zaerfsky who aimed to redefine “effect.” In analyzing Wichelns’ foundational work on rhetorical criticism, Black (1965) adds that “a critic can, after all, interest himself not alone in the short-range effect of a discourse on its immediate audience, but also in its effect on later audiences and its indirect effects…”32 Black’s (1965) position on Wichelns’ use

29 Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925), 212. 30 Sonja J. Foss Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice, (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1989), 29. 31 Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925), 213. 32 Edwin Black, Rhetorical Criticism: A study in Method. (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1965), 74. 6 of the term “effect” is that rhetorical scholars should actively engage with audience members to study the results and outcomes of public oratory. In contrast to Black, Zarefsky (2006) has argued that Wichelns’ description of “effect” was not concerned with empirical measurement but rather critical examination of the possible effects that could stem from the speaker’s frame and construction of a speech. From this, Zarefsky (2006) states that “many of the stronger recent studies in rhetorical criticism have regarded criticism not as method but as an attitude.”33 Considering the following research will analyze diplomacy during the Cold War, it is imperative to study presidential rhetoric with a critical attitude. More so, because the following analysis aims to document presidential language variation across various audiences, this report will abide by Zarefsky’s depiction of possible effects. However, as Houck (2015) puts it, audiences should not be treated as “hypothetical or easily manipulated”34 but rather as real members of the surrounding context.

Presidential Rhetoric The United States presidency has garnered its own genre of rhetorical analysis due to the potential for influence offered to the highest seat of office. As the capstone of public oratory, analyzing the presidency has been categorized along a continuum from Jeffrey K. Tulis’ (1987) “The Rhetorical Presidency”35 to Martin J. Medhurst’s (1998) “Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency.”36 This continuum (or division) is based in part on Tulis’ (1987) emphasis on how a shift in public opinion can shape the rhetorical style of a presidential platform. This theoretical perspective is summarized by Tulis (1987) who writes, “bound up in the common opinion that presidents should be popular leaders is a larger understanding- of how our whole political system works, of the contemporary problems of governance that we face, and how of the polity ought to function.”37 Tulis argues that the development of “The Rhetorical Presidency” stems from the “fundamental transformation”38 in American governance that occurred at the outset of the twentieth century. By placing emphasis on how presidential oratory is shaped by the public’s call

33 Davis Zarefsky, “Reflections on rhetorical criticism” Rhetoric Review 25, (2006): 385. 34 Davis Houck & Amos Kiewe, The effects of rhetoric and rhetoric of effects: Past, present, Future, (Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 2015), 283. 35 Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978). 36 Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996). 37 Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 4. 38 Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 173. 7 for oratorical appeals rather than discussion of the issues facing the nation, Tulis’ rhetorical presidency has brought about renewed scholarship and academic debate.

Of the debate that has occurred, Medhurst (1998) has criticized Tulis’ emphasis on how the public alters presidential rhetoric rather than applying, “knowledge of the art of rhetoric to the study of presidential discourse.”39 It is important to distinguish between the boundaries of the presidential rhetoric continuum, to ensure the theoretical genre of the succeeding analysis is solidified. Rather than study how public opinion shaped presidential discourse during the Cold War, the following will analyze presidential speeches from a “Presidential Rhetoric” perspective, in which the public plays the role as audience member and the president as the influencer and designer of the oratory. Medhurst (1998) writes, “Since the premise of the influence of rhetoric on the audience is so central to the field, it is important that it be properly justified through rigorous analysis.”40 By placing emphasis on the speaker as the conductor of style, content, and influence, the following work will recognize the power a president holds when speaking from a high position to a national audience. Furthermore, by identifying the subtle nuances of persuasive oratory, presidential rhetoric can critique the use of power held by the individual sitting at the highest seat in office.

Rhetoric and the Cold War Following in the footsteps of traditional Aristotelian rhetorical criticism, presidential rhetoric has grown into one of the largest domains within rhetorical scholarship. Presidential rhetoric varies across American history including Washington and the American Revolution,41 Lincoln and the Civil War,42 and Roosevelt and the Great Depression.43 Despite the rich and sometimes provocative discourse that embodied the global Cold War, less rhetorical research has been conducted in the Space-Race era compared to the American Revolution, Civil War, and

39 Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996), xx. 40 Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996), 199. 41 Ronald Reid, The American Revolution and the Rhetoric of History, (Washington, DC: Speech Communication Association, 1978). 42 Marie Nichols, “Lincoln’s first inaugural,” in American Speeches, ed. Wayland Maxfield Parrish and Marie Hochmuth Nichols (New York: Longmans, 1954): p. 27-71. 43 Davis Houck, FDR and Fear Itself: The First Inaugural Address, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2002). 8

World War eras. Nonetheless, Cold War rhetoric has lingered throughout the communication domain and has steadily gained precedence over time. According to Medhurst et al. (1997), the 1970’s saw the first boom in Cold War rhetoric following the works of Gardner et al. (1970) and Brockriede and Scott (1970)44. In “The origins of the Cold War,”45 Lloyd Gardner, Arthur Schlesinger, and Hans Morgenthau each put forth an argument to identify the rhetorical origins of the Cold War. Inviting varied interpretation, the Gardner et al. (1970) work exemplifies the rhetorical difficulties of mapping the Cold War and broadens the depth of the Cold War as a rhetorical domain. As for “Moments in the rhetoric of the Cold War” by Wayne Brockriede and Robert Scott (1970), the authors work to examine crucial moments in the Cold War as a means of documenting the most significant rhetorical moments throughout the conflict. From this boom in scholarship during the 1970’s, Medhurst et al. (1997) developed their work “Cold War Rhetoric: strategy, metaphor, and ideology,”46 which will serve as the comprehensive theoretical source for this report.

After summarizing the works of Gardner et al. (1970) and Brockriede and Scott (1970), Medhurst et al. (1997) divide their book into three domains in which to study Cold War rhetoric: strategy, metaphor, and ideology. Of the three theoretical methods to study Cold War rhetoric, Medhurst’s (1997) strategic approach will be placed at the forefront of this analysis. Defining the strategic approach Medhurst (1997) writes, “such a reading involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of numerous pieces of data and the weighing of that data in light of the strategic assumptions and goals held by those in decision making positions.”47 The strategic approach weighs the situational constraints of the Cold War context and analyzes the factors that contribute to the strategic development of a decision-making response.

Bearing in mind Medhurst’s (1997) definition of strategic Cold War analysis, this report will collect, analyze, and interpret the sociophonetic variations that occur throughout presidential

44 Davis Houck, FDR and Fear Itself: The First Inaugural Address, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2002). 45 Lloyd Gardner, Arthur Schlesinger, & Hans Morgenthau, The origins of the cold war, (Ann Arbor, MI: Ginn- Blaisdell, 1970). 46 Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scottt, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997). 47 Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scottt, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28. 9 speechmaking. By fixating sociophonetic utterances, the following will shed light on the strategic manipulation of voice and style in order to convey authority and decision making to various audiences. As previously noted, each speech analyzed will include a contextual analysis in order to best exemplify the situational constraints as put forth by Medhurst (1997): historical, political, economic, diplomatic, and military constraints.48 By outlining the 5 situational constraints that surround each of the following addresses, Medhurst’s methodology will display how context has remained consistent throughout 1961. Consistent situational context will then allow the analysis to focus on the audience as the variable inviting variation. Though the strategic approach will embody the majority of the research, the metaphoric and ideological approaches will still play a role in the interpretation and identification of “signals” directed toward the opposition.

Apart from “Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology,” Shawn Parry-Giles’ (2002) more recent Cold War book, “The Rhetorical Presidency, Propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955,”49 documents the early Cold War propagated actions undertaken by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower. Parry-Giles’ text exemplifies a work dedicated to analyzing propagated text beyond speeches and oratory. From strategic oratory to propagated pamphlets, the multifaceted nature of Cold War communications has brought about a dynamic definition for conceptualizing the period. Medhurst et al. (1997) defines the concept of the Cold War as “whatever the causes, the tensions, the actions and reactions both verbal and nonverbal, the constant maneuvering, shifts, and assessments make up what we sense to be a state of being – a state we choose to call the Cold War.”50

As for other articles and works that address the state of being that was the Cold War, Medhurst (1997) in his article, “Eisenhower and the crusade for freedom,” identifies the rhetorical function of Eisenhower’s Crusade for Freedom campaign in which he argues that the then-President pushed forward his agenda regarding national security and strategic planning by

48 Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28. 49 Shawn Parry-Giles, The rhetorical presidency, propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002). 50 Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28. 10 manipulating both public and private characteristics of Cold War diplomacy.51 Of the more common Cold War reports are comparisons of rhetorical campaigns across presidencies, including Winkler’s (2007) examination of President Reagan’s actions in Libya compared to George H. W. Bush’s actions in Iraq.52 Winkler (2007) identifies Eisenhower and Bush’s efforts to heighten the public’s focus on preemptive defense, following both administrations major defeats at the hands of terrorism.

With a steady rise in Cold War research, it is possible literature will soon turn critical attention to how past U.S. and USSR relations can be analyzed to better understand current relations and future directions. Beginning with the rise of the Trump administration, U.S. and Russian diplomatic relations have become more prominent in the public eye. With greater increased media coverage, the Trump administration has not shied away from being critical toward Russian diplomacy and their efforts to challenge global hegemony. It is hoped that the following analysis that embodies a traditional Cold War presidential perspective can add to the slowly growing literature that aims to study previous Cold War relations in order to build upon current diplomacy.

Rhetoric and Orality Though the rhetorical foundations and categorical reviews play a major role in the development of a rhetorical work, it is important to discuss what rhetorical foundations have been dismissed (or overlooked) in the production of the rhetorical domain. From the early texts on rhetoric, orality is seen as a dominant form of persuasion. Placing orality above written forms, Isocrates writes, “Oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment, while in the case of letters there is no such need whatever.” 53 Differentiating speech from writing, Isocrates argues that speech making encompasses qualities and forms that are absent in writing and convey aspects of the human condition that can only be performed through orality. Despite this fact, rhetorical criticism has often turned to

51 Martin J. Medhurst, “Eisenhower and the Crusade for Freedom: The Rhetorical Origins of a Cold War Campaign,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1997): 646-661. 52 Carol Winkler, “Parallels in preemptive war rhetoric: Reagan on Libya; Bush 43 on Iraq,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10, no. 2 (2007).

53 Isocrates, & George Norlin (Translator), “Against the Sophists,” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), 11. 11 transcriptions and written texts; simultaneously neglecting the impactful qualities of speech making that can only be found in oral production. Reinforcing the insight of Isocrates on modern criticism, Arnold (2007) writes, “We, too, often recognize in ordinary practice that there is special significance in orality, but we are less consistent than some of the ancients in recognizing the extent to which orality and the conditions surrounding it create meanings of unique sorts.” 54 Preferring to transcribe oratory into written text, modern rhetorical criticism has studiously neglected delivery and style in favor of criticism rooted in physical texts. To provide renewed interest in delivery and style, the following work will focus on language production as a means of studying oratory.

The need to emphasize oratory and new methodologies stems from Houck (2010) who argues, “If the speeches selected and preserved for analysis in the early years of the field reflect a founding and overweening methodology, then it stands to reason that new, more creative methodological approaches might broaden the purview of American public address.”55 The overweening methodology Houck (2010) is referring to should be considered the field’s emphasis on “cookie-cutter”56 neo-Aristotelian analysis of speech transcriptions. Rather than adding to the dominant methodology, the following analysis will return to orality and what Connors (1986) refers to as “a weapon far more powerful than we can easily imagine now.”57 In his work that documents the death of the oral tradition in Greece, Connors (1986) explains that for the rhetorical scholar, Aristotle’s “On Rhetoric” may be considered the beginning of modern rhetorical criticism, but it should also be considered nail in the coffin for the study of orality. Relaying the words of Aristotle, Connors (1986) refers to the study of orality as “the older rhetoric – darker, more artistic, and far more coercive – that has only survived in fragments.”58 Often pitted as a form of dark arts conducted by Sophists, the foundational Greek rhetorical texts began the first campaign to dismiss oratory as a noteworthy area of study. However, to return to

54 Carroll Arnold, “Oral Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Literature,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 40, no. 1 (2007): 174. 55 Davis W. Houck, “Textual Recovery, Textual Discovery: Returning to Our Past, Imagining Our Future,” in The Handbook of Rhetoric and Public Address, eds., Shawn J. Parry-Giles & J. Michael Hogan (Walden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010): 111-32. 56 David Zarefsky, “Reflections on Rhetorical Criticism,” Rhetoric Review 25, (2006): 383-87. 57 Robert Connors, “Greek Rhetoric and the transition from orality,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 19, (1986): 42. 58 Robert Connors, “Greek Rhetoric and the transition from orality,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 19, (1986): 57. 12 oratorical analysis should be considered a return to the original study of rhetoric; that of oral production rather than written text.

Of the exemplary works that focus on delivery and oratory rather than textual description, William Harrison Pipes’ (1945) work on “Old-time Negro preaching”59 ranks among the celebrated works. By focusing on the performance of Georgia preachers, Pipes points to delivery as the influencing factor that produces the “soul expression”60 within the Georgia congregations. According to Pipes, the passion the congregation feels is the result of vivid delivery, “at one moment the minister is talking quietly and at the next moment he is storming… the preacher’s appearance and his gestures (which are awkward, spectacular, bombastic, and dramatic) do much to aid… the use of rhythm to arouse emotion… he must ‘make ‘em shout’ if he is to keep his job.”61 Pipe’s return to performance as his domain of inquiry demonstrates his allegiance to delivery and style as the unique components of speech making, rather than isolated words in transcription.

In an effort to mirror Pipes and return to delivery and orality, the following analysis will incorporate a sociolinguistic methodology to draw attention to speech production and sociophonetic utterances. By identifying how Kennedy adapts his phonetic delivery to appeal to audiences, research can return to delivery as a main component of persuasion. As Gunn (2007) writes, “the abandonment of speech as the central object has caused us to lose sight of an ethnic of responsibility tied neither to meaning nor to law, but to the acoustic bond of interpersonal encounter, a bond that forces risk and tempts danger?”62 From Gunn’s urgent request to return to delivery analysis, identifying the “acoustic bond” between speaker and audience is a fundamental goal of this work. By observing how speakers adapt to audiences and vary their styles to appeal to their constituents, the “acoustic bond” will become apparent through

59 William Harrison Pipes, “Old-Time Negro Preaching: An Interpretive Study,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 31, (1945): 15-21. 60 William Harrison Pipes, “Old-Time Negro Preaching: An Interpretive Study,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 31, (1945): 21. 61 William Harrison Pipes, “Old-Time Negro Preaching: An Interpretive Study,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 31, (1945): 20. 62 Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 93, no. 3 (2007): 363-364. 13 sociolinguistic analysis. Furthermore, as Gunn notes, oratory holds the power to “force risk” and “tempt danger,” and herein lies the reasoning for studying the Cold War.

In an era of global history that included threat of nuclear war, military coups, assassination attempts, and proxy wars for independence, the Cold War presents an opportunity to study the “risks” and “dangers” associated with public oratory. As an exploratory project into the sociolinguistics of the Cold War, the following analysis will study President Kennedy and how he played a major role in U.S. Diplomacy. President Kennedy was chosen specifically for this project for the major role he played at the height of the Cold War. Additionally, Kennedy was chosen for this analysis in following the critical analysis of his speaking influence by Murphy63 (2019) and the comprehensive analysis of his linguistic abilities by Metcalf64 (2004). Both Murphy and Metcalf’s historical analysis of Kennedy’s vocal abilities will be highlighted later on.

Rhetoric and John F. Kennedy A biographical analysis of John F. Kennedy is certainly warranted for this analysis and will be conducted later on. For now, it is relevant to observe how Kennedy has been studied in previous rhetorical works in an effort to relay the previous findings within the field. Significant to this analysis is Kimble’s (2009) analysis of Kennedy’s speech at American University. As Kennedy will be analyzed in this report, it is crucial to recognize that Kimble (2009) identifies an “androgynous” style in Kennedy’s speaking, arguing that his mixed masculine and feminine appeals lead to advantages and pitfalls during a time of international tension.65 Kimble’s (2009) work regarding presidential style is fairly unique in presidential rhetoric, but exemplifies the growing trend in the field.

Though Kimble’s (2009) work represents a work in the same genre of this analysis, the majority of rhetorical Kennedy projects have focused on textual analysis to identify rhetorical goals. From the foundational works of Bradley (1965) and Wolfarth (1961), Neo-Aristotelian

63 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2019). 64 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004). 65 James Kimble, “John F. Kennedy, the Construction of Peace, and the Pitfalls of Androgynous Rhetoric,” Communication Quarterly 57, no. 2 (2009): 167. 14 criticism embraced President Kennedy’s “ethical, pathetic, and logical”66 use of proofs. For example, in Bostdorff and Ferris’s (2014) textual analysis of Kennedy’s epidictic prose, the authors note that Kennedy’s words invited his audience to consider and embrace “the possibility of peace with an adversary.”67 By identifying Kennedy’s normalization of antithesis, dissociation, and ceremonial oratory, Bostdorff & Ferris (2014) reiterate Kennedy’s artistry as a speaker and his ability to lead “toward a better way.”68 Adding to the research on Kennedy’s speaking abilities, Wolfarth (1961) equates Kennedy’s speaking prose with his ability to mirror specific address formats. Giving precedence to the rhetorical traditions and formats of the American presidential inaugural address, Wolfarth (1961) argues that despite its brevity, Kennedy’s inaugural address closely follows a traditional “domestic-minded” address “consistent with the broad outline of inaugural tradition.”69 From these textual analyses, it is clear that Kennedy’s rhetorical abilities embody the foundational expectations of good oratory according to classical and neo-Aristotelian perspective.

Of the rhetorical scholars documenting and critiquing Kennedy’s oratory, John Murphy’s (2004/2019) identification of “liberal ethos” will play a major role in representing Kennedy’s rhetorical abilities. In his introductory work on Kennedy’s use of ethos, Murphy (2004) argues that President Kennedy utilized “technical reasoning” to rally approval, build a supportive coalition, and push forward his administrative agenda.70 Specifically, Murphy (2004) argues that Kennedy builds his ethos and reasoning on “cultural discourses – the ‘end of the ideology’ movement, the liberal matrix, the faith in government, the fear the nation was falling behind its competitors, and the cultural authority of scholars.”71 Following his introductory text, Murphy (2019) released his comprehensive text “John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion,” which examines Kennedy’s creation of the 1960’s American liberal agenda through language and

66 Pearl Bradley, “A Rhetorical Analysis of John F. Kennedy’s Civil Rights Speech,” CLA Journal 9, no. 2 (1965): 176. 67 Denise Bostdorff & Shawna Ferris, “John F. Kennedy at American University: The Rhetoric of the Possible, Epidictic Progression, and the Commencement of Peace,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 100, no. 4 (2014): 408. 68 Denise Bostdorff & Shawna Ferris, “John F. Kennedy at American University: The Rhetoric of the Possible, Epidictic Progression, and the Commencement of Peace,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 100, no. 4 (2014): 432. 69 Donald Wolfarth, “John F. Kennedy in the tradition of inaugural speeches,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 47 no. 2 (1961), 132. 70 John Murphy, “The language of the liberal consensus: John F. Kennedy, technical reason, and the ‘new economics’ at Yale University,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90 no.2 (2004), 154. 71 John Murphy, “The language of the liberal consensus: John F. Kennedy, technical reason, and the ‘new economics’ at Yale University,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90 no.2 (2004), 154. 15 artistry.72 This most recent work from John Murphy (2019) will be used to establish the surrounding historical context for the three speeches analyzed.

Beyond Kimble (2009), Murphy (2019), and the foundational texts that form the basis for this analysis, it is relevant to additionally discuss the research reports that outline the Bostonian president’s rhetorical abilities. By identifying Kennedy’s explicit use of rhetorical appeals, the succeeding sociophonetic analysis will then contend to how phonetic variation accompanies strategic rhetorical initiatives. As the president who served during the height of the Cold War and height of the American Civil Rights movement, much of Kennedy’s rhetorical scholarship surrounds his use of the pulpit during times of national crisis. With looming crisis, Kennedy often embodied many rhetorical appeals but most frequently employed pragmatic idealism and romanticism to promote peace. In analyzing Kennedy’s Vietnam rhetoric, Bostdorff and Goldzwig (1994) found that Kennedy’s appeal for action in Vietnam—as defense for freedom— often balanced idealism and pragmatism. Bostdorff and Goldzwig (1994) write, “The United States’ mission—the defense for freedom—remained constant in each argument; hence, the President was able to shift ground in his discourse without drawing excessive attention to the fact that he was doing so.”73 By presenting American ideals filtered through pragmatic reasoning, President Kennedy’s pragmatic arguments “could serve to mask setbacks and to legitimize slow progress.”74 For Kennedy, pragmatic discourse serves to downplay the severity of global crisis to then persuade the nation that American idealism will prevail with time. Kennedy’s strategic pragmatism will likely present itself in the following 1961 speeches where Kennedy argued in favor of action against communism.

Alongside pragmatic utterances, Kennedy’s idealized appeals often included romanticized expectations in order to sell his ambitious policy agenda. Considering Kennedy’s early space-race agenda plays a pivotal role in his “Urgent Needs” congressional address, the following work by Jordan (2003) will provide an exploratory account of Kennedy’s romanticism. According to Jordan (2003) Kennedy’s language evoked “themes of noble exploration and

72 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019). 73 Denise Bostdorff & Steven Goldzwig, “Idealism and Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy Rhetoric: The Case of John F. Kennedy and Vietnam,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 24, no. 3 (1994), 526. 74 Denise Bostdorff & Steven Goldzwig, “Idealism and Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy Rhetoric: The Case of John F. Kennedy and Vietnam,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 24, no. 3 (1994), 527. 16 wonderment” and made “space exploration tangible to the public.”75 With the fear and mystery of space hovering over a skeptical public, President Kennedy narrowed the expanse of space to the moon; providing a realistic and imaginable goal for the American people. Jordan (2003) adds, “A balance between awe and action needed to be achieved so as to provide an appropriate level of inspiration and motivation.”76 By providing romanticized imagery to a vastly questionable area of exploration, President Kennedy simplified the space race to a mission with a clear landing spot. A vivid example of Kennedy’s ability to refine a large goal to a seemingly simple romanticized mission, Kennedy’s 1961 congressional address best showcases the President’s rhetorical abilities to sell his administrative agenda.

Similar to Kennedy’s use of romantic language to legitimize other worldly endeavors is Kennedy’s use of heroism to embody the American spirit and symbolize political initiatives. To return to the “Urgent Needs” address, President Kennedy presents the accomplishments of Alan Shepard in order to support his claim that space expedition is practical. (Alan Shepard was the first American to travel into space). In his 1961 congressional speech, Kennedy uses Shepard’s accomplishments to further sell a funded lunar program, “We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful.”77 According to Gustainis (1989), Kennedy’s use of heroism and inclusion of mythic American figures serves three purposes: to establish “a common rhetorical ground between rhetoric and audience,” to set up a “standard of achievement and invite others to strive for it,” and to point to “heroism as the mechanism for overcoming obstacles or effecting change.”78 Alan Shepard thus serves as the shining example of practical achievement as his accomplishments illustrate the first step in combating disbelief in the space program. To further exemplify Kennedy’s common use of American heroic figures, Gustainis (1989) notes that Kennedy often personified war policy through the American Special Forces Green Berets. Gustainis (1989) writes, “Kennedy portrayed the Green Berets in ways that

75 John Jordan, “Kennedy’s Romantic Moon and Its Rhetorical Legacy for Space Exploration,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6, no. 2 (2003), p. 225. 76 John Jordan, “Kennedy’s Romantic Moon and Its Rhetorical Legacy for Space Exploration,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6, no. 2 (2003), p. 215. 77 John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): 3. 78 J. Justin Gustainis, “John F. Kennedy and the Green Berets: The Rhetorical Use of the Hero Myth,” Communication Studies 40, no.1 (198), 42. 17

Americans could easily understand, the frontier hero being basic to American myth, and, hence, to American life… Kennedy was able to persuade the public that these heroes were the ‘right stuff’ for the Vietnam conflict.”79 Whether it be space exploration or military involvement, Kennedy routinely personified policy through American mythical figures to deter criticism and promote American idealism. An idealism rooted in romanticized accounts of heroic achievements.

In an effort to redefine and promote his American idealism, Kennedy’s administration argued that “the United States had ‘gone soft—physically, mentally, spiritually soft.’”80 By instilling fear in the idea of a declining American image, Kennedy sold an ideology of masculinity and “campaigned for office promising to halt America’s decline into flabbiness and impotence against the threat of a ‘ruthless’ and expanding Soviet empire.”81 As a campaign strategy, President Kennedy put forth his ideology of masculinity in order to frame the current state of the United States as weak and in need of a youthful revolution. By elevating his campaign to mirror the stoic American who resembles the virtues of the western frontier, President Kennedy “identified the strength of male bodies with the strength of the state.”82 Rooted in elitism and hegemonic masculinity, Kennedy’s appeal to the inner American man positioned himself as the youthful voice to help the nation return to its strong-willed past. Furthermore, by attacking the previous “impotent” administration (a perception Kennedy helped craft), Kennedy harnessed public fear that the United States would be overcome by other global superpowers. For Kennedy, the masculine appeal serves to arouse public approval and elevate his youthful qualities in an effort to position himself as the ideal, strong-bodied leader of the United States.

Following his victory in the 1960 presidential election, Kennedy further utilized fear appeals to rally public support of his domestic and foreign policy. Beyond the fear produced in

79 J. Justin Gustainis, “John F. Kennedy and the Green Berets: The Rhetorical Use of the Hero Myth,” Communication Studies 40, no.1 (198), 51. 80 Robert Dean, “Masculinity as Ideology: John F. Kennedy and the Domestic Politics of Foreign Policy,” Diplomatic History 22, no. 1 (1998), 29.

81 Robert Dean, “Masculinity as Ideology: John F. Kennedy and the Domestic Politics of Foreign Policy,” Diplomatic History 22, no. 1 (1998), 29. 82 Robert Dean, “Masculinity as Ideology: John F. Kennedy and the Domestic Politics of Foreign Policy,” Diplomatic History 22, no. 1 (1998), 62 18 masculinity appeals, Kennedy is widely remembered for harnessing fear as a persuasive device in many of his foreign policy speeches. Bostdorff and Ferris (2014) write, “While security concerns were paramount, some citizens in allied nations had begun to voice growing nuclear fears. Kennedy’s task was to speak to the former and make use of the opportunity posed by the latter.”83 Kennedy utilized the pending threat of nuclear warfare, the public fear of Soviet invasion, and the growing concern in Vietnam, to bring to light his foreign policy agenda that would promote peace rather than war. In their comprehensive work on Kennedy’s American University Address (also know as his “Commencement of Peace”), Bostdorff and Ferris (2014) argue that Kennedy pitted peace against fear in order to propose a reality in which the world could believe in a test-ban treaty between the U.S and USSR. Within this frame, “If genuine peace prevailed, Americans would have no need to fear destruction.”84With avoiding fear and destruction as the motivating elements of his peace appeals, President Kennedy’s epideictic progression built upon an administrative agenda rooted in new beginnings. Considered one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century85, Kennedy’s American University Address provides the ideal rhetorical review to analyze his promotion of American idealism through pragmatic appeals for peace—in the face of fear.

Within a rhetorical review of Kennedy research, it would be a mistake not to incorporate Bitzer’s (1968) foundational work “The Rhetorical Situation.” As a fundamental text in rhetorical criticism, Bitzer (1968) uses the immediacy that followed Kennedy’s assassination to demonstrate how situations invite (or even require) a rhetorical response. With Kennedy’s death as the example, Bitzer (1968) writes, “the historic situation was so compelling and clear that the responses were created almost out of necessity.”86 Though Bitzer’s (1968) work does not speak specifically to Kennedy’s rhetorical abilities, it does provide a basis in understanding how context and history creates the need for response. Following a brief section on methodology and

83 Denise Bostdorff & Shawna Ferris, “John F. Kennedy at American University: The Rhetoric of the possible, Epideictic progression and the Commencement of Peace, Quarterly Journal of Speech 100, no.4 (2014): 413. 84 Denise Bostdorff & Shawna Ferris, “John F. Kennedy at American University: The Rhetoric of the possible, Epideictic progression and the Commencement of Peace, Quarterly Journal of Speech 100, no.4 (2014): 418. 85 Stephen Lucas & Martin Medhurst, Words of a Century: The Top 100 American Speeches, 1900-1999, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009), 363. 86 Lloyd Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, (1968): 9. 19 an outline of the chapters to come, Bitzer’s (1968) rhetorical situation will be highlighted by indicating how the Cold War invited (and often required) rhetorical response.

Methodology Rather than employing a syntax/morphology assessment of Cold War speeches, the following analysis will conduct a phonology/phonetic analysis to document the changes in verbal production. Sociophonetic analysis documents the production differences across speaking situations; to observe the minute differences in phonology. Of the vast research conducted in linguistics, sociophonetics is on the newer-side and is slowly making its way into mainstream language research. For this report, sociophonetic variations will follow the research of Wolfram et al. (2016). Specifically, Wolfram et al. (2016) provide an overview of the most prominent phonetic and phonological variations that occur in American English, and their “range of social, regional, and stylistic/performative differences.”87 The following sociophonetic variables will play a pivotal role in the succeeding analysis of presidential speeches…

1. Stress placed on (ING): According to Campbell-Kibler (2007) the differences in stress placed on (ING) varies according to class, ethnicity, and regionality and differs by educated/uneducated and inarticulate/pretentious. This variation is exemplified with the variation in the coronal [n] (runnin’) verse the velar [ŋ] (running).88 2. Release of final /t/: Podesva et al. (2015) found that a speaker’s emphasis on the /t/ that ends a word (bet or closet) will be more so articulated for individuals taking a political stance and those with higher education. Conversely, dropping the final /t/ reflects less education and less severity.89 3. Vocalization of /r/: Emphasis on /r/ (car vs. cah’) is a well-established social and ethnic variable seen throughout the United States.90

87 Walt Wolfram, Caroline Myrick, Jon Forrest, & Michael J. Fox, “The Significance of Linguistic Variation in the Speeches of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,” American Speech 91, (2016): 274. 88 Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, “Accent (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions,” American Speech 82, (2007): 32-64. 89 Robert Podesva, Jeremy Reynolds, Patrick Callier, & Jessica Baptiste, “Constraints on the social meaning of released /t/: A production and perception study of U.S. Politicians,” Language Variation and Change 27, (2015): 59- 88. 90 William Labov, The Social Stratification of English in New York City, (Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1966). 20

In order to record and identify these sociophonetic variables, the Praat computer software package will be used. Styler’s (2017) guide for using Praat as a linguistic research tool will be referenced to ensure accuracy in the analysis and maintain research consistency.91 By employing Praat, Kennedy’s speeches will be broken down into sociolinguistic utterances, thus, audio recordings are necessary.

Each audio recording is first downloaded and converted into a file format that is accepted by the Praat software. The audio files are then run through Praat and the above sociolinguistic variables are interpreted impressionistically with supplemental support from the Praat spectrogram and formant level visualizations. For example, a spectrogram provides a visualization of frequencies and their amplitude to determine whether a speaker has voiced or released a final /t/. The arrow in Figure 1.1 identifies the voiced /t/ in Kennedy’s pronunciation of “impact,” while the arrow in figure 1.2 points out the absence of a pronounced final /t/ in Kennedy’s pronunciation of “fulfillment.”

Figure 1.1 “Impact” spectrogram Figure 1.2 “Fulfillment” spectrogram Spectrograms like these are used to identify emphasis on (ING) and final /t/, but formant levels were required when identifying whether a final /r/ was stressed or dropped. Formant levels indicate the amount of energy and intensity behind a produced vocal sound. For the analysis of final /r/, formant levels indicate whether the final consonant sound is being stressed or dropped. The red lines in figures 1.3 and 1.4 indicate the formant levels at different hertz. Figure 1.3 represents the formant levels for Kennedy’s pronunciation of “failure.” Notice how the red lines in figure 1.3 indicate that the formant levels remain consistent throughout the vocal production; an indication that no stress has been placed on the final /r/. Compared to the dropped /r/ in

91 Will Styler, “Using Praat for Linguistic Research,” Creative Commons 1, no. 8 (2017). 21

“failure,” figure 1.4 exemplifies a clear rise in intensity at the onset of the final /r/ in the word “nuclear.”

Figure 1.3 “Failure” spectrogram Figure 1.4 “Nuclear” spectrogram and formant levels. and formant levels. Following the coding and categorization of each variable, the percentage of occurrence for each variable is then calculated for each speech. In determining whether the percentages are statistically significant, a Chi-squared test of portions is used to determine significance. Using the online statistics tool MedCalc92, the Chi-squared test serves as the final step in the sociophonetic methodology.

The preceding Praat figures stem from the downloaded audio file for Kennedy’s congressional address. Every speech analyzed in the succeeding analysis is featured on the John F. Kennedy Presidential library website, which will serve as the primary resource for obtaining each audio recording. The following speeches will be analyzed…

a. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address: January 20, 1961 – National audience. (https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/inaugural-address) b. Kennedy’s Address to congress on urgent national needs: May 25, 1961 – Congressional audience. (https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-to-joint-session-of- congress-may-25-1961)

92 MedCalc follows Campbell (2007) and Richardson (2011) by using the “N-1” chi-squared test. The confidence interval follows Altman et al. (2000). 22

c. Kennedy’s Address at University of Washington: November 16, 1961 – University audience. (https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-at-university-of- washington)

In an effort to maintain consistency in the analysis, each speech analyzed takes place in 1961 during Kennedy’s first year in office. Limited in scope, the speeches chosen are also limited by content as well, focusing on the speeches that speak of Kennedy’s foreign policy and pursuit for global peace. With consistent context and content, the variation in audiences will be highlighted as the influential variable. Lastly, these three speeches were each chosen based on their similarity in length with the Inaugural Address at 13:54, the Congressional Address at 14:50, and the University Address at 17:27.

By recognizing three audience categories (National, Congressional, University) the succeeding analysis will attempt to compare how changes in stylization vary across different audiences. Though each speech aims to speak to a global audience weary of the Cold War, it is likely the immediate audience has perceptible effects on how the speaker adapts their performance and oral production. Within audience comparisons and sociophonetic variables, the “acoustic bonds”93 will become relevant and the “risks” and “dangers” 94 of Cold War oratory will be identified.

By circumventing syntax and morphology and instead focusing on phonology, the following research will add to the linguistic research that supports rhetorical criticism. Additionally, by placing verbal production at the fore front, rhetorical criticism can return to its oratorical foundation. In Black’s (1970) now famous work, “The Second Persona,” he challenges communication students to, “explicate the saliently human dimensions of a discourse- if we could, in a sense, discover for a complex linguistic formulation a corresponding form of character- we should then be able to subsume that discourse under a moral order and thus satisfy

93 Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 93, no. 3 (2007): 363-364. 94 Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 93, no. 3 (2007): 363-364. 23 our obligation to history.”95 This will not be the first report to analyze phonetic differentiation in presidents; a recent analysis conducted by Reed (2016) analyzed President Obama’s variation of /ing/ and /r/ when switching from General American English to African American Vernacular English.96

Prior to displaying the sociophonetic findings, each speaking context will first be outlined according to Medhurst’s (1997) situational constraints: historical, political, economic, diplomatic, and military.97 Medhurst’s (1997) contextual factors will be highlighted by Murphy’s (2019) comprehensive presidential review to demonstrate what situational factors contributed to Kennedy’s speech act. Lastly, because each speech is delivered before a different categorized audience, it is necessary to adequately define the present audience prior to discussing the rhetorical sociophonetics. Therefore, Medhurst’s (1997) situational constraints will demonstrate consistency in context across the three addresses, while Murphy’s (2019) work will highlight consistency in the content of the speeches. From this concise context/content methodology, greater emphasis can then be placed on how President Kennedy adapted his style to fit the present audience. By unveiling new research in rhetorical sociophonetics, communication students can better understand the internal ideologies of a speaker and better equip themselves to make moral judgements regarding the speech act.

Chapter Outline The following chapter of this text (Chapter Two) will identify Bitzer’s (1968) rhetorical situation by summarizing the Cold War. By presenting the conflicts and controversies of the Cold War, the necessity for rhetorical oratory will be established. In following the identification of necessary rhetorical responses, it will then become apparent the need for critical evaluation of those rhetorical responses given during the Cold War. A historiographic account of the Cold War is necessary to demonstrate how the era required public address following events of global disorder. Only after establishing a general need for critical analysis of the Cold War situation will Chapter Two then present a biography on John F. Kennedy and his role within the rhetorical situation. A biographical account of Kennedy’s life and his linguistic upbringing will be used to

95 Edwin Black, The second persona, Quarterly Journal of Speech 56, no. 2 (1970): 110. 96 Peter Reed, “Barack Obama’s different accents.” HubPages: Linguistics, (2016). 97 Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28. 24 propose an identificatory conglomerate. By focusing on the Cold War situation and Kennedy’s stylistic history, Chapter Two will give precedence to historic context and the development of a presidential orator.

Moving in chronological order, Chapter Three will present the findings from the first of three speeches that took place during Kennedy’s first year in office. Beginning with his Inaugural address (January 20, 1961), this chapter will outline the situational constraints, President Kennedy’s role, and define the audience. After the audience variables are defined, Chapter Three will then display the sociophonetic variables that define Kennedy’s speaking style during his Inaugural address.

Chapter Four will present the findings from the second of three speeches that took place during Kennedy’s first year in office. The “Urgent Needs” to Congress speech (May 25, 1961) will include an analysis of the situational constraints, an identification of President Kennedy’s role, and define the present audience. After the audience variables are defined, Chapter Four will then display the sociophonetic variables that define Kennedy’s speaking style during the Congressional address.

Chapter Five will present the findings from the third and final speech to be analyzed during Kennedy’s first year in office. The address at University of Washington (November 16, 1961) will include an analysis of the situational constraints, an identification of President Kennedy’s role, and define the present audience. After the audience variables are defined, Chapter Five will then display the sociophonetic variables that define Kennedy’s speaking style during the University address.

Following each presidential address chapter, a final analysis chapter (Chapter Six) will address the third research question: When sending signals, what language variations occur? Do signals carry variations similarly across each speech? Three quotations from each speech will be pulled for the sociophonetic analysis of signals. The chapter will conclude with general statements regarding Kennedy’s use of signals.

In Chapter Seven, conclusive remarks regarding President Kennedy’s stylistic variation will be made. Potential findings for a rhetorical analysis that employs a sociolinguistic methodology is threefold: a better understanding of the verbal associations presidents make with 25 various populations, recognition of the language variation that occurs when speakers send signals, and documentation of the possible rhetorical impact of language variation on speech reception.

26

CHAPTER TWO

THE COLD WAR AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY

The Cold War Situation Unlike the World Wars that took place from 1914-1918 and 1939-1945, the official start and end dates of the Cold War are still debated today. Furthermore, the Cold War was not traditionally fought on a single geographic plane, but rather, a political standoff between world superpowers supporting proxy wars.98 The Cold War is largely considered a long-standing conflict between Communism and Democracy that was intensified by the nuclear arms race following the conclusion of the Second World War. For this report, the start of the Cold War will be considered the development of the first atomic bomb.99 During WWII, the development of the atomic bomb lead to the first division among Allied powers and created a race to obtain hegemonic control when rebuilding Europe. In the first week of August 1945, the United States, under orders from President Harry S Truman, dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Another atomic bomb was then dropped on Nagasaki, Japan three days later. Six days after the second bombing, Japan conditionally surrendered and the Second World War ended. Researchers still argue whether the bombing was solely intended to end the war or was additionally used to intimidate the Soviet Union and the spread of communism.100

The political and nationalistic differences between the Soviet Union (and other Warsaw Pact nations) and the United States (and their NATO allies) following the conclusion of WWII lead to the Postdam Conference and strategic postwar discussion. After Germany’s surrender, the United States, Britain, and Soviet Union met in Postdam, Germany to discuss post-war Europe. At the conference, it was determined that Germany would be occupied by the

98 A proxy war is fought between two states, that are each being supported by larger parties not directly engaging in the hostility. Visit Alpha History’s webpage for a list of every proxy war fought during the Cold War. https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/coups-proxy-wars/ 99 David Holloway, “Nuclear weapons and the escalation of the Cold War, 1945-1962,” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, vol. 1, ed’s. O. A. Westad & M. Leffler (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 376- 398. 100 David Holloway, “Nuclear weapons and the escalation of the Cold War, 1945-1962,” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, vol. 1, ed’s. O. A. Westad & M. Leffler (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 376- 398. 27

Americans, British, French, and Soviets.101 Additionally, in choosing which nations would be aided by NATO allies and which would be aligned with Warsaw Pact nations, the superpowers present at Postdam established the Eastern and Western Blocs102 of the Cold War.

Moving away from post-WWII politics, historians agree that the escalation of the Cold War began with the implementation of the Truman Doctrine.103 In fear of Communist takeover of Greece and Turkey, President Harry S Truman called for containment of Communism: “America assumed Great Britain’s role as keeper of the peace not only in the Near East but around the world.” 104 The Truman Doctrine then brought forth the Marshall Plan, a funding operation to financially support any nation threatened by Communism; publicly denouncing Soviet intervention. In the years that would follow, the United States and Soviet Union would engage in multiple proxy wars including the wars in Korea and Vietnam. Beyond war, the national superpowers began the “space race,” a technology-development competition over control of space and atmospheric travel.

With the advent of new technology also came the increased production of nuclear weapons. During the Kennedy administration, threat of nuclear war between the U.S. and USSR grew to a boiling point when the Soviet Union attempted to place nuclear warheads on the Caribbean island of Cuba.105 With Fidel Castro’s rise to control, Cuba had grown more welcoming of communist ideals and the Soviet Union sought to respond to the United States’ placement of missiles in Italy and Turkey. The Secretary of State at the time, Robert Kennedy, “urged the president to point out publicly that the missiles in Cuba represented a ‘special threat’ to the United States and the forty-one allies all over the world who were dependent on American

101 Terry Charman “How the Postdam conference shaped the future of post-war Europe,” Imperial War Museum (2018): https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-the-potsdam-conference-shaped-the-future-of- post-war-europe

102 For visual depictions of which countries belonged to the Eastern and Western Blocs, visit The Map as History’s Cold War Confrontation page at https://www.the-map-as-history.com/Cold-War-western-eastern-bloc 103 Lee Edwards, “Congress and the origins of the Cold War: The Truman Doctrine,” World Affairs 151, no. 3 (1988): 131-141. 104 Lee Edwards, “Congress and the origins of the Cold War: The Truman Doctrine,” World Affairs 151, no. 3 (1988): 131. 105 Thomas Gibbons-Neff, “The Pincus files: When the Cuban missile crisis reached a boiling point.” The Washington Post, October 26, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/26/the- pincus-files-when-the-cuban-missile-crisis-reached-a-boiling-point/ 28

‘nuclear support.’”106 With the Americans unwilling to remove their missiles from Europe, President John F. Kennedy and Russian Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev faced off in a 13-day crisis that Scott and Hughes (2015) argues was “when the world came closest to Armageddon.”107 Forming a naval blockade in the Caribbean, Kennedy presented an ultimatum to the Soviets: the removal of Soviet missiles in Cuba or nuclear war.

The confrontation was met with the death of one individual, U.S. Air Force reconnaissance pilot Major Rudolph “Rudy” Anderson. Flying over Cuba at 72,000 feet, Anderson’s photographs would “reveal that warheads had been placed on the Soviet missiles indicating they were ready for firing.”108 Flying over Communist controlled airspace, Major Anderson would be shot down during his reconnaissance. To avoid a “they shoot one of ours, we shoot one of theirs” response, “exactly what both Kennedy and Khrushchev feared most,”109 negotiations had to be met. It is possible that Major Anderson’s death lead to the resolution of the crisis; Khrushchev backed down from the blockade and vowed to remove the missiles from Cuba so long as the U.S. promised never to invade Cuba. The crisis lead to nuclear disarmament talks and increased control over the movement of nuclear weapons.

Three years after the Caribbean confrontation, John F. Kennedy would be assassinated and Nikita Khrushchev removed from Soviet leadership. The Soviet Union under new leadership brought about a new era of détente to ease global political tensions. Throughout détente however, the United States and USSR increased their involvement in the third world, supporting proxy wars and staging political coups. Third world movements with Cold War implications include: the escalation of the Vietnam war, the Dominican civil war of 1965, mass genocide in Indonesia from 1965-1966, the six-day war of 1967, the Bangladesh war for independence, political unrest between Ethiopia and Somalia, civil war in Angola, and the coup d'états in Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. International history professor Odd Arne Westad (2005) writes, “at the core of the

106 Sheldon Stern, The Cuban missile crisis in American memory: Myths versus reality. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 75. 107 Len Scott & R. Gerald Hughes, R. The Cuban missile crisis: A critical reappraisal, (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015), ii. 108 Casey Sherman & Michael Tougias, Above and beyond: John F. Kennedy and America’s most dangerous Cold War spy mission, (New York City, NY: PublicAffairs, 2018), 221. 109 Casey Sherman & Michael Tougias. “War was avoided during the Cuban Missile crisis, but one man died.” The George Washington University (2018): para 11. 29

American Third World involvement stood the Cold War Anti-Communist agenda and the exceptional interventionist capabilities that the United States possessed.”110 Despite détente between the U.S. and USSR, political unrest grew globally as the growth of capitalism clashed with the spread of communism.

In the late 1970’s, early 1980’s, détente ended and the United States and Soviet Union engaged in direct confrontation and conflict. Turmoil rose when the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan to support the growing Communist Peopled Democratic Party of Afghanistan, while the United States began covert operations to support the guerillas fighting against the Communist uprising.111 War in Afghanistan brought U.S./USSR relations back to the forefront and sparked greater conflict between the new leaders of the international superpowers. In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter for the U.S. Presidency and vowed to “increase military spending and confront the Soviets everywhere.”112 Alongside British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan assured his doctrine of containment and eradication of communism. Charles Krauthammer was the first to refer to Reagan’s foreign policy as the “Reagan Doctrine.”113 Pach (2006) writes, “Krauthammer explained that the Reagan Doctrine extended ‘unashamed American support,’ on the basis of ‘justice, necessity and democratic tradition,’ for ‘all armed resistance to Communism.’”114 With backing from Britain and an increase in military spending, Ronald Reagan began his talks with Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

The newly appointed General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, sought to mend international relations, decrease military spending, and focus on repairing the Soviet economy.115 In November 1985, Reagan met with Gorbachev in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss reducing each nation’s nuclear arsenal. After a successful summit in Switzerland, Reagan and

110 Odd Arne Westad, The global Cold War: Third world interventions and the making of our times, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 110. 111 Robert Pear “Arming Afghan guerillas: A huge effort lead by U.S.” The New York Times, April 18, 1988, https://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/18/world/arming-afghan-guerrillas-a-huge-effort-led-by-us.html 112 Partha Gangopadhyay & Mohini Chatterjee, Peace science: theory and class. (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group, 2009), 190. 113 Chester Pach, “The Reagan Doctrine: Principles, pragmatism, and policy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2006): 1. 114 Chester Pach, “The Reagan Doctrine: Principles, pragmatism, and policy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2006): 2. 115 Jack Matlock, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War ended, (New York City, NY: Random House Publishing Group, 2005), 151. 30

Gorbachev met again in Reykjavik, Iceland but talks related to the development of the U.S. Strategic Defensive Initiative were unsuccessful. However, on December 8th, 1987 Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediated-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). Successful implementation of the treaty was doubted in both the U.S. and USSR,116 but ultimately, the world breathed a sigh of relief at the sound of peace between world superpowers.

Six months later, President Reagan stood at the foot of the Brandenburg Gates in Germany and called Mikhail Gorbachev to unify Germany and unite the Eastern and Western Blocs. In the years that followed, many Eastern Bloc countries would join the European Council and obtain independence from Soviet rule. On December 2, 1989 Mikhail Gorbachev alongside newly elected President George H. W. Bush announced the end of the Cold War in Malta. Andrew Rosenthal (1989) of the New York Times reported, “Mr. Gorbachev said he and Mr. Bush agreed that ‘the characteristics of the Cold War should be abandoned.’”117 Rosenthal (1989) adds, “Mr. Bush said: ‘With reform under way in the Soviet Union, we stand at the threshold of a brand-new era of U.S.-Soviet relations.’”118 Henceforth, the scope of the Cold War will be considered from the development of the first atomic bomb to the public proclamation of peace at Malta. Within this scope, precedence will be given to President Kennedy’s administration that took place during the height of the Cold War and the height of the rhetorical situation.

116 Jack Matlock, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War ended, (New York City, NY: Random House Publishing Group, 2005), 274. 117 Andrew Rosenthal. “The Malta summit, Bush and Gorbachev proclaim a new era for U.S.- Soviet ties; Agree on arms and trade aims.” The New York Times, December 4, 1989, https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/04/world/malta-summit-bush-gorbachev-proclaim-new-era-for-us-soviet-ties- agree-arms-trade.html 118 Andrew Rosenthal. “The Malta summit, Bush and Gorbachev proclaim a new era for U.S.- Soviet ties; Agree on arms and trade aims.” The New York Times, December 4, 1989, https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/04/world/malta-summit-bush-gorbachev-proclaim-new-era-for-us-soviet-ties- agree-arms-trade.html 31

Kennedy’s Identificatory Conglomerate To construct a historical account of Kennedy’s life, the “Life of John F. Kennedy”119 page on the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum was referenced. The following account of Kennedy’s life is well document by the JFK Library and the HISTORY.com webpage titled, “John F. Kennedy.”120

Born May 29th, 1917 in Brookline, Massachusetts Kennedy was the second oldest of nine children. Born into a traditional Irish-Catholic family, Kennedy was privileged in his youth and often attended private schools. According to Nigel Hamilton (1995), with a private education Kennedy began showing signs of an independent political mind early in his youth, “In an essay on Jean-Jacques Rousseau for his freshman history class, he had asserted that the ‘proper purpose of education’ was not the parroting of other people’s information, ‘but the formation of judgement (sic) and character.’”121 Alongside a private education, Kennedy was well connected to politics through his father. JFK’s father, Joe Kennedy, was an early supporter of FDR’s New Deal and was appointed in 1934 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In 1937, Joe Kennedy was then appointed as a U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain. As his father’s secretary, JFK traveled throughout Europe and began practicing political engagement.

At the start of America’s involvement in WWII, Kennedy joined the Navy and was sent to the South Pacific where he commanded a Patrol Torpedo (PT) boat. In the South Pacific, Kennedy saw action and after returning home from war received the Navy & Marine Corps medal for heroism. In a letter to his close friend Lem Billings, Kennedy spoke to his belief in the American military during WWII, “‘I never thought in my gloomiest day that there was any chance of our being defeated.’”122 As a war veteran with an incumbent father, Kennedy began a political run in Massachusetts. With the financial backing of his family money, Robert Dalleck writes, “and here he had the advantage of Joe’s wealth. Joe may have spent $250,000 and

119 “Life of John F. Kennedy,” JFK Library, last modified February 12, 2015, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/life-of-john-f-kennedy 120 “”John F. Kennedy,” HISTORY, last modified March 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/john-f- kennedy 121 Nigel Hamilton , JFK: Reckless youth, ( New York City, NY: Random House, 1995), 176. 122 Robert Dallek , An unfinished life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963 (Boston, MA: Bay Back Books, 2008), 112. 32

$300,000 on the campaign, though the precise amount will never be known since so much of it was handed out in cash by Eddie Moore, Joe’s principal aide.”123

In 1946, Kennedy won a congressional nomination and at the age of 29 entered the 80th U.S. Congress. Kennedy won House re-elections in 1948 and 1950. To further his growing popularity, Kennedy ran for Senate in 1952 and beat incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. In 1953, Kennedy married Jackie Lee Bouvier. After nearly eight years in the Senate, Kennedy announced his candidacy for President alongside running mate Lyndon B. Johnson for the 1960 Presidential election. At age 43, Kennedy became the youngest elected president. Additionally, he became the first Catholic president. Arthur Schlesinger (2005) in his book “A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House,” writes, “Indeed, nothing in the Kennedy years was more spectacular than the transformation of American youth. In the fifties the young men and women of the nation had seemed to fall into two groups. The vast majority were the ‘silent generation,’ the ‘uncommitted generation,’ the ‘careful young men,’ the ‘men in the gray flannel suits’ – a generation fearful of politics, incurious about society, mistrustful of ideas, desperate about personal security.”124The transformation of the American youth would lead to unsurmountable change in national identity.

Up until his assassination on November 22, 1963 Kennedy and his administration worked unceasingly to address growing concerns over nuclear war, promote progress to American Civil Rights, and challenge the critics to the Vietnam war. Important events during the Kennedy administration include: the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, a meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna which lead to the building of the Berlin wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, a dramatic increase of the number of U.S. troops sent to Vietnam, the creation of the Peace Corps, the desegregation of the University of Mississippi, and a proposed Civil Rights Bill that would later be signed by President Johnson.

From this brief narrative account of Kennedy’s life, the following identificatory conglomerate will be used to showcase the characteristics that exemplify Kennedy’s persona. An

123 Robert Dallek , An unfinished life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963 (Boston, MA: Bay Back Books, 2008), 124.

124 Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House (New York City, NY: Black Dog & Leventhal, 2005), 384. 33 identificatory conglomerate was similarly used in Wolfram et al.’s (2016) sociophonetic analysis of Martin Luther King Jr.125 An identificatory conglomerate based on Worthington’s (2013) model126 will be proposed for Kennedy. An identificatory conglomerate is a model based on social network theory that produces a visual depiction of the multifaceted background of an individual. Worthington writes, “Within [the] complicated matrix of relationships, [the individual] is never an ‘atom locked in crystalline grid,’ but an evaluative agent who exists in process relationships to competing structures and contested spatial arrangements.”127 The proposed John F. Kennedy identificatory conglomerate will be useful when analyzing the multifaceted elements of Kennedy’s persona and how they shaped his oratorical stylization.

Figure 2.1 John F. Kennedy’s proposed Identificatory Conglomerate. From this representation of Kennedy’s identity, it is important to now review Metcalf’s (2004) findings related to Kennedy’s vocal style. Metcalf’s (2004) book “Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush,” provides a thorough analysis of the speaking styles of the U.S. presidents by “profiling” each president.128 Metcalf (2004) groups the presidents according to their abilities: Great Orators, Great Communicators, Down-to-Earth,

125Walt Wolfram, Caroline Myrick, Jon Forrest, & Michael J. Fox, “The Significance of Linguistic Variation in the Speeches of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,” American Speech 91, (2016): 269-300. 126 Bruce Worthington, “Martin Luther King Jr. as Identificatory Conglomerate,” Black Theology, 11, no. 2 (2015): 236. 127 Bruce Worthington, “Martin Luther King Jr. as Identificatory Conglomerate,” Black Theology, 11, no. 2 (2015): 236. 128 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004). 34 and Blunderers. Before relaying Metcalf’s (2004) Kennedy findings, it is important to note his position on stylization, “The differences in speaking styles, for the most part, are the result of individual choices and abilities: whether to be formal or down-to-Earth, whether to use colorful language or plain, whether to speak at length or in brief, whether to embrace an opportunity to speak publicly or avoid it.”129 In the realm of communication accommodation theory, Metcalf recognizes the potential for purposeful adaption depending on audience, context, and ability.

President Kennedy falls within Metcalf’s (2004) “Great Communicators” category. Despite stating that Kennedy brought eloquence back to the pulpit, Metcalf (2004) argues that because Kennedy's speeches tended to embrace “memorable lines and phrases” rather than “overall argumentative structure”130 the Bostonian president should be remembered as a communicator rather than an orator.

Born and raised in Boston, Kennedy spoke with an “r-less” accent. Often dropping the /r/ at the end of a word, the nation became amused by Kennedy's lack of /r/ and occasional over use of /r/.131 Metcalf (2004) identified an over use of /r/ when an /r/ immediately proceeded a word that began with a vowel. This phonetic habit sometimes crossed over onto words that didn't even end with /r/ like Kennedy's pronunciation of Cuba: “Cuba-r.” 132 Seeing as though Kennedy’s r- less accent is depicted as one of the most famous Bostonian accents to ever grace the American airwaves, it will be interesting to identify how Kennedy enunciates /r/ per audience. Despite Kennedy's unique phonetic features, Metcalf (2004) describes the president as bringing a charisma that was unmatched in debate and communication.133 Leaving behind the 19th century ornate presentation, Kennedy epitomized the new found main-point-after-main-point style.

In the next three chapters, the Praat sociophonetic results will be displayed in order to document how President Kennedy adapts his phonetic style before varied audiences. In an effort

129 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 140. 130 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 151. 131 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153. 132 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153. 133 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 291. 35 to maintain consistency in the analysis, each speech analyzed takes place in 1961 during Kennedy’s first year in office. Limited in scope, the speeches chosen are also limited by content as well, focusing on the speeches that reinforce Kennedy’s foreign policy and pursuit for global freedom. With consistent context and content, the variation in audiences will be highlighted as the influential variable. Considering Kennedy’s speeches were often influenced by speech writers, the President’s orality and sociophonetic production provides evidence to his individual attempts to appeal. As previously noted, each speech analyzed will include a contextual analysis in order to best exemplify the situational constraints as put forth by Medhurst (1997): historical, political, economic, diplomatic, and military constraints. Medhurst’s (1997) contextual factors will be highlighted by Murphy’s (2019) comprehensive review of Kennedy to demonstrate what situational factors contributed to Kennedy’s speech act.

36

CHAPTER THREE

KENNEDY’S INAUGURAL ADDRESS

According to John Murphy (2019), “Inaugural addresses in particular and other genres of rhetoric seek to define Americans as people, one appropriate to the moment yet warranted by traditional values.”134 For President Kennedy, redefining identity extended beyond the United States. Considered one of the best—if not the best—inaugural addresses135, Kennedy's first speech as president attempted to instill peace on international level. Murphy (2019) notes, all “praised [the address] from the conservative Republicans to the Communists in Moscow, which is quite a distance.”136 As the new, young face of American politics, Kennedy’s inaugural address sought to mend relationships by uniting a defensive nation.

The Kennedy administration would have to address many issues from the start: the birth of new independent nations, the invention of nuclear weapons, Cold War diplomacy, and the rise of the civil rights movement. With pressure bearing down on the youngest elected president, Kennedy instilled confidence in the nation by reinforcing the apparent coming renewal. A renewal of freedom that will bring about a new generation, “the ‘world is very different now’ than then, but the ‘same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.’”137 Returning to foundational American principals and his belief in a Higher Power, Kennedy rings in a new beginning for the U.S. by placing freedom at the forefront.

President Kennedy spoke not of renewal in isolation, but instead argued for an international awakening which would stem from the United Nations as the protector of the global

134 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 20. 135 Arthur Schlesinger, A thousand days: John F Kennedy in the white house (New York City, NY: Black Dog & Leventhal, 2005). 136 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 40. 137 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 55. 37 renewal. With President Dwight Eisenhower’s “Military Industrial Complex”138 speech still turning in the minds of the American people fearful of nuclear destruction, Kennedy spoke directly to the listening Soviet audience by drawing similarities between the nations. Murphy writes (2019), “He recognized the common stance of both the unique power of and vulnerability resulting from their joint superpower stats.”139 By drawing similarities instead of promoting disparities, Kennedy’s inaugural address projects a peaceful and prosperous future and requests the USSR to consider a renewed friendship. With pronouncements sent out to all citizens nationally and internationally, President Kennedy ushered in his new beginning by inviting citizenry to consider how they could help contribute to the new-found peace.

Medhurst’s Situational Constraints (Inaugural) More so than any other speech analyzed in this work does Kennedy’s Inaugural Address include historic situational constraints. Before even discussing Medhurst’s (1997) individual characteristic, it is important to identify the multiple presidential constraints Kennedy stepped into. Expectations of excellency and professionalism loom high for every president’s introductory speech to the nation—lest we forget that Kennedy was also the youngest president to ever be elected. Additionally, it is relevant to note how the prior administration shaped the national perspective leading to the address. As previously noted, just three days before Kennedy’s address, Dwight Eisenhower delivered a televised address in which he placed emphasis on a growing threat: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power will exists and will persist.”140 With a nation weary of the “disastrous powers” and uncertain of a 43-year-old president, Kennedy’s presidential constraints set the stage for immensely important inaugural address.

Though the Cold War situation defines the major situational constraint in which to frame Kennedy’s oratory, it is still necessary to identify the lesser-known situational constraints that defined the specific rhetorical situation leading to the inaugural address. In the month leading to

138 Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961,” Yale Law School (2008), http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp 139 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 62. 140 Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961,” Yale Law School (2008),18. 38

Kennedy’s inauguration, many national and international developments shaped the national context for the President’s first weeks in office. The majority of Kennedy’s political constraints include shifting the presidential office from a Republican-led presidency to his Democratic administration. As previously noted, Eisenhower didn’t make it any easier for him. A major diplomatic constraint included Eisenhower’s decision to end political relations with Cuba on January 3rd, 1961. Severing diplomatic connections, President Eisenhower “signaled that the United States was prepared to take extreme measures to oppose Castro’s regime; which U.S. officials worried was a beachhead of communism in the western hemisphere.”141 Both of these political and diplomatic constraints contribute to the overarching Cold War situation.

There are two militaristic constraints to contribute to the greater Cold War situation, the first being the identification of the Portland spy ring operating in England. A Russian espionage system, the Portland spy ring was finally apprehended on January 7th, 1961 after many years of tracking down the individuals responsible for stealing military surveillance and other classified materials.142 Apprehending the spy ring led to enhanced securities throughout the U.S. and Britain and gave more resources to counterintelligence agencies. The second military constraint involved the United States’ role in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the African nationalist leader of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In his book documenting the events that lead to Lumumba’s assassination, Kanza (1978) states that Belgium and their supporters—including the United States—considered Lumumba “a Communist, an anti-white, and an anti-westerner.”143 Though Lumumba had once asked the U.S. for aid, he later turned to the Soviet Union for aid which led to his identification as a Communist. President Kennedy was never given the opportunity to put into effect his plan to remove Lumumba from power, “All the anguished searching for a way around Lumumba had been for naught. Forty-eight hours before Kennedy had taken the presidential oath, Lumumba was already dead.”144

141 HISTORY, “United states severs diplomatic relations with Cuba,” A&E Networks, last modified March 2019, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-severs-diplomatic-relations-with-cuba 142 Norman Lucas, Spycatcher: a biography of Detective-Superintendent George Gordon Smith (London, UK: W. H. Allen & Co. 2018), 102. 143 Thomas Kanza, The rise and fall of Patrice Lumumba (Los Angeles, CA: R. Collings publishing), 260. 144 Richard Mahoney, JFK: Ordeal in Africa (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 70. 39

Outside of Cold War constraints, the nation’s economic context included a recent monetary recession after years of post-war easement.145 With a stringent monetary policy, the economic situation meant a decline in GDP and regressing unemployment rates. Other historic developments throughout the U.S. include the rise of violent race-related riots and protests. On January 11th, 1961 riots broke out on the campus of the University of Georgia in response to the desegregation of the university.146 A single example of what was to come for the Kennedy administration, the riots on the UGA campus exemplify the nation’s growing civil rights movements and disparities during early 1961.

Audience – National/Televised Though the content and context of Kennedy’s Inaugural address has certainly invited much discussion and research, the variable of interest for this analysis is the present audience. For the purposes of this report, Kennedy’s inaugural address is classified as a “National/Televised” audience. Knowing that Kennedy’s goal for his inaugural address is to appeal to a wide population and promote a “New Beginning,” sociophonetic analysis may reveal unique findings regarding Kennedy’s stylization. In an effort to appeal to the growing youth, does Kennedy uses a more colloquial use of /ing/ or /r/? Or to remain prestigious, does Kennedy place greater emphasis on a final /t/ as to avoid being depicted as too conversational. Due to the varied characteristics of the national audience, it will be interesting to note how Kennedy adapts his style to accommodate his national (even global) audience.

Inaugural /ing/ v. /in/ A total of 21 tokens were recorded for this variable: 13 /ing/ for 62% and 8 /in/ for 38%. The Chi-square test revealed that the difference in percentages was approaching significance, but not statically significant (p = 0.1244).

145 Marc Labonte & Gail Makinen, “The current Economic Recession: How Long, How Deep, and How Different From the Past?” CRS Report for Congress (2002), 1. 146 Read Robert Cohen’s “Two, Four, Six, Eight, We Don’t Want to Integrate: White Student Attitudes Toward the University of Georgia’s Desegregation,” for a full rhetorical and historical analysis of the riot. 40

/ing/ v. /in/

In 38%

Ing 62%

Figure 3.1 Inaugural /ing/ v. /in/ distribution The fact that Kennedy’s (ING) results are not statistically significant for his inaugural address is not surprising considering only 21 total tokens were collected. What is somewhat surprising is the fact that Kennedy did not often speak in the future progressive which would have produced many /ing/ words. For a speech overflowing with future-oriented language, it is unusual to find such little utilization of the progressive tense. However, that is a question for a syntactician and is not explicitly relevant to our analysis of sociophonetic accommodation.

Despite the significance test, it is still noteworthy to address that Kennedy’s use of a pronounced /ing/ sits at 62% while the more vernacular /in/ rests at 38%. Approaching a statistically significant emphasis on professional language seems to suggest that Kennedy’s attempt to appeal to a national audience is based in professionalism rather than in a social appeal. Bearing in mind the significance, this variable will be considered a clue toward how Kennedy adapts his language, but will not carry as much weight as the succeeding variables that carry a greater significance.

Inaugural Final /t/ A total of 107 tokens were recorded for this variable: 38 were recorded as Voiced for 36% and 69 were recorded as Released for 64%. The Chi-square test revealed that this difference in percentages was statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

41

Final /t/

Voiced 36%

Released 64%

Figure 3.2 Inaugural Final /t/ distribution. The production of the final-t has arguably the most potential to identify an individual’s stylization when it comes to conveying professionalism or authority. In order to voice a final /t/ the speaker must close off the end of the word before proceeding with the next word. This type of phonetic emphasis adds a fraction of time to the pronunciation and demonstrates a desire to add punctuative meaning to the word. What is apparent in President Kennedy’s inaugural address is an absence of a voiced final /t/. Instead, Kennedy’s inaugural releases the final /t/ 64% of the time. The release of a final /t/ reflects a more colloquial and conversational speaking style in which the speaker connects the word that ends with /t/ with the syllable of the following word. A perfect example of this recurring deletion occurred halfway through his address when Kennedy repeated the phrase, “Let us…” If the desired style is a more conversational language to appeal to a mass audience it is no surprise the Kennedy often pronounced “let us” as a single word with an alveolar tap: “ledus.” An example of a common alveolar tap is our pronunciation of “matter” as “mader” or in International Phonetic Alphabet “mæɾɚ.” Only when Kennedy dramatically decreased his speaking rate did a “let” before an “us” ever fully voice the final /t/.

By only “tapping” the pronunciation of the final /t/, Kennedy chooses not to over pronounce words in a means to convey an authoritative power. Siding with a more vernacular approach to the final /t/, this variable serves as the first clear indication that before a national audience Kennedy chose to utilize common language to draw closer to his audience rather than

42 convey a professional persona to command authority and respect. It should be noted that in Kennedy’s now famously remembered “Ask not” alliteration, he does place explicit emphasis on many of the final /t/’s in the statement. Coupled with an increase in volume and decreased rate, the final /t/’s in the “Ask not” certainly command attention and convey an authoritarian attitude.

One unexpected finding that certainly warrants future analysis is the potential impact the written language has over language production. Within the body of Kennedy’s inaugural address the phrase “Let both sides” is repeated when referring to the actions the U.S. and USSR should undergo to pursue peace. This anaphora provided multiple opportunities to observe once again Kennedy’s pronunciation of the final /t/ in “Let.” Herein lies the unique finding. When succeeded by “both” Kennedy always voiced the final /t/. This is likely the result of phonetic constraints. Because an alveolar tap can only occur between vowel sounds, the consonant /b/ in “both” requires an explicit pronunciation which then forces Kennedy to voice the final /t/ in order to successfully pronounce the /b/. The question there remains, how does the writing itself dictate the sociophonetic stylization?

Inaugural Final /r/ A total of 100 tokens were recorded for this variable: 31 were recorded as Stressed for 31% and 69 were recorded as Dropped for 69%. The Chi-square test revealed that this difference in variables was statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

Final /r/

Stressed 31%

Dropped 69%

Figure 3.3 Inaugural Final /r/ distribution 43

If any one speech and any one sociophonetic variable epitomized Kennedy’s colloquial Bostonian pronunciation it would be his production of the final /r/ in his inaugural address. This analysis certainly supports Metcalf’s (2004) recognition of Kennedy’s Bostonian /r/ that amused the nation.147 Significant according to the Chi-squared test, Kennedy dropped 69% of his final /r/’s that appeared throughout his inaugural address. From this, it can be argued that Kennedy made little to no attempt to adapt his style to a more regionally acceptable pronunciation. Instead, Kennedy embraced his Bostonian pronunciation of the dropped /r/.

Much like the final /t/, Kennedy’s preference for the dropped final /r/ suggests his willingness to appear naturalistic and even authentic before a national audience. The dropped /r/ becomes a tool to embrace his political heritage—hailing from Massachusetts—and display his uniquely American characteristics. Famous as it is, Kennedy’s final /r/ has become symbolic to how he is remembered. The collective social memory of Kennedy often highlights his Bostonian /r/ in order to maintain his uniquely genuine accent and thus his uniquely genuine persona. By choosing to put forth his Bostonian persona at his inaugural address, President Kennedy promotes authenticity and disregards professionalism and authoritarian pronunciation as the only method to gain respect. This sociophonetic identification of Kennedy’s final /r/ exemplifies the linguistic methods that can provide renewed insights into Kennedy’s rhetorical abilities. Furthermore, Kennedy’s final /r/ puts forth a clear argument that Kennedy favored an authentic vernacular style over a forced professional style when appealing to his national audience.

147 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153. 44

CHAPTER FOUR

KENNEDY’S CONGRESSIONAL ADDRESS

Almost halfway through his first year as President, Kennedy made an appeal to a Joint Session of Congress on May 25th, 1961. Before Congress, Kennedy requested an “estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional (sic) over the next five years,”148 to fund the development of lunar space explorations, as well as promote advancements in satellite communications and real-time weather observation. It may seem as though the content of this address certainly does not mirror Kennedy’s inaugural address, however, to sell his space program and rally support from the American people Kennedy framed the endeavor as a pursuit for peace and freedom. In analyzing the rhetorical romanticism in Kennedy’s Congressional speech, Jordan (2003) argues that Kennedy’s persuasive appeal resulted from a “spatial progression [where] he drew a connection between the people and the great beyond.”149 The space program is posed to be the uniting initiative to bring together nations, promote peace, and call forward the people willing to sacrifice their time and money for the greater good.

Echoing with the same renewal of spirit as his inaugural speech, Kennedy’s role has shifted from national/international peacemaker to science/technology promoter. Much like Kennedy’s inaugural address, the impact of his “Urgent Needs” speech has been carefully examined. Murphy (2019) goes as far as to state that Kennedy’s success in promoting the space program has made it “impossible to watch anything about NASA without hearing Kennedy’s clipped accent. Specific presidents embody the presidency through rhetorical performances.”150 It is interesting to note that Murphy (2019) places such great emphasis on this congressional speech as one of Kennedy’s most remembered rhetorical performances. Echoing Burke’s (1969) views regarding speakers as performers151, Murphy (2019) reinforces the notion that through his congressional speech, Kennedy made himself the face of the space program.

148 John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): 9. 149 John Jordan, “Kennedy’s Romantic Moon and Its’s Rhetorical Legacy for space Exploration,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6, (2006): 215. 150 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 24. 151 Kenneth Burke, A grammar of motives, (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1969). 45

Standing before congress and presenting his “Urgent Needs,” Kennedy took the largest step in securing the finances necessary to get a man on the moon (only Neil Armstrong’s step would become more meaningful). In order to become the performative face of NASA, Kennedy buried within his speech a much larger rhetorical goal: catching up to and outdoing the Soviets. Kennedy’s Congressional address may end with pursuits for freedom and peace but it begins with the goal to overtake the Soviets in the space race. In his address, Kennedy states:

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive success, we nevertheless are required to make efforts on our own.152

By staging the Soviets as “exploitive,” Kennedy uses the fears and anxieties of the Cold War to argue for “required” and immediate action. With the hidden intent to defeat the Soviets, Kennedy gained positive support for the space program and simultaneously positioned himself as the face of NASA by speaking to the freedom and peace that will follow.

Medhurst’s Situational Constraints (Congressional) Overcoming many of the presidential constraints placed before him in his first months of office, Kennedy began to settle into the new situational constraints his administration would face for his years as president. The following analysis of Medhurst’s (1997) situational constraints will reinforce the notion that the greater national Cold War context has not changed over the course of five months since his inauguration. However, beginning in April 1961 the one situational constraint that would begin to change would be Kennedy’s economic constraints. Early on in Kennedy’s first term he put into effect his “liberal agenda” which included “increasing the minimum wage, expanding unemployment benefits, boosting social security benefits to encourage workers to retire early, and spent more for highway construction… and pushed for lower tax rates.”153 Ending the ‘60-‘61 Recession, Kennedy’s economic constraints may have taken an upturn, but the greater Cold War situation loomed large.

152 John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): para. 3. 153 Marilyn Geewax, “JFK’s Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates,” National Public Radio (2013): 10. 46

The major diplomatic and militaristic constraints bearing down on Kennedy heading into May of ‘61 surround his failed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs. The John F. Kennedy Presidential library provides the following account of the invasion, “On April 17, the Cuban exile invasion force, known S Brigade 2506, landed at the beaches along the Bay of Pigs and immediately came under heavy fire. Cuban planes strafed the invaders, sank two escort ships, and destroyed half of the exile’s air support.”154 Vastly outnumbered and without the proper air and ground support many of the Cuban exiles were killed or taken prisoner. In the following month, Fidel Castro would eliminate elections from the Cuban government and put forth various trade demands to return the Cuban exiles. In late April, Kennedy took sole responsibility for the failed invasion and later described Communism as “primarily a covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerillas by night instead of armies by day.”155 As a lesson for all nations to learn from, Kennedy would work hard to distance his administration from the black eye that was the Bay of Pigs invasion.

On the domestic front, Kennedy faced another troubling situation that would eventually lead to a historic revolution for American Civil Rights. On May 4th, 1961 the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) began their political campaign to challenge segregationist by occupying busses from Washington D.C. to the American South. On their way to New Orleans, the Freedom riders would face opponents like Eugene “Bull” Connors and the people of Anniston, Alabama who famously firebombed one of the buses on May 14th, 1961.156 With greater conflict brewing in the American South, Kennedy’s administration faced political pressure to maintain and establish order. If anything, the early months of Kennedy’s administration only built upon the current national anxieties and certainly exemplified the Cold War situation at hand. Seeing as though his Congressional speech speaks to the development of a space program, it is worth noting that on May 5th, 1961 Alan Shepard made history by becoming the first American in space. With

154 John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, “The Bay of Pigs,” National Archives (2019), 10. 155 Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2000), 147. 156 Read the comprehensive history of the Freedom Riders on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institution web page “Freedom Rides,” supported by Stanford University. 47

Shepard as his example of great possibilities, Kennedy left behind the Bay of Pigs and Race Riots in Alabama and asked Congress to fund a space program.

Audience – Congressional Besides the economic improvements to come for the United States, Medhurst’s (1997) situational constraints have remained consistent across Kennedy’s first months in congress. Additionally, despite specifically making requests for the funding of a lunar space program, Kennedy’s “Urgent Needs” speech remain consistent in content as he transition his request into a goal-oriented pursuit for peace and freedom, much like his inauguration. Bearing in mind these consistencies, the question therefore turns to the audience. How does Kennedy adapt his sociophonetic style to accommodate a Congressional audience? Seeing as though Congress is comprised of elected individuals who operate the legislative body of the U.S. government, it could be hypothesized that Kennedy would attempt to produce a prestigious style before his “colleagues.” Placing greater emphasis on final /t/’s or holding on to the end of an /ing/ or /r/, President Kennedy could remove colloquial vernacular in favor of a more professional language. However, it may become apparent that Kennedy chooses to side with a more common vernacular in order to distance himself from the characterized pompous government and instead side with his growing youthful followers.

Congressional /ing/ v. /in/ A total of 40 tokens were recorded for this variable: 37 /ing/ for 92% and only 3 /in/ for 8%. The Chi-square test revealed that the proportions were statistically significant (p = 0.0020).

/ing/ v. /in/

In

Ing 92%

Figure 4.1 Congressional /ing/ v. /in/ distribution 48

When we compare this result to the previous (ING) findings from Kennedy’s Inaugural address they are similar in that not many tokens were recorded, however, Kennedy’s emphasis on /ing/ is significantly higher (92%) in the Congressional address than in his Inaugural address (69%). If anything, this result reveals that Kennedy and his writers are consistent with their language, choosing to avoid the future progressive. Despite the low token count, the congressional use of /ing/ is statistically significant and suggests a possible trend in stylization from 69% to 92%. Up from his first speech, the subtle increase in pronounced /ing/ may suggest that Kennedy’s stylization - before a Congressional audience - has taken an explicit professional turn.

Congressional Final /t/ A total of 153 tokens were recorded for this variable: 115 were recorded as Voiced for 75% and 38 were recorded as Released for 25%. The Chi-square test revealed that this difference in variables was statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

Final /t/

Released 25%

Voiced 75%

Figure 4.2 Congressional Final /t/ distribution In his Congressional address, Kennedy’s emphasis on final /t/ has drastically shifted in comparison to his Inaugural address. Transitioning from a dropped final /t/ in the beginning of his 1961 administration, it would now appear as though before Congress, Kennedy has embodied a new professional speaking style. Holding on to 75% of his final /t/’s, this significant emphasis on the final consonant sound demonstrates his desire to appear articulate before the governing 49 body of the U.S. legislative system. More so, this emphasis on final /t/ serves as the first indication that Kennedy is not only able to adapt his stylization per audience, but that he can do so effectively with statistically significant differentiation.

Now, in order to demonstrate that Kennedy is explicitly attempting to change his sociophonetic style to accommodate his audience, an example will be highlighted. Among the stressed final /t/’s, Kennedy in a select few instances over-produced the final /t/ by adding a second /t/ prior to the start of the succeeding word. Kennedy’s pronunciation of “must undertake” will exemplify this finding. Recall that in Kennedy’s Inaugural address he often dropped the final /t/ for “let us.” For a /t/ preceding the vowel sound /u/, it was apparent that Kennedy was more willing to tap the /t/ to promote a more conversational style.

On to his Congressional address now: despite the fact that the /t/ in “must” also precedes the /u/ and “undertake,” Kennedy in his congressional address does not drop the /t/ but instead adds a second pronounced /t/ prior to “undertake”. Kennedy’s pronunciation of “must undertake” comes across as “must-tunda-take” or in IPA: “mʌst-tʌnda-tɑke.” Drastically different than the colloquial tap in his Inaugural address, this recurring double-t serves as evidence of Kennedy’s explicit attempt to adapt to his articulate audience. If the swing from unvoiced to voiced final /t/ wasn’t enough evidence for Kennedy’s ability to drastically manipulate his sociophonetic style, this apparent over-production of /t/ lends further support to his linguistic dexterity. Moving forward it will be interesting to see whether Kennedy’s adaptive abilities also extend into manipulation of his Bostonian final /r/.

Congressional Final /r/ A total of 89 tokens were recorded for this variable: 121 were recorded as Stressed for 64% and 67 were recorded as Dropped for 36%. The Chi-square test revealed that this difference in variables was statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

50

Final /r/

Dropped 36%

Stressed 64%

Figure 4.3 Congressional Final /t/ distribution Only slightly behind the 75% Voiced final /t/ in the congressional address was Kennedy’s significant 64% transition to a maintained pronunciation of the final /r/. With Kennedy’s Bostonian final /r/ still ringing across the nation, it is remarkable to identify Kennedy’s ability to limit his Bostonian final /r/ in favor of a professionally stressed /r/. This explicit attempt to remove his “amusing”157 accent in favor of a commanding voice before Congress clearly demarcates Kennedy’s sociophonetic abilities. If we look at a speech before congress as its own unique rhetorical situation with its own unique situational constraints, it is not surprising that Kennedy has refined his phonetic abilities to promote a more proper and prestigious persona. Furthermore, Kennedy in this speech is requesting upwards of 7 to 9 billion dollars over the next five years. The financial requests made in this speech bear their own phonological expectations. It is no surprise that Kennedy would want to adapt to his audiences expectations for professionalism and maturity; what is surprising though is his ability to shift to a speaking style that significantly denies the dropped /r/ in favor of a more regionally acceptable /r/.

Kennedy may have transitioned from common man Bostonian to regionally generic professional, but his Bostonian roots have certainly not been depleted entirely. These results do not argue for a Kennedy-style that is entirely absent of dropped-r’s. In fact, these results also

157 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153. 51 argue in favor of an interpretation that Kennedy is unable to entirely rid his pronunciation of the dropped-r. For example, in instances where a phrase contained two simultaneous words that both ended with a final /r/, “Rover Nuclear,” Kennedy more often than not would drop one /r/ and maintain the other: “Rova Nuclear,” or “rɘʊvʌ nukliʌr.” This inability to produce back-to-back final /r/’s suggests that the double final /r/ is simply beyond Kennedy’s sociophonetic abilities when trying to appear natural while explicitly adapting his style.

One other sociophonetic peculiarity to Kennedy’s Congressional speech was his addition of a vocalized /ʌ/ (sounds like “uh”) following a select few words that ended with a final /r/. Examples include “clear,” “engineer,” and “more,” in which Kennedy would add an additional “uh” as if to end the word with this familiar Bostonian drop after he has already stressed the /r/. By holding onto the /r/ and then adding an additional /ʌ/ we are clued to recognize Kennedy’s implicit desire to return to his more colloquial sociophonetic preference for the elongated vowel sound and dropped-r.

52

CHAPTER FIVE

KENNEDY’S UNIVERSITY ADDRESS

Nearing the end of his first year in office, Kennedy gave his first of only five University Commencement Addresses as President at the University of Washington on November 16th, 1961. Though not considered his greatest commencement address (that title would likely have to go to his address at American University), Kennedy’s Commencement at the University of Washington certainly warrants analysis considering it was his first as President. Despite the fact that UW holds the title as Kennedy’s first Presidential Commencement destination, little research has been conducted on Kennedy’s rhetorical role at the Seattle-based university. Absent from Murphy’s (2019) book is any discussion related to Kennedy’s first Commencement address.

For a speech filled with antithesis and reeling with passionate proclamations of how the United States should and should not act in times of international turmoil, Kennedy’s University of Washington Address has been overshadowed by groundbreaking speeches like his inauguration and American University Address. An in-depth search into the previous UW Address literature reveals remarkably few results—none of which speak to Kennedy’s rhetorical aims. It is clear that much investment and critical awareness need be drawn to this address which has been significantly neglected in academia. Not even a Wikipedia page exists.

Only one history report by “HistoryLink.org,” has been found helpful at framing Kennedy’s role and aims at the University of Washington. Lange (1999) in his work for History Link categorized the speech at the University of Washington not as a Commencement address, but rather a “major policy speech.”158 With somewhere between 25,000 and 90,000 people crowded in the city looking to catch a glimpse of the President, the crowds came to be a “spontaneous impulsive tribute to the President and came as a complete surprise to the traffic control and security men.”159 Despite the momentous crowds gathering in the coastal city, Lange (1999) notes that there were two protesting groups that spoke against Kennedy’s policies, one

158 Greg Lange, “President Kennedy delivers major policy speech at UW on November 16, 1961,” HistoryLink.org, last modified March 16, 1999, https://www.historylink.org/File/968 159 Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2000), 147. 53 protesting Cuban invasions the other protesting nuclear development. Within the speech, Kennedy’s University of Washington address explicitly outlines his administrative foreign policy for the years to come. Examples of Kennedy’s explicitly policy statements include:

We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination, false promises, counterfeit mob and crises… We cannot, under the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different stories to different audiences, foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile… We cannot abandon the slow process of consulting with our allies to match the swift expediencies of those who merely dictate to their satellites.160

Far more direct with his intentions and goals than in his Inaugural address or Congressional address, Kennedy’s Commencement address at UW still embodies the pursuit for freedom that has embodied his “New Beginning” campaign. Much like his Congressional address, Kennedy may begin with direct requests but concludes with his peace initiatives, “For to save mankind’s future freedom, we must face up to any risk that is necessary. We will always seek peace—but we will never surrender.”161 With foreign relations and global peace still at the forefront in his oratory, Kennedy’s 1961 politics reinforced his new beginning in order to pave way for what would become the height of the Cold War situation.

Medhurst’s Situational Constraints (University) In the previous constraints discussion surrounding Kennedy’s Congressional address, it became apparent that Kennedy’s liberal, economic agenda would end the ‘60-‘61 Recession and begin an economic upturn that by the end of the year would be characterized by a “gain in total business inventories [worth] 46.5 billion in the April-June Quarter.”162 Though the first three months of Kennedy’s administration included the final days of the ‘60-‘61 Recession, the majority of his first year in office was characterized by positive economic gain and a fairly consistent economic context.

160 John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), para. 7-8. 161 John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), para. 7-8. 162 Edson Bridges, “A Year End Review of the 1961 Economy,” Financial Analyst Journal (1961), 4. 54

Despite the economic upturn, the globe grew weary of the looming military constraint growing stronger in the U.S. and USSR: nuclear weaponry. The early militaristic constraints may have involved discussion over nuclear developments, but by the end of Kennedy’s first year the constraint had grown into live nuclear testing. Throughout October 1961, the USSR tested nuclear bombs in Novaya Zemlya, Kapustin Yar, Eastern Kazakh/Semipalitinsk and Say Shagan. In the chess match of who can flex their nuclear muscles the most, the United States also tested multiple nuclear weapons in Nevada throughout October 1961. On the morning of October 30th, 1961 the USSR tested a nuclear bomb of historic portions, the Tsar Bomb, “the largest nuclear device ever detonated and the most powerful man-made explosion in history… with a yield of 50 megatons of TNT.”163 A nuclear weapon of truly epic proportions, this militaristic chess piece exemplifies the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and USSR in late 1961.

Though international relations and foreign policy were at the forefront of the Cold War situation, the political constraints decreased as the general public began to embrace Kennedy’s New Beginnings and anticipate how his political agenda would adapt at the site of the Soviet Union’s apparent domination in the nuclear arms race. Meanwhile (outside the public eye), the United States’ diplomatic and political endeavors in Vietnam began to rise as President Kennedy invested in programs like the Civilian Irregular Defense Group Program that trained local South Vietnamese villagers and ethnic minorities to dislike the North Vietnamese and fight to protect their land.164 In the years to come, Vietnam and the nuclear arms race would come to define Kennedy’s administration, but in his first year as president Kennedy maintained a consistent campaign appealing for peace and freedom throughout the Cold War situation.

Audience – University In Lange’s (1999) isolated review of Kennedy’s Commencement address at the University of Washington, he notes that 11,000 people were in attendance in the University Pavilion. It is safe to assume that not everyone in attendance for the Commencement was a part of UW’s graduating class of ‘61. Nonetheless, the UW audience will be considered a “university audience” because of the rhetorical situation that defines a Commencement. The commencement

163Cold War History, “Tsar Bomba,” Atomic Heritage Foundation (2014), para. 1. 164Read the U.S. Army Special Forces report from 1961-1971 to further understand what role the U.S. played in training the South Vietnamese villagers and eventually the South Vietnamese army. 55 format invites the speaker to provide guidance and direction for the next generation entering the American work force. With a growing support from the American youth, Kennedy’s Commencement address at UW provided the perfect opportunity to embrace his youthful following and accept his role as the leader of the New Beginning. If a Congressional audience is supposed to produce prestige and professionalism in stylization, it is likely that a University audience would invite varied stylization from a vernacular use of /r/ to the regular drop of /ing/ and final /t/.

University /ing/ v. /in/ A total of 23 tokens were recorded for this variable: 23 /ing/ for 100% and 0 /in/ for 0%. The Chi-square test revealed that the difference in percentages was statically significant (p < 0.0001).

/ing/ v. /in/

In 0%

Ing 100%

Figure 5.1 University /ing/ v/ in/ distribution Despite another low token count for Kennedy’s use of (ING), all 23 of the tokens collected placed emphasis on /ing/ over /in/. Once again low in the number of future progressive words used, this result is the first statistically significant finding for the (ING) variable. Interesting to this speech is the idea that before University students- the growing population that has come to love Kennedy- the President has maintained a professional use of (ING). Initially, it was anticipated that Kennedy would favor a more colloquial style before a group of graduating 56 students. It was expected that Kennedy would promote his colloquial Bostonian self in order to appeal to his youthful audience.

Instead, it should be argued that by maintaining a professional sociophonetic production of /ing/, Kennedy demonstrates his willingness to view the University audience as closer to a Congressional audience than a national audience. Simply put, with 100% of the future progressive language rooted in a reinforced pronunciation of /ing/, Kennedy chooses to address the students as highly educated individuals rather than a young and naturalistic population. This strategic use of language likely appeals to the students who revere the event as their next step in adulthood; the adulthood that will diminish vernacular language in favor of commanding professionalism. Furthermore, this sociophonetic stylization should be considered an audience- shaping initiative. By utilizing business professional language Kennedy actually frames the next generation as those who will lead the work force with commanding stylization. It will be interesting to note which side of the spectrum the succeeding variables will fall on in regard to Kennedy’s stylization before the University audience.

University Final /t/ A total of 227 tokens were recorded for this variable: 117 were recorded as Voiced for 52% and 110 were recorded as Released for 48%. The Chi-square test revealed that this difference in variables was not statistically significant (p = 0.3946).

Final /t/

Released Voiced 48% 52%

Figure 5.2 University Final /t/ distribution 57

Unlike the Inaugural address and the Congressional address, Kennedy’s production of the final /t/ in his University address resembles a near 50/50 split in voiced and released production. This is a unique finding in that it doesn’t side with either of the previous addresses and certainly denies the expectation that Kennedy would err on the side of the dropped-t to accommodate a young, University audience. What appears to have occurred is a systematic blending of both a colloquial and professional style; to promote the youthful charisma throughout the arena yet recognize and respect the professionalism of the event.

From this sociophonetic finding, it could be argued that Kennedy’s sociophonetic abilities may have changed over the course 1961. Seeing as though this analysis considers three addresses that each took place 5-6 months apart, these results could potentially demonstrate a sociophonetic shift in Kennedy’s general, public persona. At his inauguration, Kennedy is still new to national addresses and favors the Bostonian person that has shaped his previous stint in American politics. Over the course of one year in which the President was pushed into the depths of government leadership, Kennedy was forced to take on a more professional persona in order to adhere to the expectations of a general population and the commandingly prestigious American government. The Washington University address thus demonstrates where Kennedy currently stands in his shaped persona: balanced between his colloquial self and his professional self. Further research should aim to chronicle Kennedy’s sociophonetic persona across his entire presidency to observe how his public stylization adapted. A report of this nature would likely embody Tulis’s “Rhetorical Presidency”165 as it views Kennedy as the individual rhetorically shaped by the nation.

University Final /r/ A total of 199 tokens were recorded for this variable, 80 were recorded as Stressed for 40% and 119 were recorded as Dropped for 60%. The Chi-square test revealed that this difference in variables was statistically significant (p = 0.0001).

165 Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).

58

Final /r/

Stressed 40% Dropped 60%

Figure 5.3 University Final /r/ distribution

To further add to the narrative that Kennedy’s University address exemplifies a seemingly balanced stylization, Kennedy’s dropped /r/ has returned to his vernacular style. I would argue that this variable further adds to the idea of balance style because the University (ING) was significantly in favor of professional pronunciation. With one variable in favor of colloquial stylization, another for professional, and the third split 50/50, the dropped /r/ maintains the balance of stylization. In his UW speech, Kennedy has certainly not returned to his Inaugural self when it comes to the Bostonian /r/, but he has placed a statistically significant amount of emphasis on his vernacular preference.

The presence of the dropped-r further adds to the idea that Kennedy may have intended to produce a balanced stylization. Though the preliminary hypothesis categorized students as younger and thus more eager for vernacular accommodation, it neglected to consider Kennedy’s view of the youthful generation. As the youngest elected U.S. President, history has told of the spike in interest in American politics that occurred following Kennedy’s election. Harnessing the youthful energy and interest of the youth, it is easy to get caught thinking that Kennedy revered them as youth. Instead, the sociophonetic results for Kennedy’s University address seem to suggest that Kennedy viewed them with respect and professionalism just as much as he matched their youthful exuberance. Certainly breaking expectations with how he stylized his University

59 address, Kennedy has proven to be the perfect individual to identify explicit adaption in sociophonetic style to accommodate particular audiences.

60

CHAPTER SIX

KENNEDY’S SOCIOLINGUISTIC VARIATION IN SIGNALS

Before conclusive statements are drawn in regard to the President Kennedy’s sociophonetic variations, a brief discussion regarding language stylization when sending signals is warranted. Three signals were pulled from each speech for analysis. These signals were identified via cluster criticism166 as outlined by Foss (1989) which was implemented to identify phrases around central key words present in Kennedy’s speeches. Specifically, signals were most commonly identified when a “they” or “them” was stated. This recognition of an “other” was commonly in reference to the Soviet Union and their allies who have displayed their own political agenda.

Inaugural Signals 1. “But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting (Ing) their (dropped) own freedom--and to remember (dropped) that (voiced), in the past (released), those who foolishly sought (released) power (dropped) by riding (Ing) the back of the tiger (dropped) ended up inside.”167 The sociophonetic variation in this initial signal seems to suggest that the signals themselves carry the same consistent variation as the overarching stylization of the speech. Recall that the Inaugural address was primarily based off of dropped r’s and released t’s. With 6 colloquial variables and 2 professional variables, this signal reflects the overarching distribution of stylization in the inaugural address. However, because signals bear the weight of nuclear apocalypse, you would think all signals would attempt to maintain severity in a consistent style.

2. “And let (released) every other (dropped) power (dropped) know that (voiced) this hemisphere intends to remain the master (stressed) of its own house.”168 Within this brief signal, Kennedy has begun to show weakness in verbal consistency when sending signals. Unlike the first signal analyzed, this signal has routinely incorporated two

166Sonja J. Foss Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice, (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1989). 167 John F. Kennedy, “Inaugural Address,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): 8. 168 John F. Kennedy, “Inaugural Address,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): 10.

61 variables—the stressed final /r/ and the voiced final /t/—that do not fit within the primary stylization for Kennedy’s Inaugural address. Mixing professional production into his colloquial style, it should be noted that Kennedy chooses to end his statement with articulation and stress to effectively command authority. From this second signal it could be argued that Kennedy’s inconsistency in style is actually a subtle adaption to a more commanding, professional style. Further analysis in signals will prove if this idea can be generalized across the multiple speaking contexts.

3. “Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our (stressed) adversary, we offer (stressed) not (voiced) a pledge but (voiced) a request (released): that (released) both sides begin anew the quest (released) for (stressed) peace, before (dropped) the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self- destruction.”169 Rather than argue in favor of Kennedy’s subtle inclusion of professionalism when sending signals, this third and final signal for the Inaugural address undoubtedly swings in favor of professional production over the primary colloquial style. For a speech primarily composed of colloquial dropped r’s and t’s, Kennedy’s signals seem to invite a different interpretation; one that begins to convey authority through professional language. However, each signal lacks congruity. The inclusion of more professional variables within the Inaugural signals certainly demonstrates Kennedy’s desire to differentiate his verbal production, but the signals in their entirety lack consistent stylization. The first signal abided by the primary style. The second signal began to show favor for professional language in signals. The final signal should a mixed style with greater emphasis on articulation. From the inaugural signal analysis alone, no general statements can be made in regard to what style Kennedy prefers when sending signals. The analysis of signals in other speeches may help generalize Kennedy’s sociophonetic goals.

Congressional Signals 1. “Recognizing (Ing) the head start (released) obtained by the Soviets with their (dropped) large rocket (voiced) engines, which gives them many months of lead time, and recognizing (Ing) the likelihood that (released) they will exploit (voiced) this lead for (dropped) some

169 John F. Kennedy, “Inaugural Address,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 12. 62

time to come in still more (stressed) impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own.”170 In this first congressional signal, President Kennedy is explicitly signaling to the USSR his belief that they will exploit their lead in space development. A shining example of cultural framing through signaling, this signal further points to an inconsistent sociophonetic production when sending signals. In Chapter Four, it was evident that Kennedy’s Congressional style was primarily professional. Therefore, Kennedy would not have to change his style to convey his professional authority (if that was the intended goal when sending signals). Any signal conveyed in the Congressional address would simply fit into the style already employed. Instead, this first Congressional signal points out many dropped r’s and released t’s that do not fit within the current professional style. This break from the stylistic mold suggests that Kennedy’s signals are enforcing sociophonetic variations outside of his own designed accommodating style.

2. “No formal agenda (additional /r/ added) is planned and no negotiations will be undertaken; but (stressed) we will make clear (stressed) America's enduring (Ing) concern is for (dropped) both peace and freedom--that (released) we are (stressed) anxious to live in harmony with the Russian people--that (released) we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches--that we seek only the day when "nation shall not (released) lift (released) up sword against (released) nation, neither (dropped) shall they learn war (stressed) any more (dropped)."171 It is within signals like these that an inconsistency in Kennedy’s style becomes obvious and evident. Following a consistent professional style, Kennedy goes on (starting at “for both peace…”) to drop or release the next 8 analyzed variables. This vivid break from the established professional style would suggest that Kennedy chose to systematically differentiate his signal style from his overarching style to convey a different authority. However, this 8 variable finding is preceded by and succeeded by variables that adhere to the professional style that makes up the majority of the speech. In one instance, Kennedy actually overproduces the final /r/ on a word that does not even end with an r, “agenda”. This overproduction of /r/ has been previously

170 John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 3. 171 John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 19. 63 identified by Metcalf (2004) who notes Kennedy’s famous use of “Cuba-r.”172 Not only is Kennedy conflating his style with unpredictable dropped variables, he is also over-producing his pronounced /r/’s in the same signals. This signal identifies a possible confusion in the speaking style when statements rise that explicitly target an opposition.

3. “The first (voiced) is the simple fact (voiced) that we are (stressed) on the side of liberty (released)--and since the beginning (Ing) of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War (dropped), liberty (released) has been winning (In) out (stressed) all over (dropped) the globe.”173 The only consistent finding in the signal analysis thus far is a clear indication that Kennedy has not maintained any uniform sociophonetic style when sending signals. In neither the Inaugural address nor the Congressional address has Kennedy shown a preference for either maintaining the style embodied in the speech or denying the accommodating style in order to appear phonetically different. The only apparent finding is that within each signal, Kennedy appears to fluctuate between styles. I will be curious to see if Kennedy prefers a specific style for signals within the University address that had no overarching preference for colloquial or professional language.

University Signals 1. “In 1961 the world relations of this country have become tangled and complex. One of our (voiced) former (dropped) allies has become our (voiced) adversary—and he has his own adversaries who are (voiced) not (stressed) our (voiced) allies. Heroes are (voiced) removed from their (dropped) tombs--history rewritten--the names of cities changed overnight (released).”174 This signal that begins to demarcate the allies and adversaries of the Cold War begins with a strong preference for professional stylization then quickly conflates the style with the occasional colloquial variable. A preference for professional style would have suggested a clear attempt to promote authority had the signal not concluded with two dropped variables and a

172 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153. 173 John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 18. 174 John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 5. 64 colloquial cadence. Opposite of the Inaugural signals, this University signal concludes with a colloquial style after beginning with a professional style.

2. “We cannot (released), as a free nation, compete (stressed) with our (voiced) adversaries in tactics of terror (dropped), assassination, false promises, counterfeit (stressed) mobs and crises. We cannot (released), under (dropped) the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different (released) stories to different (released) audiences, foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile. We cannot (released) abandon the slow processes of consulting (Ing) with our (voiced) allies to match the swift (voiced) expediencies of those who merely dictate (voiced) to their (dropped) satellites.”175 Opposite of the preceding University signal, this signal begins to show a preference for colloquial language to be later corrected by conclusive statements with a professional emphasis. In arguably the most accusatory signal of this analysis, in which the “adversaries” are accused of assassination and propagated control of the press, Kennedy’s style still shows signs of inconsistent production; wavering between two distinct styles.

3. “We possess weapons of tremendous power (dropped)--but they are least (voiced) effective in combating (Ing) the weapons most (dropped) often used by freedom's foes: subversion, infiltration, guerrilla warfare (dropped), civil disorder(dropped).”176 In this final analyzed signal, a majority stylization does seem to emerge: a preference for the colloquial drop over the professional emphasis. Yet, it is much too late to argue in favor of a consistent form of stylization when sending signals. Instead, there is much evidence in favor of Kennedy having a confused and inconsistent speaking style when sending signals. This inconsistency certainly leads to more questions regarding Kennedy’s inability to maintain a commanding style when pushing forward ideas that could be considered threats to opposing nations. Similar to Kimble (2009) who identified Kennedy’s “androgynous” style, this identification of an indecisive style when conveying signals certainly has the potential to lead to pitfalls in a time of international tension.177

175 John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 7-9. 176 John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 11. 177 James Kimble, “John F. Kennedy, the Construction of Peace, and the Pitfalls of Androgynous 65

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION

Much can be said in response to Kennedy’s sociophonetic speaking profiles. In an effort to remain consistent with the original research direction, the following conclusive remarks will be organized according to the original research questions proposed in the introductory chapter. Similar to the work of Wolfram et al. (2014), this sociolinguistic analysis has identified a speaker’s explicit ability to adapt their vocal style in an attempt to accommodate their audience. This report lends additional support to rhetoricians looking to return to what Gunn (2008) has referred to as the “acoustic bond”178 between speakers and their audiences. Through a linguistic methodology, this analysis has successfully returned to orality and phonetic production as a major area of exploration for rhetoricians.

In an effort to circumvent syntax, morphology, and the transcript-based research that has dominated 21st century rhetoric, the implemented sociolinguistic methodology helped maintain an emphasis on phonetic production and stylization in speechmaking. By analyzing phonology, it was found that Kennedy’s use of language is strategic and subtle—down to the phonetic variables that shift stylization. For the rhetorician, this identification of phonetic control adds to the abundant research that speaks to Kennedy's rhetorical abilities.

RQ1

Within the sociolinguistic analysis, how does the speaker’s language vary across populations and context? Are there similarities in variation for the speakers per audience?

The following chart displays Kennedy's sociophonetic variation across the three speeches analyzed…

Rhetoric,” Communication Quarterly 57, no. 2 (2009), 167. 178 Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (2007), 363-364. 66

Sociophonetic variation in three of Kennedy's 1961 speeches 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Inaugural Congressional University

In Ing Voiced t Released t Stressed r dropped r

Figure 7.1 Sociophonetic variation in three of Kennedy’s 1961 speeches.

One of the more significant findings for this report is Kennedy's apparent explicit ability to change his speaking style depending on the present audience. To demonstrate that Kennedy’s variation in style was significant across the three speeches, a comparison in proportions was run on final /t/. The same statistics software previously used to outline each variable was referenced again for this concluding test of significance. Kennedy’s emphasis on final /t/ was chosen for this significance analysis after ruling out /Ing/ for low token count and final /r/ because of Kennedy’s uncommon r-less pronunciation. Between the inaugural and congressional address, Kennedy shifted from 64% released /t/ in the Inaugural to 25% released /t/ in the congressional. This shift from majority released to minority released was statistically significant according to the chi- squared test (p < 0.0001). Between the inaugural and university address, Kennedy shifted from 64% released /t/ in the inaugural to 48% released /t/ in the university address—this too was statistically significant at p = 0.0063. Lastly, between the congressional and university address, Kennedy shifted from 25% released /t/ in the congressional to 48% released /t/ in the university. Despite the fact that both proportions favored the released /t/ over the voiced /t/, the stylistic variation dependent on the present audience was still significant (p< 0.0001).

67

To further exemplify the explicit variation across each presidential address, consider how specific words themselves varied throughout the stylization process. The words “president” “effort,” and “present” each appear multiple times throughout the inaugural and congressional addresses. In every instance, the above final /t/ words were released in the inaugural address, yet voiced in the congressional address. Additionally, consider the word “great” that appears in every analyzed address. In the inaugural address, the final /t/ in “great” is released—adding to Kennedy’s colloquial style. Conversely, in the inaugural address, the final /t/ in “great” is voiced so as to maintain the professional style of the address. Lastly, in the university address, the final /t/ in “great” is inconsistently stylized appearing both released and voiced. This narrowed identification of specific words is beneficial for understanding how the linguistic variables manifest themselves within each address. Following the above report of significance and this embodiment of specific words, the following conclusive remarks will comment on each address individually.

At his Inaugural address, Kennedy has remained steadfast in his Bostonian persona— choosing to maintain an overall conversational style with many dropped /r/'s and /t/'s. This emphasis on colloquial language reflects Kennedy's appeal to the common man as he attempts to speak into existence his pursuit for world peace. Only five months after his Inaugural speech, President Kennedy has shifted his speaking style to that of professional and class-oriented as he presents a list of needs to Congress. Holding on to and even emphasizing his /r/'s and /t/'s, President Kennedy not only demonstrates his ability to control his Bostonian accent but also his ability to adorn a class-oriented persona before Congress. Between these two speeches, sociolinguistic methodology has proven effective in identifying strategic stylization.

As for Kennedy's University of Washington address, this analysis found that Kennedy did not side with a single stylization, but instead, shifted between styles. Dropping /r/'s to present his authentic self while holding /t/'s to respect the graduating class, Kennedy's phonetic variation works to define his audience and appeal to their dynamic situation. To further support the idea that Kennedy embodied both a colloquial and professional style, his use of (ING) was statistically significant while embodying both an emphasis on /ing/ and /in/.

68

RQ2

When sending signals, what language variations occur? Do signals carry variations similarly across each speech?

Unique to the fairly limited sociophonetic-rhetorical research was the analysis of speech signals. The aforementioned signals were identified using Cluster Criticism as outlined by Foss (1989) and then run through the same sociolinguistic analysis process as the bulk of the research. Similar to Kimble (2009) who identified Kennedy's androgynous style in his American University address and ruled it a potentially dangerous phonetic discrepancy during a time of international turmoil, this report identified Kennedy's inconsistent vocal production when sending signals. Beyond inconsistency, Kennedy’s mixture of styles occasionally even over- emphasized the mixture of styles, leading to a possible heighted confusion of the verbal intent.

In the Inaugural address that primarily featured colloquial language, Kenney occasionally stressed professional language—yet not in an organized manner to differentiate the signal from the majority of the speaking style. Conversely, in the Congressional address that primarily featured professional language, Kennedy occasional added colloquial elements to his signals while simultaneously maintaining his professional demeanor. For the University address that mixed both styles, a clear preference for a certain signal style could have shown through but once again reiterated an inconsistent signal style that feature both colloquial language and professional language.

Despite the lack of clarity on a preferred style when sending signals, the inconsistent style nonetheless should be considered a significant finding. Not only did Kennedy not differentiate his style when sending signals, he also did not maintain a style when sending signals. This apparent inconsistency in production may suggest an implicit hesitation when directing statements (or threats) to an opposition. For an era with nuclear unrest, findings related to hesitations and inconsistencies certainly warrant further analysis to determine the negative implications.

69

RQ3

Following the recognition of variations, how might the accommodations to audiences effect the overall rhetorical reception of the speech?

In the same way that Murphy (2019) (among many other rhetoricians) has ruled that Kennedy mastered the use of emotional appeals, fear appeals, and cultural appeals179, this report has identified the phonetic methods undertaken to produce an audience appeal. Whether it be a national audience, Congressional crowd, or graduating class, Kennedy has the ability to adapt his style to accommodate his audience. If we are to argue that Kennedy has explicitly adapted his stylization to appeal to and accommodate his audience, then a discussion on effect is certainly warranted. That being said, a critical discussion regarding Wicheln’s interpretation of effect is outside of the realm of the study considering Wicheln (1925) argued scholars should actively engage with audience members to study the results and outcomes of public oratory.180 However, a critical discussion regarding possible effects is still relevant to this analysis. Considering this analysis centered on Zarefsky’s (2006) perspective on effect, the following conclusive remarks will not attempt to draw general findings on how the audience was effected but rather how they could have been effected. First, because this analysis was rooted in communication accommodation theory and audience stylization, the first possible effect should be considered a heightened approval for Kennedy as an orator. As Kennedy appeals to his audience via stylization, the audience is more likely to consider President Kennedy as more similar than not. For example, before his Inaugural audience, Kennedy embraced his Bostonian persona by using colloquial language. Rather than creating a greater class divide through patriarchal-professional language, Kennedy decides to draw closer to his fellow Americans through common language. A colloquial style should be considered a strategic initiative to appeal to a general audience with the hope that the audience will perceive the speaker as similar. Opposite of the Inaugural speech, Kennedy’s emphasis on professional language should be considered an attempt to distance himself from colloquial language and draw near to the class-oriented language that makes up the Congressional assembly. Speaking with a professional

179 John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 135, 144, 235. 180 Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925), 213. 70 style, the desired effect is acceptance before the congressional decision makers. Furthermore, because Kennedy is asking for billions of dollars, a serious or authoritative persona is necessary to be taken seriously before Congress. The success of the NASA space program and the many Apollo lunar missions could be considered a direct effect of Kennedy’s Congressional address in 1961. Congress’s financial approval of Kennedy’s space program may just demonstrate that his explicit attempt to appear professional and abide by congressional expectations worked in his favor to appeal to his legislative counterparts. The University of Washington speech delivered the most unique stylization findings. With a mixture of colloquial and professional language, it can be argued that President Kennedy was working hard to shape his audience. With a mixed style, Kennedy aimed to convince his youthful watchers that they should now be considered the next generation of professionals. The University address provides the most relevant medium in which to study Kennedy’s desired effect to rhetorically shape his viewing audience. As for the actual effects on the audience, future research should aim to interview the graduating class present for the speech. A narrow population group (compared to the Inaugural audience) approaching 80 years old, interviews with the graduating class of 1961 would yield the explicit results necessary to identify Black’s (1965) speaking effects. This opportunity to follow up on the University of Washington Address serves as the first area of analysis for future studies. Future Studies Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this work, a section on the futures studies that should follow is expected. After discovering the lack of research on Kennedy’s University of Washington Address, of primary importance is turning critical attention to this neglected speech. For a speech rich with anaphora and mentions of The Holocaust and suicide, it is unfathomable that the social sciences have vastly neglected this address. Beyond writing and finding documentation on this speech event, this speech poses an important opportunity to observe audience shaping rhetoric. In the UW address, Kennedy works to outline two types of Americans: those looking to surrender/appease and those on the pathway to war. The UW address attempts to build rhetorical characters by forcing the students to consider which they are—only then to convict both categories in favor of a united front. Looking forward, a rhetorical foundation for this address needs to be established.

71

For those interested in further implementing sociolinguistic methodology into presidential rhetoric, future studies should analyze other U.S. presidents and other national and international leaders across the globe. An increase in sociolinguistic presidential analysis could help generalize the methodology across the entire rhetorical domain. To further build upon this report on Kennedy, future works should aim to document how variations can change throughout the speech; rather than characterize one speech as one style, a minute-by-minute analysis could better document how styles change throughout. Lastly, in regard to other presidents and chronology, future studies should aim to identify the other speaking styles as put forth by Metcalf181 (2004). A question still remains, how does the plain-speaking style of President Harry Truman compare to the Hollywood style of President Ronald Reagan? For those interested in further analyzing President Kennedy’s unique phonetic variations, future studies should aim to chronicle Kennedy’s sociophonetic persona across his entire presidency. By observing how Kennedy’s stint as President produced new verbal styles, a reported rooted in The Rhetorical Presidency can be produced. This research idea stems from Kennedy’s apparent switch from Bostonian to professional between his Inaugural address and Congressional address. A chronical of the speaking situations between these two events may identify the subtle transformation Kennedy underwent to learn how to appeal to Congress from the presidential seat. Alongside a chronical of Kennedy’s changing style, a sociophonetic profile of Robert Kennedy’s audience variations may help identify how speakers from a common region share stylistic characteristics. One final area of analysis for Kennedy would be to analyze his speaking style when speaking off the cuff at a press conference. When presidents are less constrained by a manuscript, press conferences may reveal the most genuine and natural style of the speaker. Beyond isolating phonology in research, future research should aim to identify whether syntax and word choice forces certain phonetic variations. This area for analysis was brought to mind after identifying how the word “both,” when succeeded by a final /t/, forced Kennedy to stress the consonant sound that was primarily dropped throughout his Inaugural address. From this, the question remains: how does syntax dictate the phonetic stylization in a speech? If archival documents related to speech outlines can be found, the systematic development of a

181 Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004). 72 speech may demonstrate how speech writers and speakers cater their content to emphasize certain sociophonetic utterances. In other words, when drafting a speech, does Ted Sorensen cut down on the amount of r-final words when Kennedy needs to speak before a professional audience or does he position consonant sounds like /t/ of /ch/ behind a final /r/ in order to force Kennedy to emphasis the /r/? Answering these question will require an in-depth analysis in both phonology and syntax. For future projects looking to focus solely on syntax, one other area of analysis for the syntactician includes Kennedy’s unusual lack of the future progressive tense when giving future-oriented speeches. Though these future study recommendations are specific in nature and stem directly from the previous research report, each supports the growth of linguistic analysis within rhetoric. The most relevant suggestion for future studies would be to replicate this sociolinguistic design and similar designs like Wolfram et al. (2014) in an effort to solidify the methodology for mainstream research. Only through repetition and practice will a sociolinguistic tradition begin to emerge within the rhetorical domain. Constraints For an analysis rooted in interdisciplinary perspectives, a few constraints are inevitable as the methodology begins to identify strengths and limitations in the research process. First, it should be noted that this report simplified language styles to colloquial vs. professional. Though each of the aforementioned phonetic variables contribute to both colloquial styles and professional styles it could be argued that the style categories were too broad to encompass the stylistic goals set forth by Kennedy. In an effort to bridge the gap between rhetoric and linguistics, many linguistic variables were excluded to simplify the linguistic-specific language in favor of the overarching rhetorical framework. For example, to maintain simplicity in the linguistic methodology the final /t/ was coded as “released” or “voiced.” In other linguistic- centered reports, a final /t/ can be additionally coded as glottalized or flapped. By omitting categories of specificity in the sociolinguistic analysis, the research limited the opportunity to pin-point specific differences in variable emphasis. With an emphasis on the rhetorical situation, another possible constraint involves the scope of the study. In order to establish that the audience was the variable that forced the sociophonetic variation, it was necessary to establish that the context and content were generally consistent throughout the three speeches. Though each speech returns to Kennedy’s major 73 premise of pursuing peace, each speech contains unique portions of text unfound in the other speeches. For example, in Kennedy’s congressional address, nearly a quarter of the speech remarks on the amount of money needed to fund the various programs proposed. This bulk of financial discussion is unfound in the other two analyzed speeches. Bearing this in mind, it certainly could be argued that the content itself manipulated the overall stylization of the speech. Lastly, in regard to content, it is likely the inconsistency finding when sending signals could be a product of content rather than audience stylization. In the same domain as content, it could additionally be argued that the context changed over the course of a year. Despite the thorough situational constraint review, there were situational differences across each speech event. An example of the variation in context includes the economic upswing the U.S. saw toward the end of 1961. This contextual differentiation serves as one clue to the possible effects context could have made on President Kennedy’s stylization. Implications Above all, this report presents a clear argument that implementing a sociolinguistic methodology can help develop a rhetorical frame that returns to orality. Rooted in Gunn’s (2007) desire to identify the “acoustic bond”182 between speakers and audiences, this report has not only demonstrated President Kennedy’s ability to adapt style; it has also identified what characteristic Kennedy believes represents his audience. For instances, by placing great emphasis on professional language, President Kennedy demonstrated his desire to appeal to his legislative counterparts in his 1961 Congressional address. Before Congress, Kennedy presents a professional persona he believes embodies a class-oriented style that should be proper and professional. Adhering to an explicit style not only shapes the speaker’s persona, it also shapes the surrounding expectations for those in attendance. By identifying the verbal associations President Kennedy makes with certain populations, research can now move to further delineate the specific phonetic variations individuals employ when speaking to specific audiences. Beyond shaping his audience, Kennedy also works to shape the greater Cold War situation. The reason behind studying Kennedy’s oratory during the Cold War stemmed from the

182 Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (2007), 363-364. 74 heighted public scrutiny that surmised during the era filled with propaganda and strategic communication. In regard to Kennedy’s signals in which he spoke adamantly against his opposition, it became apparent that Kennedy’s style became inconsistent and even hesitant. Similar to Kimble (2009), this report supports the claim that Kennedy’s style and speechmaking may have led to pitfalls in his strategic messaging. Future works should certainly follow up with this signals analysis to identify how the messages were received by the diplomatic entities that Kennedy spoke against. In respect to the previous literature that has identified Kennedy’s rhetorical abilities, this sociophonetic analysis builds upon Bostdroff and Goldzwig’s (1994) identification of Kennedy’s ability to use pragmatic rhetoric to deflect criticism and “build his image as a knowledgeable.”183 In the same way that pragmatic appeals deflect criticism by appearing sensible and reasonable, this sociophonetic analysis suggests that the pragmatic Kennedy has explicitly attempted to appear similar to the audience in order to present himself as sensible and reasonable. In other words, if a speaker matches the stylistic expectations of the audience when selling a pragmatic appeal, the audience will more likely consider the appeal favorable—so long as the sociophonetic style meets the expectations held by the audience. As the audience supports and approves of the sociophonetic expectations they also approve of the pragmatic appeal to avoid cognitive dissonance. Kennedy’s stylization thus serves to compliment his pragmatic appeals and deflect criticism. To further exemplify how stylization compliments rhetorical appeals, consider how Kennedy’s stylization further adds to his romanticism in the “Urgent Needs” Congressional address. When promoting his space-race agenda, Kennedy embodies pragmatism by selling a romanticized mission to the moon. To avoid an unrealistic interpretation of his desired goals, Jordan (2003) writes, “a balance between awe and action needed to be achieved so as to provide an appropriate level of inspiration and motivation.”184 The balance between unrealistic awe and achievable mission is the product of Kennedy’s professional stylization. By placing emphasis on a professional style, Kennedy presented his romanticized mission in a manner to be taken

183 Denise Bostdorff & Steven Goldzwig, “Idealism and Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy Rhetoric: The Case of John F. Kennedy and Vietnam,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 24, no. 3 (1994), 524. 184 John Jordan, “Kennedy’s Romantic Moon and Its Rhetorical Legacy for Space Exploration,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6, no. 2 (2003): 215. 75 seriously. Imaginative awe accompanied by professional stylization allowed Kennedy to remain serious while promoting an out-of-this-world idea. Considering Murphy’s (2019) rhetorical review served as the comprehensive foundation for understanding how Kennedy’s stylization resulted from his rhetorical abilities, it is relevant to discuss how this analysis actually argues in favor of an interpretation that stylization can precede rhetorical aims. As Murphy (2004) has argued, Kennedy was often technical and systematic with his reasoning in order to rally public approval and push forward his administrative goals.185 Murphy (2004) himself argues that “President Kennedy wanted to build a powerful coalition in support of his policies, and he did so through strategies designed to grant status to his language and incoherence to competing words.”186 Within this assertion, Murphy briefly notes Kennedy’s explicit ability to adapt his language in order to win support. From this sociophonetic analysis, it can be argued that Kennedy’s “designed language” takes into account the phonetic preferences of the audience in order to accommodate their expectations. From this, phonetic variation should be considered a leading rhetorical initiative rather than a secondary product of Kennedy’s other rhetorical aims. Rather than argue that phonetic variation follows the development of strategic pragmatic rhetoric, this sociophonetic analysis suggests that planning strategic phonetic variation occurs at the forefront of the rhetorical design. Outside of the rhetorical domain, this research has also provided a contextual presentation of speech events alongside an in-depth description of Kennedy’s styles. For historians, the multiple historic timelines that lead to each speaking situation serves as a magnified historical review of the events that preceded each speech event. Furthermore, by utilizing John Murphy’s (2019) recent text on John F. Kennedy, this report has best exemplified what role Kennedy played in the surrounding context. For the historian, this report has given special attention to one year in the global history of the Cold War. For the rhetorician, this report has brought to the forefront a renewed interest in the study of orality. For the linguist, this report has brought together multiple perspectives in an effort to unite similar social science domains.

185 John Murphy, “The language of the liberal consensus: John F. Kennedy, technical reason, and the ‘new economics’ at Yale University,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90 no.2 (2004), 154. 186 John Murphy, “The language of the liberal consensus: John F. Kennedy, technical reason, and the ‘new economics’ at Yale University,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90 no.2 (2004), 154. 76

As current diplomatic relations change every day, it is important to review the national efforts undertaken by past diplomats to ensure we recognize the failures and repeat the success.

77

APPENDIX A

INAUGURAL LIST OF VARIBALES

In – Unwilling (2:00), Doing (4:37), Casting (5:20), Racing (7:34), Bring (8:29), *Rejoicing (11:06), Bring (12:22), Blessing (13:44).

Ing – Symbolizing (0:26), beginning (0:30), Signifying (0:31), Undoing (2:03), Supporting (3:50), Supporting (3:56), Struggling (4:23), Becoming (6:15), Remembering (7:46), Belaboring (8:13), Creating (9:27), *Defending (11:54), Knowing (13:45).

Voiced /t/ – President (0:09), Forget (1:26), Let (1:33), Ancient (1:56), Permit (2:01), Support (2:42), Host (3:14), Expect (3:48), That (4:00), Not (4:36), Not (4:39), Assist (5:15), Let (5:30), *Support (6:13), *Writ (6:27), Tempt (6:59), *Sufficient (7:05), Doubt (7:09), Cost (7:25), Let (8:41), Let (9:02), Let (9:12), *Let (9:24), *Just (9:36), *Planet (10:00), Let (10:03). *Trumpet (10:41), Twilight (10:59), East and West (11:29), That (11:36), It (12:03), It (12:27), That (12:29), Not (12:38), Not (12:57), What (13:01), Let (13:37).

Released /t/ – President (0:00), President (0:07), President (0:11), Yet (1:07), *Fought(1:12), At (1:13), *First (1:31), That (1:28), That (1:29), First (1:30), That (1:40), Let (2:25), It (3:29), That (2:34), Meet (2:39), Cannot (3:12), Meet (3:22), Split (3:26), Not (3:47), Right (4:41), Cannot (4:46), *Cannot (4:49), Convert (5:06), Cannot (5:25), That (5:32), Let (5:40), That (5:43), That (5:55), *Last (6:00), Best (6:01), *Prevent (6:14), Request (6:39), That (6:40), Quest (6:44), Doubt (7:06), That (7:10), But (7:12), Great (7:14), Comfort (7:19), Present (7:20), Yet (7:33), That (7:36), *Let (7:43), Subject (7:54), Let (7:56), Let (7:59), Let (8:09), What (8:10), Let (8:17), First (8:19), Not (9:29), But (9:32), It (9:54), Rest (10:15), Out (11:03), Patient (11:07), *Against (11:09), Against (11:20), That (11:30), Effort (11:39), Not (12:08), That (12:10), *Light (12:25), Light (12:32), What (10:06), What (12:43), What (12:58), But (13:45), That (13:47).

Dropped /r/ – Speaker (0:01), Eisenhower (0:07), *For (0:55), Power (0:56), For (1:09), Our (1:11), Dare (1:26), Heirs (1:29), Bitter (1:54), Bear (3:36), Share (3:08), Dare (3:21), Asunder (3:26), Our (3:34), Far (3:44), Remember (3:59), *Power (4:04), *Tiger (4:07), Whatever (4:32), Their (4:39), *Poor (4:47), Our (4:58), Border (5:01), Our (5:29), Or (5:36), Other (5:41), power 78

(5:44), Our (6:00), War (6:04), Offer (6:39), Or (6:55), Dare (6:56), Our (7:03), Are (7:06), Never (7:11), Neither (7:13), Our (7:19), *Alter (7:35), *Terror (7:38), War (7:42), Never (7:56), Fear (7:59), Never (8:00), Explore (8:11), For (8:19), Power (8:29), Under (8:33), Together (8:50), Conquer (8:53), Endeavor (11:42), *Power (9:31), Nor (11:42), Your (10:10), Failure (10:16), Our (10:18), Are (10:53), Hour (11:57), Danger (11:58), Other (12:14), Other (12:16), Endeavour (12:24), Fire (12:29), Your (12:43), For (12:59), *Together (13:01), Whether (11:56), Are (13:10), Here (13:17), Our (13:35).

Stressed /r/ – For (0:35), Our (1:57), Or (2:01), Assure (2:47), Our (3:53), Their (3:57), Our (4:27), *Offer (5:03), *Master (5:48), Our (6:35), For (6:44), For (7:00), Fear (8:01), *Explore (8:52), Secure (9:38), Nor (9:53), Nor (9:56), More (10:15), *Bear (10:46), Bear (11:56), Year in Year out (11:01), War (11:17), Assure (11:31), Or (12:15), Your (12:40), For (13:03), Or (13:14), Our (13:29), Here (13:46), Our (13:50).

79

APPENDIX B

CONGRESSIONAL LIST OF VARIABLES

In – Desiring (6:33), Bargaining (41:50), *Spreading (43:38).

Ing – Going (30:40), Attempting (31:1), Leading (31:34), Recognizing (32:13), Recognizing (32:22), Making (32:54), *Achieving (33:44), Landing (33:48), Returning (33:49), Daring (34:37), Going (34:40), Providing (35:05), *Exciting (35:07), Accelerating (35:24), Asking (35:49), Meaning (36:47), Making (36:59), Agreeing (37:09), Exciting (38:32), Beginning (40:00), Wining (40:44), Meeting (39:55), Permitting (40:48), Ranging (40:50), Understanding (41:12), Proving (41:23), Proving (41:27), Maintaining (41:31), Encouraging (41:46), Unfailing (41:48), Meeting (42:11), Enduring (42:28), Pushing (43:34), Over-Producing (43:37), Urging (43:41), Asking (45:08), Heartening (45:15).

Voiced /t/ – Recent (30:50), Impact (30:59), Achievement (31:39), Urgent (32:07), Start (32:16), Rocket (32:20), That (32:26), Exploit (32:27), *Cannot (32:37), That (32:40), *First (32:41), That (32:44), That (32:44), Effort (32:46), feat (32:59), But (33:07), Not (33:06), Not (33:14), Must (33:20), Meet (33:38), Commit (33:48), Out (33:48), *Important (39:59), *Difficult (34:05), Accelerate (34:08), Development (34:09), Appropriate (34:10), *Craft (34:12), Development (34:26), *Important (34:32), First (34:38), Must (34:51), Accelerate (35:01), *Rocket (35:03), *Most (35:42), Present (35:32), Earliest (35:40), Satellite (35:42), Let (35:46), Judgement (34:46), Development (35:02), Let (35:51), Accept (35:56), Commitment (35:57), Next (36:13), Confident (36:27), Important (36:36), Predict (36:48), Judgement (37:03), It (37:08), It (37:22), Commitment (37:39), Important (37:47), Not (37:55), Cannot (38:00), Talent (38:05), Cannot (38:13), Fact (38:16), Aggravate (38:17), It (38:41), President (38:40), Judgement (38:58), President (39:08), Least (39:10), *Confident (39:20), That (39:25), Judgement (39:26), Judgment (39:27), Let (39:44), That (39:46), That (39:50), First (39:56), Fact (39:57), That (39:59), Out (40:06), *Asset (40:15), Not (40:17), Cite (20:26), Great (40:34), Visit (40:35), Visit (40:37), Great (40:41), President (40:42), *Trust (41:11), Asset (41:16), It (41:18), It (41:21), It (41:22), Test (41:23), It (41:26), Yet It (41:46), Important (41:48), Protect (41:59), It (42:04), Soviet (42:07), Out (42:13), Convenient (42:14), But (42:26), That (42:45), That (42:50), That (42:56), Lift (42:59), Against (43:00), Asset (43:10), Accept (43:18), Fortunate 80

(43:23), Self-Restraint (43:30), Visit (44:16), Want (44:22), Respect (44:40), Protect (44:42), Not (44:52), Confident (45:08), Commitment (45:22).

Released /t/ – Not (31:22), Not (31:25), Fulfillment (32:13), Alternate (34:15), Flight (34:40), Last (36:00), It (36:21), At (36:22), That (36:32), It (36:34), Last (36:40), *Ultimate (36:50), That (37:14), Not (37:23), It (37:51), Development (37:58), *It (37:59), Scientist (38:19), Servant (38:26), Point (38:40), Not (38:41), It (38:43), Not (38:44), That (39:13), Judgement (39:17), Point (39:45), That (40:16), At (41:50), That (41:56), Resolute (42:02), Thought (42:04), Government (42:17), Greatest (43:09), Meet (43:25), Part (44:02), At (44:36), Not (44:56), That (45:19).

Dropped /r/ – Adventure (30:59), Everywhere (31:02), Never (31:56), Or (31:59), For (32:02), Our (32:11), For (32:28), Whatever (33:19), Share (33:23), *Are (33:38), Or (33:49), *Larger (34:18), Other (34:25), For (34:27), Entire (34:49), *Rover (35:01), Solar (35:18), Weather (35:36), Weather (35:45), For (36:00), Over (36:12), Better (36:21), *Under (36:26), Consider (36:33), Consider (37:00), There (37:10), Outer (37:16), Are (37:19), Major (37:38), Manpower (37:41), Are (37:48), Or (38:04), Further (38:17), Contractor (38:25), Pleasure (38:40), For (38:49), Whether (39:21), Or (39:25), Are (39:46), War (40:05), Over (40:21), Are (41:09), Rather (41:10), Our (41:16), Desire (41:17) For (41:17), Are (41:26), Protector (41:33), For (41:57), Our (41:58), For (42:03), Premier (42:08), For (42:28), Neither (42:59), For (43:16), Other (43:32), Or (43:33), Or (43:42), Or (43:50), Their (43:56), Their (43:59), Their (44:00), Their (44:01), Higher (44:04), Other (44:14), Future (44:19), Other (44:41)

Stressed /r/ – Clear (30:51), Are (31:03), Our (31:11), Under (31:13), Where (31:21), Where (31:22), Where (31:24), Where (31:26), Longer (31:29), Future (31:43), Are (31:56), Never (32:04), Or (32:07), Our (32:08), Insure (32:12), Their (32:19), More (32:30), Are (32:33), Our (32:34), For (32:36), Failure (32:45), Stature (33:04), Are (33:05), Our (33:12), Share (33:13), Therefore (33:30), *Earlier (33:34), For (33:35), Before (33:46), More (33:56), More (33:58), For (34:00), Or (34:03), Lunar (43:11), Superior (34:21), For (34:24), Are (34:20, For (34:32), Never (34:35), For (34:50), Together (34:57), Nuclear (35:03), For (35:10), More (35:11), Our (35:25), For (35:03), Clear (35:47), Clear (35:52), Are (36:5), Or (36:16), Our (17), Four (36:41), Matter (37:01), Over (37:06), Or (37:13), Bear (37:20), Are (37:23), Their (37:46), Other (37:46), Where (37;37), Our (37:56), Or (38:08), Turnover (38:10), Engineer (38:21), Adventure 81

(38:35), For (38:42), Pleasure (38:43), For (38:44), Before (38:47), Our (38:50), Our (39:03), Their (39:14), Before (39:16), Your (39:27), Our (39:31), Whatever (39:53), Are (39:58), Are (40:18), Share (40:22), Our (40:22), *Particular (40:46), Our (40:53), *Require (41:07), Over (41:13), Sincere (41:18), Are (41:22), Our (41:23), Our (41:29), Other (41:41), Our (41:43), Our (41:49), Our (41:54), Our (41:56), Are (41:57), Our (42:00), For (42:08), For (42:15), Clear (42:27), Are (42:45), War (43:02), More (43:03), Our (43:11), Their (43:14), Share (43:20), Or (43:35), Or (43:37), Or (43:40), Or (43:44), Or (43:57), Or (43:52), For (43:55), Order (44:09), Our (44:10), For (44:53), Or (44:56), Or (44:49), Or (45:00), Your (45:05), For (45:09), Larger (45:12), Our (45:19).

82

APPENDIX C

UNIVERSITY LIST OF VARIABLES

In – None.

Ing – During (0:54), Training (1:34), Lacking (3:35), Consulting (4:45), Combating (5:13), Understanding (6:50), Appeasing (8:17), Compromising (8;19), Purchasing (8:21), Disavowing (8:24), Equating (8:41), Substituting (8:44), Recognizing (10:35), Nothing (11:37), Nothing (11:39), Refusing (11:42), Leaving (11:59), Exploring (12:00), *Persisting (12:25), *Choosing (13:00), Willing (13:24), Spelling (14:13), Bring (16:01).

Voiced /t/ – President (0:12), It (0:21), State (0:37), University (0:33), Northwest (0:47), Difficult (0:54), *Act (0:57), Commitment (1:03), That (1:10), Self-Government (1:18), Development (1:21), Self-restraint (1:25), University (1:38), *Past (2:08), University (2:17), Past (2:19), Salute (2:24), University (2:26), At (3:20), *Cost (3:21), That (3:25), Yet (4:04), It (4:05), Without (4:07), *Protect (4:11), Cannot (4:13), Compete (4:16), Counterfeit (4:25), Cannot (4:28), Cannot (4:41), Swift (4:47), Dictate (4:51), *Cast (5:00), Percent (5:01), But (5:10), Least (5:10), Just (5:25), But (5:44), It (5:55), Soft (5:56), Right (6:00), Not (6:08), *Fact (6:14), That (6:15), Omnipotent (6:18), That (6:25), Percent (6:28), That (6:31), Cannot (6:30), Right (6:31), Cannot (6:37), Most (6:46), That (7:14), That (7:16), Best (7:26), *Cost (7:31), Cannot (7:34), Twilight (7:37), Capacity (7:43), Yet (7:47), Yet (8:07), At (8:20), What (8:37), *Rigidity (8:44), *Fact (8:55), Appeasement (9:04), *Holocaust (9:10), That (9:33), That (9:51), *But (9:54), Appeasement (10:03), Constant (10:04), It (10:20), *Difficult (10:22), Must (10:31), Difficult (10:37), It (10:40), Must (10:43), It (10:47), Must (10:54), That (10:55), *Fact (11:01), Not (11:06), Resist (11:24), Invite (11:25), At (11:36), Escalate (11:50), Holocaust (11:52), Without (12:04), That (12:42), Accept (12:44), List (13:22), West (13:37), Test (14:06), That (14:10), Not (14:13), Contest (14:13), Difficult (14:36), Negotiate (14:39), Not (14:41), Negotiate (14:41), Not (14:49), Not (14:51), That (15:22), *Soft (15:33), Spirit (15:50), It (16:03), But (16:13), Not (16:25), *Difficult (16:38), University (16:43), *City (16:54), University (17:00), What (17:09), Let (17:15), That (17:19), University (17:21).

83

Released /t/ – Most (0:40), Most (0:53), Grant (1:01), It (1:11), Ignorant (1:14), That (1:37), It (1:39), That (1:44), Not (1:46), What (2:17), *Student (2:39), Not (3:08), Overnight (3:18), Not (3:25), Must (3:36), Must (3:33), Most (3:55), Different (4:35), Different (4:36), Vote (5:02), Most (5:23), But (5:31), Not (5:42), Right (5:46), That (5:50), Not (5:50), That (5:53), Not (5:55), That (5:58), That (6:00), Might (6:04), Short (6:04), Must (6:05), Permanent (6:11), Must (6:12), Omniscient (6:19), That (6:21), Percent (6:21), Adversity (6:35), That (6:36), Maturity (6:49), Meant (6:54), That (7:25), Want (7:54), Apart (8:04), Appeasement (8:43), At (8:49), It (8:54), That (9:01), Soft (9:20), Soft (9:22), Soft (9:24), That (9:26), Appeasement (9:36), That (9:39), Short (10:06), Uncertainty (10:40), Confident (10:44), Doubt (10:50), That (11:01), That (11:04), Resist (11:13), But (11:27), What (11:30), At (11:38), Appropriate (11:44), Overnight (11:50), Great (11:55), Not (11:56), *Ultimate (12:08), Ultimate (12:11), Out (12:41), That (12:49), Out (12:50), Cannot (12:55), Abdicate (12:55), *Must (13:10), Respect (13:13), Cannot (13:18), Security (13:32), That (13:41), But (14:04), It (14:05), Maturity (14:08), Accept (14:10). Fact (14:!0), Defeat (14:14), *Agreement (14:23), Agreement (14:28), Most (14:34), But (14:36), At (14:55), That (14:57), First (15:03), Ancient (15:03), Threat (15:08), Must (15:21), Short (15:28), But (15:43), Light (15:58), Accept (16:18), But (16:27), Not (16:38), But (16:58), Earliest (17:01), It (17:02), That (17:04), Let (17:07), Light (17:06), Light (17:16).

Dropped /r/ – Honor (0:23), *Doctor (0:50), War (0:56), Our (1:00), Are (1:44), Rather (1:57), Never (2:09), Before (2:11), For (2:16), *Future (2:23), War (2:29), Sure (2:33), Whether (2:34), Picture (2:39), Picture (2:43), Our (3:03), Are (3:07), Are (3:12), War (3:28), Our (4:18), Terror (4:21), Under (4:29), Their (4:53), Neither (4:54), Power (5:08), *Warfare (5:19), Disorder (5:21), Other (5:25), Or (5:36), Answer (5:57), Or (6:10), Or (6:11), Neither (6:18), Other (6:29), Or (6:34), *For (6:52), War (6:54), Or (6:57), Or (7:02), Or (7:05), Are (7:15), Are (7:18), Our (7:26), Our (7:28), Whatever (7:31), Our (7:52), Future (7:53), There (8:01), Their (8:04), Are (8:10), Surrender (8:15), Our (8:18), Their (8:28), *Smaller (8:34), Other (8:35), War (8:40), *For (8:45), More (8:52), *Other (9:00), Or (9:05), War (9:05), *Surrender (9:07), Or (9:11), Either (9:11), Departure (9:27), Other (9:32), Other (9:36), War (9:40), Neither (9:50), Disaster (9:54), Neither (9:55), *Where (9:56), Or (10:03), Our (10:10), Neither (10:12), Greater (10:19), Inspire (10:28), Our (10:29), More (10:46), Inspire (10:50), Our (10:57), Are (11:06), Either (11:09), *Disaster (11:26), Our (11:34), Power (11:55), Nor (12:06), Our (12:14), Under (12:36),

84

Our (12:42), Are (12:52), There (13:04), Future (13:12), Are (13:22), Other (13:26), endanger (13:35), Under (13:39), For (13:42), For (13:47), Are (13:56), For (13:58), Cover (14:01), For (14:01), Or (14:13), Answer (14:43), Dear (14:50), For (15:15), Surrender (15:28), Neither (15:29), Neither (15:32), Are (15:34), Bear (16:02), Other (16:14), For (16:25), For (16:27), Other (16:31), War (16:48), There (17:06), There (17:16).

Maintained /r/ – Our (0:43), After (0:45), For (1:07), Were (1:12), *Character (1:24), Order (1:50), Our (2:00), Our (2:03), Our (2:45), More (2:48), More (2:51), Our (3:00), Former (3:01), Our (3:09), Our (3:20), Are (3:29), Order (3:37), Are (3:45) Our (3:45), Are (3:51), Defender (3:56), Our (4:45), Nor (4:55), Or (6:18), Are (6:20), Our (6:25), Are (6:46), Our (6:59), Our (7:09), Our (7:11), There (7:33), Bear (7:35), Far (8:03), *Their (8:08), Our (8:16), Our (8:25), Our (8:25), Our (8:26), Are (8:36), Their (8:47), War (8:52), Or (9:07), Or (9:13), Other (9:45), Or (9:56), More (10:14), *Inspire (10:40), Our (10:41), Our (10:51), For (11:09), Our (11:31), *Fear (11:38), Or (12:11), *Our (12:47), For (13:03), Nor (13:24), Or (13:34), Or (14:00), Our (14:06), Are (14:10), *Consider (14:30), Our (14:42), Our (14:59), War (15:07), Future (15:17), Never (15:27), Are (15:28), Nor (15:30), Nor (15:33), Are (15:47), Here (16:05), Our (16:11), Are (16:12), More (16:13), *Bear (16:18), *Their (16:22), Their (16:24), Ever (16:34), Their (17:01), More (17:07).

85

REFERENCES

1. Visit the Wilson Center Digital Archive at digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org for collections of international documents related to the Cold War.

2. James L. Clayton, “The impact of the Cold War on the economies of California and Utah, 1946-1965,” Pacific Historical Review 36, no. 6 (1967): 449-473.

3. Shawn Parry-Giles, The rhetorical presidency, propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002).

4. Martin J. Medhurst, “Eisenhower and the Crusade for Freedom: The Rhetorical Origins of a Cold War Campaign,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1997): 646-661.

5. James J. Kimble, “John F. Kennedy, the Construction of Peace, and the Pitfalls of Androgynous Rhetoric,” Communication Quarterly 57, no. 2 (2009): 154-170.

6. Walt Wolfram, Caroline Myrick, Jon Forrest, & Michael J. Fox, “The Significance of Linguistic Variation in the Speeches of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,” American Speech 91, (2016): 269-300.

7. Robert Jervis, The Logic of Images in International Relations, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), 21.

8. Meena Bose, “Words as Signals: Drafting Cold War Rhetoric in the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations,” Congress & the Presidency 25, no. 1 (1998): 24.

9. Sonja J. Foss, Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice, (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1989).

10. Kenneth Burke, A grammar of motives, (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1969).

11. Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925).

12. Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996).

13. Cynthia Gallios, Tania Ogay, & Howard Giles, “Communication Accommodation Theory,” in Theorizing about communication and culture, ed. W. B. Gudykunst (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005), 121-148.

14. Bruce Worthington, “Martin Luther King Jr. as Identificatory Conglomerate,” Black Theology 11, no. 2 (2015): 219-239.

86

15. Albert Croft, “The functions of rhetorical criticism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 42, no. 3 (1956): 283.

16. Plato & Harvey Yunis, Plato’s Phaedrus, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

17. Plato & Donald Zeyl (Translator), Gorgias, (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009).

18. Plato & Donald Zeyl (Translator), Gorgias, (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009), 81.

19. Plato & Harvey Yunis, Plato’s Phaedrus, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 31.

20. Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006).

21. Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 55.

22. Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 111.

23. Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 109.

24. Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 110.

25. Aristotle & George Kennedy, On rhetoric, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 111.

26. Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925).

27. Herbert Wichelns “Some differences between literary criticism and Rhetorical criticism,” in Historical Studies of Rhetoric and Rhetoricians, ed. Raymond F. Howes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1961): 217-224.

28. Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925), 211.

29. Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925), 212.

87

30. Sonja J. Foss, Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice, (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1989), 29.

31. Herbert Wichelns, Studies in rhetoric and public speaking, (New York City, NY: Century Company, 1925), 213.

32. Edwin Black, Rhetorical Criticism: A study in Method. (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1965), 74.

33. Davis Zarefsky, “Reflections on rhetorical criticism” Rhetoric Review 25, (2006): 385.

34. Davis Houck & Amos Kiewe, The effects of rhetoric and rhetoric of effects: Past, present, Future, (Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 2015), 283.

35. Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).

36. Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996).

37. Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 4.

38. Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 173.

39. Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996), xx.

40. Martin J. Medhurst, Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1996), 199.

41. Ronald Reid, The American Revolution and the Rhetoric of History, (Washington, DC: Speech Communication Association, 1978).

42. Marie Nichols, “Lincoln’s first inaugural,” in American Speeches, ed. Wayland Maxfield Parrish and Marie Hochmuth Nichols (New York: Longmans, 1954): p. 27-71.

43. Davis Houck, FDR and Fear Itself: The First Inaugural Address, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2002).

44. Davis Houck, FDR and Fear Itself: The First Inaugural Address, (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2002).

45. Lloyd Gardner, Arthur Schlesinger, & Hans Morgenthau, The origins of the cold war, (Ann Arbor, MI: Ginn-Blaisdell, 1970). 88

46. Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997).

47. Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28.

48. Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28.

49. Shawn Parry-Giles, The rhetorical presidency, propaganda, and the Cold War, 1945-1955 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002).

50. Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28.

51. Martin J. Medhurst, “Eisenhower and the Crusade for Freedom: The Rhetorical Origins of a Cold War Campaign,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1997): 646-661.

52. Carol Winkler, “Parallels in preemptive war rhetoric: Reagan on Libya; Bush 43 on Iraq,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10, no. 2 (2007).

53. Isocrates, & George Norlin (Translator), Against the Sophists (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), 11.

54. Carroll Arnold, “Oral Rhetoric, Rhetoric, and Literature,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 40, no. 1 (2007): 174.

55. Davis W. Houck, “Textual Recovery, Textual Discovery: Returning to Our Past, Imagining Our Future,” in The Handbook of Rhetoric and Public Address, eds., Shawn J. Parry-Giles & J. Michael Hogan (Walden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010): 111-32.

56. David Zarefsky, “Reflections on Rhetorical Criticism,” Rhetoric Review 25, (2006): 383- 87.

57. Robert Connors, “Greek Rhetoric and the transition from orality,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 19, (1986): 42.

58. Robert Connors, “Greek Rhetoric and the transition from orality,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 19, (1986): 57.

59. William Harrison Pipes, “Old-Time Negro Preaching: An Interpretive Study,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 31, (1945): 15-21. 89

60. William Harrison Pipes, “Old-Time Negro Preaching: An Interpretive Study,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 31, (1945): 21.

61. William Harrison Pipes, “Old-Time Negro Preaching: An Interpretive Study,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 31, (1945): 20.

62. Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (2007): 363-364.

63. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2019).

64. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004).

65. James Kimble, “John F. Kennedy, the Construction of Peace, and the Pitfalls of Androgynous Rhetoric,” Communication Quarterly 57, no. 2 (2009): 167.

66. Pearl Bradley, “A Rhetorical Analysis of John F. Kennedy’s Civil Rights Speech,” CLA Journal 9, no. 2 (1965): 176.

67. Denise Bostdorff & Shawna Ferris, “John F. Kennedy at American University: The Rhetoric of the Possible, Epidictic Progression, and the Commencement of Peace,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 100, no. 4 (2014): 408.

68. Denise Bostdorff & Shawna Ferris, “John F. Kennedy at American University: The Rhetoric of the Possible, Epidictic Progression, and the Commencement of Peace,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 100, no. 4 (2014): 432.

69. Donald Wolfarth, “John F. Kennedy in the tradition of inaugural speeches,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 47 no. 2 (1961), 132.

70. John Murphy, “The language of the liberal consensus: John F. Kennedy, technical reason, and the ‘new economics’ at Yale University,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no.2 (2004), 154.

71. John Murphy, “The language of the liberal consensus: John F. Kennedy, technical reason, and the ‘new economics’ at Yale University,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no.2 (2004), 154.

72. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019).

73. Lloyd Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, (1968): 9.

90

74. Walt Wolfram, Caroline Myrick, Jon Forrest, & Michael J. Fox, “The Significance of Linguistic Variation in the Speeches of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,” American Speech 91, (2016): 274.

75. Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, “Accent (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions,” American Speech 82, (2007): 32-64.

76. Robert Podesva, Jeremy Reynolds, Patrick Callier, & Jessica Baptiste, “Constraints on the social meaning of released /t/: A production and perception study of U.S. Politicians,” Language Variation and Change 27, (2015): 59-88.

77. William Labov, The Social Stratification of English in New York City, (Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1966).

78. Will Styler, “Using Praat for Linguistic Research,” Creative Commons 1, no. 8 (2017).

79. MedCalc follows Campbell (2007) and Richardson (2011) by using the “N-1” chi-squared test. The confidence interval follows Altman et al. (2000).

80. Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (2007): 363-364.

81. Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (2007): 363-364.

82. Edwin Black, “The second persona,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 56, no. 2 (1970): 110.

83. Peter Reed, “Barack Obama’s different accents.” HubPages: Linguistics, (2016).

84. Martin Medhurst, Robert Ivie, Philip Wander, & Robert Scott, Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 28.

85. A proxy war is fought between two states, that are each being supported by larger parties not directly engaging in the hostility. Visit Alpha History’s webpage for a list of every proxy war fought during the Cold War. https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/coups-proxy- wars/

86. David Holloway, “Nuclear weapons and the escalation of the Cold War, 1945-1962,” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, vol. 1, ed’s. O. A. Westad & M. Leffler (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 376-398.

87. David Holloway, “Nuclear weapons and the escalation of the Cold War, 1945-1962,” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, vol. 1, ed’s. O. A. Westad & M. Leffler (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 376-398.

91

88. Terry Charman “How the Postdam conference shaped the future of post-war Europe,” Imperial War Museum (2018): https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-the-potsdam- conference-shaped-the-future-of-post-war-europe

89. For visual depictions of which countries belonged to the Eastern and Western Blocs, visit The Map as History’s Cold War Confrontation page at https://www.the-map-as- history.com/Cold-War-western-eastern-bloc

90. Lee Edwards, “Congress and the origins of the Cold War: The Truman Doctrine,” World Affairs 151, no. 3 (1988): 131-141.

91. Lee Edwards, “Congress and the origins of the Cold War: The Truman Doctrine,” World Affairs 151, no. 3 (1988): 131.

92. Thomas Gibbons-Neff, “The Pincus files: When the Cuban missile crisis reached a boiling point.” The Washington Post, October 26, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/26/the-pincus-files-when- the-cuban-missile-crisis-reached-a-boiling-point/

93. Sheldon Stern, The Cuban missile crisis in American memory: Myths versus reality. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 75.

94. Len Scott & R. Gerald Hughes, R. The Cuban missile crisis: A critical reappraisal, (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2015), ii.

95. Casey Sherman & Michael Tougias, Above and beyond: John F. Kennedy and America’s most dangerous Cold War spy mission, (New York City, NY: PublicAffairs, 2018), 221.

96. Casey Sherman & Michael Tougias. “War was avoided during the Cuban Missile crisis, but one man died.” The George Washington University (2018): para 11.

97. Odd Arne Westad, The global Cold War: Third world interventions and the making of our times, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 110.

98. Robert Pear “Arming Afghan guerillas: A huge effort lead by U.S.” The New York Times, April 18, 1988, https://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/18/world/arming-afghan-guerrillas-a- huge-effort-led-by-us.html

99. Partha Gangopadhyay & Mohini Chatterjee, Peace science: theory and class, (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group, 2009), 190.

100. Chester Pach, “The Reagan Doctrine: Principles, pragmatism, and policy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2006): 1.

101. Chester Pach, “The Reagan Doctrine: Principles, pragmatism, and policy,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2006): 2. 92

102. Jack Matlock, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War ended, (New York City, NY: Random House Publishing Group, 2005), 151.

103. Jack Matlock, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War ended, (New York City, NY: Random House Publishing Group, 2005), 274.

104. Andrew Rosenthal. “The Malta summit, Bush and Gorbachev proclaim a new era for U.S.- Soviet ties; Agree on arms and trade aims.” The New York Times, December 4, 1989, https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/04/world/malta-summit-bush-gorbachev-proclaim-new- era-for-us-soviet-ties-agree-arms-trade.html

105. Andrew Rosenthal. “The Malta summit, Bush and Gorbachev proclaim a new era for U.S.- Soviet ties; Agree on arms and trade aims.” The New York Times, December 4, 1989, https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/04/world/malta-summit-bush-gorbachev-proclaim-new- era-for-us-soviet-ties-agree-arms-trade.html

106. “Life of John F. Kennedy,” JFK Library, last modified February 12, 2015, https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/life-of-john-f-kennedy

107. “John F. Kennedy,” HISTORY, last modified March 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/john-f-kennedy

108. Nigel Hamilton , JFK: Reckless youth, ( New York City, NY: Random House, 1995), 176.

109. Robert Dallek , An unfinished life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963, (Boston, MA: Bay Back Books, 2008), 112.

110. Robert Dallek , An unfinished life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963, (Boston, MA: Bay Back Books, 2008), 124.

111. Arthur Schlesinger, A thousand days: John F. Kennedy in the white house, (New York City, NY: Black Dog & Leventhal, 2005), 384.

112. Walt Wolfram, Caroline Myrick, Jon Forrest, & Michael J. Fox, “The Significance of Linguistic Variation in the Speeches of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,” American Speech 91, (2016): 269-300.

113. Bruce Worthington, “Martin Luther King Jr. as Identificatory Conglomerate,” Black Theology 11, no. 2 (2015): 236. 114. Bruce Worthington, “Martin Luther King Jr. as Identificatory Conglomerate,” Black Theology 11, no. 2 (2015): 236.

115. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004).

93

116. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 140.

117. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 151.

118. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153.

119. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153.

120. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 291.

121. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 20.

122. Arthur Schlesinger, A thousand days: John F Kennedy in the white house (New York City, NY: Black Dog & Leventhal, 2005).

123. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 40.

124. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 55.

125. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961,” Yale Law School (2008), http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

126. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 62.

127. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961,” Yale Law School (2008),18.

128. HISTORY, “United states severs diplomatic relations with Cuba,” A&E Networks, last modified March 2019, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-severs- diplomatic-relations-with-cuba

129. Norman Lucas, Spycatcher: a biography of Detective-Superintendent George Gordon Smith, (London, UK: W. H. Allen & Co. 2018), 102.

130. Thomas Kanza, The rise and fall of Patrice Lumumba, (Los Angeles, CA: R. Collings publishing), 260. 94

131. Richard Mahoney, JFK: Ordeal in Africa, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 70.

132. Marc Labonte & Gail Makinen, “The current Economic Recession: How Long, How Deep, and How Different From the Past?” CRS Report for Congress (2002), 1.

133. Read Robert Cohen’s “Two, Four, Six, Eight, We Don’t Want to Integrate: White Student Attitudes Toward the University of Georgia’s Desegregation,” for a full rhetorical and historical analysis of the riot.

134. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153.

135. John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): 9.

136. John Jordan, “Kennedy’s Romantic Moon and Its’s Rhetorical Legacy for space Exploration,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6, (2006): 215.

137. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 24.

138. Kenneth Burke, A grammar of motives, (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1969).

139. John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): para. 3.

140. Marilyn Geewax, “JFK’s Lasting Economic Legacy: Lower Tax Rates,” National Public Radio (2013): 10.

141. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, “The Bay of Pigs,” National Archives (2019), 10.

142. Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2000), 147.

143. Read the comprehensive history of the Freedom Riders on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institution web page “Freedom Rides,” supported by Stanford University.

144. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153.

145. Greg Lange, “President Kennedy delivers major policy speech at UW on November 16, 1961,” HistoryLink.org, last modified March 16, 1999, https://www.historylink.org/File/968 95

146. Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2000), 147.

147. John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), para. 7-8.

148. John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), para. 7-8.

149. Edson Bridges, “A Year End Review of the 1961 Economy,” Financial Analyst Journal (1961), 4.

150. Cold War History, “Tsar Bomb,” Atomic Heritage Foundation (2014), para. 1.

151. Read the U.S. Army Special Forces report from 1961-1971 to further understand what role the U.S. played in training the South Vietnamese villagers and eventually the South Vietnamese army.

152. Jeffery Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).

153. Sonja J. Foss, Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice, (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1989).

154. John F. Kennedy, “Inaugural Address,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): 8.

155. John F. Kennedy, “Inaugural Address,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019): 10.

156. John F. Kennedy, “Inaugural Address,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 12.

157. John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 3.

158. John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 19.

159. Allan Metcalf, Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004), 153.

160. John F. Kennedy, “Address to Joint Session of Congress May 25, 1961,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 18.

96

161. John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 5.

162. John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 7-9.

163. John F. Kennedy, “Address at University of Washington,” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (2019), 11.

164. James Kimble, “John F. Kennedy, the Construction of Peace, and the Pitfalls of Androgynous Rhetoric,” Communication Quarterly 57, no. 2 (2009), 167.

165. Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (2007), 363-364.

166. John Murphy, John F. Kennedy and the Liberal Persuasion, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2019), 135, 144, 235.

167. Edwin Black, Rhetorical Criticism: A study in Method, (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1965), 74.

168. Joshua Gunn, “Gimme some Tongue (On recovering speech),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (2007), 363-364.

97

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Steven John Pope was raised in Lake Mary, Florida by avid Florida State University fans. With a love for the university that his father graduated from, Steven chose to attend Florida State and discovered his love for communication theory, rhetoric, and linguistics. Furthermore, Florida State University is where Steven met his wife and found a desire to become an educator. In Spring of 2017, Steven earned a B.S. in Media/Communication Studies with a minor in Linguistics. As a graduate student in the same program, Steven has taught Intro to Mass Media as an online mentor and Fundamentals of Speech as a lead/supervisory instructor. Steven’s main research interest involves the integration of linguistic theory into rhetorical study. Steven will graduate with a Master of Arts degree in Media and Communication Studies on May 4th, 2019.

98