Figures
2.1Seductive discourse at the meeting point of persuasion and manipulation.
2.4Alignment of the persuasion-coercion continuum with the (im)politeness framework.
4.1Number of tweets (dark grey) and retweets (light grey) for @realDonaldTrump in October 2020; www.tweetstats.com, accessed: 21 May 2022).
4.2Number of tweets/month for @JoeBiden and @realDonaldTrump during the US presidential election campaign 2020; source: www.tweetsstats.com (accessed: 21 May 2020).
4.3Average tweets/day for @JoeBiden and @realDonaldTrump during the US presidential election campaign 2020; source: www.tweetsstats.com (accessed: 21 May 2020).
4.5Percentage and RF/10,000 of attitudinal subcategories for negative evaluations in @JoeBiden and @realDonaldTrump in the ETC.
4.6Temporal dispersion of negative judgment evaluations on @JoeBiden during the US presidential election campaign 2020.
4.7Temporal dispersion of negative judgment evaluations on @HillaryClinton during the US presidential election campaign 2016.
4.8Temporal dispersion of negative judgment evaluations on @realDonaldTrump during the US presidential election campaign 2020.
4.9Temporal dispersion of negative judgment evaluations on @realDonaldTrump during the US presidential election campaign 2016.
4.10Targets of negative evaluation on @realDonaldTrump during the US presidential election campaign 2020.
4.11Concordance lines of the node expression ‘fake’ in the @realDonaldTrump ETC subcorpus.
4.12Adjectives with negative polarity used to describe Joe Biden, capacity/tenacity (grey); propriety (black); @realDonaldTrump, ETC subcorpus.
4.13Adjectives with negative polarity used to describe Donald Trump, capacity/tenacity (grey); propriety (black); @JoeBiden, ETC subcorpus.
6.1Effect of APF strengthening positive feedback (density) on the (predicted) frequency of (extreme) descriptions of positive feelings.
6.2Effect of APF strengthening positive feedback (density) on the (predicted) frequency of diminish moves in response to negative feedback (in mixed reviews).
6.3Effect of APF strengthening positive feedback (density) on the (predicted) frequency of intensifiers strengthening diminish moves in response to negative feedback (in mixed reviews).
6.4Effect of APF strengthening negative feedback (density) on the (predicted) frequency of intensifiers of positive moves.
6.5Effect of APF strengthening negative feedback (density) on the (predicted) frequency of intensifiers of accommodating moves.
6.6Effect of APF strengthening negative feedback (density) on the (predicted) frequency of diminish moves in response to negative feedback.
6.7Effect of APF strengthening negative feedback (density) on the (predicted) frequency of intensifiers for deny moves.
7.1Overt expression of persuasion across 21 international varieties of English. Thick vertical lines indicate medians, boxes comprise data from the first to the third quartile and the whiskers extend to the values up to 1.5 times the interquartile range. Outliers beyond this are shown as plots (some outliers beyond the area of the plot not shown). Varieties marked with an asterisk lack a substantial amount of spoken data from the ICE design.
10.1Diagram of target corpus and reference corpus (adapted from Smith, 2009).
11.1A simplified illustration of how recommender systems can send disinformation to social media users.
12.1Example of investor-pitch elicitation within the sound-treated area of the CIE Acoustics Lab.
12.2Violin plots of how speech-breathing changes (in dB) from matter-of-fact to charismatic presentation mode when speakers (N = 18) are sitting (left) and standing (right). Changes at chest (grey) abdomen (white) are shown in separate plots. Dashed lines show 0 dB, i.e., no change in breathing due to presentation mode, dotted lines show the average change at the chest level.
12.3Illustration of some of the increases in charisma-inducing acoustic-prosodic parameters found for the switch from matter-of-fact to charismatic presentation mode in the study of Barbosa and Niebuhr (2020). Each violin plot represents 18 speakers.
12.4Stimulus examples of male speakers MTO (left, 22.6 s) and MON (right, 23.6 s). Displayed are from top to bottom: abdominal breathing signal (thin line), chest-breathing signal (thick line), waveform, spectrogram, and time axis.
12.5Experimental setup in which the 21 listeners rated perceived speaker charisma conveyed by the 72 stimuli.
12.6Significant correlations (based on PMCCs) between changes in charisma ratings (matter-of-fact values minus charismatic presentation values) and changes in acoustic parameters. Each data point represents a speaker’s overall performance in both posture conditions, i.e., N = 36.
12.7Significant correlations (based on PMCCs) between changes (matter-of-fact values minus charismatic presentation values) in charisma ratings (a/b, top) and resonant-voice ratings (c/d, bottom) and changes in abdominal (a/c) and chest (b/d) breathing amplitudes. Each data point represents a speaker’s overall performance in both posture conditions, i.e., N = 36.
13.1The set table at the end of the experiment after the participants have brought all the relevant objects together.
