Executives' speech expressiveness: analysis of perceptive and acoustic aspects of vocal dynamics

Daniela Maria Santos Serrano Marquezin, Izabel Viola, Ana Carolina de Assis Moura Ghirardi, Sandra Madureira, Léslie Piccolotto Ferreira
2015 CoDAS  
Purpose: To analyze speech expressiveness in a group of executives based on perceptive and acoustic aspects of vocal dynamics. Methods: Four male subjects participated in the research study (S1, S2, S3, and S4). The assessments included the Kingdomality test to obtain the keywords of communicative attitudes; perceptive-auditory assessment to characterize vocal quality and dynamics, performed by three judges who are speech language pathologists; perceptiveauditory assessment to judge the chosen
more » ... eywords; speech acoustics to assess prosodic elements (Praat software); and a statistical analysis. Results: According to the perceptive-auditory analysis of vocal dynamics, S1, S2, S3, and S4 did not show vocal alterations and all of them were considered with lowered habitual pitch. S1: pointed out as insecure, nonobjective, nonempathetic, and unconvincing with inappropriate use of pauses that are mainly formed by hesitations; inadequate separation of prosodic groups with breaking of syntagmatic constituents. S2: regular use of pauses for respiratory reload, organization of sentences, and emphasis, which is considered secure, little objective, empathetic, and convincing. S3: pointed out as secure, objective, empathetic, and convincing with regular use of pauses for respiratory reload and organization of sentences and hesitations. S4: the most secure, objective, empathetic, and convincing, with proper use of pauses for respiratory reload, planning, and emphasis; prosodic groups agreed with the statement, without separating the syntagmatic constituents. Conclusion: The speech characteristics and communicative attitudes were highlighted in two subjects in a different manner, in such a way that the slow rate of speech and breaks of the prosodic groups transmitted insecurity, little objectivity, and nonpersuasion.
doi:10.1590/2317-1782/20152014188 pmid:26107082 fatcat:bfeyjouldfdcfltfpfaz2w3ude