Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2013 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Serrano-Marquezin, Daniela Maria Santos
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Ferreira, Leslie Piccolotto |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Fonoaudiologia
|
| Departamento: |
Fonoaudiologia
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/11969
|
Resumo: |
Introduction: today s executive professionals look for a competitive differential, which can be reached by effectively using speech expressivity resources to impress, convince and convey confidence to listeners. Objective: to analyze the speech expressivity features of a group of executives based on perceptive and acoustics aspects of vocal dynamics. Method: four male executives took part in the research study, identified as subjects (S1, S2, S3 and S4). Data collection comprised the application of Kingdomality test to attain descriptors - convincing/not convincing, objective/not objective, empathic/not empathic and confident/insecure. We also worked with recordings of speech samples. The excerpts selected were based on an argument to convincement. Assessments conducted included perceptive auditive assessment to characterize vocal quality and dynamics, performed by three speech therapist judges; perceptive-auditive assessment to judge the impressions caused by speech expressivity with regard to the descriptors selected, performed by 30 lay judges; and speech acoustics to assess prosodic elements such as f0 measures (minimum and maximum f0 and f0 extension), duration measures (vowel to vowel units and elocution times), articulation times, and pauses. Praat was the software used. We also conducted a statistical analysis to define significant differences. Results: S1 showed adequate vocal quality, precise articulation and laryngealpharyngeal resonance; lowered regular pitch; slow elocution time and inadequate respiratory support and inadequate use of pauses. This subject had the highest rejection, because he was found to be insecure, not objective, not empathic and not convincing. S2 showed adequate vocal quality, precise articulation and balanced resonance; neutral regular pitch and adequate respiratory support. The subject showed representative value of higher f0 variation; values considered average for elocution and articulation times; more regular use of pauses and was considered confident, little objective, empathic and convincing. S3 showed adequate vocal quality, precise articulation and laryngeal-pharyngeal resonance; lowered regular pitch and inadequate respiratory support; values considered average for elocution and articulation times; and pauses with more regular intervals. The subject was found to be confident, objective, empathic, and convincing. S4 showed suitable vocal quality, precise articulation and balanced resonance; lowered regular pitch and inadequate respiratory support; indicative value of lower f0 variation; values considered average for elocution and articulation times; and adequate use of pauses. This subject received the highest scores, being assessed as the most confident, objective, empathic and convincing. Conclusion: With regard to vocal dynamics, two subjects stood out from the others: one, in a positive manner, since he was able to convey confidence by using prosodic resources suitably. He was thus considered objective, emphatic and convincing. The other stood out in a negative manner, since the resources used were not effective. By breaking prosodic groups apart, the subject was not able to convey confidence. The subject was found to be little objective, not emphatic and not convincing |
