{"id":{"repo_id":"baylor","oai_identifier":"oai:baylor-ir.tdl.org:2104/13864"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/baylor/oai:baylor-ir.tdl.org:2104/13864","repository":{"repo_id":"baylor","name":"Baylor University","base_url":"https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"History and analysis of oral interpretative activities.","abstract":"This thesis has two purposes: first, to survey the history of oral interpretation with respect to general trends; and second, to determine what is being done in the field today. The history of oral interpretation is not distinct. What is known as oral Interpretation today is a development of elecutio, one of the five parts of classical rhetoric. Oral interpretation as a distinct field began with the early English elocutionists. An emphasis upon the mechanics of speech in the communication of literature led to the Mechanical School in oral interpretation. An emphasis upon the natural workings of the voice and body led to the Natural School in Oral interpretation. Until recently, oral interpretation developed through the work of individuals, such as Sheridan, Walker, Delsarte, Rush, Emerson, Curry, and Bell. In the modern period, oral interpretation has tended to become eclectic, using the better part of all systems and emphasizing communication of meaning above anything else. The survey of interpretative reading consists of questionnaires from sixty-six colleges in the United States. This questionnaire seeks to answer two primary questions. First, what is the status of oral interpretation in colleges today? Second, which are more conducive to progressive and creative oral interpretation-- contests or festivals? The answers to the questionnaire indicate a growing and favorable tendency for the use of the festival method in oral interpretation work. The festival method offers a greater number of benefits to a larger number of students than does the contest method. Because the contest method is so firmly established, there is no indication of an immediate change to the festival method. There is, however, an almost unanimous preference among oral interpretation teachers for the advantages of the festival method.","abstract_html":"This thesis has two purposes: first, to survey the history of oral interpretation with respect to general trends; and second, to determine what is being done in the field today. The history of oral interpretation is not distinct. What is known as oral Interpretation today is a development of elecutio, one of the five parts of classical rhetoric. Oral interpretation as a distinct field began with the early English elocutionists. An emphasis upon the mechanics of speech in the communication of literature led to the Mechanical School in oral interpretation. An emphasis upon the natural workings of the voice and body led to the Natural School in Oral interpretation. Until recently, oral interpretation developed through the work of individuals, such as Sheridan, Walker, Delsarte, Rush, Emerson, Curry, and Bell. In the modern period, oral interpretation has tended to become eclectic, using the better part of all systems and emphasizing communication of meaning above anything else. The survey of interpretative reading consists of questionnaires from sixty-six colleges in the United States. This questionnaire seeks to answer two primary questions. First, what is the status of oral interpretation in colleges today? Second, which are more conducive to progressive and creative oral interpretation-- contests or festivals? The answers to the questionnaire indicate a growing and favorable tendency for the use of the festival method in oral interpretation work. The festival method offers a greater number of benefits to a larger number of students than does the contest method. Because the contest method is so firmly established, there is no indication of an immediate change to the festival method. There is, however, an almost unanimous preference among oral interpretation teachers for the advantages of the festival method.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Brady, June Busey, 1930-"],"institution":"Baylor University.","degree_name":"M.A.","degree_level":"Masters","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Armstrong, Chloe."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1952,"date_issued":"1952-08","date_published":"1952-08","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:08:10Z","subjects":["Reading.","Universities and colleges -- Curricula."],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Baylor University works are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. Contact libraryquestions@baylor.edu for inquiries about permission."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/2104/13864","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Armstrong, Chloe."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Brady, June Busey, 1930-"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2025-09-09T18:53:31Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1952-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.A."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Baylor University."]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Reading.","Universities and colleges -- Curricula."]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Baylor University works are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. Contact libraryquestions@baylor.edu for inquiries about permission."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/2104/13864"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis has two purposes: first, to survey the history of oral interpretation with respect to general trends; and second, to determine what is being done in the field today. The history of oral interpretation is not distinct. What is known as oral Interpretation today is a development of elecutio, one of the five parts of classical rhetoric. Oral interpretation as a distinct field began with the early English elocutionists. An emphasis upon the mechanics of speech in the communication of literature led to the Mechanical School in oral interpretation. An emphasis upon the natural workings of the voice and body led to the Natural School in Oral interpretation. Until recently, oral interpretation developed through the work of individuals, such as Sheridan, Walker, Delsarte, Rush, Emerson, Curry, and Bell. In the modern period, oral interpretation has tended to become eclectic, using the better part of all systems and emphasizing communication of meaning above anything else. The survey of interpretative reading consists of questionnaires from sixty-six colleges in the United States. This questionnaire seeks to answer two primary questions. First, what is the status of oral interpretation in colleges today? Second, which are more conducive to progressive and creative oral interpretation-- contests or festivals? The answers to the questionnaire indicate a growing and favorable tendency for the use of the festival method in oral interpretation work. The festival method offers a greater number of benefits to a larger number of students than does the contest method. Because the contest method is so firmly established, there is no indication of an immediate change to the festival method. There is, however, an almost unanimous preference among oral interpretation teachers for the advantages of the festival method."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["History and analysis of oral interpretative activities."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Armstrong, Chloe."],"dc:creator":["Brady, June Busey, 1930-"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2025-09-09T18:53:31Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1952-08"],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis has two purposes: first, to survey the history of oral interpretation with respect to general trends; and second, to determine what is being done in the field today. The history of oral interpretation is not distinct. What is known as oral Interpretation today is a development of elecutio, one of the five parts of classical rhetoric. Oral interpretation as a distinct field began with the early English elocutionists. An emphasis upon the mechanics of speech in the communication of literature led to the Mechanical School in oral interpretation. An emphasis upon the natural workings of the voice and body led to the Natural School in Oral interpretation. Until recently, oral interpretation developed through the work of individuals, such as Sheridan, Walker, Delsarte, Rush, Emerson, Curry, and Bell. In the modern period, oral interpretation has tended to become eclectic, using the better part of all systems and emphasizing communication of meaning above anything else. The survey of interpretative reading consists of questionnaires from sixty-six colleges in the United States. This questionnaire seeks to answer two primary questions. First, what is the status of oral interpretation in colleges today? Second, which are more conducive to progressive and creative oral interpretation-- contests or festivals? The answers to the questionnaire indicate a growing and favorable tendency for the use of the festival method in oral interpretation work. The festival method offers a greater number of benefits to a larger number of students than does the contest method. Because the contest method is so firmly established, there is no indication of an immediate change to the festival method. There is, however, an almost unanimous preference among oral interpretation teachers for the advantages of the festival method."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/2104/13864"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:rights":["Baylor University works are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. Contact libraryquestions@baylor.edu for inquiries about permission."],"dc:subject":["Reading.","Universities and colleges -- Curricula."],"dc:title":["History and analysis of oral interpretative activities."],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_level":["Masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.A."],"thesis:institution_name":["Baylor University."]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:08:10Z"}