In political speeches, Roland Barthes, and Stanley Fish's principles of the reader, author, and learning communities can apply. With Barthes interpretation, it talks about how the reader interprets the author's text because the reader is where the text is focused. Fish's idea of interpretation can apply to speeches because it shows how the reader translates the text or oral text by using their own experience to create a result that is important to them. Both Barthes and Fish's principles apply a meaning towards the reader's interpretation of the oral text.

Barthes idea of the Author is clear in most political oral presentations. With Barthes, he claims "To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing" (Carolina Reader 5). The quote shows how the idea of the author is shown in political speeches as to how the author, in this case the speaker, precisely expressed his views on a text which created boarders to where it could be interpreted. For example, when Marco Rubio visited Columbia South Carolina to give a speech at the University, he was limited to a highly republican audience so most of the topics he touched on were limited to a republican's viewpoint. An interesting factor that you can bring into the speeches is Barthes idea of the reader.  The reader is made up of multiple differences which helps them interpret the text. "Thus is revealed the total existence of writing; a text is made up of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader" (Carolina Reader 6). Barthes displays clearly how reader is the one person who uses all of their surroundings of culture, dialogue, and experience to interpret the text that the Author gives to them. For example, When Marco Rubio visited South Carolina he gave a speech to students about eradicating poverty. Since the audience were students, a topic he most likely focused on was student loans and debt after college. In this case the student is interpreting Marco Rubio's text to their own connection to student loans. Maybe some students don't have to pay as much as others or maybe some don't have to at all. The point of the reader is that they have multiple experiences to bring into the text which helps them interpret it to their own meaning. 

Similarly, Fish's concept of learning communities plays an alike role to political speeches as Barthes did. Fish primarily focuses on the student and how they use an interpretive community which emerges some recognition of qualities displayed in the text. Fish explains the idea of interpretive communities as a poem. "if it's a poem- do this, if it's a poem, see it that way  --  and indeed definitions of poetry are recipes, for which by directing readers as to what to look for in a poem, they instruct them in ways of looking that will produce what they expect to see" (Carolina Reader 11). This clearly means that when the reader recognizes what the author is saying, it makes them interpret the text in a way that creates something they expect to see.  Of course not everyone will see it the same way. For example, someone who is not a student at a university may interpret someone raising their hand as either stretching or swatting a fly as to how an actual student would interpret it by acknowledging that there peer has a question or an answer for the instructor. Even if the interpretation is different, they would see it some way and not as something that would interpret itself. In Rubio's speech, he talked about college debt to students (The Daily Gamecock). His oral text was then interpreted by the students in a way they expected to see it. Therefore there were different outcomes from the students because they all translated it differently, thus Rubio's speech was not something that translated itself to the students but it was the students who translated the speech for themselves and the outcome was different for each one because previously mentioned, the reader is the one place where there is a multiplicity of experiences. In brief, Fish's principles of interpretation display that there are different outcomes from people because of their own way of interpreting it.

Marco Rubio's speech could therefore be looked at similarly by Barthes and Fish's principles. When Marco Rubio addressed college students with student loans, the students first recognized what he was talking about, then they interpret it from their own personal experiences and then discovered what they wanted to see. Another example is when Rubio talked about how the only difference in America than in any other country is that through hard work and perseverance you can get ahead and make a better life for yourself and for your children (The Daily Gamecock). This can be interpreted by someone who has lived up to what Rubio has said and created a better life for themselves and for their children, also it can be interpreted by the student who is on the right pathway to making a better future for themselves rather than someone who has already done that. A main focus of the speech Rubio gave was to connect to the audience. A pre-international student who attended the speech said "I thought he was more humble and on our level than you might think a senator would be" (The Daily Gamecock). This can portray how the student in this case interpreted Rubio's speech as being very relatable as he was to the audience. The reader in this case has more control over the author with his text because it is up to him/her to interpret the meaning and identify based on their multiplicity what it means to them or what they are expecting to get out of it.   

In brief, both Barthes and Fish's rules of interpretation show how a person can translate the oral argument of the author into something meaningful to themselves. Barthes shows how the text from the author is mostly focused on the reader. Fish's principle portrays how the reader identifies the text to their expectations. Both of these principles when applied show how the reader has more meaning to the text than the author because their interpretation of the text is what matters the most when they are applying the rules to get an outcome they expect.

