Public Performance Research Assignment

Introduction (150 words)

Something about analyzing Julia and Mags to identify their differences and otherwise in dealing with similar situations in different countries and different times. Will specifically use speeches when they were under the most pressure, right as they were about to be deposed, to identify their strength of speech. Will analyse their use of rhetoric and logic throughout their speeches in the specific context that they were in to appeal to the audience and get their required message across.

Margaret Thatcher (900 words)

Context
The speech examined is the one which Margaret Thatcher gave to a Conservative Rally in Cheltenham on 3rd July 1983. The Rally was held at Cheltenham Racecourse and the immediate audience was Conservative members and politically motivated members of the public. The wider audience was the whole of the UK via TV and news coverage. The purpose of the speech was to generate support following the victory of the Falklands War. Before the war Thatchers popularity was the lowest of any post WWII Prime Ministers. Unemployment was rising, inflation was high, and the UK was in the middle of a shift from a primarily manufacturing nation to financial and service based industries. Post Falklands, one news poll gave Thatchers approval by the public regarding the handling of the War as 84%. As a post script to the Cheltenham Rally the conservatives won the election by a landslide. Thatcher was taking advantage of the sense of patriotism that had swept the Nation and enveloped the Tory party. The key messages are about the Greatness of Britain, her return to Grace, about the Nation pulling together and working hard to rise up from the difficulties of the austerity period.

Logic & Reasoning

There is very little logic and reasoning in this particular speech of Thatchers. The majority of her persuasive measures come from rhetoric. This is entirely appropriate with the message that she wanted to convey, it was not one of debate and convincing argument, it was an emotive one of rising up to a former glory once again, for both herself and Great Britain.

Her only pass at logical argument is from lines ?? to ?? where she discusses some achievements made by B.A. workers during the war effort. This was only mentioned to prop up her rhetorical comments, engineered to convey patriotism and connect the Conservative Party (the management line xxx) to the success of the troops and other workers. The majority of Margarets persuasiveness comes from rhetoric, in particular pathos. As discussed below she uses many rhetorical devices throughout the speech, including metaphor. Its a bold tactic to deliver a speech and rely almost wholly on pathos to stir emotion and rally support, however the rhetorical situation Margaret found herself in post war completely demanded such an approach. If she had tried to logical reasoning or any attempt at logos at all it would possibly have run the risk of alienating from the electorate for being too cold or unemotional. She recognized that the situation demanded a pathos response. The pathos could only be delivered by Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, victors. She would have been the person at that point with the most ethos in this regard.

Rhetoric
Thatcher used many rhetorical devices throughout this speech. Many lists of 3 (see lines xxx, xxx, xxx), anaphora (line xxx in ability, in courage, and in resolution, line xxx we have, we know, we havent), contrasting pairs and metaphor. As discussed above in pathos, Thatcher had to tap into the Nations sweeping patriotism. She sets the tone from the opening sentence, its one of exalted optimism and nationalism. She is on the high moral ground when she states This nation had the resolution to do what it knew had to be doneto do what it knew was right (line 3). A robber analogy is then drawn and that aggression does not pay, the Tories were known as the law and order party with heavy right wing tendencies, fully supportive of the executive, the Police. There is a comment on line xxxx regarding the waverers and the fainthearted. This has many barbs, aimed at the opposition, the weak minded in the community (both domestic and overseas), and most importantly within her own party, the so-called wets who were (she perceived) attempting to undermine her authority. She goes onto build the speech towards the Greatness of Britain theme. The next list of three (lines xxx to xxx) builds to the line Well they were wrong. The importance here is that her great victory was over the naysayers in Britain who denied Britains continued might. This is the essence of the rhetorical situation she was in. This is the outpouring of emotion from all over Britain, that Britain was and could be a success once more. From here she connects the past successes of World Wars I and II, (fathers, grandfathers lines xx) to the present success, here she uses anaphora and list of 3 to strengthen the rhetoric. Rhetorical questions, metaphor and analogy are then used to challenge the public into achieving the greatness they desire through hard work and pulling together. She becomes very inclusive, there are many we, we, wes (lines xxx, anaphora) which become us and then I culminating with an analogy

between herself and Churchill. This draws a firm line between Post Falklands Britain and post WW II Britain, tapping into the V for Victory psyche of the Nation. It is here that she introduces her attack on the Unions. She has swept the audience into an emotive feeling of patriotism and then presents the Unions in a very un patriotic light, commenting explicitly that the N.U.R. didnt match the spirit of these times (line xx). The speech then starts to build the feeling of rising up and striving for success. She talks of the Falklands factor (line xxx), she moves the focus to the audience by moving from we, us, I to you ( lines xx), culminating in a strong rhetorical image reiterating the key themes of lost hope, now found, and the continuing glory of the Empire (flickering flame analogy line xxx). The end closes the circle from the opening words, connecting the Victory we have won from start to finish. (last and first lines)

Structure
This speech is focused solely on rhetoric. It is intended to stir the emotions and logic has limited place in that, it is pathos at its best. Thatcher is appealing directly to the values of the audience, she uses her ethos as the victor as well as the position of Prime Minister. All the evidence presented here is artificial, she is wholly in control of what is being presented, even the limited facts presented as logos are very contrived to support the rhetorical argument. The structure is excellent. The start is strong and emotive, and the ending finishes full circle reinforcing the opening words and feelings. She presents her theme that Britain is still, indeed, Great, and then goes through the speech rhetorically describing how it is Great and how the Greatness is just below the surface waiting to appear with some element of hard work. As mentioned above, the success of this speech and others around that period is evidenced by her landslide victory and massive shift in popularity.

Julia Gillard (900 words)

Context
Under immense pressure in the final days of her prime ministership in 2013 and a few months away from an election, a fundraising and support group was founded in her honour - "Women for Gillard". Naturally, at the launch of this small group, in front of no more than a few hundred of her most loyal supporters, Julia was the keynote speaker.

Her audience however was not restricted to those in the room. With the backdrop of shaky polling, an impending leadership challenge, and the upcoming election, Ms Gillard's words are clearly meant to also be heard and noticed by her rivals, both in the opposition and within her own party, as well as the general Australian population. The language in this speech belies these dual audiences. Her purpose in this speech was therefore as much to thank, excite, consolidate and rev-up her staunchest supporters for the upcoming electoral challenges, as it was to throw down the challenge to her rivals. In attempts to achieve these purposes, she used both logic as well as rhetoric consistently and thoroughly throughout her speech.

Logic & Reasoning

Ms Gillard's primary use of logic in her speech is found in a large section from lines 260 to 550. This is essentially a list of labor party achievements which she feels are of particular relevance to this audience and all women in Australia, and through which she attempts to demonstrate that labor has best represented labor throughout history. She takes us as far as her inductive reasoning allows - to the hypothesis that labor will always best represent the interests of women. Her implied, although not explicitly stated, conclusion is that labour will continue to best represent the interest of women going forward. And that it will be most beneficial for the women in the room, and all women outside of the room to vote for labor. For those in the room, all of whom were women, this technique validates their efforts and enthusiasm in supporting her, and goes well towards her purpose of consolidating this supporter base. For the audience outside the room however, while she is attempting to appeal to women, this is more likely to be seen as divisive for those who are not so extreme, and she may appear to be starting "gender wars", not to mention her alienation of male voters. As the current leader of the Australian Labor Party, Ms Gillard possessed a natural authority and licence to speak on the history and current as well a future achievements of the labor party. Ethos, Pathos, Logos use examples from speech to demonstrate the effectiveness

Rhetoric
This reasoning she has used in these lines is well complemented and enhanced by the rhetorical devices that accompanied it. Slight variations to the phrase It was only labor are used no less than 15 times in consecutive sentences as Ms Gillard takes her audience through her logical argument. Later, as Ms Gillard moves forward from discussing history, to hypothesizing on the future, she again returns to her use of anaphora. This time, in lines 720 - 890, she repeats the phrase we dont

want to see/live/stand in 8 consecutive sentences as she invites the audience to visualize her version of the world should she lose the election. This use of anaphora enabled her to keep control over an otherwise lengthy historical narrative and visualization of a future state while continually allowed her to return to her purpose for the narrative to reinforce the value of the labor party to her audience and to warn against the alternative. The context of this talk, the founding of a group dedicated to the speaker, required very inclusive and personal language, to enable the group to feel a part of and a kinship with Ms Gillard and her success. This was achieved through extensive use of the inclusive our, us and we, as well as the word women the one categorisation that every person in the audience identified with. All in all there were 31 uses of our/us/we and 40 individual uses of the word women. 5 different uses of the list of three rhetorical device demonstrate those points on which Ms Gillard really wanted to focus, and again this inclusivity of the audience to the exclusion of all others is evident. At line 170, she lists three broad groups that would comprise most of the audience. At line 220, she repeats a voice. At line 670 she repeats the infamous man in a blue tie reference which she immediately contrasts with another list of three from line 720 - divide women. And finally, as she builds towards her finish, in line 900 she combines anaphora with a list of 3 to create a clap trap, around the future of the country. Ms Gillards use of rhetorical devices and the emotion that these create have far outstripped her use of logic, and contributed well to her achieving her objective.

Structure
The structure of this speech was created, both to meet her purposes with this audience, but also under the formal obligations that were required of a prime minister in this overly politically correct world. What may have once been a more powerful and effective start to her speech, was instead required to be used for formality - acknowledging the traditional land owners. Her introduction was more to the point as she begins to create the required kinship with her audience, thanking them all. Her subsequent lengthy reference to Anna Bligh - a woman known for strength in a time of crisis and well admired among women - would continue to build up those feelings within the audience that she would like, through mutual affiliation with a common positive individual. It is Ms Gillard's finish however that is her strongest point in this speech, and where she uses rhetorical devices to their full capacity to hit on nearly every one of her purposes - exciting and revving up the audience, while laying down the gauntlet to her challengers. It is her use of combative language that she uses for this purpose -

with the 6 times repetition of various derivations of the word "fight" and "hard fight", 3 uses of the word energised as well as multiple associations with well known feminist groups of the past. And it is this combative language that she attempts to use as her "knock-out punch" to round off her speech. Given the slow start, and build up if momentum throughout the speech, that she would reach the climax at this point is fitting and entirely appropriate for the context and aforementioned purpose of her speech.

Comparison (400 words)

Julia v Maggie What were the differences? What were the similarities? What role did culture play in the way the speech was presented? What role did the time period play in the way the speech was presented? Given all of the above, who was more effective in achieving their stated purpose?

Conclusion (150 words)

Something generic about the talent of each speaker and their effective use of both logic and rhetoric, tailored to the time and place, to achieve their required outcomes.

Appendices
Appendix 1
Speech to Conservative Rally at Cheltenham by Margaret Thatcher
1982 Jul 3

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

Today we meet in the aftermath of the Falklands Battle. Our country has won a great victory and we are entitled to be proud. This nation had the resolution to do what it knew had to be done to do what it knew was right. We fought to show that aggression does not pay and that the robber cannot be allowed to get away with his swag. We fought with the support of so many throughout the world. The Security Council, the Commonwealth, the European Community, and the United States. Yet we also fought alonefor we fought for our own people and for our own sovereign territory. Now that it is all over, things cannot be the same again for we have learned something about ourselvesa lesson which we desperately needed to learn. When we started out, there were the waverers and the fainthearts. The people who thought that Britain could no longer seize the initiative for herself. The people who thought we could no longer do the great things which we once did. Those who believed that our decline was irreversiblethat we could never again be what we were. There were those who would not admit iteven perhaps some here todaypeople who would have strenuously denied the suggestion butin their heart of heartsthey too had their secret fears that it was true: that Britain was no longer the nation that had built an Empire and ruled a quarter of the world. Well they were wrong. The lesson of the Falklands is that Britain has not changed and that this nation still has those sterling qualities which shine through our history. This generation can match their fathers and grandfathers in ability, in courage, and in resolution. We have not changed. When the demands of war and the dangers to our own people call us to arms then we British are as we have always been:[fo 1] competent, courageous and resolute. When called to armsah, that's the problem. It took the battle in the South Atlantic for the shipyards to adapt ships way ahead of time; for dockyards to refit merchantmen and cruise liners, to fix helicopter platforms, to convert hospital shipsall faster than was thought possible; it took the demands of war for every stop to be pulled out and every man and woman to do their best. British people had to be threatened by foreign soldiers and British territory invaded and thenwhy thenthe response was incomparable. [Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 2200 3 July 1982:] Yet why does it need a war to bring out our qualities and reassert our pride? Why do we have to be invaded before we throw aside our selfish aims and begin to work together as only we can work and achieve as only we can achieve? That, ladies and gentlemen, really is the challenge we as a nation face today. We have to see that the spirit of the South Atlanticthe real spirit of Britainis kindled not only by war but can now be fired by peace. [End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 2200 3 July 1982.] We have the first pre-requisite. We know we can do itwe haven't lost the ability. That is the Falklands Factor. We have proved ourselves to ourselves. It is a lesson we must not now forget.

2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074

Indeed it is a lesson which we must apply to peace just as we have learned it in war. The faltering and the self-doubt has given way to achievement and pride. We have the confidence and we must use it. Just look at the Task Force as an object lesson. Every man had his own task to do and did it superbly. Officers and men, senior NCO and newest recruitevery one realised that his contribution was essential for the success of the whole. All were equally valuableeach was differently qualified. By working togethereach was able to do more than his best. As a team they raised the average to the level of the best and by each doing his utmost together they achieved the impossible. That's an accurate picture of Britain at warnot yet of Britain at peace. But the spirit has stirred and the nation has begun to assert itself. Things are not going to be the same again. All over Britain, men and women are askingwhy can't we achieve in peace what we can do so well in war? And they have good reason to ask.[fo 2] Look what British Aerospace workers did when their Nimrod aeroplane needed major modifications. They knew that only by mid-air refuelling could the Task Force be properly protected. They managed those complicated changes from drawing board to airworthy planes in sixteen days one year faster than would normally have been the case. Achievements like that, if made in peacetime, could establish us as aeroplane makers to the world. That record performance was attained not only by superb teamwork, but by brilliant leadership in our factories at home which mirrored our forces overseas. It is one of the abiding elements of our success in the South Atlantic that our troops were superbly led. No praise is too high for the quality and expertise of our commanders in the field. Their example, too, must be taken to heart. Now is the time for management to lift its sights and to lead with the professionalism and effectiveness it knows is possible. If the lessons of the South Atlantic are to be learned, then they have to be learned by us all. No one can afford to be left out. Success depends upon all of usdifferent in qualities, but equally valuable. During this past week, I have read again a little known speech of Winston Churchill, made just after the last war. This is what he said:"We must find the means and the method of working together not only in times of war, and mortal anguish, but in times of peace, with all its bewilderments and clamour and clatter of tongues." Thirty-six years on, perhaps we are beginning to re-learn the truth which Churchill so clearly taught us. We saw the signs when, this week, the NUR came to understand that its strike on the railways and on the Underground just didn't fitdidn't match the spirit of these times. And yet on Tuesday, eight men, the leaders of ASLEF, misunderstanding the new mood of the nation, set out to bring the railways to a halt. Ignoring the example of the NUR, the travelling public whom they are supposed to serve, and the jobs and future of their own members, this tiny group decided to use its undoubted power for what? to delay Britain's recovery, which all our people long to see.[fo 3]

2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109

Yet we can remember that on Monday, nearly a quarter of the members of NUR turned up for work. Today, we appeal to every train driver to put his family, his comrades, and his country first, by continuing to work tomorrow. That is the true solidarity which can save jobs and which stands in the proud tradition of British railwaymen. But it is not just on the railways that we need to find the means and the method of working together. It is just as true in the NHS. All who work there are caring, in one way or another for the sick. To meet their needs we have already offered to the ancillary workers almost exactly what we have given to our Armed Forces and to our teachers, and more than our Civil Servants have accepted. All of us know that there is a limit to what every employer can afford to pay out in wages. The increases proposed for nurses and ancillary workers in the Health Service are the maximum which the Government can afford to pay. And we can't avoid one unchallengeable truth. The Government has no money of its own. All that it has it takes in taxes or borrows at interest. It's all of youeveryone herethat pays. Of course, there is another way. Instead of taking money from our people openly, in taxation or loans, we can take it surreptitiously, by subterfuge. We can print money in order to pay out of higher inflation what we dare not tax and cannot borrow. But that disreputable method is no longer open to us. Rightly this Government has abjured it. Increasingly this nation won't have it. Our people are now confident enough to face the facts of life. There is a new mood of realism in Britain. That too is part of the Falklands Factor. The battle of the South Atlantic was not won by ignoring the dangers or denying the risks. It was achieved by men and women who had no illusions about the difficulties. We faced them squarely and we were determined to overcome. That is increasingly the mood of Britain. And that's why the rail strike won't do. We are no longer prepared to jeopardise our future just to defend manning practices agreed in 1919 when steam engines plied the tracks of the Grand Central Railway and the motor car had not yet taken over from the horse.[fo 4] What has indeed happened it that now once again Britain is not prepared to be pushed around. We have ceased to be a nation in retreat. We have instead a new-found confidenceborn in the economic battles at home and tested and found true 8,000 miles away. That confidence comes from the re-discovery of ourselves, and grows with the recovery of our selfrespect. And so today, we can rejoice at our success in the Falklands and take pride in the achievement of the men and women of our Task Force.

2110 2111 2112 2113

But we do so, not as at some last flickering of a flame which must soon be dead. No we rejoice that Britain has re-kindled that spirit which has fired her for generations past and which today has begun to burn as brightly as before. Britain found herself again in the South Atlantic and will not look back from the victory she has won.

Appendix 2
Transcript of Prime Minister Julia Gillards speech to Women for Gillard launch in Sydney Tues 11th June 2013.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 Thank you very much, can I start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and pay my respects to their elders past and present. Apart from acknowledging Clementine for that world-class introduction, Id like to acknowledge all of the members and board and friends and supporters of Women for Gillard, and especially your national director Clarabella, thank you very much for all your hard work. And I want to acknowledge too someone who is not in the room with us today but I very much in our hearts, and that is Anna Bligh. Anna showed the greatest courage for the people of Queensland during the greatest tests of her public life. Now shes showing incredible courage for herself and her family during the greatest test if her private life. And I know that we are all wishing her well. Theres a room full of love and support for her here today. And I also want to acknowledge all of you, the women who have taken time out of all of your busy lives, some of them incredibly busy lives, to be here today. I am humbled by your support, I thrive on your optimism; your faith in the future nourishes mine. And that faith rests on what Anne Summers so eloquently calls the Three Pillars: inclusion, equality, respect. All of us in our own way have fought to make these things real in the life of our nation. As politicians, as leaders in our communities, as young activists setting out on our life working for change. All of us, women who care enough to stand up and to be counted. But were not here today to congratulate ourselves. Were here today because Australian women need a voice, an authentic voice, a voice that can be trusted, and friends, that voice is Labor. Friends, we didnt discover womens issues in a focus group. We didnt do that. We arent engaged in that type of pretence; were driven by purpose. Our party the Labor Party is the party of the many, not the few. That means were the party of women. Labor is the party of equal opportunity. That means we are the party of women. Labor is the party that leaves no one behind. That means we are the party of women. You know that and I know that, and we want to make sure that that is heard loud and clear. Look at our history. It was Labor that introduced maternity allowances, the first great wave of social reform after federation. It was Labor that gave women the chance to serve and shine in the farms and factories of wartime in the 1940s. It was Gough Whitlams Labor that delivered the first pay equality case and started federal funding for childcare. And it was only ever Labor that was going to give this nation its first female prime minister. It was only ever Labor that was going to put paid parental leave on the agenda and get it done. Only Labor that understood that childcare was about affordability, but it was about quality

400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 840

too, and its about supporting the women who work in childcare. Thats why weve increased childcare rebates, focussed on higher quality standards, and were supporting the women predominantly women who work in childcare centres as well. It was only ever Labor that was going to increase the tax-free threshold to more than $18,000, benefiting low-income workers, predominantly working women. And it was only ever Labor that was going to deliver a historic increase in the pension, particularly of benefit to single pensioners, disproportionately women, and it was only ever Labor that was going to reduce tax on superannuation for part-time working mums. Its only Labor that ever would have put in an equal pay principle that actually worked; that worked to make a difference so women in social and community services can get the pay and recognition that they deserve. It was only ever Labor that was going to make sure that we had fairness and decency at work. It was only ever Labor that was going to out a National Disability Insurance Scheme on the agenda, so women with disability and women who bear the burden of caring can get the supports that they need. It was only ever Labor that was going to invest in the future by rolling out the National Broadband Network, and its only Labor that is going to invest in the education of every child in every school. Thats Labors agenda, and its only Labor that would deliver an agenda like that for Australias women. Ben Chifley famously spoke of the things worth fighting for. Im here today to tell you about the women worth fighting for. Australian women, who benefit from Labors purpose, from Labors passion; Im here to tell you today, to urge you, to get out and fight. Weve got a hard fight ahead but its a hard fight to wage and we must win on 14 September. On that day, 14 September, we are going to make a big decision as a nation. Its a decision about whether, once again, we will banish womens voices from our political life. I invite you to imagine it. A prime minister a man in a blue tie who goes on holidays to be replaced by a man in a blue tie. A treasurer, who delivers a budget wearing a blue tie, to be supported by a finance minister another man in a blue tie. Women once again banished from the centre of Australias political life. We dont want to see an Australia where a paid parental leave scheme divides women, that divides upper-income women from lower-income women; that divides upper-income women from their sisters who earn less but pay through potentially loss of jobs and certainly increased prices for a paid parental leave scheme that gives those that earn the most the most benefits. We dont want to see childcare slashed; we dont want to see healthcare slashed; look at what has happened in Queensland: cuts to healthcare, cuts to Breast Screen. We dont want that to be our future in Australia. We dont want to see superannuation slashed, particularly for working women. We dont to see women lose rights at work, because when fairness and dignity at work goes its women who bear the brunt. We know that, weve seen it before. We dont want to see the National Disability Insurance Sc heme put in the custody of a political party that didnt create it, didnt believe in it with the power that we did and simply said me too.

850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1000 1010

We dont want to stand in front of school gates knowing that the children in that school, including the girls in that school, are getting less of an education than they should because our nation hasnt seen fit to invest in their future. Finally but very importantly, we dont want to live in an Australia where abortion again becomes the political plaything of men who think they know better. Thats not the future we should choose for our nation, its not the future that I want to see for Australian women, its not the future I want to see for Australias girls. Now there is always a commentator, and there is always a pollster who tells you that we cant win and that this is the Australia we are linked in to on 14 September. Well, to the commentators and the pollsters I say this: theres always a moment in every fight where youre got to choose whether you are daunted by it or energised by it. I can tell in this room we are energised for this fight. And we know nothing worth fighting for ever came easy. Look at the suffragettes and what they faced. Look at the garment workers who went on strike, the feminists of the 1970s. Womens equality has always been hard-fought for, and were entering a hard fight again. But I know Ive got so many women to share it with in this room and beyond. Im energis ed for the fight, thank you for coming along.

NOTES To get started think about:

what kind of language is used what the main ideas are what is the same in the two speeches what is different in the two speeches what thoughts come into your mind while skimming the speeches (first impression)

Starts & Finishes Techniques Any Rhetorical Device Stories Quote Joke Shocking Statement Real Question Use of Visualization Symbols (the little girl) Metaphor Rhetorical Devices List of Three-

Effective Starts Make an Impact Gets positive Reaction Engages Audience Purpose of speech made clear Voice clear and audible Aroused Audience Interest Arent Predictable

Anaphora- repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses or verses. Epistrophe- repetition of the same word or words at the end of successive phrases, clauses or sentences. Contrastive pair- A contrastive pair of words is a pair of words that are the same, except for a contrasting letter/sequence of letters, and a corresponding contrastive speech. Rhetorical QuestionHypophora- asking and answering your own question Plain Style- Straight forward plain delivery of information, plain style does not rely heavily on figurative language. Grand Style- heightened emotional tone, imposing diction, and highly ornate figures of speech. Anadiplosis is the repetition of the last word of a preceding clause. The word is used at the end of a sentence and then used again at the beginning of the next Clap Trap- Use of above and more in combination to signal applause and or build excitement.

Five Cannons of Rhetoric

The Five Cannons Criticism system examines speeches from a variety of parts: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Delivery , and Memory. Invention: This refers to how speakers use the resources that are available for them. And can include such items as ethos, logos, pathos, and mythos. Typically meshing these proofs together to craft an argument. What a speaker selects and how these proofs are organized says much about the long term effect of the speech on the audience. And this is a key indicator of the speakers character (good or bad), objectives, and overall attitude toward the audience. Arrangement: This refers to how speakers organize their material; the order in which their points or arguments are made. The most basic organization pattern is introduction, body, and conclusion, and with connecting transitions. Persuasive presentations take on a more complex arrangement of ideas; often based on the likely psychological effects on the audience. How well a speech is organized or arranged will directly impact how easily the audience can follow the flow of the speakers ideas. Most important points are clearly noted and sub-points reflect a lesser importance. While all speeches must have an introduction, body, and closing, many have other sections designed to elicit a certain response from the audience. Effective rhetoricians put great thought into how to arrange their ideas. Style: This refers to how we use language to craft our message and ultimately shape our personality. This is intricately tied to delivery, itself, but style pertains more to pure word choice and other stylistic devices like similes, metaphors, alliterations, etc. Our style needs to vary depending on the purpose of the speech. The plain style is intended for simple or straightforward instruction; such as giving directions. The middle style is intended to please

or delight an audience; perhaps to entertain or amuse. And the grand style is one designed to persuade audiences and must reflect vigorous, descriptive, emotive language to touch emotions as well as stimulate thought. Our personal style is demonstrated through our word choice and our sentence structure. Delivery: This refers to our physical action and vocal use to deliver our message to the audience. The physical aspect of delivery includes our use of gestures, our use of movement, our posture or body position, and our eye contact with the audience. The vocal elements of delivery include such things as our speaker rate, our volume, our articulation, our accent/dialect, and our pitch (or lack thereof). Memory: This is part of classic speech criticism but is not as relevant today. Certain themes or topics should be addressed depending on the genre or type of speech delivered. For example, speeches designed to celebrate tend to focus on issues of honor and praise. Political speeches are more apt to focus on policies choices to motivate a audience. Seldom will a speech be purely one issue but rather a tendency to focus on an issue while combing other themes.

Structure of Report/Essay
Introduction Choose three areas of focus: (I suggest) o Rhetoric o Start o Introduction o Content o Finish o Logic & Reasoning o Start o Introduction o Content o Finish o Persuasion o Start o Introduction o Content o Finish

Conclusion Options:

Ortory Rhetoric Socratic Dialogue Logic & Reasoning Argument Persuasion Debate

Notes from Assignment Outline: o Provide a thorough analysis of findings highlighting any inconsistencies or consistencies. o Comment on the effectiveness of the performance technique/language function used by then speaker.

Ethos (plural: ethe) is an appeal to the authority or honesty of the presenter. It is how well the presenter convinces the audience that he or she is qualified to present (speak) on the particular subject. It can be done in many ways: By being a notable figure in the field in question, such as a college professor or an executive of a company whose business is that of the subject. By having a vested interest in a matter, such as the person being related to the subject in question. By using impressive logos that shows to the audience that the speaker is knowledgeable on the topic. By appealing to a person's ethics or character.

Pathos (plural: pathe) is an appeal to the audiences emotions, and the terms pathetic and empathy are derived from it. It can be in the form of metaphor, simile, a passionate delivery, or even a simple claim that a matter is unjust. Pathos can be particularly powerful if used well, but most speeches do not solely rely on pathos. Pathos is most effective when the author or speaker demonstrates agreement with an underlying value of the reader or listener. In addition, the speaker may use pathos to appeal to fear, in order to sway the audience. Pathos may also include appeals to audience imagination and hopes; done when the speaker paints a scenario of positive future results of following the course of action proposed.

Logos (plural: logoi) is logical appeal or the simulation of it, and the term logic is derived from it. It is normally used to describe facts and figures that support the speaker's claims or thesis. Having a logos appeal also enhances ethos (see above) because information makes the speaker look knowledgeable and prepared to his or her audience. However, the data can be confusing and thus confuse the audience. Logos can also be misleading or inaccurate, however meaningful it may seem to the subject at hand. In some cases, inaccurate, falsified, or miscontextualized data can even be used to enact a pathos effect. Such as is the case with casualty numbers, which while not necessarially falsified, may include minor casualties (injuries) that are equated with deaths in the mind of an audience and therefore can evoke the same effect as a death toll.

Also keep in mind when analysing: These factors can be vital to the success or failure of a speech. The Personal Characteristics of the Speaker. The personality of the individual can impact the overall performance. Charismatic qualities; reputation for honesty (or not); overall credibility and sense of trustworthiness; a true sense of identification with the audience. The Audience who Attends the Speech. What those in attendance expect from the speaker, what they already know about the topic, or the situation that has given rise to the speech. Potential exists for the audience and speaker to feed off and enhance the other. The Speakers Message or Text. Whether written by the speaker or not, the content is the presenters responsibility and the need to be factually accurate is vital. The reality is that what is said, is often viewed differently by different audiences. In short we often see and hear what we want to see/hear and disregard the rest. The Occasion for the speech. Often will influence the content (text) and how the audience perceives it along with the speakers themselves. These four elements interact in a dynamic or fluid manner. And that interaction determines the success or failure of the speech.