The way famous people constructed their speech

Невретдиновой Анны, ЕВ - 502

UNIT V, Ex. 31

1) The opponent did not want to arouse any suspicion about the sincerity of his intentions.

2) The privatization policy pursued/adopted by the Government, reflected the general course of the market economy.

3) The orator gave a rousing speech and earned a storm of applause.

4) That is exactly in the parliament of Great Britain the politicians try and improve their ability to speak and debate.

5) The orator’s skillfully canned speech, which contained jokes and witty remarks, caused respect and admiration of the audience/public.

6) The flourishing corruption and bribery in the region that subject to him prejudiced the governor to keep his reputation intact.

Ex. 32

A.

If you want to hear the genuine speech, not a mediocre political debate, genuine masterpieces of elocution, not the canned speech, to witness the clash of intellects and ideas, you should look at Britain and see a true joust between politicians. It is the UK's political system that tests and refines the ability to public speaking. It is in the British Parliament, each member nurtures the hope to become famous and to rise in politics.

To best one’s opponent, the English politician should have the qualities necessary for skillful conduct of debates, to be able to think on one’s feet, to know how to confuse the opponent and how to escape with dignity from difficulties keeping an intact reputation. So he must constantly test and refine the ability of speak and debate to find the truth, which allows to reach a consensus.

B.

The orator can engage the audience from the very beginning. He had little regard to the cold, material facts. The eloquence doe not flourish on the ground like this. The orator tends to utter a rousing speech, to create lift, to touch the hearts, to light the feelings. And now finally he goes to issues of emotions. Soaring to the heights of rhetoric, he extols Philadelphia as "the true cradle of American liberty." Liberty! Such a magic word, a word full of feelings, a word for which millions of people lost their lives. This phrase is good in itself, but it is a thousand times better when the orator reinforces it with specific references to historical events and documents by commanding the attention and respect of the audience.

But it does not matter how good the speech was in terms of composition, it still could not make any impression, if it was uttered calmly, without excitement, sluggishly, and if the orator was not in command of the high moral ground. But he gave it as good as he wrote - with feeling and enthusiasm generated by the deepest sincerity. And it should not surprise that he earned the storm of applause and won the first prize.

Ex. 33

Lenin’s word of honor

In support of political verbal clumsiness

Today, the domestic public policy prevail two types of eloquence, traced to Lenin’s and Stalin’s manners (styles). Exceptions are rare. Boris Nemtsov - one of the few Russian politicians masters the skill to public speaking. That is why he wins against the background of others: they are mostly either rigorous like Yavlinsky, or rambling like Chernomyrdin. At first glance, the massive verbal clumsiness of our leaders is the distressing fact. However, the most successful domestic political orators of the twentieth century -Lenin and Stalin - did to the country and citizens irreparable harm. So today those who are able to "talk glibly", Zhirinovsky and Lukashenko in particular, raise doubts by just that very ability.

In the XX century Lenin for the first time exactly embodied with a dazzling brightness the type of brilliantly charismatic leader.

In fact, watching Zhirinovsky, we can make some conclusions about the nature of Lenin's ability to inspire and captivate the crowd and influence people. The first property of this type of leadership is a strong intuitive ability to convey the messages the audience exactly wants to hear at the moment. The second, equally important, is the ability not to hear anything that the speaker could not immediately use to his advantage. The scandal which involved some intolerable actions - hurling juice at his antagonist with offensive cries - is a blessing for the politicians of the Leninist type. Where an ordinary man who is accustomed to keep up certain standards of behavior, is at a loss, a schizoid polemicist can only be at ease. The secret of Lenin's impact on people was in the unreserved, crazy onslaught upon them, in the absence of brakes.

Stalin followed Lenin as the Russian dictator - the leader of the opposite type. Stalin spat aphorisms, mesmerizing interlocutors with clumsy scholastic short-cut phrases. The foolishness of phrases like "life has become better, life has become merrier" could not be registered. The dominate of the context was so great that the text gained a sacred power.

The Stalinist school gained the upper hand In the Soviet and then Russian public policy. The most graphic embodiment of Stalin's oratorical style was Alexander Lebed: long pauses, clipped sentences, and peculiar slowness of intonations. In principle, this manner of communication creates a sense that the speaker plays the oracle beyond the reach which is not available to mere mortals.

Anyway, Lenin's delusional enthusiasm was not inherited by none of the prominent actors in the Russian political spectacle, but by Zhirinovsky. Fortunately for us, Zhirinovsky, unlike Lenin, was not disinterested and is not devoid of common human needs, vices and desires, which go hand in hand with weaknesses.

For sure, we can regret that nowadays Russian leaders are tongue-tied, unable to inspire the masses, and are too much mediocre. But what makes sense is to enjoy their ordinariness and lack of gift of gab among them: maybe this time will be able to do without mishaps, in which the country was plunged by charismatic leaders. And Lenin was the person of considerable talent in their midst.

Ex. 40

The way famous people constructed their speech

The former Senator Albert J. Beveridge wrote a very useful little book, entitled "The Art of speaking in public."

"Public speaker should own theme - writes this distinguished politician. - Which means that all the facts must be collected, systematized, studied, comprehended, and they should cover the phenomenon not only on the one hand, but on all sides. We must be sure that this is indeed the facts, not assumptions or assertions unsaid. Accept nothing as gospel.

Therefore it is necessary to verify and refine the data. This, of course, means the need for thorough research, so what? Do not you intend to inform, educate your fellow citizens, to give them advice? Do not you want to become an authority?

Collecting and interpreting the facts of a particular issue, decide for yourself to what conclusion they come. Then your speech gains originality and force of impact - it will be a vibrant and irresistibly compelling. It will reflect your personality. Then put your thoughts down on paper as clearly and logically as possible. "

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16