Explore the similarities and differences between the three examples of speech Essay

Explore the similarities and differences between the three examples of speech, including a consideration of the different contexts in which the texts were produced and how the speakers convey attitudes and values. Text A was both published and delivered by David Lloyd George as a speech in 1914. ‘The great pinnacle of sacrifice’ is a text of persuasion in support of the war. It does not have the benefit of hindsight that we have today, which allows us to establish a context an audience of 1914 would not have been able to do. Lloyd George opens with the concrete noun â€Å"The people†, this puts everyone into a metaphorical firing line, underlining the purpose that everyone will benefit from going to war. â€Å"Great menace† and â€Å"Freedom† are superlative noun phrases that are juxtaposed to reinforce the opinion that by going to war all unpleasant necessities will be avoided. Lloyd George uses the declarative â€Å"That is not all†; this emphatic, simple sentence shows he doesn’t allow room for interpretation, which is typical of political speech. He uses the collocation â€Å"new† and â€Å"old† in an attempt to rank all members of society together as an act of capturing this equal status. He continues with the comparative adjectives â€Å"richer/nobler† suggesting how life could be as a result, making the future seem rosy. Lloyd George refers to imagery taken from the Bible â€Å"Great food of luxury†. He uses this metaphor to explain something complicated. By evoking this biblical imagery of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ he is making use of intertextuality to reach the audience on a higher emotional level that his expression alone could never master. David Lloyd George continues to raise hopes and ideas of the future by using the inclusive modal verb â€Å"we can see†; this is clearly an indication of him trying to heighten hope in the situation with talk of new possibilities. Again he uses a modal verb â€Å"May†, this politeness marker allows him to gain encouragement through civility. This passive form of verbs makes the audience realise it’s their responsibility. He reinforces this action with the repetition of â€Å"too†, how far Britain has let things slip, not concentrating on wider things. He also continues with the religious lexis by incorporating a parable into his speech. This gives a higher prominence to the speech by creating a gentle atmosphere. Lloyd George successfully reinforces his discourse with this illustrated spiritual truth, allowing him to justify his words, as if it’s ‘God’s Will’. He then renders a personal feel to the piece by using concrete nouns â€Å"mountain† â€Å"sea† for the audience to crate a visual atmosphere; â€Å"beautiful valley† he is referring to Britain metaphorically, underpinning the fact that we should not turn a blind eye. â€Å"Hand†, they will be cleansed of all bad things at the time. The images following this is vital to David Lloyd George’s speech, his use of informal words, sentences, convergence results in bringing them closer together makes him, his speech and ultimately the war seem less intimidating. The audience is a variety of social classes, certainly adults and David Lloyd George’s use of the polysyllabic lexis towards the end creates his intended aim. The use of pre-modifiers and superlatives create a sense of euphoria, he is using them to rouse people up. He does not hide the fact that people are going to die, but he covers it up by calling it a sacrifice, this is one of many euphemisms he uses to create passion and intensity in his speech. Towards the end his innotation and stressed syllables becomes more frequent and his passion increases. His speech is obviously non-spontaneous, there are no non-fluency features, which is typical of political speech. He needs to achieve maximum effect through his language, therefore there is no room for mistakes. There are stages that his language goes through. Abstract nouns start the speech with a form of negativity, which progresses to end on a positive note. From â€Å"struggle† to â€Å"honour† and â€Å"glory†. It therefore succeeds in its purpose to inspire. Text B is from the final episode of the comedy series ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’. Scene two: The Dug-Out contains the three main characters of the series; Blackadder, George and Baldrick, whose status is in the same order. They each successfully create black humour towards the satire of the piece, reinforcing it’s main purpose to entertain. The audience would have been expected to have prior knowledge to the screening of Blackadder in 1992. Their familiarity with the Thatcher situation of the 1982 Falklands War allows them hindsight to the broadcasting of the programme; Giving the audience the opportunity to enjoy the black comedy. The extract opens with spoken language and the manner is both formal and informal. The informality is marked by the co-ordianting conjunctions in Baldrick’s speech; â€Å"So†, â€Å"And†, he is topic linking. Plus his repetition of â€Å"Right?† creates a sense of understanding. His phatic /child-like language is a satirical point that Baldrick doesn’t understand what is happening (the war). The formality of the text is indicated through the military lexis, Baldrick’s utterance; â€Å"Permission to ask a question, sir† The vocative again consolidates the fact that Baldrick is the inferior character. The field specific lexis allows us an insight to the visual aspect of the situation; â€Å"war started†, â€Å"shot† â€Å"history† â€Å"prevent†. There is a great deal of uncertainty in their speech; â€Å"isn’t it?† â€Å"right?† â€Å"well† these interrogatives again mirror how peo ple in their position would have felt: confused. The context is juxtaposed for the affect of the audience. The comedy value is played against the military content of the scene. Status plays a big part in this as Blackadder’s superiority enables him to act sarcastically and be exceedingly patronising towards George: â€Å"George, I hardly think we can be entirely absolved from blame on the imperialistic front.† His relaxed innotaion is highly demeaning, he wants to deflate George to reinforce his position of superiority. His inferior/ sarcastic humour is used best with George through the hyperbole â€Å"(small) sausage†, the emphasis placed on the alliteration also adds to the comedy. When speaking to Baldrick his patronising attitude is less abrupt, he somewhat creates a father/son relationship; â€Å"Well possibly† the convergence shows that Blackadder is making the distance smaller between them by letting Baldrick down gently, this also creates a teacher/pupil relationship, Blackadder sees himself as an educator, maybe this is an easier option. Blackadder’s paralinguistic features show how he treats Baldrick with contempt: â€Å"As long as it isn’t the one about where babies come from.† This is humorous, but also making a veiled connotation to Baldrick’s intelligence (maturity-childlike). Blackadder is de-meaning him for his audience. Whichever way Blackadder places his patronising attitude whether it is tentative or demeaning he his only after his official goal; to obtain and prove his superior rank to the audience. Baldrick’s total lack of understanding and through his connective declarative; â€Å"So, the poor old ostrich died for nothing† proves he has learned nothing and produces a more comical affect as his statement is not connected at all to George’s last utterance. George uses fairly racist, harsh language; pre-modifier â€Å"vile†, which British soldiers would have used at the time and the fact that he is totally un-shocked by Blackadder’s expletive language â€Å"It was bollocks† (which would have shocked audiences at the time) allows us to feel a slight pity towards his passion in his order in rank. George’s patrism makes a slight insight to his idiotism; â€Å"Henry VIII and his Six Knives†. The fact that these three characters with their different status in society have been stuck together for a long time creates the humorous content needed to steer clear of the harsh reality of a War, I feel it’s main purpose is therefore to entertain. Text C is an extract of spoken language and the manner is formal as it is three educators discussing the affects of both WWI and II. The formality is marked through the subject specific lexis; â€Å"†Second world war† â€Å"first world war† â€Å"German† â€Å"Hitler†. On the contrary the extract does not contain a title or specific names this suggests a familiarity between the speakers, highlighting an informal manner on the conversation. The conversation revolves around turn taking and object of male and female roles is then looked at in greater depth. MP initiates the conversation; â€Å"it seems to me† the use of the first person pronoun suggests his need to express his opinion first. JD corrects MP throughout the conversation and dominates him with his knowledge and understanding of the subject. This is expected as JD majors in History. MP’s use of fillers; â€Å"um† and one-second pauses prove his speech to be less detailed than JD, due to his lack in subject knowledge. MP’s repetition; â€Å"imponderables (.) Um (.) vague imponderables† is very characteristic of a spontaneous conversation and this is reinforced by his nature to interrupt. LT, being the only female turn taker, is slightly mistreated as her turns are rather like interruptions or comments. However she does disrupt the male on male battle by responding and supporting her opinion, ultimately for the affect to assert her inferiority. â€Å"Opposed to you know†, nevertheless her informal utterance indicates her lack of confidence suggesting she does need reassurance, which may be true of ‘typical women in conversation’. The extract is very much Fact versus Opinion. JD is the biggest turn-taker as he is the more confident speaker in subject knowledge. Unlike MP his long utterance clearly has strong opinions, but he uses fact. Emphasis in JD’s long utterance is always words that explain ideas, suggesting he is used to explaining concepts, reinforcing his ability as a teacher. This is true for all three speakers, as the piece does not contain many informal remarks, suggesting their ability to talk passionately about a topic. â€Å"Was about 1911, 1912 when they had some crises with the British and French to 1918†, JD’s complex use of figures stress the fact that his points are substantial however MP overlaps his turn, signifying him as the principal speaker. MP’s overlap occurs due to a male on male debate, they are both competing for talk-time, in spite of this JD’s complex and detailed utterances indicate his own passionate attitude reinforcing his position as the dominant speaker. Thomas completes JD’s sentence, again suggesting a familiarity; â€Å"it just provided them with the opportunity didn’t it†. The topic loop forms closeness between them rather than a form of ignorance that can be shown between both male speakers. LT’s inferior position is again obtained through her use of a rhetorical interrogative. It is a tag question, not only proving her lack of confidence but also accentuating a stereotype of war and men. From this extract it is shown to be true that men speak more in groups then women, although all speakers have the ability of hindsight. The purpose I feel is highly informational, and the ideas raised prove it is a conversation of opinions, thus status. Both Blackadder and Teacher Speech create a formal and informal manner. Their informality is marked through the familiarity between characters; Baldrick and Blackadder (father/son relationship) and teachers; LT and JD (use of topic loops). Baldrick’s informal manner may be related to the audience of David Lloyd George’s speech; the uncertainty in his speech â€Å"isn’t it?† â€Å"right?† mirror how his audience would have felt: confused. Lloyd George uses biblical imagery to his own effect, by the use of a parable he is able to reach his audience on an emotional level, Blackadder and Teacher’s Speech differs, as their field specific lexis is both resting on the military aspect. However, there is a similarity between Lloyd George and Blackadder as they both try to cover up the actual harsh reality or the War; Blackadder – through black humour and Lloyd George – through biblical language. Teacher’s Speech is very much Fact versus Opinion, this may be said for all three texts. Lloyd George has an â€Å"opinion† and through his use of concrete nouns â€Å"the people† and religious imagery â€Å"food of luxury† he is able to persuade his audience in support of the war. On the contrary, Balckadder uses â€Å"fact† his speech to obtain superiority over the two characters, making his utterances more believable. However George speaks of his â€Å"opinions† and his harsh, racial attitude makes seem appear displeasing to an audience of today. However an audience of Lloyd George’s time would have related to his anger. Blackadder uses his knowledge to form a patronising attitude, to ultimately obtain his rightful status, JD in the same way uses his knowledge and understanding of the field specific lexis to obtain his superior status; utterances does not contain many informal remarks suggesting his ability to talk passionately about a topic and finally Lloyd George uses no non-fluency features, typical of political speech in order to raise his status over his audience. The main difference between all three texts is their purpose. I feel this may be because of the dates in which each text was created. David Lloyd George is the earliest of the three and this is not only clear through his strong use of biblical imagery, but his main aim to uplift and ignite positivity in his audience, who do not have the benefit of hindsight. Therefore its purpose is to inspire. Blackadder is next on the time-scale and the audience of 1992 are able to have hindsight and are therefore able to understand the black humour towards the satire of the piece. Hence it’s main purpose to entertain. And finally Teacher’s Speech has an informational purpose, containing ideas and opinions that only the benefit of hindsight would allow us to summon and understand. It is acknowledgeable that through the passing of time, a subject from long ago may still be discussed and has the same ability to cause confusion and passion in the lives of people everywhere. The people of 1914, Lloyd George’s Speech, may have had different views or opinions to an audience of 1992, Blackadder and present day, Teacher’s speech, but the topic of the effects of the War is still as easily roused now as it was then. The people of today are able to obtain the same passion as the people of 1914, seeing that their lives would not be the same if the older generations of their family hadn’t fought so bravely and created that passion to begin with. Time is not an excuse to lose acknowledgement and enthusiasm.