24/7 Customer support here

   Categorical modality is seen when a bare statement expresses modality. This appears very frequently throughout both Prime Minister’s speeches. An example is when Blair told the House of Commons “We must stand firm…” (18th March 2003) Similarly Churchill also tells the House of Commons in his speech that “We must put our defences in this island…” this use of strong modality coveys a force of ‘toughness’ and authority by each leader as it were. Both Churchill and Blair speak categorically both in the first person plural for Britain as a whole “We shall fight on the beaches…” (Churchill) and in the first person singular for himself “I will pay my tribute to these young airmen.” Part of the toughness of each leader is to construct themselves as being personally committed.

Table 1.7

Occurrence of modal verbs in Address to the House of Commons

Table 1.8

Occurrence of modal verbs in Address to the Nation

   It becomes apparent from looking at the tables that deontic modality occurs frequently. This is particularly so in Churchill’s address to the nation in which he goes on to say “We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated” “We must expect that…” the use of modality is a consistent feature throughout all of the speeches as it is used to rally the people into taking action.

   On a few occasions hedges are used which also express modality to a certain extent, Blair use the truth hedge “Retreat might give us a moment of respite but years of repentance at our weakness would I believe follow” which mitigates the responsibility of truth. This hedge modifies the force of the utterance, as it is Blair’s personal opinion.

   Evaluation is another means in which a speaker commits themselves and evaluative statements usually include the desirability of something. In his speech to Britain, Blair says “Saddam is not the only threat.” Subjectively marked evaluations have a tendency to show deontic modality and clearly portray that this is the evaluation of the speaker, such as “I think there is no idea so outlandish.” (Churchill 4th June 1940).

Analysis of emotive language used as a means of persuasion

   An aspect that I wish to discuss is the use of emotive language within the speeches; persuasion through the arousal of emotion. People can often be easily persuaded if they become involved in emotion. From analysing the speeches it is clear to see that Tony Blair appears to use this technique to a greater degree than Churchill. In his address to the nation Blair uses sentences such as “Thousands of children die every year through malnutrition and disease. Hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes or murdered.” (20th March 2003) By presenting the audience with examples of Saddam’s regime, another example would be “The brutality of the repression – the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone and their families of disloyalty…” (18th March 2003) Blair is emotionally involving the audience. He is attempting to persuade the audience through empathy by portraying the facts and his case for war. The majority of people would be able to sympathise with children dying needlessly as they are weak and vulnerable.

   In contrast Churchill does not really appear to use emotive language in his speech to the nation; the closest he gets is to say “The foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny…” (13th May 1940) The language used by him portrays his determination in succeeding more than anything.

   The final category of persuasion I will look at is persuasion through reasoning, the way in which I have analysed this is by looking at the factual information that the leader’s present. Blair tends to do this on a larger scale in comparison to Churchill. Presenting facts and figures can be used as evidence to support what the speaker is saying and thus justify his argument. In his speech to the House of Commons, the majority of it is factual, for example “When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions…” (18th March 2003) Blair also presents a chronology of events to the house informing them of Saddam’s actions. He obviously felt that he had to include much factual detail, as this was needed to justify his actions and to present his case for war. Churchill on the other hand used fact to inform the House of the aspects such as the casualties suffered for example “Only 30 unwounded soldiers were brought off by the Navy.” (4th June 1940) The question still remains of why and how are these facts and figures used to persuade? By setting down the truth about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction Blair is attempting to convince Parliament Saddam’s actions cannot continue and therefore it is up to them to stop him. Churchill used facts to convince his audience that they were capable of winning the war.

Conclusion

   From this study, I have drawn a number of conclusions about the way in which Political leaders employ techniques in order to persuade their audiences. A Politician’s language does not merely convey the message, but creates a controlled environment for the listeners, from which any interpretation is manipulated. Throughout these speeches both men use the spoken word to coax divided groups and the opposition toward military confrontations that they recognized as vital, but from which the voters shrank.

   Although each leader employs similar techniques in terms of personal pronouns, modality and evaluation, their speeches appear to differ greatly when using emotive language and facts and figures. Tony Blair uses mostly factual information and figures in his speech to the House of Commons. Although to a certain extent this is related to the historical context and the fact that Churchill did not have to persuade the people it was a ‘just’ war, it portrays the differences in style of each leader. Blair presented a detailed chronology of events to the House with a list of facts about the situation, as he required hard evidence in order to persuade. In contrast, Churchill does not list anywhere near as many facts or figures; he just reveals the situation that the country is facing.

   It appears that Blair prefers a perhaps more personal touch in his speeches and this might explain his frequent use of emotive language. By arousing the audience’s emotional feelings, Blair persuades his audience through sympathy. He uses words which are in similar semantic fields, such as death, brutality and torture and therefore invites the addressee’s to feel sorry for these oppressed people. In his speeches, Churchill appears more detached from the situation in the sense that he hardly uses emotive language, but instead encourages the nation to work together and they will feel a sense of achievement.

   Throughout this study it can be seen that the same rhetorical act can vary in its effectiveness according to shifts in the situation and in the attitudes of the addressee’s. The orator must establish his authority in order to communicate to his audience. Modality is a means by which each leader does this. As my analysis shows, categorical modality in which just a bare statement is expressed portrays authority. Both Blair and Churchill use statements beginning with “we must…” The effect of this is to persuade their audience that they are all involved and should therefore act as a team.

   Overall I have found that both men’s speeches achieve their initial aim in that they persuade the audience. Blair was faced with a greater challenge when attempting to persuade as the British people were more removed from the situation, as it was not directly affecting them the same way a World War would. However Churchill was successful in the fact that Britain went on to win the war and Blair was successful in that he managed to persuade the House of Commons to vote for the War on Iraq.

3132 Words

REFERENCES
Atkinson, M. (1984) Our Masters voices, Methuen
Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics, London: Routledge
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use, Cambridge University Press
Carradine, D. (1990) The speeches of Winston Churchill, Penguin
Chalker, S. (1998) Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, Oxford University Press
Cockcroft, R. & Cockcroft, S (1992) Persuading people: An introduction to rhetoric, London: Macmillan
Crystal, D. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Longman
Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power, Second Edition London: Longman
Fairclough, N. (2000) New labour, New Language? London: Routledge
Freeborn, D. (1995) A Course book in English Grammar, Second Edition, Palgrave
Halliday, M (1985) An introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold
Partington, A. (2003) The Linguistics of Political Argument, London: Routledge
Schaffner, C. (1997) Editorial : Political speeches and discourse analysis in C Schaffner. Analysing political speeches. Clevedon Multilingual matters
Wales, K. (1996) Personal pronouns I present day English : Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, J. (1990) Politically speaking : Blackwell.
Internet websites
Cawthorne, A. (19/03/2003) www.iol.co.za/index
www.churchill.society.london.org.uk
www.number-10.gov.uk
APPENDIX ‘[‘

The Speeches Analysed

Churchill’s address to the Nation
"Be ye men of Valour"
Broadcast
13th May 1940

   I SPEAK TO YOU FOR THE FIRST time as Prime Minister in a solemn hour for the life of our country, of our Empire, of our Allies, and above all the cause of freedom. A tremendous battle is raging in France and Flanders.The Germans, by a remarkable combination of air bombing and heavily armoured attacks have broken through the French defences north of the Maginot Line and strong columns of their armoured vehicles are ravaging the open country, which for the first day or two was without defenders. They have penetrated deeply and spread alarm and confusion in their trick. Behind them there are now appearing infantry in lorries, and behind them, again, the large masses are moving forward. The regroupment of the French armies to make head against, and also to strike at, this intruding wedge has been proceeding for several days, largely assisted by the magnificent efforts of the Royal Air Force.

   We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the presence of these armoured -vehicles in unexpected places behind our lines. If they are behind our Front, the French are also at many points fighting actively behind theirs. Both sides are therefore in an extremely dangerous position. And if the French Army, and our own Army are well handled, as I believe they will be; if the French retain that genius for recovery, and counterattack for which they have so long been famous; and if the British Army shows the dogged endurance and solid fighting power of of which there have been so many examples in the past - then a sudden transformation of the scene might spring into being.

   It would be foolish, however to disguise the gravity of the hour. It would be still more foolish to lose heart and courage or to suppose that well-trained and well-equipped armies numbering three to four millions of men can be overcome in the space of a few, weeks, or even months, by a scoop, or raid of mechanised vehicles, however formidable. We may look with confidence to the stablisization of the Front in France, and to the general engagement of the masses which will enable the qualities of the the French and British soldiers to to be matched squarely against those of their adversaries. For myself, I have the invincible confidence in the French Army and its leaders. Only a very small part of that Army has yet been heavily engaged; and only a very small part of France has yet been invaded. There is good evidence to show that practically the whole of the specialised mechanised forces of the enemy have already been thrown into the battle; and we know that very heavy losses have been inflicted upon them. No officer or man, no brigade or division,which grapples at close quarters with the enemy, wherever encountered, can fail to make a worthy contribution to the general result. The armies by cast away the idea of resisting behind concrete lines or natural obstacles, and must realise that mastery can only be regained by furious and unrelenting assault. And this spirit must not only animate the High Command, but must inspire every fighting man. In the air - often at serious odds - often at odds hitherto thought overwhelming - we have been clawing down three or four to one of our enemies; and the relative balance of the British and German Air Forces is now considerably more favourable to us than at the beginning of the battle. In cutting down the German bombers, we are fighting our battle as well as that of France. My confidence in our ability to fight it out to the finish with the German Air force has been strengthened by the fierce encounters which have taken place and are taking place. At the same time our heavy bombers are striking nightly at the tap root of German mechanised power, and have already inflicted serious damage upon the oil refineries which the Nazi effort to dominate the world directly depends.

   We must expect that as soon as stability is reached on the Western Front, the bulk of that hideous apparatus of aggression which gashed Holland into ruin and slavery in a few days, will be turned upon us. I am sure I speak for all when I say we are ready to face it; to endure it; and to retaliate against it - to any extant that the unwritten laws of war permit.

   There will be, many men, and many women, in this island, who when the ordeal comes upon them, as come it will, will feel comfort, and even pride - that they are sharing the perils of the lads at the front - soldiers, sailors and airmen, God bless them - and are drawing away from them a part at least of the onslaught they have to bear. Is this not the appointed time for all to make the utmost exertions in their power? If the battle is to be won, we must provide our men with ever increasing quantities of weapons and ammunition they need. We must have, and have quickly, more aeroplanes, more tanks, more shells, more guns. There is an imperious need for these munitions. They increase our strength against the powerfully armed enemy. They replace the wastage of obstinate struggle; and the knowledge that wastage will be speedily be replaced enables us to draw more readily upon our reserves and throw them in now that everything counts so much.

   Our task is not only to win the battle - but to win the War. After this battle in France abates its force, there will come the battle for our island - for all that Britain is, and all that Britain means - that will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people, the last ounce and the last inch of effort they are capable. The interests of property, the hours of labour, are nothing compared with the struggle for life and honour, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed ourselves.

   I have received from the Chiefs of the French Republic, and in particular from its indomitable Prime Minister, M Reynaud, the most sacred pledges that whatever happens they will fight to the end, be it bitter or be it glorious. Nay, if we fight to the end, it can only be glorious.

   Having received His Majesty's commission, I have formed an administration of men and women of every party and of almost every point of view. We have differed and quarrelled in the past; but now one bond unites us all - to wage war until victory is won, and never to surrender ourselves to servitude and shame, whatever the cost and agony may be. This is one of the most awe-striking periods in the long history of France and Britain. It is also beyond doubt the most sublime. Side by side, unaided except by their kith and kin in the great Dominions and by the wide Empires which rest beneath their shield, the British and French peoples have advanced to rescue not only Europe, but mankind from the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history. Behind them - behind us - behind the armies and fleets of Britain and France - gather a group of shattered States and bludgeoned races: the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch, the Belgians - upon all of whom the long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we must; as conquer we shall.

   Today is Trinity Sunday. Centuries ago words were written to be a call and a spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice: 'Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar. As the Will of God is in Heaven, even so let it be.'

Churchill’s address to the House of Commons

1  2  3

BACK TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS