Rhetorical Devices: Why We Should Use Them

In all my language evaluations, I have described and explained the different types of literary and rhetorical devices we use in English.  However, it has been pointed out that I have not explained why we use them.  What I will put here are some considerations why we should use rhetorical devices in speech.

The art of speechcraft is ancient.  It is known as rhetoric.  Rhetoric is defined as the art of using language for persuasive effect, to sway the audience, with logic and emotion, to consider any subject from the perspective of the speaker.  Technically, the word “rhetoric” is derived from the Greek “rhetorikos” (ῥητορικός), which means “oratorical”.  The root word for “rhetorikos” is “rhetor” (ῥήτωρ), which simply means “public speaker”.  This noun is derived, in turn, from the verb “ero” (ἐρῶ), which means “to speak”.  The quintessential textbook of rhetoric was actually written by no less than Aristotle himself, over 2,300 years ago.  Its title is simply “On Rhetoric”.

In being part of Toastmasters, we are actually part of something far more ancient than simply Toastmasters International, founded on the 22^nd October 1924.  The art of rhetoric is as old as human civilisation, and is the basis of our civilisation.  It was rhetoric that moved the masses to perform great deeds and terrible evils.  Some of the best and worst of us, statesmen, rulers and military leaders, were great speakers.  We must never forget that the same skill that persuaded the British to fight on after the debacle of Dunkirk, is the same one that Hitler used to convince an entire nation to condemn their own citizens to the gas chambers.

Firstly, we must understand that rhetorical devices is not just about enhancing our speech, but about laying the foundation of the emotive message we are trying to craft.  Do we want to be inspiring?   Do we want to bring the house to tears?  Choosing the right technique of shaping the conversation can do that.

For example, we consider Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill’s “Never Surrender” speech, during the dark depths of World War II, when it seemed the Nazi juggernaut could not be defeated. France had just fallen.  The British Expeditionary Force had to be ignominiously evacuated from Dunkirk.  This was the beginning phase of Operation Sea Lion, the Nazi attempt to invade England.  Great Britain stood alone, and the US was not yet certain to enter the war.

Consider this clip: Darkest Hour - We Shall Fight on the Beaches: Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman)

Technically, it uses simple language, and few rhetorical devices.  There is a lot of parallelism, such as the part about fighting on the beaches, the landing zones and so forth.  There is allusion to events that had recently happened.  There is alliteration in that.  There are no analogies, metaphors or idioms.  There is nothing complicated here.

The second layer is found in the careful choice of words.  For those well-versed in the technicalities of the English language, the words used are of Germanic origin, which harkens back to England’s Anglo-Saxon roots, and her proud history distinct from Charlemagne’s Europe.  It is a subtle emotive pull since native speakers of English, the intended audience, may not realise it at all.  Germanic words have strong inflections, with words that have a percussive force, such as with the “B” and “P” sounds.  This lends the speech a very martial character, since the cadence is like the beating of marching drums.

The only word that is of Romance origin in the entire speech is “surrender”, from the Anglo-Norman French.  This creates a slight dissonance, distancing the audience from the word, and what it implies: defeat.

The third layer is found is the structure of the speech, where there is a slow, steady build up.  He begins by laying bare the depths of the issue, the sheer horror of the challenge, and that mountain to be assailed.  It then breaks into a cadence, bringing the audience with him up that mountain to the peak, using the voice to slowly increase the pace of the heart of the listener.  When the heartbeat of the audience is increased, the spirits are lifted from one of torpor and despair to one of defiance and hope.

You would note that the character did not move from his spot.  This is contrary to how most speakers are told to “use the stage”.  That is not always true.  In this case, by staying rooted to the same spot, but using eye contact to engage the audience, this is an exercise of establishing authority.  In such a circumstance, you want the audience to move, while the speaker is the eye of the storm, an island of calm in an ocean of turbulence.

My personal focus here is less about how the current emphasis in Toastmasters is about speech as a form of performance, but speech as a means to move the masses.  That sort of speech is an exercise in authority, and has practical usage.  I am not a fan of the current trend towards fluff.