Analyzing Churchill’s Speech At Harrow School For Use Of Rhetorical Devices

Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time, visited Harrow School on October 29, 1941, with the aim of listening to popular songs he used to sing as a young boy and giving a speech to the pupils. Following the distortions that arose on what he truly said in the speech and the effect it had on his country's view of the war, Churchill's speech in the school ended up being one of the most cited speeches by Churchill. The speech that came to be known as the “Never Give In” speech, came at the wake of the Second World War at the point when the Great Britain seemed to be heading for a defeat. At this point, in the position of the Prime Minister, Churchill took the pen as his weapon of choice to fight the battle (Ashbrook 1). The speech was delivered on October 29, 1941, with the audience being the boys of Harrow, Harrow happening to be the old school of Churchill. The message in the speech was largely misquoted but at the same time was regarded as the speech in history that ushered optimism. One thing that stood out during the speech as Churchill presented it to the boys of Harrow was that he had crafted his words eloquently, he approached the war mood with precise contrast is several occasions and this was evident in the manner in which he structured his sentences (Lanham 745). There are a number of rhetorical techniques that were used in this speech Alliteration In most cases, speakers seek to make the most of the rhythm of language and they achieve this in the way they chose and arrange the words they use. This way, they manage to catch their audience in a string of sounds that are interesting and therefore enhance the effect the words they use to have on the audience as well as their ideas. Churchill made use of alteration in his speech. In this form of rhetorical technique, the initial sounds in words or the syllables that have been stressed within the words are normally repeated in a manner that is memorable and pleasing and by doing this, adds rhythm to the speech. This can be seen in paragraph one in the speech where Churchill says “air attack, long lull” in paragraph two where he says “ short and sharp” and in paragraph six where he says “ schools song and darker days”. Churchill used this rhythmical effect so as to make his speech more impressive to the audience (Churchill 1-524). Distinct Articulation In most cases, public speeches target large audiences. This means that the speaker is expected to articulately utter his words so as to make himself heard by everyone. In this speech by Churchill, contracted forms that were common in the conversation were rarely found as he preferred to use full forms of phrases or words. Some of the examples include; “We are not poorly armed”, “… what is short….what is long…”, “do not let us speak…. Let us special….” (Churchill 1-524). Short, Common Words The choice of vocabulary in the speech by Churchill makes it different from other general public speeches. He made use of short and homely words on the whole apart from some few polysyllabic words that were used to make the speech accessible. The language used in the speech is brief and simple with most of the words being either disyllables or monosyllables apart from a few polysyllables that were used. The simple language can, however, be looked at as forceful and stirring First and Second Person Pronouns In an effort to involve the audience in the speech, speakers often make use of first and second pronouns like “I”, “we” and “you” to express their views and get public resonance more easily. In this speech, Churchill made use of the first person plural pronoun “I”, “our” and “we” on several occasions. Churchill used this rhetoric style so as to bridge the gap between the Prime minister and the students making their interaction more intimate (Churchill 1-524) Repetition Winston Churchill capitalized on repetition and pathos in his effort to make sure that his unwavering message gets to his intended audience, who were mostly school boys and his fellow countrymen, to make them believe that the Great Britain was not going to lose the war. He managed to achieve his intended mission now that after the speech, he was able to change the attitude of the British and consequently the fate of the war. During the Second World War, Sir Churchill composed several speeches mostly related to the war but this speech “Never Give In” stood out as the pen that was mightier than the sword (Heinrichs 336) Contrast Churchill also uses contrast in his speech in an effort to remind his audience about the position of Britain in the war, in the last few months and that very moment. He reflects on the past when he says “Another lesson I think we may take, just throwing our minds back to our meeting here ten months ago and now, is that appearances are often very deceptive, and as Kipling well says, we must...meet with Triumph and Disaster. And treat those two impostors just the same.” (Churchill 1-524). He contrasts disaster and triumph in this part of the speech, using this to encourage his audience to develop an affirmative mind towards the war. He continues to use contract in other parts of the speech one of them being the part where he says that sometimes imagination is worse as compared to actual life experience. Churchill continues to apply this technique to balance and detail exploiting human thinking weakness. He says “Those people who are imaginative see many more dangers than perhaps exist; certainly many more than will happen; but then they must also pray to be given that extra courage to carry this far-reaching imagination” This way, Churchill manages to brush away the doubts Hypophora Churchill employed this rhetorical technique where he asked questions and immediately provided answers to them. For example, “You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us.” (Churchill 1-524) Litotes It is an understatement that has been used deliberately so as to achieve a dramatic effect. Churchill used this technique on several occasions for example “Business carried on as usual during alterations on the map of Europe.” (Churchill 1-524) Pun This technique involves playing with words, on some occasions, on different senses or sound of different words or similar senses. For example “Now the enemy [Germany] is busy in Russia is the time to make hell while the sun shines.” (Churchill 1-524) Antistrophe Churchill in his speech repeated words at the end of phrases that follow each other. An example in the speech was “…the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace…” (Churchill 1-524) Conclusion There is no doubt that the speech by Sir Churchill played a major role in changing the perception of his audience towards the war and hence achieving its objectives. Churchill achieves this by presenting a script that was masterfully crafted aimed at taking away the fears that the British had as a result of the war now that it appeared like they were losing. This approach in the speech made Churchill turn the fears in his audience to hope and optimism. He encouraged them to change their attitudes despite the situation they were in an always remain positive. Regardless of how the speech was misquoted or interpreted, Church achieved his objective of fighting the war using pen and ink as his main weapon changing the minds of his countrymen and this turned the fate of the war. Works Cited "Winston Churchill: October 29, 1941 «Never Give In»: Tom Rants." Tom Rants: Web. 24. Nov. 2014.. Ashbrook. Never Give In: The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches. Web. 24. Nov. 2017. http://ashbrook.org/programs/citizens/books/1401300561/ Churchill, Winston. Never give in! : the best of Winston Churchill's speeches, selected and edited by his grandson. New York: Hyperion, 2003. p. 524 Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007. p.336  Lanham, Richard. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press, 2001.p.856