ЕРЕВАНСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ
-СТУДЕНЧЕСКОЕ НАУЧНОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО
СБОРНИК СТАТЕЙ
МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЙ НАУЧНОЙ
КОНФЕРЕНЦИИ,
ПОСВЯЩЕННОЙ 500-ЛЕТИЮ
АРМЯНСКОГО КНИГОПЕЧАТАНИЯ И
65-ЛЕТИЮ ОСНОВАНИЯ СНО ЕГУ
2
Гуманитарные науки
(Филология, педагогика)
ЕРЕВАН
ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО ЕГУ
2013
2
ºðºì²ÜÆ äºî²Î²Ü вزÈê²ð²Ü
àôê²ÜàÔ²Î²Ü ¶Æî²Î²Ü ÀÜκðàôÂÚàôÜ
Ð²Ú ¶ð²îäàôÂÚ²Ü 500-²ØÚ²ÎÆÜ
ºì ºäÐ àô¶À ÐÆØܲ¸ðزÜ
65-²ØÚ²ÎÆÜ ÜìÆðì²Ì
ØÆæ²¼¶²ÚÆÜ ¶Æî²ÄàÔàìÆ
Ðà¸ì²ÌܺðÆ ÄàÔàì²Ìàô
2
гë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ
(´³Ý³ëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ, Ù³Ýϳí³ñÅáõÃÛáõÝ)
ºðºì²Ü
ºäÐ Ðð²î²ð²ÎâàôÂÚàôÜ
2013
3
Ðî¸ 30
¶Ø¸ 60
Ð 240
Ðñ³ï³ñ³ÏíáõÙ ¿
ºäÐ ·Çï³Ï³Ý ËáñÑñ¹Ç áñáßٳٵ
Издается по решению Ученого совета ЕГУ
ÄáÕáí³ÍáõÝ ïå³·ñíáõÙ ¿
г۳ëï³ÝÇ »ñÇï³ë³ñ¹³Ï³Ý ÑÇÙݳ¹ñ³ÙÇ
³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ùµ
ÊÙµ³·ñ³Ï³Ý ËáñÑáõñ¹`
µ. ·. ¹., åñáý. Ü. гñáõÃÛáõÝÛ³Ý
µ. ·. ¹., åñáý. ê. Øáõñ³¹Û³Ý
µ. ·. ¹., åñáý. º. ºñ½ÝÏÛ³Ý
µ. ·. ¹., ¹áó. Ü. гñáõÃÛáõÝÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. Ü. ¸Çɵ³ñÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. è. Ø»ÉÇùë»ÃÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. ². Øáõñ³¹Û³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ¹áó. È. гÏáµÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ³ëÇëï. ¼. ì³ñ¹³å»ïÛ³Ý
µ. ·. Ã., ³ëÇëï. Æ. ´áõéݳ½Û³Ý
Ù. ·. Ã., ¹áó. ¶. ´³µ³Û³Ý
Редакционная коллегия`
д. ф. н., проф. Н. Арутюнян
д. ф. н., проф. С. Мурадян
д. ф. н., проф. Е. Ерзнкян
д. ф. н., доц. Н. Арутюнян
к. ф. н., доц. Н. Дилбарян
к. ф. н., доц. Р. Меликсетян
к. ф. н., доц. А. Мурадян
к. ф. н., доц. Л. Акобян
к. ф. н., асист. З. Вардапетян
к. ф. н., асист. И. Бурназян
к. п. н., доц. Г. Бабаян
Ð 240
Ð³Û ·ñ³ïåáõÃÛ³Ý 500-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ ¨ ºäÐ àô¶À ÑÇÙݳ¹ñÙ³Ý 65-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ
ÝíÇñí³Í ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ·Çï³ÅáÕáíÇ Ñá¹í³ÍÝ»ñÇ ÅáÕáí³Íáõ: гïáñ 2: гë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ. µ³Ý³ëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ ¨ Ù³Ýϳí³ñÅáõÃÛáõÝ / ºäÐ,
àõë³ÝáÕ³Ï³Ý ·Çï³Ï³Ý ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝ; ÊÙµ. ËáñÑáõñ¹.- ºñ.£ ºäÐ, 2013. - 308
¿ç£
Сборник статей международной научной конференции, посвященной 500-летию
армянского книгопечатания и 65-летию основания СНО ЕГУ. Том 2. Гуманитарные
науки: филология и педагогика. – Ереван. Изд. ЕГУ, 2013. - 308 с.
Ðî¸ 30
¶Ø¸ 60
ISBN 978-5-8084-1748-9
¡ лÕÇݳϳÛÇÝ ËáõÙµ, 2013
¡ ºäÐ àõë³ÝáÕ³Ï³Ý ·Çï³Ï³Ý ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝ, 2013
¡ ºäÐ Ññ³ï³ñ³ÏãáõÃÛáõÝ, 2013
4
Anush Yolyan
Yerevan State Linguistic University after V. Brusov, MA in Linguistics and Intercultural
Communication (International Relations)
Supervisor: A. Hakobyan, lecturer of YSLU, PhD researcher at ASPU
E-mail: [email protected]
LINGUO-STYLISTIC PECULIARITIES OF W. CHURCHILL
AND T. BLAIR’S SPEECHES
The term “political speech” covers a large quantity of forms ranging from negotiations
and formal meetings, to briefings, interviews, press conferences and speeches. Political
speeches are a part of politics and are therefore historically and culturally determined. A
political speech must be so powerful in expressing a vision that it is not only a comment on a
historical moment, but itself historically momentous1. Each speech has a certain function to
fulfil dependent upon the political activity at that time. The overall aim of any political speech
is to gain the support of the audience and to persuade them that what is spoken is true and
authoritative knowledge. Thus, political persuasion is a process in which communicators try to
convince other people to change their attitudes or behaviour regarding a political issue through
messages, in an atmosphere of free choice. Persuasion is an integral part of politics and a
necessary component of the pursuit and exercise of power. To affect the audience, politicians
employ a number of linguistic techniques and stylistic devices. With an aim to observe how
they impact the audience when applied in political speeches, we analysed British Prime
Ministers Winston Churchill and Tony Blair’s memorable speeches concerning the war and
revealed interesting occurrences of linguo-stylistic means used in their speeches.
Two of the speeches analyzed here were made by Winston Churchill – one addressed to
the nation on 19 May 1940, “Be ye men of Valor”, and the other titled “We Shall Fight on the
Beeches” - to the House of Commons on 4 June 1940. The other two speeches, which we
discussed here, were made by Tony Blair. One addressed to the House of Commons was
delivered on 18 March 2003, and the other – to the nation on 20 March 2003. Particularly the
above-mentioned speeches were selected, as they were delivered at very critical times in the
history of the UK– one (made by Churchill) at the time of WWII, and the other (made by Blair)
– on the occasion of the UK’s joining the War in Iraq. Besides, these politicians proved to be
very impressive in creating desired images in the minds of the audience.
Churchill’s speeches were a great inspiration to the embattled UK. Carradine wrote:
“Winston Churchill was the most eloquent and expressive statesman of his time, truly both the
master and slave of the English language”2.
Blair also appeared to be very good at showing care and compassion in the way he talked
and in his “body language. ” As Cawthorne states, while faced with his worst crisis in six years
as a leader, Blair impressed many Britons with a commanding speech”3.
Usually any stylistic device may be found in political speeches, but there are those which
are most frequent, mainly epithets, metaphors, metonymies, repetitions and parallel
constructions.
Epithets are frequently applied by Blair, which help make his statements more emphatic:
thanks to the cleverly chosen adjectives, these phrases have an emotional appeal.
1
http: //www.britishpoliticalspeech. org/why-rhetoric. htm
Carradine, D. (1990). The Speeches of Winston Churchill. USA: Penguin, p. 13.
3
McGoldrick, D. (2004). From “9-11” to the “Iraq War 2003. ” North America: Hart Publishing, p. 20.
2
181
“And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting
the nation's disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as indeed the
fledgling democracy in Northern Iraq” (Blair’s address to the House of Commons, 18 March
2003). Using the epithet “fledgling democracy”, Blair stresses the fact that democracy is a new
system of government in Iraq, and it still has a long way to go.
Blair also achieves a very good imagery through the use of epithets when mentioning the
response of an Iraqi woman to his question about their state under Saddam’s harsh rule: “To
suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror” (Blair, 18 March 2003). Thus,
Blair proves to be a persuasive speaker by the use of expressive words bearing an emotive
charge.
To sound creative and effective, Churchill uses metaphors to present the condition of his
own nation, the aims of the enemy and the longings that Americans should have. In fact, he
proves to be very impressive in creating desired images in the minds of the audience: “We must
expect that as soon as stability is reached on the Western Font, the bulk of that hideous
apparatus of aggression which gushed Holland into ruin and slavery in a few days, will be
turned upon us” (Churchill, “Be Ye Men of Valour, 19 May 1940).
Thus, to impress the audience both emotionally and verbally and to show the true face of
the enemy, Churchill metaphorically describes Hitler’s unsupportive ambitions by the
expression “hideous apparatus of aggression”. He warns his people that this very “hideous
apparatus” will be turned against them if no steps are taken to combat the enemy and
consequently achieves his goal of engaging the people in the war.
However, Blair employs metaphors to evoke a negative attitude towards the enemy. In
order to persuade the people of the importance and necessity of war, he presents the tension of
the relations between Saddam Hussein and the world as a “diplomatic dance”: “What would
any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world’s diplomatic
dance with Saddam?” Blair’s address to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003). By this
metaphor, which also expresses Blair’s ironical attitude to the stance of some nations, Blair
wants to emphasize the abuse of power by Saddam, his maneuvering and the feebleness of
other countries to fight against it.
Unlike metaphors, metonymy prevails in Blair’s speeches. A very interesting example is
the use of Saddam’s name instead of his supporters in Blair’s address to the nation (20 March
2003): “For 12 years, the world tried to disarm Saddam”. The principal aim here is to draw
people into the “just” war by pointing to them the tyrannical regime symbolized by Saddam.
In Churchill’s speeches, however, metonymy is used with another reference. Metonymy is
comparably a rarely used device in his addresses to the House of Commons, to the government,
the Air Forces and the Royal Navy. He employs metonymy with an aim to imply unity. When
persuading the Brits of the pressing need and necessity of the war, he turns to the “House”
several times as a principal decision making body: “I asked the House a week ago to suspend
its judgment because the facts were not clear, but I do not feel that any reason now exists why
we should not form our own opinions upon this pitiful episode” (Churchill, “We Shall Fight on
the Beaches”, 4 June 1940).
One of the major reasons why Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons is persuasive
and has been remembered for already several decades is because of his use of parallelism:
“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, We shall fight on the seas and oceans,
We shall fight with growing confidence in the air, We shall fight on the beaches, We shall
fight on the landing grounds…”…”(Churchill, “We Shall Fight on the Beaches”, 4 June 1940)
The purpose of the speaker is to reinforce his point and make it stand out by employing
identical structures. It is not hard to notice that what is being repeated is important, and so the
speaker is creating an impact on the listener.. It is a device used to persuade the whole country
through positive reinforcement “We shall go on to the end”. These words are also portraying
182
Churchill’s confidence and self-assurance. Thanks to his influential rhetoric, he persuades the
Government and the nation that they are capable of success in the war.
In comparison, Blair’s speech to the House of Commons does not employ parallelism to
the extent Churchill’s does. Instead, repetition is used to enforce a point: “It is dangerous if
such regimes disbelieve us. Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation
even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace against us. Dangerous because one
day…” (18 March 2003).
The repetition of the word “dangerous, ” a case of anaphora, is used by Blair to reiterate
his point and persuade his audience that if they do not agree to the war, they could be facing a
dangerous situation. The word itself makes an appalling effect and strengthens people’s fears.
Linguistic means, applied in their speeches, are as effective as stylistic devices.
The use of personal pronouns is especially worth considering in Churchill and Blair’s
speeches. As a persuasive device, “I” is used to add a personal touch to the speeches and thus
portrays that both Blair and Churchill are committing themselves to their beliefs and will stand
by their actions. “I am sure I speak for all when I say we are ready to face it, to endure it and
to retaliate against it” (Churchill, “Be Ye men of Valour”, 19 May 1940).
In his address to his people, Blair also often stresses his individual point of view when
speaking about the possible divisions within the EU countries because of some countries’
disapproving of this war: “I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous. I
know why it arises…I know all of this. ” (18 March 2003)
The most frequently used pronoun in the four speeches is “we”. By the use of inclusive
“we”, it is possible to see that the leaders presume to speak on the addressee’s behalf: “We
must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the presence of these armoured vehicles…”
(Churchill, ''Be Ye Men of Valour'', 19 May 1940).
In Blair’s speeches, the overall meaning of inclusive “we” is a consensus of beliefs and
values represented by the British people and opposing the abnormal “other”, such as the
insanity of a devilish Saddam: “We British know that the best way to deal with future threats
peacefully is to deal with present threats with resolve” (18 March 2003).
Exclusive “we” does not refer to the addressee. According to Wales, it is generally used to
refer to the speaker and third parties who may or may not be present in the immediate situation
for sharing certain responsibilities1. The use of the exclusive “we” can be exploited to share
responsibility. “The US and the UK then undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign
to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD as we could” (Blair’s address to the House of
Commons, 18 March 2003).
Though rarely employed by Churchill, the second person pronoun “you” is often used by
Blair as a direct form of address: “Be glad in your mind. Give thanks to your God. People of
Britain, your children are safe…”…”(Blair’s Address to the House of Commons, 18 March
2003).
“He” and “his” are used by each speaker to refer to the enemy and thus avoid repetition.
“The enemy was hurled back by the retreating British and French troops. He was so roughly
handled that he didn’t hurry their departure seriously. ” (Churchill, “We Shall Fight on the
Beaches”, 4 June 1940) Blair also uses “him” only in reference to Saddam Hussein: “If the
world united and gave him an ultimatum, comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just
do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues
to defy” (Blair’s Address to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003).
In Churchill’s speeches, “them” was used to refer mainly to the French and British armies:
“I have received from the Chiefs of the French Republic the most sacred pledges that whatever
happens they will fight to the end, be it bitter or be it glorious” (“Be ye Men of Valour”, 19
May 1940). Churchill also used “them” to refer to the German army (the enemy).
1
Wales, K. (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 65.
183
However, in Blair’s speeches the main referent of “them” was the Iraqi people, the rival
Saddam Hussein and his people: “It is dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our
hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us” (18 March
2003).
Though simple sentences are frequently employed by both politicians, in Churchill’s
speeches there are no short simple structures, as even simple structures are typically spiced
with emphatic stylistic devices. He starts his address to the Nation (19 May 1940) with a
simple sentence which also conveys an epithet and a three-part list: “I speak to you for the first
time as Prime Minister in a solemn hour (epithet) for the life of our country, of our Empire, of
our Allies (three-part list), and above all the cause of freedom. ” It is through the cluster of
linguo-stylistic devices that he wants to urge the audience to follow him and to understand the
significance of the moment. The same aim is pursued by the use of simple sentences in his
address to the House of Commons (4 June 1940): “However, the German eruption swept like a
sharp scythe (simile) around the right and rear of the Armies of the north”.
Unlike Churchill, Blair uses short simple structures, usually in ranges. “Be glad in your
hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and
your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind” (Blair’s address to the
House of Commons, 18 March 2003). Such sentences are used to create an imagery of intensity
and solemnity. It is worth mentioning that simple structures are most frequently employed in
Blair’s speeches analyzed here, whereas in Churchill’s speeches complex structures prevail.
Similarly, complex structures are rather long in Churchill’s addresses, characterized
by a frequent use of stylistic devices. “I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if
nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall
prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home (periphrasis), to ride out the storm
of war (metaphor), and to outlive the menace of tyranny (intensification), if necessary for
years, if necessary alone (repetition, framing)” (“We shall fight on the Beaches”, 4 June 1940).
In Blair’s speeches, the complex sentences are comparatively simpler in wording. He
describes Saddam’s policy mostly using complex structures: “What is perfectly clear is that
Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way” (Blair’s address to the House of
Commons, 18 March 2003).
Both Churchill and Blair use relatively few compound sentences. As it becomes vivid
from Churchill’s manner of delivering speech, compound structures are mostly used to evoke
solemnity through creating atmosphere of certainty. When describing the perseverance and the
fidelity of the British Army against German attacks, he uses a likewise compound sentence:
“They tried hard, and they were beaten back; they were frustrated in their task” (Churchill,
“We shall fight on the Beaches”, 4 June 1940).
In Blair’s speeches, the compound structures are mostly linked by the conjunction “and”.
“Each time is different, and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight. ”
(Blair’s address to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003) In this sentence, he speaks about
the “uniqueness” of the tyrannical aggressions throughout the history.
Overall, stylistic devices and linguistic means are vastly deployed by both politicians;
these are carefully structured speeches made to inspire and persuade the audience. However,
Churchill’s address to the nation is rich in stylistic devices, and it is much more emphatic than
his address to the House of Commons. The latter is more factual though there is a special stress
on the intentionally chosen personal pronouns.
In contrast, Blair’s address to the nation sounds more factual and isn’t rich in stylistic
devices. However, his address to the House of Commons abounds in especially such stylistic
devices, as parallel structures and repetitions.
184
²Ýáõß ÚáÉÛ³Ý
àô. â»ñãÇÉÇ ¨ Â. ´É»»ñÇ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ׳é»ñáõÙ É»½í³á×³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ ÏÇñ³éáõÙÁ
Ðá¹í³ÍáõÙ ùÝݳñÏíáõÙ »Ý ÙÇ ß³ñù É»½í³á×³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñ, áñáÝù ß³ï »Ý ÏÇñ³éíáõÙ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ׳é»ñáõÙ ¨ ¿ÙáóÇáÝ³É ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝ áõÝ»Ý Éë³ñ³ÝÇ íñ³: â»ñãÇÉÇ ¨
´É»»ñÇ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ׳é»ñÇ áñáß Ñ³ïí³ÍÝ»ñÇ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ÙÇçáóáí Ý»ñϳ۳óíáõÙ ¿ ³ÛÝåÇëÇ É»½í³á×³Ï³Ý ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ ¹»ñÁ, ÇÝãåÇëÇù »Ý ٳϹÇñÁ, ÷á˳ÝáõÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ,
ѳÙÁÙµéÝáõÙÁ, ÏñÏÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ½áõ·³Ñ»é ϳéáõÛóÝ»ñÁ, ³ÝÓÝ³Ï³Ý ¹»ñ³ÝáõÝÝ»ñÁ ¨ ݳ˳¹³ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ï³éáõóí³ÍùÁ:
Ануш Елян
ЛИНГВОСТИЛИСТИЧЕСКИЕ СРЕДСТВА В ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ
ВЫСТУПЛЕНИЯХ В. ЧЕРЧИЛЛЯ И Т. БЛЕEРА
В статье обсуждаются некоторые лингвостилистические средства, которые широко употребляются в политических речах и имеют эмоциональное влияние на людей. Путем анализирования
некоторых отрывков из речей политических деятелей, У. Черчилля и Т. Блеера, обоснована роль
таких лингвистических и стилистических средств, как эпитеты, метафоры, метонимы, повторы,
личные местоимения и типы предложений.
185