The Art of Public Speaking Part 3

Let us not confound loudness with emphasis. To yell is not a sign of earnestness, intelligence, or feeling. The kind of force that we want applied to the emphatic word is not entirely physical. True, the emphatic word may be spoken more loudly, or it may be spoken more softly, but the _real_ quality desired is intensity, earnestness. It must come from within, outward.

Last night a speaker said: "The curse of this country is not a lack of education. It's politics." He emphasized _curse, lack, education, politics_. The other words were hurried over and thus given no comparative importance at all. The word _politics_ was flamed out with great feeling as he slapped his hands together indignantly. His emphasis was both correct and powerful. He concentrated all our attention on the words that meant something, instead of holding it up on such words as _of this_, _a_, _of_, _It's_.

What would you think of a guide who agreed to show New York to a stranger and then took up his time by visiting Chinese laundries and boot-blacking "parlors" on the side streets? There is only one excuse for a speaker's asking the attention of his audience: He must have either truth or entertainment for them. If he wearies their attention with trifles they will have neither vivacity nor desire left when he reaches words of Wall-Street and skysc.r.a.per importance. You do not dwell on these small words in your everyday conversation, because you are not a conversational bore. Apply the correct method of everyday speech to the platform. As we have noted elsewhere, public speaking is very much like conversation enlarged.

Sometimes, for big emphasis, it is advisable to lay stress on every single syllable in a word, as _absolutely_ in the following sentence:

I ab-so-lute-ly refuse to grant your demand.

Now and then this principle should be applied to an emphatic sentence by stressing each word. It is a good device for exciting special attention, and it furnishes a pleasing variety. Patrick Henry's notable climax could be delivered in that manner very effectively: "Give--me--liberty--or--give--me--death." The italicized part of the following might also be delivered with this every-word emphasis. Of course, there are many ways of delivering it; this is only one of several good interpretations that might be chosen.

Knowing the price we must pay, the sacrifice we must make, the burdens we must carry, the a.s.saults we must endure--knowing full well the cost--yet we enlist, and we enlist for the war. For we know the justice of our cause, and _we know, too, its certain triumph._

--_From "Pa.s.s Prosperity Around,"_ by ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE, _before the Chicago National Convention of the Progressive Party_.

Strongly emphasizing a single word has a tendency to suggest its ant.i.thesis. Notice how the meaning changes by merely putting the emphasis on different words in the following sentence. The parenthetical expressions would really not be needed to supplement the emphatic words.

_I_ intended to buy a house this Spring (even if you did not).

I _INTENDED_ to buy a house this Spring (but something prevented).

I intended to _BUY_ a house this Spring (instead of renting as heretofore).

I intended to buy a _HOUSE_ this Spring (and not an automobile).

I intended to buy a house _THIS_ Spring (instead of next Spring).

I intended to buy a house this _SPRING_ (instead of in the Autumn).

When a great battle is reported in the papers, they do not keep emphasizing the same facts over and over again. They try to get new information, or a "new slant." The news that takes an important place in the morning edition will be relegated to a small s.p.a.ce in the late afternoon edition. We are interested in new ideas and new facts. This principle has a very important bearing in determining your emphasis. Do not emphasize the same idea over and over again unless you desire to lay extra stress on it; Senator Thurston desired to put the maximum amount of emphasis on "force" in his speech on page 50. Note how force is emphasized repeatedly. As a general rule, however, the new idea, the "new slant," whether in a newspaper report of a battle or a speaker's enunciation of his ideas, is emphatic.

In the following selection, "larger" is emphatic, for it is the new idea. All men have eyes, but this man asks for a _LARGER_ eye.

This man with the larger eye says he will discover, not rivers or safety appliances for aeroplanes, but _NEW STARS_ and _SUNS_. "New stars and suns" are hardly as emphatic as the word "larger." Why? Because we expect an astronomer to discover heavenly bodies rather than cooking recipes. The words, "Republic needs" in the next sentence, are emphatic; they introduce a new and important idea. Republics have always needed men, but the author says they need _NEW_ men. "New" is emphatic because it introduces a new idea. In like manner, "soil," "grain," "tools," are also emphatic.

The most emphatic words are italicized in this selection. Are there any others you would emphasize? Why?

The old astronomer said, "Give me a _larger_ eye, and I will discover _new stars_ and _suns_." That is what the _republic needs_ today--_new men_--men who are _wise_ toward the _soil_, toward the _grains_, toward the _tools_. If G.o.d would only raise up for the people two or three men like _Watt_, _Fulton_ and _McCormick_, they would be _worth more_ to the _State_ than that _treasure box_ named _California_ or _Mexico_. And the _real supremacy_ of man is based upon his _capacity_ for _education_.

Man is _unique_ in the _length_ of his _childhood_, which means the _period_ of _plasticity_ and _education_. The childhood of a _moth_, the distance that stands between the hatching of the _robin_ and its _maturity_, represent a _few hours_ or a _few weeks_, but _twenty years_ for growth stands between _man's_ cradle and his citizens.h.i.+p. This protracted childhood makes it possible to hand over to the boy all the _acc.u.mulated stores achieved_ by _races_ and _civilizations_ through _thousands_ of _years_.

--_Anonymous_.

You must understand that there are no steel-riveted rules of emphasis.

It is not always possible to designate which word must, and which must not be emphasized. One speaker will put one interpretation on a speech, another speaker will use different emphasis to bring out a different interpretation. No one can say that one interpretation is right and the other wrong. This principle must be borne in mind in all our marked exercises. Here your own intelligence must guide--and greatly to your profit.

QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES.

1. What is emphasis?

2. Describe one method of destroying monotony of thought-presentation.

3. What relation does this have to the use of the voice?

4. Which words should be emphasized, which subordinated, in a sentence?

5. Read the selections on pages 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54, devoting special attention to emphasizing the important words or phrases and subordinating the unimportant ones. Read again, changing emphasis slightly. What is the effect?

6. Read some sentence repeatedly, emphasizing a different word each time, and show how the meaning is changed, as is done on page 22.

7. What is the effect of a lack of emphasis?

8. Read the selections on pages 30 and 48, emphasizing every word. What is the effect on the emphasis?

9. When is it permissible to emphasize every single word in a sentence?

10. Note the emphasis and subordination in some conversation or speech you have heard. Were they well made? Why? Can you suggest any improvement?

11. From a newspaper or a magazine, clip a report of an address, or a biographical eulogy. Mark the pa.s.sage for emphasis and bring it with you to cla.s.s.

12. In the following pa.s.sage, would you make any changes in the author's markings for emphasis? Where? Why? Bear in mind that not all words marked require the same _degree_ of emphasis--_in a wide variety of emphasis, and in nice shading of the gradations, lie the excellence of emphatic speech_.

I would call him _Napoleon_, but Napoleon made his way to empire over _broken oaths_ and through a _sea_ of _blood_. This man _never_ broke his word. "No Retaliation" was his great motto and the rule of his life; and the last words uttered to his son in France were these: "My boy, you will one day go back to Santo Domingo; _forget_ that _France murdered your father_." I would call him _Cromwell_, but Cromwell was _only_ a _soldier_, and the state he founded _went down_ with him into his grave. I would call him _Was.h.i.+ngton_, but the great Virginian _held slaves_. This man _risked_ his _empire_ rather than _permit_ the slave-trade in the _humblest village_ of his dominions.

You think me a fanatic to-night, for you read history, _not_ with your _eyes_, but with your _prejudices_. But fifty years hence, when _Truth_ gets a hearing, the Muse of History will put _Phocion_ for the _Greek_, and _Brutus_ for the _Roman_, _Hampden_ for _England_, _Lafayette_ for _France_, choose _Was.h.i.+ngton_ as the bright, consummate flower of our _earlier_ civilization, and _John Brown_ the ripe fruit of our _noonday_, then, dipping her pen in the sunlight, will write in the clear blue, above them all, the name of the _soldier_, the _statesman_, the _martyr_, _TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE_.

--WENDELL PHILLIPS, _Toussaint l'Ouverture_.

Practise on the following selections for emphasis: Beecher's "Abraham Lincoln," page 76; Lincoln's "Gettysburg Speech," page 50; Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict," page 67; and Bryan's "Prince of Peace," page 448.

CHAPTER IV

EFFICIENCY THROUGH CHANGE OF PITCH

Speech is simply a modified form of singing: the princ.i.p.al difference being in the fact that in singing the vowel sounds are prolonged and the intervals are short, whereas in speech the words are uttered in what may be called "staccato" tones, the vowels not being specially prolonged and the intervals between the words being more distinct. The fact that in singing we have a larger range of tones does not properly distinguish it from ordinary speech. In speech we have likewise a variation of tones, and even in ordinary conversation there is a difference of from three to six semi-tones, as I have found in my investigations, and in some persons the range is as high as one octave.

--WILLIAM SCHEPPEGRELL, _Popular Science Monthly_.

By pitch, as everyone knows, we mean the relative position of a vocal tone--as, high, medium, low, or any variation between. In public speech we apply it not only to a single utterance, as an exclamation or a monosyllable (_Oh!_ or _the_) but to any group of syllables, words, and even sentences that may be spoken in a single tone. This distinction it is important to keep in mind, for the efficient speaker not only changes the pitch of successive syllables (see Chapter VII, "Efficiency through Inflection"), but gives a different pitch to different parts, or word-groups, of successive sentences. It is this phase of the subject which we are considering in this chapter.

_Every Change in the Thought Demands a Change in the Voice-Pitch_

Whether the speaker follows the rule consciously, unconsciously, or subconsciously, this is the logical basis upon which all good voice variation is made, yet this law is violated more often than any other by _public_ speakers. A criminal may disregard a law of the state without detection and punishment, but the speaker who violates this regulation suffers its penalty at once in his loss of effectiveness, while his innocent hearers must endure the monotony--for monotony is not only a sin of the perpetrator, as we have shown, but a plague on the victims as well.