Damn-Near Certain Annihilation
by Andrew Michael Flynn
The Speeches
Rhetoric has the potential is to stir enough emotion and resolve within people to exact necessary and timely change. Of the famous speeches given over the last century, two in particular are widely considered quite effective.
Winston Churchill made a historical speech to the British House of Commons in June 1940. It aimed to rally his United Kingdom to fight no matter where the enemy may meet them for battle. The famous passage of, “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 and growing strength in the air, we shall defend out Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches…(Churchill, “We Shall Fight on the Beaches”)” rings throughout every generation from a leader who absolutely would not quit regardless of the circumstances. Analyzing this speech for the final project is crucial because of its historical significance and the hopeful cadences it yields that eventually brought more allies to the embattled United Kingdom in World War II.
The second speech is from President John F. Kennedy in June 1963. Comparatively, this speech is slightly lesser known than Churchill’s historical contribution, however there is just as significant weight to it when factoring in where the United States and Western Europe were in this era of potentially world-ending nuclear geopolitics. His passage of “And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal” (Kennedy, “Commencement Address at American University”). What makes this speech significant enough to earn history’s echo is a leader’s appeal that human survival must be a certainty in the march towards the best possible world. And nuclear destruction cannot be a part of it, regardless of what month and year any calendar says.
Perspectives from Morphological, Phonological, and Semantic Points of View
These two spoken pieces were hardly ad-libbed, but rather constructed out of the strong oak and stainless steel of the English language. Morphologically, the inflection and main thesis of Churchill’s speech resides in the repetitious and memorable “we shall…” usage. The call and response of such a desperate request from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom surely would not have been used if Britain were not in such dire straits at the time. The method that builds the speech is not so much a list of all the things that have soured, but all that the mighty country could still do, making it an effort of a positive nature.
In Kennedy’s “Peace” speech at the American University commencement address, the morphological composition here is based on pragmatism and survival. Kennedy speaks of what is possible and recognizes that “our problems are manmade—therefore, they can be solved by man” (Kennedy). He acknowledges what is difficult about the world and speaks in essay format by going first and second and third with his debate bulletpoints, then summarizes them. He does not stop here, though. He goes on to speak of an overall security and the best possible way forward, all the while admitting that the “United States, as the world knows, will never start a war (Kennedy).” His powerful word choice along with a careful use of adverbs, and a number of “we shall” statements pepper an overall crushing speech which underlines a civilized world on the precipice of absolute disaster.
The speech that Winston Churchill delivered to the House of Commons on June 4th, 1940, was one of an international appeal, namely to the United States and close allies that would drastically help aide the effort of the United Kingdom against Germany’s warring assault. What assisted Churchill in this speech was his use of common English language, semantically not difficult to understand and meant for the largest audience possible. In the passage “However, the German eruption swept like a sharp scythe around the right and rear of the Armies of the north (Churchill) he employs a simile, which is a comparison of two unlike things in order to create a nonliteral image (Denham & Lobeck 315). More figurative language phrases such as “jaws of death and shame” and “bitter weeds in England” (Churchill) are peppered throughout this timeless speech in order to keep the audience’s attention, but also to drive home the fierce point that his country was one that couldn’t fight alone.
Phonologically speaking, Churchill and Kennedy were relative and consummate masters of the “sound patterns” (Denham & Lobeck 103) and just how to pierce someone’s attention with an “unconscious system underlying speech” (103). These were professional politicians during respective wartime scenarios, and breaking through to their desired audiences required an incredible amount of linguistic flair. So they went street-level and try to use as much common language as possible, appealing to not the most erudite but rather the working-class and true muscle of their countries. Churchill’s urge uses honesty statements like “For four or five days an intense struggle reigned” (Churchill), using the powerful /f/, /s/, and /r/ consonants to drive home the blood-and-guts of it all. Kennedy’s word choice in the passage, “However fixed out likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors” (Kennedy), reflects a manner of desired peace by metaphorically smoothing out the peanut butter on all corners of the bread, alternating between dominant sounding /d/ and /t/ consonants with the softer /h/, /b/, and /n/ letters to begin words of coaxing nature.
A little over two decades later on June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy delivered his “Peace” speech to American University as that semester’s commencement address. The desire for the world’s survival was his main thesis, and he constructively petitioned his audience to help him find methods to achieve the high task at hand. His passage, “No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings (Kennedy) is incredibly dense as it uses many semantical aspects in its weight. The “human destiny” is a euphemism for his beckoning of the outright survival of all people. This is also an example of semantic features, which are “classifications of meaning under which words are stored in our mental lexicons” (Denham & Lobeck 296).
Register Levels
What could be said about Churchill’s “We Will Fight on the Beaches” is that it was a speech that drew from both formal and informal register levels. This means that the “speech of writing style adopted” (Denham & Lobeck 350) was for everyone to hear, everything acknowledged. The vocabulary used was accessible, although at times used complex lists and military vernacular. This is fairly normal is a speech that doubled as a type of “State of the Union” lecture. Definitive phrasing like “A miracle of deliverance, achieved by valor, by perseverance” (Churchill) was poignant to its semantical core and strived to influence the most powerful countries and people in the world at the time. As stated above, it was a speech given to the British House of Commons, but laid bare the situation of the country for all who would potentially be in earshot. A formal register is used when Churchill speaks about the German forces approaching, declaring “he was so roughly handled that he did not hurry their departure seriously” (Churchill). The use of an informal register in this particular speech is rare, but it can be found near the end of the speech when he speaks of options: “I think that no idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered and viewed with a searching, but at the same time, I hope, with a steady eye” (Churchill).
Kennedy’s “Peace” speech was in this same vein. It wasn’t quite as desperate, but the flexible pivoting from formal “While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard out human interests” (Kennedy) to informal “We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough—of war and hate and oppression.” (Kennedy). Much like Churchill, the tone never exits its seriousness, so there are no weird sound effects added like circus noises or errant whistles. This is the President of the United States speaking on a subject of grave possibilities, albeit at a celebratory event, as Kennedy’s Administration had seen both sizable losses and large victories up to this point.
Dialects & Stylistic Elements
Churchill spoke with his posh-sounding British accent, or what is known as “upper-received pronunciation” aristocratic English (“Speak Like Winston Churchill”). His dialect is one fortified with higher education and decades of tempering it to positive effect, even if he had a quart of whiskey before lunch every day. Vices aside, his “We Will Fight On The Beaches” speech engages his own life’s background to prove his command of the country that he was Prime Minister for. There was a blunt truth that coarsened throughout the United Kingdom’s laundry list of issues at the time, even if most of it wasn’t advantageous in the moment. Certainly the most memorable passage of this speech with numerous calls of “We Shall” show the stylistic element of repetition, which can be effective above almost all other types of public speaking if done with the vigor and content that an audience can grab onto the run with.
Somewhat on the same side of the coin, President Kennedy’s indelible Boston accent scores every public engagement he had as an adult, not ever trying to flatten it for any reason. He was the product of one of the most politically powerful families of this era in the United States, construed as aristocratic in their own right when compared the other classes of people in America. A gifted speaker, Kennedy would take his time with annunciation in his “Peace” speech to sell a particular line, especially for rhetorical value: “What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? (Kennedy)”. His style of more gentle speaking made it more accessible for audiences, essentially making it easy for history to remember both delivery and content. While the messages in his speech were dire, the communicator was exactly right for the time. Wonderment occurs when it comes to Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, if either would have delivered the same speech, and what might the historical reaction have been. Trying to extrapolate the naked words into their own speaking style takes imagination.
Use of Language
Regarding established linguistic principles, both Winston Churchill and President Kennedy use the English language in a standard way as their baseline for communication. Respectively, their initial approaches are absolutely formal and serious, but they let up at times and show a slight informal side so as to be understood by their audiences. Combined, the speeches are an exercise in terrific grammar, with slang hardly ever being used so as not to detract from their intentions. The very fact that they are leaders of their countries at crucial flashpoints in recorded humanity demands their preciseness and clear voices to make the sizeable impact on their audiences. Further, the level at which these speeches were composed is surely only possible by the work of many speechwriters knowing their respective leader’s voice and personal history, in order to meet the requirements of exactly what ideas and aspirations that needed to get across to countless countrymen’s ears.
Intended Message
Upon study of both Churchill and Kennedy’s speeches, a great care has been made with using morphemes to their respective advantages. Morphemes are the words parts that hold meaning (Denham & Lobeck 143), such as when Churchill’s speech added necessary suffixes to already powerful words like “fierce” becoming “fierceness” or “fiercely” to give passage more impact, and Kennedy utilizing “resist” but making it into “irresistibly” when imploring his real (and envisioned!) spectators that keeping the world from nuclear extermination was the much better course of action. Leaders who understand the power of speech mixed with their bully pulpit usually can get captive audiences at short notice anyway. But to be able to use effective speech methods like these only increases audience interest and language efficacy.
Changes
Given that President Kennedy’s speech was made during the Cold War in 1961 at American University, the world would have to be flipped on its side in some respects in order to fit his words to the times of a desperate United Kingdom of the year 1940. The huge adjustments to the ordered world aside, Kennedy and his speechwriters would use more tempered language in order to inspire and convince the first world into helping a hypothetical United States directly fight back the German assault. Whereas in the original Kennedy speech he offered this passage, “…I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war—and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no urgent task…” (Kennedy, “Commencement Address at American University”), a similar-sounding but differently resolute appeal would be needed. Something to the effect of, “Peace is possible, but peace is down the road for now. Its horizon may not be visible at this moment, but the actions and plight we must pursue now must meet the enemy, that of the German Army and all who would go into battle with this dastardly opponent.” All of this said, Kennedy’s presidential era of the early-1960s and Churchill’s leadership era of 1930s and 1940s Britain did have some of the same ambition to outright stave off human annihilation.
Recommendations
The manner of articulation which both Churchill and Kennedy used was at such a premier level that only their regional dialects could really be brought into critique. There are occurrences that Kennedy drops the /r/ is some of his words like “mortal” and “clear”. Even though his natural speaking cadence is at a moderate speed, annunciation of these /r/ sounds could marginally improve his American University commencement speech. Churchill’s regal-sounding aristocratic dialect of British English allows him to elongate certain syllables of words, something entirely natural in his original language. At times the last syllables of “program”, “delay”, and “force” are examples where this occurs, but it’s still not in any real discernable form to cause aural injury to the words, audience, or even speaker.
Time Periods
All things taken into effect, the two speeches being critiqued here use approximately the same English language in that the delivery of them are only 21 years apart. This makes the two speeches first-cousins in the respect that they were both made by important leaders at times of considerable discord in the state of the organized world. The phrasing and syntax are analogous in that they are speeches written in essay format with prudent devotion to exactly how the voice of their speaker would convey the words. Appropriate rhetorical style is used by both Churchill and Kennedy, and the only true difference is the circumstances that faced their own countries at the time. Kennedy’s speech is obviously informed by Churchill’s, the latter being the more widely-recognized one considering the human stakes. Churchill’s speech has a sentence structure that is easy to follow, although his are longer and denser with information. Kennedy’s speech is objectively more accessible when his audience is considered, with sentences being shorter and themes not as crushing, even though they are as serious.
Environmental, Historical, and Cultural Influences
In the world of June 1940, Great Britain was a nation at war, an important historical fact when looking at the formation and manner of Churchill’s speech. His “We Will Fight On The Beaches” appeal for ultimate survival of his country and the modern way of life was all things including environmental, historical, and cultural. Everything about a war affects the parties involved. And from there, the outcome of the war influences the country’s economy and larger world order in countless ways afterward. The passage from Churchill’s speech, “Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail” (Churchill) directly preceded his “We shall” petition which sent the appeal at light speed to the civilized world.
Considering President Kennedy’s “Peace” speech, it was given at an optimistic event, that of the commencement of that semester’s American University senior class in June 1961. At this time, the Cold War between the United States and the U.S.S.R. was at a veritable peak with the nuclear arms race in full swing. It was an unnerving and perpetual state of almost-war that was also affecting everything in a cultural, historical, and outright geopolitical sense of life at the time. Kennedy’s beckoning of, “While we proceed to safeguard out national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both” (Kennedy).
Influences
As stated above and by countless scholars and lovers of the English language as well, soaring political speeches have a way of sticking around in popular culture for many eras after they are spoken. Anytime humanity is threatened on a larger scale such as in wartime or prospective mass demise, it carries forward to influence speechwriters and those would get inspired to use these speeches to communicate with their contemporary audiences. One example of this is the character of President Whitmore in the film Independence Day (dir. Roland Emmerich, 1996) and his own take on a speech asking for survival of the human race, which has entered into the lexicon itself as one of the better inspirational speeches given by a fictional character. To end the second act of the movie when America and the world seems to be down by not quite out, Whitmore grabs a microphone on the tarmac of an air force base to give some optimism to his only remaining squadron of fighter pilots, “We’re fighting for our right to live, to exist…We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive!” (Emmerich). It could be argued that both Churchill and Kennedy’s historical speeches were basically heavily leaned upon by Hollywood screenwriters to fit this moment in the movie, as the similarities are glaring and nearly without subtlety.
###
Works Cited
Churchill, Winston. “We Shall Fight on the Beaches.” YouTube. 4 June 1940, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_LncVnecLA.
Churchill, Winston. “We Shall Fight on the Beaches.” International Churchill Society, 5 Dec. 2021, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-hour/we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches/.
Denham, Kristin, and Anne C. Lobeck. Linguistics for Everyone: An Introduction. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013.
Emmerich, Roland, director. Independence Day. 20th Century Studios, 2 July 1996.
Kennedy, John F. “Commencement Address at American University”. YouTube. 10 June 1963, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fkKnfk4k40.
Kennedy, John F. “Commencement Address at American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963.” Commencement Address at American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963 | JFK Library, https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610.
“Speak like Winston Churchill.” Prog.World, 29 May 2020, https://prog.world/speak-like-winston-churchill-who-needs-to-sell-their-soul-to-communicate-in-english-so/#:~:text=Many%20students%2C%20when%20they%20first,or%20%E2%80%9Cupper%20received%20pronunciation%E2%80%9D.
###