J. BERG ESENWEIN DALE CARNAGEY - THE ART OF PUBLIC SPEAKING

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 skyscraper 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 assaults 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 "Pass 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

antithesis. 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 space 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 God 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 citizenship. This protracted childhood makes it

possible to hand over to the boy all the _accumulated 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.

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 passage for emphasis and bring it with you

to class.

12. In the following passage, 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_.