Bush’s speech heavily contributed to the use of his tones. Throughout the speech he uses relatively simple language; This was done so that he could unite the citizens of America and give them a sense of fearfulness. He did this by using Anaphora and constantly using words such as “our”, “us” and “we”. The use of these words made people realize that America is in this together as a nation, and in this case no one is an outsider or minority as they are all fighting against one common threat. Those words that were used by Bush are also essential because they represent solidarity.
The fresher metaphors are the ones he uses when he’s speaking about the future of the United States. These metaphors make his speech adaptable to many audiences. 4) Some words in the speech seem archaic or old-fashioned, some examples of these words would be “foe”, “solemn oath”, “asunder”, and “forebears”. These words not only make Kennedy sound more experienced and wise, but they also make the speech sound more formal and trustworthy. Syntax 1) Kennedy used these short paragraphs because they offer natural pauses so his audience can process and reflect about his main points.
His speech reached the people, and made them listen. It makes you believe what he says because of the way he presents it and it does its job. The speech is a persuasive one to make the population see the charges in a new way and understand what the money in question was used for. He gives them information to change their opinions on the matter which is exactly what a persuasive speech is designed to do. Nixon begins his speech by stating that he will not lie, or deny the charge brought against him without going into specific detail.
By adding visuals to his speech he is definitely is being thorough and precise. The use of the power point greatly reduces his chances for error and substantially enhances the details of the points he wishes to
After refreshing the audience on American tradition he states what he feels America is today and affirms that he will do what is best for America, regardless of religion. His organization involves a lot of small points made throughout with powerful statements and American ideals strung throughout. He doesn’t use one exceptionally powerful situation but spreads his strong points throughout the entire speech. Kennedy briefly strays from the issue when he is tracing back American History, but he does so in short sections and always states how it relates back to helping prove his point. He is able to stay on track and use powerful statements because of the way the speech is set up in small sections.
The general tone of kings voice is shown threw out his entire letter. The words he uses in this letter give a tone that is friendly and understanding. His voice is kind and very effective in the way he describes his personal experience, how he identifies with the clergymen, and in describing the laws. King uses phrases that kindly remind everyone how racism effects us all in a negative way. When talking about this he says “whatever
The photograph of him also gives the readers face with which is assistant to his words, made it easier to agree with his point of view. Nevertheless, he keeps his personal interest out of his argument, focusing instead on the facts, research finding, reports and logic of his case. This is reinforced by his use of period, such as “baseline measurement” and data collection”, which convey difficult, approach to the issue. The evidence, occurs repeatedly, stressing that he believes his planning, as soon as public policy, should be based on the facts. The issue also comforts the readers that his viewpoint is not dangerous or by personal beliefs.
All of these things made for an exciting and attention grabbing presentation. Randy Pausch was very humorous when giving his lecture. There was never a dull moment and it kept the audience interested and entertained. He took a serious situation and gave examples to bring light to it. When presenting, he gave both the pros and cons to the subject at hand.
He is understanding, accepting, and he’s very fair. When he decided to defend Tom Robinson because he found it morally correct, it showed that he was very open-minded. He listened to both sides in the court and found a way to make people believe what he believed. He always treated people with respect. Calpurnia is also a great example of an approving person.
He was tolerant of others, yet he let them know what he wanted and what they could get away with. He knew how to handle their weaknesses and how to enhance their strengths. When picking people for his cabinet, he covered his own weaknesses by surrounding himself with people who did well in those areas. He also surrounded himself with people who had opposing views from him, which led him to make decisions that were better for the country and not for his image. After all this praise of Washington, I want to draw your attention to a few things he did that I can’t say I agree with.