The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Word power > Comments

Word power : Comments

By Peter Botsman, published 11/12/2006

In politics a witty one liner is capable of flooring a heckler, like a right to the jaw.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
In modern day Australia, English is often a misused tool.
I believe that this misuse is mainly due to ignorance of the language's structure, grammar, and to a lesser extent, spelling.
As well, there is an acute lack of knowledge about how to deliver words, phrases and sentences.

This skill, possessed by many actors, is a thing which sets their oratory apart from the mundane or routine.
They can insert meaning and emotion into a line by understanding the intent of that line, then applying their skills to give a wide range of shades and meaning to bare words.
Few people get the opportunity to speak in public and measure their effect on audiences in the way that professional performers do.

It is depressing to listen to some professional speakers, such as ABC radio newsreaders, display a lack of ability to scan a sentence, identify subject, object, verbs and prepositions, then read the lines in a way which reflects the writer's idea.
The other morning, I heard an "experienced" ABC newsreader refer to the "....economy IN China...".

Unlike the post WW2 era when ALP parliamentarians often emerged from the less well-educated sections of the workforce and whose speech reflected linguistic ignorance, today's members really should have little excuse for their not being able to use English fluently and well, despite the failure of schools over the last few decades to teach it thoroughly.

Experience with good speech lends an ability to use English powerfully, ironically, emotionally and effectively. It's skill which Kevin Rudd seems to have, and ought place him in a similar position to deliver the quick, biting ripostes of Keating, Whitlam, Menzies and their ilk.
At last, John Howard will need to confront a more level playing field.
Posted by Ponder, Monday, 11 December 2006 10:09:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A plausible and interesting thesis, Peter. A few notable examples to illustrate the point would have been appreciated. Perhaps some are included in the original article?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 11 December 2006 10:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ponder it is indeed true that many journalists abuse the english language, though to be fair, most are operating under rather stressful deadlines. In addition to this, they tend to be handicapped by a writing style which emphasizes direct language over nuance. Subtlety fell by the wayside quite some time ago.
Plus, subeditors have a way of inadvertently butchering the intended context, which can be a tad frustrating for the journalist who has their byline on the front of the story.

My personal pet hate is those opening paragraphs in print articles that rearrange the sentence in order to place the "punchiest" part at the start. It's okay most of the time, but on some occasions it just ends up convoluted.

As far as memorable quips go, I don't think you can go past that old gem from Winston Churchill. When a female MP told him that if she was his husband, she would slip him poison, he quickly responded "if I was your husband, I would take it."
Classic. Not something I could envision from Kevin Rudd or John Howard.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 11 December 2006 10:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grammar has evolved as everything else has evolved. I get cranky when a politician gets hold of a phrase and worries it to death. Example Mark Lathams's 'ladders', Kevin Rudd's first speeches as leader were so cliche driven that I just could not believe he said those empty ,vacuous words.
Simon Crean's wonderword was,'aspiration'.
Fellers , once is enough!
So far John Howard is the master of brevity, may he stay so.
Posted by mickijo, Monday, 11 December 2006 1:50:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mickijo, John Howard may be your "master of brevity" but isn't it amazing that when he is asked a simple and probing question by a reporter requiring a "Yes" or "No" somehow he just can't seem to articulate the type of brevity that the public wants.
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 11 December 2006 8:26:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy