Oratotical style

       It falls into three varieties, each having its own distinctive features. Unlike other formal styles, the publicist style has spoken varieties, in particular, the oratorical sub-style. The development of radio and television has brought into being a new spoken variety in the radio and television commentary. The other two are the essay and articles in newspapers, journals and magazines. 

       The general aim of the publicist style is to exert influence on public opinion, to convince the reader or the listener that the interpretation given by the writer or the speaker is the only correct one and to cause him to accept the point of view expressed in the speech, essay or article not merely by logical argumentation, but by emotional appeal as well. 

       This brain-washing function is most effective in oratory, for here the most powerful instrument of persuasion is brought into play: the human voice. Due to its characteristic combination of logical argumentation and emotional appeal, the publicistic style has features in common with the style of scientific prose or official documents, on the one hand, and that of emotive prose, on the other. It’s coherent and logical syntactic structure, with an expanded system of connectives and its careful paragraphing, makes it similar to scientific prose. Its emotional appeal is generally achieved by the use of words with emotive meaning, the use of imagery and other stylistic devices as in emotive prose. The publicistic style also has some elements of emotionally colored colloquial style as the author has no need to make their speech impersonal (as in scientific or official style), but, on the contrary, he or she tries to approximate the text to lively communication, as though they were talking to people in direct contact.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

       III. TYPICAL FEATURES OA ORATORY

                           AND SPEECHES. 

       The oratorical style is the oral subdivision of the publicistic style. The most obvious purpose of oratory is persuasion, and it requires eloquence. This style is evident in speeches on political and social problems of the day, in orations and addresses on solemn occasions as public weddings, funerals and jubilees, in sermons and debates and also in the speeches of counsel and judges in courts of law.

       The sphere of application of oratory is confined to appeal to an audience and therefore crucial issues in such spheres as science, art, or business relations are not touched upon.

       Direct contact with the listeners permits the combination of the syntactical, lexical and phonetic peculiarities of both the written and spoken varieties of language. In its leading feature, however, the oratorical style belongs to the written variety of language, though it is modified by the oral form of the utterance and the use of gestures.  

       Certain typical features of the spoken variety of speech present in this style are:

       a) direct address to the audience by special formulas (Ladies and Gentlemen!; My Lords!; Mr. Chairman!; Honorable Members!; Highly esteemed members of the conference!; or, in less formal situation, Dear Friends!; or, with a more passionate coloring, My Friends!). Expressions of direct address can be repeated in the course of the speech and may be expressed differently (Mark you! Mind!). 

       b) Special formulas at the end of the speech to thank the audience for their attention (Thank you very much; Thank you for your time). 

       c) the use of the 1st person pronoun we; 2nd person pronoun you: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness¹⁸. 

       d) The use of contractions I’ll; won’t; haven’t; isn’t and others: We’re talking about healing our nation. We’re not talking about politics. We’re all here to do everything in our power to save lives; I’m here to thank you for hearing that call. Actually, I shouldn’t be thanking you, I should be thanking a Higher Power for giving you the call¹⁹. 

       e) Features of colloquial style such as asking the audience questions as the speaker attempts to reach closer contact: Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?²⁰, or calling upon the audience: Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal and republican principles (ibid). 

       Like the colloquial style, oratory is usually characterized by emotional coloring and connotations, but there is a difference. The emotional coloring of the publicist style is lofty ; it may be solemn, or ironic, but it cannot have the lowered connotations (jocular, rude, vulgar, or slangy) found in colloquial speech. The vocabulary of speeches is usually elaborately chosen and remains mainly in the sphere of high-flown style: 

       Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived and so dedicated in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this²¹. 

       The stylistic devices employed in the oratorical style are determined by the conditions of communication. If the desire of the speaker is to rouse the audience and to keep it in suspense, he will use various traditional stylistic devices. Stylistic devices are closely interwoven and mutually complementary thus building up an intricate pattern. For example, an antithesis is framed by parallel constructions, which, in their turn, are accompanied by repetition, while a climax can be formed by repetitions of different kinds. 

       But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate; we cannot consecrate; we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom  and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth²². 

       As the audience rely only on memory, the speaker often resorts to repetition to enable his listeners to follow him and retain the main points of the speech. Repetition is also resorted to in order to persuade the audience, to add weight to the speaker’s opinion. The following extract from the speech of the American Confederate general, A.P. Hill, on the ending of the Civil War in the U.S.A. is an example of anaphoric repetition: 

       It is high time this people had recovered from the passions of war. It is high time that counsel were taken from statesmen, not demagogues:  It is high time the people of the North and South understood each other and adopted means to inspire confidence in each other. 

       A mere repetition of the same idea and in the same linguistic form may bore the audience and destroy the speaker-audience contact, therefore synonymous phrase repetition is used instead, thus filling up the speech with details and embellishing it, as in this excerpt from a speech on Robert Burns:

       For Burns exalted our race, he hallowed Scotland and the Scottish tongue. Before his time we had for a long period been scarcely recognized; we had been falling out of recollection of the world. From the time of the Union of the Crowns, and still more from the legislative union, Scotland had lapsed into obscurity. Except for an occasional riot, or a Jacobite rising, her existence was almost forgotten. (All those different phrases simply repeat the idea that nobody knew us, Scots, before). 

       Repetition can be regarded as the most typical stylistic device of the English oratorical style. Almost any piece of oratory will have parallel constructions, antithesis, climax, rhetorical questions and questions-in-the-narrative. It will be no exaggeration to say that almost all typical syntactical devices can be found in English oratory. Questions are most frequent because they promote closer contact with the audience. The change of intonation breaks the monotony of the intonation pattern and revives the attention of the listeners:

       No? You don’t want to leave the U.N. to the Europeans and Russians? Then let’s stop bellyaching about the U.N., and manipulating our dues, and start taking it seriously for what it is a global forum that spends 95 percent of its energy endorsing the wars and peacekeeping missions that the U.S. wants endorsed, or taking on the thankless humanitarian missions that the U.S. would like done but doesn’t want to do itself. The U.N. actually spends only 5 percent of its time annoying the U.S. Not a bad deal!²³ 

       The desire of the speaker to convince and to rouse his audience results in the use of simile and metaphor, but these are generally traditional ones, as fresh and genuine stylistic devices may divert the attention of the listeners away from the main point of the speech. Besides, unexpected and original images are more difficult to grasp and the process takes time. 

       Absence of exclamatory sentences, break-in-the narrative, other expressively charged constructions.

       Articles demonstrate more syntactical organisation and logical arrangement of sentences. 
 
 

       III.1.    Phonetic features.

       Standard pronunciation, wide use of prosody as a means of conveying the subtle shades of meaning, overtones and emotions. 
 

       III.2.    Morphological features.

       Frequent use of non-finite verb forms, such as gerund, participle, infinitive.

       Use of non-perfect verb forms.

       Omission of articles, link verbs, auxiliaries, pronouns, especially in headlines and news items. 
 

       III.3.     Syntactical features.

       Frequent use of rhetorical questions and interrogatives in oratory speech.

       In headlines: use of impersonal sentences, elliptical constructions, interrogative sentences, infinitive complexes and attributive groups.

       In news items and articles: news items comprise one or two, rarely three, sentences.

       Absence of complex coordination with chain of subordinate clauses and a number of conjunctions.

       Prepositional phrases are used much more than synonymous gerundial phrases.

       III.4.     Lexical features.

       In oratory speech: words of elevated and bookish character, colloquial words and phrases, frequent use of such stylistic devices as metaphor, alliteration, allusion, irony, etc. Use of conventional forms of address and trite phases. Compositio nal features

       Text arrangement is marked by precision, logic and expressive power. Carefully selected vocabulary. Variety of topics.

       Wide use of quotations, direct speech and represented speech.

       In oratory: simplicity of structural expression, clarity of message, argumentative power. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                CONCLUSION

       According all what was said above: the oratorical style is one of the important sub-division of the publicistic style.

       Oratorical speech called impact, convincing speech that is addressed to a wide audience, is pronounced a professional speech (speaker), and aims to change the behavior of the audience, her attitudes, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

        Speaking at a meeting, meeting, rally, in the media - a version of oratory. The task of the speaker - to present a certain amount of information, defending their point of view, urging others to its adoption, is convinced he is right, etc. Performances vary in subject, scope, objectives speakers, audiences, for whom they serve.

        This style has it’s  own signals such as  direct address to the audience by special formulas (Ladies and Gentlemen!; My Lords!; Mr. Chairman!; Honorable Members!; Highly esteemed members of the conference!; or, in less formal situation, Dear Friends!; or, with a more passionate coloring, My Friends!); special formulas at the end of the speech to thank the audience for their attention; the use of the 1st person pronoun we, 2nd person pronoun you; the use of contractions I’ll; won’t; haven’t; isn’t and others ; features of colloquial style such as asking the audience questions as the speaker attempts to reach closer contact, and many others.  
 
 
 
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. I. V. Arnold. Stylistics. Modern English. - Moscow, 2002.

2. V. A. Kukharenko. Practice of stylistics of English. - Moscow, 1986.

3. Yu. M. Skrebnev. Fundamentals of stylistics. - Moscow, 2002.

4. I. R. Galperin. Stylistics. - Moscow, 1977.

5. M. Riffaterre. Criteria for Style Analysis. “Word”, 1965

6. M. A. K. Halliday. Linguistic Function and Literary Style. - In: “Literary Style: A Symposium.” 1971.

7. I. R. Galperin. An Essay in Stylistic Analysis. M. 1968.

8 . N. E. Enkvist. Linguistic Stylistic. Mouton, the Hague, 1973

9. M. Riffaterre. Stylistic Context, Word, 1960

10. M. Riffaterre. The Stylistic Function. Proceedings of the 19^th International Compress of Linguists; The Hague, 1964.

12. D. Cristal. Investigating English Style. Longman’s, 1969.

13. R. Fowler. The new stylistics. Oxford, 1975

14. Losh, E. The dialogue as a Genre. Sept. 12, 2005.

15. L. Milic. Style and Stylistics. New York, 1967.

16. J. Haynes. Introducing Stylistics. Boston, 1989.

17. H. Archibald. Poetry and Stylistics. – In: Essays on the Language of literature, Boston, 1967