Keating Notes Context of speech: 1993 delivered as formal eulogy at the interment of the unknown soldier My context today: As a young Australian, I identify with ‘resilience, courage and belief in

ourselves’ as well as anti-authoritarian tone implied in ‘military formalities’ and ‘political incompetence’

Celebration of the commoner/ underdog Paradox: ordinary man is not ordinary. Engages and challenges audience Unknown solider symbolic of ‘the common man’ who ‘proved real nobility

belongs...to the people’ Commonalities – draws on our common history and shared values as Australians to engage

the audience and inspire solidarity Common history ‘ANZAC’ + common values of resilience etc Equality through contrast- doesn’t ‘assert a soldier’s character above a civilian’s’ not

‘one race or one nation or one religion above any other’. This repetition of contrast stresses that it is our similarities ‘what it means to be Australian’ that matters

Inclusive language Low modality (inoffensive)

Positivity- rather than focusing on the folly of war, Keating chooses to celebrate the positives that have come of it

While we ‘lost more than 100 000 lives’, we have ‘gained a legend’ for ‘out of the war came a lesson which transcended the horror and the tragedy’

Positive language when speaking of gains (heroes, bravery and sacrifice) as opposed to ‘mad brutal awful’ circumstances from which they arose

Learnt value of ‘soldiers and sailors and nurses’ listing implies equality and fraternity Anaphora ‘it is legend’ emphasises hope, grandeur ‘courage and ingenuity’

Bandler Notes Context of speech: social and political landscape of mistrust and racial tension, ‘terrible

utterances’ excused ‘in the name of free speech’.

Our context: after formal apology, issues persist, so continually relevant

Cultural understanding + common ground

doesn’t polarise discourse between black and white, instead divides along lines of

sight vs. blindness ‘willingly blind to others way of life’ ‘deliberately blinkered’

blends personal with political, ‘I feel’ with legislation, adds credence

common aspirations ‘working together’ ‘finding our commonalities’

sarcasm – ‘it took some time for me to understand...why our differences should

matter’ uses irony to say that exaggerating differences is senseless

Overcoming adversity

Continued metaphor of battle = opposition ‘ramparts’ ‘fierce battles and conflict’ ‘fight’

‘mobilise forces’ ‘struggle’

High modality ‘we must’ and ‘it’s time’ imparts sense of resilience against

‘tremendous odds’

People-power – ‘can move more than governments, it can move mountains’. It is those that

‘patiently bear the brunt of many misdeeds and indecencies’ who are praise worthy

Addresses audiences as ‘friends’, ‘we’ inclusive

Emotive calls to action ‘we are free’ ‘if not us who?”

Comparison by contrast ‘we should ask not what is in it for me but in it for us’ echoes

JFK, draws on success of people’s movements

Deane Notes Context of speech: 1999 commemorating the ‘deaths of 21 young people in a canyoning

accident’ the ‘greatest single peace time loss of Australians outside our country’ Our Context: values still resonate, nationhood + as young Australian particularly meaningful Common humanity

o Allusion to John Donne ‘No man is an island’o Inclusive language ‘our humanity’ ‘collective loss’o Listing Australia last avoid partiality + imply differences superficial

Silver lining o ‘Competence, compassion and kindness’ from those who ‘helped look after

survivors’o ‘bring our two countries closer together’ and ‘increased awareness’ o Brought Switzerland into ‘every Australian home’o Repetition of ‘home’ suggests humanity as family, connections that transcend borderso Metaphor of light

Lit the lives of all who knew them A shining part of our humanity

o Seasons Winter at home current sorrow Golden wattles coming into bloom life affirming, hopeful

Attwood Notes Context: Well known Canadian author, speech presented on a number of occasions

throughout 1994, to different audiences. Intended audience educated, older, well-read

Our context: still questioning what it means to be human, relationship between literature and reality, women’s place in society

Complexity of women’s character and human conditiono Challenges dichotomy of female behaviour, the ‘angel/whore split so popular among

the Victorians’o Criticises the way in which the Women’s Movement oversimplifies issues facing

women and polarises morality by gender. o Need both good and bad ‘need…something disruptive to static order’ uses motif of

‘eternal breakfast’ as a metaphor for dull, static perfection. Women, real and literary, need depth to their character ‘something more than breakfast’

o Uses personal anecdotes of the children’s rhyme which her brother teased her about. Illustrates divide and makes issue accessible.

o Keeps tone light while dealing with this controversial issue by employing humour and conversational tone ‘…or a good pet canary’ ‘Flogging a few dead horses’ ‘there is a widespread tendency to judge characters as if they were job applicants’.

o Cumulative rhetorical questions engage the audience and force them to reflect ‘when bad women get into literature, what are they doing there, and are they permissible, and what, if anything, do we need them for?

o References a few motifs all the way through (breakfast and spots)continuityo Quotes others to validate her opinions ‘evil enough in all of us’ Rebecca Dame West

Exploration of the nature of literatureo Attempts to define the novel by listing what it is not. Demonstrates humility through

low modality ‘let me’ and presents herself as inferior to the audience ‘let me first go over some essentials which may be insulting to your intelligence, but comforting to mine’. Engages and boosts confidence of audience

o Explores trends in literature, shows that it is dynamic ‘once upon a time…the first would have been more…believable to the reader, but times have changed and art is what you can get away with.’ & ‘that once forbidden but now red-hot topic’

o The creation of literature- compares the novelist to God ‘God started with chaos…a void, and so does the novelist. Then god makes one detail at a time. So does the novelist.’ Humorous, quirky analogy engages audience.

o Lists the ‘how-to questions’ of the novelisto Many allusions to establish rapport with educated audience

Aung San Suu Kyi Notes Context: Icon for non-violent political change, under house-arrest by Burmese Gov,

smuggled out via video, given to predominantly female international audience

Our context – women’s place in society, tolerance still issue in divided world, Cronulla

Tolerance, unity, equalityo Inclusive language ‘us’ our’ ‘common hopes’ ‘I want to try to voice some of the

common hopes which firmly unite us in all our splendid diversity’ ‘our sisters everywhere’

o References to UN and ‘International Year for Tolerance’ add authority and provides international context

o Metaphor of light vs dark, Light represents hope and female values of ‘loving kindness, partnership and trust, mutual respect’, whereas dark is status quo, intolerance, ‘patriarchal domination and degradation’

o Burmese proverb ‘the dawn only rises when the rooster crows’ disproved by ‘scientific reason’ implies that ‘it is not the prerogative of men alone to bring light to this world’.

o Positive language ‘generation of happiness and harmony’ ‘splendid diversity’o Rhetorical questions ‘How much more could they achieve if given the opportunity to

work in their own right for the good of their country and of the world? o Recurring motif of ‘freedom’ and ‘community’ give speech continuity/cohesion

Pearson Notes Context: 1996, academic audience (accounts for formality), high-profile indigenous activist,

Howard gov opposed Aboriginal land rights movement and had recently criticized the ‘black armband view of Australian history’, time of political tension between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians

Our context: even after a formal apology by the Rudd Government in 2008, how we ‘respond to the past’ is still a sensitive issue, so the concepts still resonate. Equality, freedom and reconciliation

How to respond to the past, apportioning of guilto Directly quotes Howard and shapes his argument by contradicting him. Howard

inflammatory and emotive ‘to tell children whose parents were no part of it that we’re all part of a racist, bigoted history is something Australians reject’. Pearson objective and rational, promoting ‘collective responsibility’. He logically argues that if we ‘readily celebrate and share in the achievements of the past’, we should also ‘feel responsibility for and express shame in other aspects of our past’

o Clear, concise. Outlines focus of speech immediately ‘the debate is about how Australians should respond to the past’.

o Calls for open discussion and tolerance, hope for reconciliation. Title inclusiveo Must not polarize ‘the need for absolute goodies and baddies runs deep in us, but it

drags history into propaganda…To preserve complexity and not flatten it under the weight of anachronistic moralizing…’

o Against simplifying and ‘anti-intellectual approach’. ‘Our present national leadership is only thinking in terms of broad characterizations and slogans’.

o Bitter at times over treatment of indigenous Australians ‘the myth of terra-nullius meant that the legal invisibility of Aboriginal people…was embedded within popular belief’. Sarcasm in ‘myth’ and ‘invisibility’

o Doesn’t dwell on injustice – rather calls for ‘a new Australian history’ to ‘tell the story of the other side of the frontier’ in light of modern academic study.

o Quotes to validate opinion ‘The reading of history is never static. Revise we historians must.’ Robert Hughes, intellectual figures suited to audience

o ‘Guilt is not a useful emotion’ ‘as to the question of guilt, I am myself equivocal’o Contrasts divisive language ‘you and us’ with inclusive ‘our nation’. Elevates issue to

one of national significanceo Allusion to Keating in ‘the confusion and turmoil we had to have’ draws on another

proponent of reconciliation. ‘open our hearts a bit’ ‘open and generous heart’

Sadat Notes Context: 1977 Israel and Egypt in conflict, Egypt spending 30% national budget on defence,

impoverished. In an interview states that purpose of speech ‘What I want from this visit is that the wall created between us and Israel, the psychological wall, be knocked down.’ Highly contentious, later assassinated. Shock value of taking the initiative is partly why such a diplomatic success. Audience – specifically Knesset, but simultaneously broad and international

Our context: call for peace irrespective of context, world rife w conflict etc

Peace and common humanityo Very clear, unambiguous ‘I come to you today on solid ground to shape a new life

and to establish peace’. Maintains it’s sincere, not ‘verbal juggling’ or ‘political tactics’. Conveys sense of honesty, and openness with phrases ‘to be absolutely frank with you’ ‘we really and truly seak peace’

o Idealistic yet bluntly realistic, presents not just concepts but strategies, solutions. Structures speech around 5 facts. Focuses on precise issues ‘disengagement agreement in Sinai’

o Second person engages audience, makes message powerfulo Delivered in Hebrew, gesture of friendship – speak same language

o Inclusive language ‘our fate’ stresses that the issue involves them all. Reference to God Almighty (both believe in) draws on common faith in order to unite. ‘we all, Muslims, Christians and Jews, worship God and no one but God’

o Presents himself as an equal, does not speak ‘from a position of weakness or hesitation’. High land-based demands in return for peace, Israel must return all Arab lands they have gained since 6 day war in 1967

o Peace and justice recurring motifs, give speech cohesion. ‘permanent peace based on justice’ and ‘we are advocates of justice and peacemakers’

o Speaks in universal terms ‘any life lost in war is a human life, irrespective of its being that of an Israeli or an Arab’, humanist terms ‘sons and brothers’

o High modality to emphasise progress so far and lend speech positive tone ‘we signed’, ‘we proceeded’ ‘we are’.

o Denounces war: ‘destructive wars’ that leave ‘neither victor nor vanquished’