Free Classic Speeches Search! Enter Your Topic Below:

Chapter 7. How to Choose Our Words

1. Grammar

Dr. Johnson O'Connor, famous for his psychological testing laboratory at the Stevens Institute of Technology, firmly believes that the acquisition of a large vocabulary is a concomitant of success in business today. He has written many articles on this subject, including the following article on "What Is Success?"

"What is success? And how is it gained? Whether one thinks of success as financial reward, or as assured social position, or as satisfaction in able work accomplished and recognized, or as a combination of the three and something more, many factors contribute. Most of them elude our understanding and remain intangibly beyond definition. A vital force drives some individuals over every obstacle. With others, that great generalization, character, adds strength of a sort. Neither may ever be restricted to a hard and fast formula; certainly, at the moment, neither can be measured. But other more concrete constituents of success have been isolated and studied in the laboratory. One of these is a large English vocabulary.

An extensive knowledge of the exact meanings of English words accompanies outstanding success in this country more often than any other single characteristic which the Human Engineering Laboratories have been able to isolate and measure.

What is meant by vocabulary? Just what the word signifies. Does the word enervating mean soothing, exciting, distressing, invigorating, or weakening? For most well-educated persons the choice is between invigorating and weakening. Fifty-two per cent of the college graduates whom we have measured choose invigorating as the synonym; only sixteen per cent choose weakening, the dictionary definition.

Does stilted in the phrase* "his stilted manner", mean irresolute, improper, cordial, stiffly formal, or vicious? A majority of educated persons mark stiffly formal, but more than a third mark irresolute. Answers to the meaning of scurrilous, in the phrase, "scurrilous rogue", divide themselves evenly between hurrying, desperate, abusive, frantic, and diseased, with desperate the most popular.

For peremptory, a majority mark decisive, but many choose persuasive, uncertain, and angry. Pleasant, the fifth choice, is not as popular. Linguist and glutton are equally enticing as synonyms for polyglot. For refulgent, in "a refulgent smile", repellent is most intriguing and very bright next, with mischievous, flattering, and sour all following closely in popularity. For monograph forty per cent chose soliloquy and less than twenty per cent treatise and epitaph each.

The word vocabulary, as used in this article, signifies a knowledge of the dictionary meaning of just such words as enervating, stilted, scurrilous, peremptory, polyglot, refulgent, and monograph. Not until one attempts to pick an exact synonym does one realize the difficulty. One may like the sound of a word and use it in a picturesque way without being accurate in its meaning.

Although it is impossible to define success rigidly or scientifically, it seems to be true, nevertheless, that a large vocabulary is typical, not exclusively of business executives, but also of successful individuals. It happens that in the business world successful men and women are designated by this special appellation "executive". The successful lawyer or doctor is marked by no such name. But if, to the best of one's ability, one selects successful persons in the professions, they also score high in vocabulary. . . .

What then has been discovered? An exact and extensive vocabulary can be acquired. It increases as long as an individual remains in school or college, but, without conscious effort, does not change materially thereafter.

There may be some subtle distinctions between a natural vocabulary picked up at home, at meals, and in reading, and one gained by a study of the dictionary. The latter may not be as valuable as the former. But there is nothing to show that it is harmful, and the balance of evidence at the moment suggests that such a consciously, even laboriously, achieved vocabulary is an active asset."

Determining effective grammar is not an easy task. Attempting to define effective grammar is like trying to describe a sunset or a storm at sea. The picture changes and one element blends in with another, so that, no sooner is the essay written, than it is no longer accurate.

Certainly, our dictionaries and our grammars do a splendid job of painting a picture of what effective usage can be at a given time. Just as a baseball bat cannot make a .400 hitter or an evening dress a beautiful girl, a book cannot make you use effective grammar. Furthermore, each batter must use his bat somewhat differently for each pitcher, and each dance calls for a minor or major costume change to fit the occasion. So it is with grammar.

Effective grammar may be said to have the following qualifications:

Effective grammar follows the usage of the best speakers and writers of the time. Since grammar is dynamic and not static, we must know how to keep our grammar books up-to-date and how to remind ourselves of their recommendations. Listening is the best way to do this. We must listen to the English used by our chief political figures, our teachers, our network news commentators, our clergy, and other persons in responsible positions.

The language used at the conventions of our national parties is a good type of language to imitate. In 1960, we did not hear Mr. McCormick of Massachusetts say, "He done it", but rather, "He did it"; we did not find Mr. Kennedy saying, "If I was him", but rather, "If I were he".

The usage of language in the American motion picture is usually commendable. The poor films, of course, and those purposely using dialect, would not be included in this category.

Many of our outstanding figures in various fields use superior grammar. Red Barber in sports; Don McNeill of the "Breakfast Club"; Adlai Stevenson in politics; and David Brinkley among the commentators, are but a few examples.

Effective grammar does not call attention to itself. Good grammar is functional; it is not decorative. It is not how we say something, but what we say that is important. That the former affects the latter is obvious; but the emphasis should be on content, and not only on precision of form.

A person ought to be able to say, "Please pass those rolls", rather than, "Pass them rolls", and be at home, no matter if he is eating at a beanery across from a factory, or at 10 Downing Street in London. But, he must say, "Please pass those rolls", as if he is asking for rolls and not as if he is showing off his English. We must remember that John F. Kennedy got the vote of the laboring man by speaking TO him, in superior English.

If we cannot say, "It is I", which is correct, without sounding artificial, then we can say, "I am here" or some similar expression.

Is Dizzy Dean an effective announcer for televised baseball games because of his poor grammar, or in spite of it? It certainly calls attention to itself. It seems safe to say that he could speak just as interestingly to more listeners, if he would correct his grammar.

Effective grammar is useful. Good usage allows the speaker to express himself more effectively than poor usage. If this were not true, there would be no use in distinguishing good usage from poor usage.

"Gee, she's cute, and he's cute too. He's got the cutest convertible with the cutest red seat covers," is not as effective as, "She is attractive, and he is good looking. He has a racy-looking convertible with fire-engine red seat covers."

Lincoln was noted for his ability to use simple, useful language. His "Letter to Mrs. Bixby" is often cited as an outstanding example of English usage. To prove its simplicity, try to rewrite or paraphrase the letter, without using twice as many words:

Executive Mansion Washington, Nov. 21, 1864 Dear Madam,

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts, that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of Freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully, A. Lincoln

Take the word, "reticent". The latest edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary gives the meaning of the word as "inclined to keep silent or uncommunicative." However, it takes too long to say the first, and the second lacks the preciseness of "reticent". The sentence, "Sue is reticent" does not carry the unfriendly feeling that "Sue is uncommunicative" would carry.

Thus, we say that good, effective grammar follows the usage of the best speakers and writers of the time; it does not call attention to itself; and it is useful.

Keeping these principles in mind, we will discuss certain phases of grammar of particular interest to the speaker.

Subject-Verb Agreement

A singular subject takes a singular verb. A plural subject takes a plural verb. In English, most irregular verbs have been eliminated. Those below need special attention, however:

I do	I am	I give
You do	You are	You give
He does	He is	He gives
We do	We are	We give
You do	You are	You give
They do	They are	They give

The usages, "He don't", "I are", and "He give" are all attempts to eliminate the few remaining irregularities in the English verbs, but they are not accepted and, therefore, are incorrect and undesirable.

Agreement of Tenses

English provides, in most instances, certain verbs for the present tense, others for the past, and still others for the present perfect. Thus we have: GO, WENT, HAVE GONE; LIE, LAY, HAVE LAIN; and GIVE, GAVE, HAVE GIVEN.

Observe the changes of tense below:

Present	Past	Present Perfect
I go	I went	I have gone
You go	You went	You have gone
He goes	He went	He has gone
We go	We went	We have gone
You go	You went	You have gone
They go	They went	They have gone
I lie down	I lay down	I have lain down
You lie down	You lay down	You have lain down
He lies down	He lay down	He has lain down
We lie down	We lay down	We have lain down
You lie down	You lay down	You have lain down
They lie down	They lay down	They have lain down

The Subjunctive

Very few forms of the subjunctive have survived in our language. One of the most important survivals involves supposition. If you are supposing something contrary to fact, "were" is used in the singular. If, however, you are supposing something that may or may not be true, "was" is used.

If everyone were rich (but they are not), everyone would also be poor.

If Alice was the robber (she may be or she may not be), she should be convicted and imprisoned.

Special Problems in Grammar

English is a language that has undergone many simplifications. The language has also changed in other ways, for reasons that are not always clear.

The usages listed below appear to be in the process of change. Each one should be discussed, and students should be encouraged to listen for examples of each on radio and television.

In each pair of sentences below, which one is preferred?
1. Whom shall I say is calling?
Who shall I say is calling?
2. May I have some cake? (asking permission)
Can I have some cake?
3. It's I, Harry.
It's me, Harry.
4. Frank is being graduated from high school.
Frank graduates from high school.
5. Each of the students knew his lesson.
Each of the students knew their lesson.
6. He studies as I do.
He studies like I do.
7. I knew of his being in prison.
I knew of him being in prison.
8. I worked really hard today.
I worked real hard today.

2. Vocabulary

New Words

Did you every try to fix a flat tire without a jack? Did you ever try to sew a button without a needle? Did you ever try to time a basketball game without a stop watch? If you did, you know the importance of having the right tool for the job. WORDS ARE TOOLS, and you cannot get your meaning across unless you have the proper variety of them.

Witness the following examples of how different words give different shades of meaning:

Miami was surprised at the hurricane's strength.
Hamlet was astonished when he saw his father's ghost.
The world was amazed when the Dionne quintuplets were born.
The Japanese were dumbfounded by the damage done by the atom bomb.

Notice how the strength of the meaning increases. The citizens of Miami expected a strong wind, but they were somewhat low in their estimates of its velocity. Therefore, they were surprised. Hamlet was more than surprised. Wouldn't you be if you saw a ghost? Yet, Hamlet had been concerned about the status of his family and, therefore, was only astonished at what he saw. Multiple births always cause a strong reaction; we are sometimes surprised when twins are born, astonished at triplets, and amazed at quadruplets or quintuplets. The word "dumbfounded" means, literally, "found dumb" or stunned by the news. It is very strong. Hamlet might have been dumbfounded to see his father's ghost, if all had been well in his family. The birth of quintuplets (except perhaps to their parents) is not of sufficient importance to cause the reaction of dumbfounded ness. It would take something like the atom bomb to promote a true use of the word, dumbfounded. If you use all four of these words in the right situations, you can give these shades of meaning.

Hollywood is famous for its stretching of word meanings. Good is ignored, fine is also passed by, and even excellent is not considered.

This is how Hollywood might write:

Burt Lancaster is stupendous in his latest film .... Marilyn Monroe gives a colossal performance in .... Hollywood's last Biblical extravaganza was simply super colossal. A must!

Thus the words, "great", "stupendous", and "colossal" are often applied to performances not equal to their meanings. "Stupendous" comes from "stupefy", meaning to make dull or deprive of sensibility. For a possible synonym, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives "monstrous". It is doubtful that Mr. Lancaster is "monstrous" or capable of depriving his audience of sensibility. He might be very good, but NOT STUPENDOUS.

"Colossal" comes from the Greek word, "colossus", meaning a statue of giant size. We often think of it in connection with the ancient Colossus of Rhodes, a statue of Helios, 120 feet high, made by Chares about 280 B.C. for the harbor of Rhodes in the Aegean Sea. To begin with, "colossal" implies something very big and stationary, immovable and strong. Miss Monroe would certainly not want to be called "very big", as in the sentence, "Marilyn Monroe is colossal", nor could her performance be termed "immovable" to anyone who saw the movie. So, Hollywood uses its words poorly in its advertisements.

A recent newspaper advertisement for a current song-and-dance movie used these extravagant words: "spectacular, overpowering, terrific, wonderful, remarkable, a masterpiece". Now, if the picture is really "overpowering", do you think anyone would go to see it? The word "terrific", when properly used, means something that will excite great fear or dread. The American people have been accused of using too many superlatives and clichs. Try writing an ad for some movie that you have seen lately, using only words that accurately describe the picture. Read your ad in class. How many others would be interested in seeing the picture from your description?

Words will be a part of your life's work, no matter what field you enter. A gun collector can hardly resist adding a new weapon to his collection. A lover of antiques must force himself to stay out of the shops, for fear of uncontrollably buying something. On their day off, the Cleveland Indians attended a game in Chicago, to see how the other team, the Chicago Cubs, was fielding and hitting. That is how it should be with you and words. For each word is a new weapon, a new tool, a new key. The more words we have, the more jobs we can do, the more doors we can open, the more service we can be to the world and to humanity.

Slang

The authority on American slang, Henry L. Mencken, says:

Slang is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense." The origin of the word is unknown. When it first appealed in English, about the middle of the Eighteenth Century, it was employed as a synonym of "cant", and so designated "the special vocabulary used by any set of persons of a low or disreputable character;" and half a century later it began to be used interchangeably with "argot", which means the vocabulary special to any group, trade, or profession.

During the past fifty years, the three terms have tended to be more or less clearly distinguished. The jargon of criminals is both of slang and a kind of argot, but it is best described as "cant". One of the principal aims of cant is to make what is said unintelligible to persons outside the group, a purpose that is absent from most forms of argot and slang. The essence of slang is that of general dispersion, but still stands outside the accepted canon of the language. It is, says George H. McKnight, "a form of colloquial speech created in a spirit of defiance and aiming at freshness and novelty. Its figures are consciously far-fetched and are intentionally drawn from the most ignoble of sources. Closely akin to profanity in its spirit, its aim is to shock."

Among the impulses leading to its invention, says Henry Bradley, "the two more important seem to be the desire to secure increased vivacity and the desire to secure increased sense of intimacy in the use of language." "It seldom attempts," says the London Times, "to supply deficiencies in conventional language; its object is nearly always to provide a new and different way of saying what can be perfectly well said without it."

What chiefly lies behind the use of slang is simply a kind of linguistic exuberance, an excess of word-making energy. It relates itself to the standard language a great deal as dancing relates itself to music. But there is something else. The best slang is not only ingenious; it also embodies a kind of social criticism. It not only provides new names for a series of everyday concepts, some new and some old; it also says something about them. "Words which produce the slang effect," observes Frank K. Sechrist, "arouse associations which are incongruous or incompatible with those of customary thinking."

Slang may be divided into two categories: (a) old words, whether used singly or in combination, that have been put to new uses, usually metaphorically, and (b) new words that have not yet been admitted to the standard vocabulary. Examples of the first type are rubberneck, for a gaping and prying person, and iceberg, for a cold woman; examples of the second are hoosegow, flim-flam, blurb, bazoo, and blah. There is a constant movement of slang terms into accepted usage. Nice, as an adjective of all work, signifying anything satisfactory, was once in slang use only, and the purists denounced it, but today no one would question "a nice day", "a nice time", or "a nice hotel".

Verb-phrases such as to cave in, to fill the bill, and to fly off the handle, once viewed askance, have gradually worked their way to a relatively high level of the standard speech. On some indeterminate tomorrow to stick up and to take for a ride may follow them.

"Even the greatest purist," says Robert Lynd, "does not object today to the inclusion of the word bogus in a literary vocabulary, though a hundred years ago bogus was an American slang word meaning an apparatus for coining false money. Carpetbagger and bunkum are other American slang words that have naturalized themselves in American speech, and mob is an example of English slang that was once as vulgar as incog."

The maker of slang is under no limitations: he is free to confect his neologism by any process that can be grasped by his customers, and out of any materials available, whether native or foreign. He may adopt any of the traditional devices of metaphor. Making an attribute do duty for the whole gives him stiff for corpse, flat-foot for policeman, smoke-eater for fireman, skirt for woman, and yes-man for sycophant . . . He makes abbreviations with a free hand-beaut for beauty, gas for gasoline, and so on. He makes bold avail of composition, as in attaboy and whatdyecallem, and onomatopoeia, as in biff, zowie, honky-tonk, and wow.

Today's slang may be tomorrow's good usage. A speaker should keep up with slang and its trends because he needs to know how to express himself to all groups. Things change rapidly in language. Yesterday's slang may not be very acceptable tomorrow. It may seem strange to you that "to miss out on something" was slang at one time.

Slang therefore may be employed to good or bad effect. It depends simply upon what is done with it, where it is used, and how.

3. Sentence Structure

The speaker must know how to form sentences. Variety in sentence structure is a must in effective speaking. The following types of sentences are particularly useful to the speaker:

The short sentence. A series of short sentences in speaking is often very effective. Notice the contrasts below:

As the train neared the station, the girl shivered visibly, and clutching her handbag tightly, she made her way through the crowd, her eyes glued on the train windows.

or

The train neared the station. The girl shivered visibly. Clutching her handbag tightly, she made her way through the crowd. Her eyes were glued on the train windows.

These are the days when we must unite. Only courage, determination and hard work can save us from the perils ahead. If our country is to remain free, we must strive to build in ourselves the call to duty that will keep America strong.

or

We must unite. We shall need courage. We shall need determination. We must work hard. A free country demands these of us.

The rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is an inquiry a speaker makes to a group, without expecting the group to reply. In other words, he raises a question in order that: (1) he may answer it; (2) he may point to the problem; or (3) he may place responsibility.

Raising a question to set the stage for the answer. The famous Southern statesman, John C. Calhoun, used a rhetorical question as the basis for his famous speech on the slavery question. The first paragraph ended:

You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration-How can the Union be preserved?

The remainder of the speech is filled with other rhetorical questions. Possible answers follow.

Pointing to the problem. Part of the speaker's duty may be to bring out just what the question is which the group must solve. Thus a speaker might say:

Our problem does not lie in amending and improving our divorce laws. Our main question is this: How can our marriage laws improve the stability of our marriages?

This fixes the problem, and by raising the rhetorical question, the speaker directs the attention to the main difficulty.

Placing responsibility. This use of the rhetorical question is often heard at political conventions, and at times the questions are directly answered and thus lose their rhetorical quality and become direct questions. An example might be as follows:

Who is responsible for our present unemployment, I ask you? Who is to blame for our fellow citizens being out of work? Who I say?

However, this sort of usage abuses the rhetorical question, and is only quoted here to help you identify the type. A better example of the use of the rhetorical question to place responsibility is taken again from the Calhoun speech:

"But, will the North agree to this? It is for her to answer the question. But, I will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the love of the Union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself to the charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater than her love of the Union."

The series of three or more. Three or more adjectives, phrases, short sentences, or other forms of structure impress an audience. The rhythm of the repetition is part of what attracts us. Let us take, as examples, the following sentences:

The boards in the old house creaked, cracked, and groaned.

Can I make it to the shore? Can I do it? Can I? These were the thoughts that rushed through my head.

Capital punishment is a form of punishment outdated, an attitude toward the criminal outmoded, and a practice of society outlived.

Exercises

1. Make a list of effective usages of the three types of sentence structure pointed up in this chapter. Have a page ready in your notebook divided into three columns. Label column one "The Short Sentence"; label column two "The Rhetorical Question"; and label column three "The Series of Three or More".

2. Write a short speech including one example of each of the three types of sentence structure described above. Then make an outline of that speech, making abbreviated notes of the special usages. An example of the notes would be as follows:

I. Why we went to the haunted house.
A. Has anyone ever dared you to . . . ?
B. Bob said . . . Mary answered . . .
Jim said ... Jo answered . . .
C. Well, what else could we do but . . . ?

II. The way the house looked.
A. At night . . . creaked, cracked, and groaned.
B. Windows, doors, porches, stairs like sentinels.
C. It was haunted because we knew it was.

3. Listen to your radio or television set for examples of each of the three usages discussed. Write an example of each. Briefly analyze the effectiveness of each usage.

Student Check List 7: HOW WE CHOOSE OUR WORDS?
How would you rate yourself?	Point Value	Your Score
1. Do you always use grammatically correct speech?	30
2. Do you always use verbs that agree with the subject in person and number?	20
3. Do you avoid using unacceptable slang?	10
4. Do you always form your sentences correctly?	10
5. Do you use the subjunctive mood correctly?	5
6. Do you add new words to your vocabulary each year?	20
7. Do you know what a "rhetorical question" is and when it is used?	5
TOTAL	100

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...