Appealing to the audience is something that both of these presenters did well; Wallace, to the graduating class of a liberal arts college, and Morrison, to highly regarded Nobel Prize winners and nominees.
Wallace reaches out with expressive and interpersonal communication given that he is speaking to a group of people who identify enough with creativity and the sharing of ideas to have attended a liberal arts college. He uses what some consider inappropriate language; Wallace says words like “hell” and “bullshit”, plays with inexact wording like “probably” and “pretty much” - which are usually left out of formal speech - and even uses sarcasm and satire (“What the hell is water?”) throughout the essay. However, seeing as the audience is roughly aged between twenty and thirty -and in the year 2005- this inclusion of informal language is acceptable. Also, because Wallace’s audience is young and just venturing out into the world, his speech is about how to live life and endure what it brings.
On the other hand, Toni Morrison’s speech is directed at a group of individuals already living and achieving their goals. Thus, her message is much more specific; the subject of how to utilize language. Morrison delivers her speech in a much more formal fashion than Wallace. In This Is Water, there were two words I had to look up; in Nobel Lecture, however, there were over ten. Words like “reticence” and “moribund” are not found in everyday dialogue. The vocabulary used by Morrison was much more sophisticated due to the higher level of her audience’s intellectual experience.
I agree with you completely! The language in the two are very different from each other, but it all comes together in a way to make the audience feel more comfortable. In "this is water" he uses inappropriate words, and I feel like it helps him prove his points better. He's expressing himself and showing his true personality. Wallace uses more advanced vocabulary and like you said the group she is talking to are people who are very successful and are "living and achieving their goals."Because the audience are two different age groups I think that they both did a great job appealing to that and carrying it on through the entire speech.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well. I like how you tied in the specific words that show the difference in audience between the two speeches. Like how Wallace uses ‘curse words’ to appeal to the younger audience and how Morrison uses much more sophisticated words because of her audience’s “… intellectual experience.” I also would have said something along the lines of Wallace having to attempt to hold the younger audience’s attention because they were probably bored given that the speech was given at a commencement. But I think you were correct in saying that the two audiences were vastly different in level of intellect, given that one was an audience for the Nobel Prize.
ReplyDeleteBrianna,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying about the actual language used in David Wallace's speech, and about how he uses more "slang term's" in his, but do you think that this detracts from the things that he says? I think that His speech was a lot easier to emotionally connect with because he used terms such as "probably" and "pretty much". In Toni Morrison's speech like you said, she is speaking to people that are a bit more sophisticated and further along in life. Even though the two are presenting nearly the same ideas, the way they structured their speeches is much different. Also, as Tony said above It's important to take into account that most of the people listening to Wallace's speech didn't necessarily have the choice to listen to it, whereas the audience of the Nobel Lecture is full of prestigious intellects, so it' no doubt that he had to keep his speech more interesting in order to keep them awake :)
I agree with your statements about David Wallace and his "informal" use of language and the reasons behind which he was able to use that language, his audience was younger therefore he was able to speak in a way that would interest them. From personal experience I agree with the language he used because I am relatively close in age to those his speech was intended for. His speech seemed to catch my attention more that Morrison's because it was easier for someone my age to connect with for various reasons. Toni Morrison's speech was more "formal" in the use of language which is perfectly suitable for her audience and the main idea of her whole speech. It seemed evident that the speech was intended for intellects listening by choice due to the high caliber vocabulary words and the main idea of language and the way in which she wishes it to be used. I agree that both authors did a wonderful job of appealing to the audience in a way that kept them engaged and eager to listen.
ReplyDelete