IBDP English A – Speeches

Persuasive speeches are organized around clear formal frameworks, such as appeals to logic and emotional appeals, and also provide a chance for individual speakers to express themselves stylistically. Check the formal features of persuasive speeches.

Key Features

1. Ethos: the speaker establishes his or her credibility and may allude to a moral, social or spiritual leader with whom the audience cannot disagree.
2. Logos: clear, reasonable arguments, facts and statistics and quoting experts in the field are all ways of establishing a logical appeal.
3. Pathos: emotive language and imagery are ways of helping the audience empathize with the feelings of other – often vulnerable – people.
4. Persuasive: the speaker attempts to make his or her listener think in a certain way, believe something or take action.
5. Direct Address: the speaker tries to draw closer to the listeners by addressing them as ‘you’ – look out for the use of ‘we’ or‘ us’ to include the speaker and listener on the same side – and be wary of attempts to compliment the listener.
6. Modality: modal verbs are small but important words (such as ‘must’, ‘need’, ‘should’, ‘might,’ and so on) that reveal the speaker’s degree of certainty and strength of feeling. You can study modality here.
7. Rhetorical Devices: all kinds of rhythmical, structural, auditory and linguistic tricks can be employed by a skilled speaker. They are too many to list here, but rhetorical strategies can be studied and learned.
8. Logical Fallacies: also called ‘argumentation fallacies.’ Common fallacies in speeches are glittering generalizations, simplification and slippery slope.

Notes

Beginning your unseen analysis with observations about context, purpose and audience can set you up to make some thoughtful points and evaluations later in your response. Sometimes, this information needs to be inferred, but in many papers you can find it easily: look at the heading, the byline, and quickly scan the margins of the text for extra information provided to you by those who know it might be important. Good public speakers always know who their audience is and shape their use of language to appeal to their listeners. This response shows you how to begin with this in mind; then you can make much out of certain turns of phrase or choices of words and evaluate the likely success of the speaker’s arguments. For all its strengths, remember the response below is just one possible way of approaching this task; alternative analysis points and evaluations can be equally valid.

Question

• Unseen Text: Does Migration Break Down Our Civilization?
• Text Type: Political Speech.

Guiding Question: How does the speaker use language to convince his listeners of his message?

Extract from a Speech by Tony Creeze, British Foreign Secretary to the International Labour Forum in London.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for joining me today. As we gather here, I want to address a topic that has been at the forefront of our national discourse: migration and the restrictions that surround it. This issue is complex, multifaceted, and deeply emotional for many. It is a subject that touches on our values, our security, and our shared humanity. Today, I will discuss why migration restrictions must be carefully reconsidered, using reason, empathy, and credibility to guide our path forward.

As your elected representative, I have spent years immersed in the complexities of immigration policy, working with experts, engaging with communities, and striving to understand the broader implications of our decisions. My commitment is to ensure that our policies are just, effective, and grounded in both evidence and compassion.
My stance on migration restrictions is informed by rigorous analysis and firsthand experience. I have met countless individuals who have navigated our immigration system, each with unique stories that highlight the strengths and shortcomings of our current policies. My role is not just to advocate for change but to ensure that any adjustments are rooted in solid research and expert testimony.

Our current migration policies, while aimed at securing our borders, sometimes fall short of addressing the real issues we face. They can inadvertently stifle the potential contributions of skilled migrants, undermine humanitarian efforts, and foster a climate of fear rather than one of opportunity. It is from this informed perspective that I urge us to reevaluate our approach to migration restrictions.

Migration is not merely a statistical issue or a line on a policy document; it is a deeply human matter. Each migrant has a story—stories of hope, of struggle, of resilience. When we speak of migration restrictions, we must remember the faces behind the numbers.

Consider a young family fleeing violence in their homeland, risking everything for a chance at a safer life. Imagine the single mother who, despite her hardships, dreams of providing a better future for her children. These are not abstract concepts; they are real people, and their stories demand our empathy and understanding.

Our policies should reflect our values of compassion and justice. By placing harsh restrictions on migration, we not only limit the opportunities available to those in genuine need but also risk alienating ourselves from the values that have historically defined our nation. We have always been a beacon of hope and a land of opportunity. Let us not turn our backs on that legacy.

Moreover, migration restrictions can lead to unnecessary suffering and hardship. Families separated by borders, individuals denied safety and security, and communities deprived of their contributions—these are the real consequences of restrictive policies. We must balance our need for security with our commitment to human dignity.
From a logical standpoint, it is essential to recognize that migration is not solely a matter of national security but also of economic and social impact. Numerous studies show that migrants contribute significantly to our economy. They fill essential roles in various sectors, from healthcare to technology, often in positions where there is a critical shortage of local talent.

For instance, research from the Centre for Economic Performance indicates that migrants contribute billions to the UK economy annually. They bring diverse skills, foster innovation, and support the sustainability of public services. Restricting migration too severely can hinder our economic growth and limit our ability to address skills shortages.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that inclusive migration policies can enhance social cohesion. By integrating migrants into our communities, we foster a more diverse and vibrant society. This integration supports social harmony and enriches our cultural fabric.
It is also worth considering the global context. Many countries face similar migration challenges, and we must learn from international best practices. Countries that adopt balanced migration policies, which address both security and humanitarian concerns, tend to experience better outcomes in terms of economic integration and social stability.
In addition, our migration policies should be adaptable and responsive. Static, overly restrictive measures can quickly become outdated in a rapidly changing world. By regularly reviewing and adjusting our policies based on evidence and expert input, we can ensure that they remain effective and relevant.

As we deliberate on migration restrictions, let us approach the issue with a balanced perspective. We must secure our borders while upholding our values of compassion and justice. We must ensure that our policies are informed by credible evidence, empathetic understanding, and a commitment to our shared humanity.

Migration is a complex issue, but it is also an opportunity—an opportunity to reaffirm our values, to strengthen our economy, and to demonstrate our commitment to a fair and just society. Let us rise to this challenge with wisdom and resolve, crafting policies that reflect both our security needs and our moral obligations.

In closing, I urge you all to consider the broader implications of our migration policies. Let us work together to build a system that is both fair and effective, one that honors our history and our values. Thank you.

Sample Response

In his speech addressing migration and its implications for civilization, Tony Creeze employs a range of rhetorical strategies to persuade his audience of the necessity for reconsidering migration restrictions. Creeze’s primary aim is to convince his listeners that migration restrictions should be approached with empathy and evidence-based reasoning, rather than fear and rigidity.

Creeze speaks to the International Labour Forum in London, a setting likely populated by policymakers, experts, and advocates concerned with labor and social issues. The speech’s purpose is to argue for a more nuanced and humane approach to migration policies. His audience is presumably well-versed in both the complexities of migration and its impact on labour markets and social cohesion, which informs Creeze’s strategic use of language to appeal to their intellectual and ethical sensibilities.

Creeze establishes his credibility (ethos) through his experience and engagement with the issue. He mentions his extensive background in immigration policy, his interaction with experts and communities, and his commitment to evidence and compassion. Phrases such as “rigorous analysis and firsthand experience” and references to “expert testimony” bolster his authority on the subject. By framing himself as an experienced and compassionate advocate, Creeze builds trust with his audience and positions himself as a knowledgeable and empathetic figure.

Creeze effectively employs logical arguments (logos) alongside emotional appeals (pathos). He highlights the economic contributions of migrants, citing research from the Centre for Economic Performance, which underscores that migrants play a crucial role in various sectors and contribute significantly to the economy. This use of empirical evidence is designed to counteract simplistic, fear-based arguments against migration.
Additionally, Creeze uses pathos to humanise the issue. He shares poignant stories, such as that of a family fleeing violence and a single mother striving for a better future, to evoke empathy and connect his audience to the personal experiences behind migration statistics. By emphasising the human element of migration, Creeze aims to cultivate a compassionate perspective among his listeners.

Creeze’s speech is structured to lead the audience from understanding the complexities of the issue to recognizing the need for change. He begins with a broad discussion on the emotional and moral dimensions of migration, moves into specific arguments about the shortcomings of current policies, and concludes with a call for balanced and evidence-based reforms. This logical progression helps reinforce his points and guide the audience through his reasoning.

His choice of language is deliberate and persuasive. Terms like “deeply human matter,” “empathy,” and “shared humanity” are employed to appeal to the audience’s sense of justice and moral duty. Conversely, he uses more analytical language, such as “economic impact” and “evidence-based policies,” to address the practical and data-driven aspects of the debate. This blend of emotional and rational appeals helps to engage the audience on multiple levels.

Tony Creeze’s speech is a well-crafted appeal for a reconsideration of migration policies. By combining his established credibility with logical arguments and emotional appeals, he effectively persuades his audience to adopt a more humane and evidence-based approach to migration. His strategic use of language not only highlights the practical benefits of migration but also calls for a recognition of the human stories behind the numbers, thereby making a compelling case for policy reform.

How did I Prepare?

1. Understanding the Text and Prompt:
   • Context and Purpose: I identified that Tony Creeze is addressing the International Labour Forum, and the purpose is to advocate for a reevaluation of migration restrictions.
   • Guiding Question: The focus is on how Creeze uses language to convince his listeners, so I needed to identify and analyze his rhetorical strategies.
2. Introduction:
   • Context: I introduced the setting and purpose of the speech, highlighting the relevance of the topic to the audience.
   • Thesis Statement: I created a thesis that outlines how Creeze employs ethos, logos, pathos, and other rhetorical strategies to persuade his audience.
3. Ethos (Credibility):
   • Establishing Credibility: I examined how Creeze establishes his credibility by discussing his experience and engagement with the issue. This includes his mention of working with experts and his commitment to evidence and compassion.
   • Moral Authority: I noted how Creeze alludes to moral values and societal norms that resonate with the audience, thus enhancing his credibility. For instance, his appeal to shared humanity and justice aligns him with widely accepted moral principles.
4. Logos (Logical Arguments):
   • Reasonable Arguments: I identified how Creeze uses logical arguments supported by facts and statistics, such as economic contributions of migrants and research findings from the Centre for Economic Performance.
   • Quoting Experts: I highlighted his use of expert testimony to bolster his arguments, showing the logical basis of his claims.
5. Pathos (Emotional Appeals):
   • Emotive Language: I analyzed how Creeze uses emotive language and imagery to evoke empathy. He shares stories of individuals affected by migration policies, such as the young family and the single mother.
   • Imagery: The use of vivid descriptions helps the audience connect emotionally with the human aspect of migration.
6. Persuasive Techniques:
   • Influencing Beliefs: I discussed how Creeze attempts to shape the audience’s beliefs and actions by presenting migration as both an opportunity and a challenge. His persuasive language aims to align the audience with his call for policy reform.
7. Direct Address:
   • Inclusion: I observed Creeze’s use of inclusive language such as “we” and “us” to build rapport with the audience and foster a sense of shared responsibility. This direct address helps to involve the listeners and align them with his perspective.
8. Modality:
   • Modal Verbs: I analyzed Creeze’s use of modal verbs like “must,” “should,” and “can” to convey the strength of his arguments and his degree of certainty about the need for policy change. This use of modality reflects his assertiveness and urgency regarding the issue.
9. Rhetorical Devices:
   • Structural Tricks: I identified various rhetorical devices used by Creeze, such as repetition and parallelism. For example, his use of balanced sentence structures and repeated phrases helps to emphasize key points and create a rhythmic flow.
   • Imagery and Metaphors: I examined how Creeze employs metaphors and vivid imagery, such as comparing migration to “a deeply human matter,” to enhance his persuasive impact.
10. Logical Fallacies:
    • Potential Fallacies: I considered any potential logical fallacies in Creeze’s arguments. For example, his argument that restrictive policies lead to suffering could be scrutinized for simplification or slippery slope reasoning. However, his arguments are generally well-supported and avoid overt fallacies.
11. Conclusion:
    • Summary: I summarized how Creeze effectively combines ethos, logos, pathos, and other rhetorical strategies to persuade his audience.
    • Final Assessment: I assessed the overall effectiveness of Creeze’s speech, noting how his use of language and rhetorical techniques contributes to a compelling argument for revising migration policies.
12. Review and Refinement:
    • Revising: I reviewed the essay to ensure clarity and coherence, checking that each point was well-supported and aligned with the guiding question.
    • Polishing: I made final adjustments to improve the flow and ensure the analysis was thorough and concise, ensuring all rhetorical elements were addressed.

This detailed approach ensures a comprehensive analysis of the speech, considering both the content and the techniques used by Tony Creeze to persuade his audience.