Natalie Portman 'Woman of the Year' Speech Analysis

1/ Analyse the context of a selected speech and discuss and evaluate through classical rhetoric what makes this speech persuasive.

Introduction

According to Bloor and Bloor, “language both needs context and creates context at the same time” (2007: 17), and so before analysis of classic rhetoric can even begin, it is vital to understand why an oratory is occurring, and what the oratory is achieving. The speech that serves the focus of the analysis (Appendix 1) is performed by Natalie Portman at the Variety Magazines 10^th“Women of the Year” awards in October 2018. Portman is one of five women being honoured for her philanthropic work throughout the year, and her speech seeks to raise awareness of ongoing sexual harassment, marginalisation, and what the audience can do to put an end to the workplace patriarchy. The philanthropic work being commemorated ranges from Portman’s work with the Time’s Up organisation, to Emma Gonzalez’ campaign against gun laws. The award ceremony itself is relatively new compared to ceremonies such as the ‘Grammy’s’, and so this combined with the nature of the ceremony assumes it praises fresh thinking and ideas perhaps controversial towards the status quo of society. However, the context of culture illustrates the ongoing emergence of a powerful voice for women in the entertainment industry, with ‘Me Too’ in October 2017 prompting women to speak out against leaders of the industry’s sexual misconduct, sparking the founding of ‘Time’s Up’ on January 1^st2018. Clearly, this year more than ever before, women and minority groups are refusing to accept marginalisation or assault as a side effect of fame. Whilst Portman appears to have the speech to hand, and so is not memorised, she maintains strong eye contact and a passionate and strong delivery.

 Borg (2013: 4) cites Aristotle, who identified persuasion as “taking the audience from a starting point, which he called A, and moving them along to point B” being the orators end goal. It can be understood that in this context, persuasion is the act of taking the audience on a journey from their pre-established ideology and knowledge of the subject in question, to the orator’s ideology. Hence, the audience follow the orator’s journey to ‘point b’ through the rhetoric, and how Portman takes her audience on this journey will be the subject of the analysis.

Literature Review

When discussing the theoretical approaches of classical rhetoric, Aristotle’s artistic proofs is perhaps one of the most influential in determining a texts appeals. Charteris-Black (2018: 8) states the artistic proofs ‘ethos’, ‘pathos’, and ‘logos’ were “created through oratory”, and provide insights into ‘ethical’, ‘empathetic’ and ‘logical’ appeals within oratory. According to Borg (2013: 5), ethos refers to persuasion through credibility and appeal to audience, revealing the orators character through communication; pathos is an appeal to persuasion through winning the audience emotionally; and logos persuasion through the logic and strength of argument. In classical rhetoric, the ‘Branches of Oratory’ refers to the division of oratory “into three branches or kinds of causes” judicial oratory, deliberative oratory, and epideictic oratory(Silva Rhetoricae). The focus of the analysis will be deliberative oratory, which considers actions or laws that would most benefit human happiness, as oppose to harming future society (Charteris-Black, 2018: 6; Silva Rhetoricae, 2007).

            Charteris-Black (2018: 43) states that “classical rhetoric distinguishes between two major categories of figurative language”, ‘schemes’ which Charteris-Black goes on to define as a figure of speech which has been modified from its effected sequence, affecting its grammatical structure; and ‘tropes’, a figure of speech that has had its literal sense altered to be understood as a different sense. Fahnestock (2011: 230) states orators draw schemes such as “the power of repetition for emphasis and emotional heightening”, and provides definitions for these schemes. Firstly, parallelism is recognised as “a formal quality of similarity between two phrases, clauses, or even larger units of discourse” (Fahnestock, 2011: 224). Whereas repetition is introduced as a form of parallelism, combining “the same syllable length, same order of grammatical constituents, and metrical similarity” (Fahnestock, 2011: 226). Thus, parallelisms can be recognised through similar but not identical units of discourse, whereas repetition will classify identical units of discourse. Lastly, anaphora and epiphora are simply defined as “repeating the openings from successive clauses”, and “repeating the closings of successive clauses” (Fahnestock, 2011: 230), and so in the analysis these clause-initial and clause-final repetitions will be explored.

Perhaps the most well-known scheme, Bloor and Bloor (2007: 69), states metaphor “can add interest, wit or complexity to a text” and is a way that language creatively constructs meanings through links one is already familiar with. Furthermore, Charteris-Black (2018: 217) expands upon this statement, and states that critical analysis of metaphor provides insight into how metaphor may be used persuasively to influence an audience. Simile however differs, as this scheme is “an explicit comparison, often (but not necessarily) employing "like" or "as"” (Silva Rhetoricae). Thus, where metaphor relies upon the audience’s knowledge of one state imagined as a separate and unrelated state, simile provides a direct comparison.Hyperbole, otherwise classified as “Rhetorical exaggeration”, “is often accomplished via comparisons, similes, and metaphors.” (Silva Rhetoricae), and so it can be suggested that some cases of metaphor can encompass hyperbole within their nature. There is a simple distinction that can be used to identify whether a scheme is a rhetorical question or hypophora, as a rhetorical question is summarised as a question that is posed without wanting to receive an answer, whereas hypophora is “a figure of reasoning in which one asks and then immediately answers one's own questions” (Silva Rhetoricae). 

Halliday’s Model of context (Halliday and Hassan, 1985) provides a clear insight into the external uses of language, and can assist to decode context and style, although is limited to only the social use of language.Bruss and Graff (2005: 40), argue that Aristotle’s theory of character construction in rhetoric is “founded on the principle that an artful style is that which succeeds in preventing the speakers character- his or her intelligence, moral goodness, or goodwill- from being an object of scrutiny”. Thus, claiming that an orator’s ethos- their “overall ethical credibility” (Charteris-Black, 2018: 8)- is expressed through the style in which they orate to the audience. Charteris-Black (2018: 34) also identifies that “style refers to how distinct meanings are created”, and so this too can be interpreted to include character. For example, an ‘asianic style’, whereby language is elevated and more complex (Charteris-Black, 2018: 37), creates distinct meanings about the orator. Used appropriately, the orator can “encourage admiration and wonder” (Charteris-Black, 2018: 36), used inappropriately, the audience can feel belittled, and leave orators character compromised. Wróbel, (2015: 409) cites Aristotle’s work on rhetoric, claiming“persuasion is a feat that can be achieved when the speaker’s personal character is in accordance with the way the speech is spoken”. Thus it can be understood that the personal character the orator portrays through lexical and grammatical features is only persuasive if it aligns to the style in which these features are presented. When studying style in classical rhetoric, Fahnestock (2011: 79) states that middle style conveys “an unmarked, neutral stance, fitted for straight narration and exposition”, however, in Cicero’s ‘Roman Levels of Style’, as cited by Silva Rhetoricae (2016), middle styles rhetorical purpose is ‘to please’. This therefore disputes the aforementioned claim, thus for the purpose of this analysis, it will not be assumed middle style upholds a neutral stance.

Analysis

            The analysis has revealed the features of classical rhetoric incorporated throughout Portman’s speech, covering the artistic proof’s, schemes, tropes and style. Further discussion of the classical rhetoric will determine their effects on persuasiveness.

Artistic Proof	Example	Line Number
Ethos	·      “We are thousands of women…” ·      “Third; listen.” ·      “You all pledge with me”	·      15 ·      24 ·      79
Pathos	·      “My son asked me the other day…” ·      “If any group you’re in has people who only look like you…” ·      “We know the message of the mammaries…”	·      5 ·      25 ·      66-67
Logos	·      “It’s an awakening experience to hear from women…” ·      “He is trying to discredit her reputation” ·      “All you in this room have the power to…”	·      26-27 ·      41 ·      30-31

As the text is rich is artistic proofs, not all proofs have been displayed in the analysis. However, the discussion will go into further detail about the arrangement of the proofs throughout the speech.

Type of Scheme	Example(s)	Line Number
Parallelism Isocolon- Tricolon-	·      “The more milk you give, the more milk you make” ·      “The more love you give, the more love you have” ·      “That light will multiply, and the heat will intensify” ·      “Negotiate for equal pay, or grant equal pay, or popularize equal pay…”	·      66-67 ·      68 ·      78 ·      30-31
Repetition	·      “Money” ·      “Women” ·      “Powerful women” ·      “Crazy or difficult” ·      “Code” ·      “Reputation” ·      “Shy” ·      “Those who abuse (their) power” ·      “Change of behaviour” ·      “One year” ·      “Mammary glands” ·      “Our boobs” ·      “Message… mammary/ies” ·      “Make more light and more heat”	·      18, 19 ·      9, 15, 21, 26, 29, 50, 53, 54, 58, 64, 72, 76 ·      29, 74 ·      36, 37 ·      39, 40 ·      41, 42 ·      43, 44 ·      44, 45 ·      45, 47 ·      51 ·      58, 63 ·      59, 63 ·      63, 66 ·      69-70, 72
Anaphora	·      “What if…”	·      50, 51
Epiphora	·      “Equal pay”	·      38, 39

Type of Trope	Example(s)	Line Number
Metaphor	·      “Joining together” ·      “Reputation smeared” ·      “Message in our mammary glands” ·      “Message of the mammaries” ·      “Spread your fire” ·      “Use your fire to light other women’s torches, and make more light and heat…” ·      “Light a women’s torch” ·      “That light will multiply, and the heat will intensify…”	·      15 ·      42 ·      63 ·      66 ·      71 ·      72 ·      77 ·      78
Hyperbole	·      “All the jobs”	·      76
Rhetorical Question Hypophora-	·      “What if we took a year off from violence against women?” ·      “What if for one year….? ·      “So what can you do?	·      50 ·      51-53 ·      17
Simile	·      “Like we belong in a zero-sum game”	·      64

Portman executes a deliberative oratory throughout, encouraging the audience to take a stand of action against the issues which she informs them of. She is concerned with creating change and fairness in the workplace for women and minority groups, and seeks to gain support for those who have faced forms of marginalisation or assault.

Portman maintains an educated and logical character through using middle style rhetoric, clearly expressing the most important points of her speech. However, Portman does occasionally switch to a more colloquial style as demonstrated in lines 59 “the most remarkable thing about our whole type of animal, is our boobs”, and 63 “our boobs are amazing”. 

            

Discussion

Throughout Portman’s appeal to the audience, she maintains a socially informed and well-educated sense of character, and this character and use of classical rhetoric constructs a strong argument, and thus excellent persuasive features.

According to Halliday’s Model of Context (Halliday and Hassan, 1985), the field of the speech is inspirational and persuasive, appealing to powerful and influential women with the same common goal of fighting for social justice. The tenor is between Natalie Portman, a well-established actress and member of the Time’s Up organisation, and the audience comprised of philanthropic women also within the entertainment industry. Therefore, it is likely that Portman may have relationships with member of the audience, perhaps from working together or attending events similar to the aforementioned. This could lend favourable to the mode of Portman’s speech- persuasion- as the audience may have prior knowledge of the orator’s good character, as well as sharing Portman’s activist ideologies. 

            Portman’s deliberative speech follows conventions of this oratory’s purpose, seeking to improve women’s lives. Portman shows examples of this from lines 50 to 56 through rhetorical questions, asking what effect taking a year off from depicting violence against women in entertainment may have. Whilst she does not explicitly state her predicted societal outcome, Portman infers it would result in a decrease of violence against women, preventing normalising violence against women in entertainment culture. Furthermore, the question is repeated with the same initial word construction, thus through the scheme anaphora. Charteris-Black (2018: 44) explains “anaphora leads to anticipation, which involves an audience cognitively and emotionally”, and so this scheme is used to create a quickening pace as Portman approaches her prologue. Rhetorical questions allow the audience to land at their own conclusion, and is persuasive in the impression that the audience have not been ‘coerced’ into aligning ideologies with the orator, rather they have come to this conclusion themselves. Portman introduces her step-by-step guide to tackle workplace inequality through the introductory hypophora “so what can you do?” (line 17). The trope mimics the question which the active audience ask to themselves, positioning Portman as the omniscientand all-knowing when then providing them with the answer. 

As stated in the analysis, Portman maintains a relatively middle style throughout the duration of the speech, but occasionally switches to a low or attic style, which “features informal or colloquial language” (Fahnestock, 2011: 80). Such ‘style-switching’ is not uncommon in speeches, and Fahnestock (2011: 86) argues “such departures draw attention to themselves by violating the surrounding norm, often with persuasive consequences”. The contrasting styles of Portman’s speech creates a gripping effect upon the audience; persuading them of her legitimacy and positive intentions towards the united cause through her humble yet confident decorum. After touching on serious issues and calling her audience to action through a numbered list declarative actions they may take (lines 17-56), Portman switches to this ‘low/attic’ style (lines 59, 63), using language “appropriate for conversation and writing that sounds conversational” (Fahnestock, 2011: 80). This language may be considered ‘unprofessional’, however “appropriate language is defined as language that fits the audience, the rhetor, the subject, and the situation” (Fahnestock, 2011: 79). Thus it appears Portman uses this language as a part of her unapologetic ‘style’ when studying the canons of rhetoric, and so Portman is making a statement by choosing to use this informal term over others. Portman’s general style follows correct grammar and extreme clarity of meaning, mainly speaking explicitly with no fear of potential consequences as in lines 37-38. Her straight-forward approach to discussing sensitive subjects conveys her power and confident character, and the audience is furthermore convinced of her positive and trustworthy character through the artistic proof ‘Ethos’. 

The orator attempts to gain audience confidence and trust, through her association and work with the Time’s Up movement, demonstrating her good moral compass. This ethos is present throughout, and deployed through Natalie’s inclusive rhetoric seen in line 11 “for all”. Pathos is evident when the orator uses techniques such as metaphor and analogy to appeal, introducing herself as ‘one of them’. Lines 1-8 are a prime example, where Portman directly addresses and engages with the audience, as well as positioning herself as a normal, tired mother, perhaps a role many others in the audience associate with. Undeniably, Portman’s speech successfully appeals to logos throughout, fundamentally due to the purpose of the speech, demanding basic human rights and equality for women. Lines 17-56 follow a list like structure, beginning with a declarative statement of the action the can take to help e.g. “first; money”. She then expands upon the point, providing reasons, and then gives an example or suggests why this reason may happen. For the most part this listed structure follows an ethos, pathos, logos structure, introducing a premise declaring the topic of her point (ethos), an expanded premise with an emotional appeal (pathos), then either an analogy or concluding statement summarising and providing logical reasons why the ethos should be followed (logos).

Repetition of words, similar structures, and phrases are schemes present throughout this speech. Parallelisms are used through the prologue such as in lines 66-68, creating memorable mantras for the audience to recall, and share in their fight for equality. It is likely these schemes are concentrated in the prologue, as the orator would want these points to be the ones the audience takes away with them. Similarly, repetition is ever-present, reinforcing and reiterating points for the audience to remember, building their importance and thus the audiences need to fulfil them. Repetition of “women” throughout the entire speech keeps the issues at hand central to those who are facing them, as well as those who can fight them. This technique places a feeling of duty upon the audience as members of woman-kind, and creates persuasion. Epiphora in lines 30 and 31 call the audience’s attention to lack of the basic right to equal pay, and again Portman strengthens the memorability of this topic as a persuasive feature for the audience.

Portman uses hyperbole in line 76, making a serious point about the severity of underrepresentation of females in the entertainment industry, listing few of the many positions women are not granted. Although Portman is making an eye-opening statement, the hyperbole “all the jobs are jobs that women don’t usually get” reintroduces a sense irony and sadistic humour, perhaps rather than leaving the audience with the overwhelming sensation of being ‘underdog’. It is likely hyperbole is scarcely used to maintain Portman’s fact-of-the-matter approach to educating the audience of such issues, potentially compromising the reliability of her statements if hyperbole is too frequently used.

Metaphor remains present throughout the speeches prologue (lines 57-79), creating a lasting emotive effect upon the audience as the orator makes her concluding statements. Through the metaphor “use your fire to light other women’s torches” (line 72), Portman uses the concrete noun ‘fire’, and the audience’s connotations of fire through their knowledge and experiences to ‘connect’ with the intended meaning- ‘power’. The use of metaphor is persuasive in speeches such as Portman’s, as “metaphors arouse emotions that can be used on the basis for evaluating political actors and actions by offering persuasive representations of social groups and social issues” (Charteris-Black, 2018: 202). This metaphor can be deconstructed, where it essentially promotes powerful women to empower others in situations of marginalisation and inequality. Furthermore, the successive metaphor “light a woman’s torch” rings familiar of common idiom “get back your spark”, persuading the audience to take action through stirring up emotions of their own ‘eureka’ moment, reclaiming their ‘fire’.

The simile “like we belong in a zero-sum game…” (line 64) compares the relationship between men and women in the workplace, as a ‘zero-sum game’, whereas in order for men to ‘win’, women must ‘lose’. In business and politics, a zero-sum game is a least desirable outcome, and stands upon the principles that one ‘participant’ will always walk away compromised and in a poor position. The simile draws ties between a societally undesirable rule of transaction, and the negative relationships and ideologies that exist in a patriarchal workplace, therefore motivating the audience to make a change.

Conclusion

From the analysis and discussion, it is evident that this speech employs a range of successfully persuasive features, drawing from the event and orator’s background context, as well as the orators use of classical rhetoric. The context is an important factor to take into account with the speeches persuasion, as the audience already share the same philanthropic ideologies and compassion as Portman, and so are likeminded. It can therefore be an educated assumption that the audience are willing and open to go on the orator’s ‘journey’ (Borg, 2013: 4). Thus, as the audience are already keen activists on philanthropic journeys, the speeches purpose is geared towards giving information as to why the activist audience should now also draw their attention to this subject, perhaps with little persuasive effort necessary. Audience feedback such as applause throughout the speech (line 25, 38, 56, 67, 80) exemplifies the speeches successful persuasion, as applause is used to signify their agreement and alignment to the orator’s ideology on the subject matter.

Though the context of the speech remains a highly persuasive, features from classical rhetoric strengthen Portman’s argument. The combination of artistic proofs throughout the speech support Portman’s character and credibility, and (Borg, 2013:4) states “the best persuasive messages strive to blend all three in order to achieve the goal of moving people from A to B”. Furthermore, Natalie’s empathetic and sincere style constructs her humanitarian character, and crucially empathy and sincerity are found to form the building blocks of persuasion (Borg, 2013: 10). The context and overall purpose behind Natalie’s speech alone proves her sincerity, as though she is a part of the discussed industry, her well-established career means she does not directly identify as one of the people in need. Portman’s purpose appears selfless, and “if you show genuine sincerity- that you actually care about someone’s problems or concerns…- you’re elevating yourself to a higher plane” (Borg, 2007: 9).

Schemes and tropes are used to “influence meaning and contribute to persuasive effect” (Charteris-Black, 2018: 43), with schemes effecting the aesthetic appeal, and intensify the execution of what is being said (2018: 46), and tropes influencing the audience by positively or negatively by altering the sense of words, which can as a result intensify appeals (2018: 49). Charteris-Black (2018: 265) persuasion is sounding right, telling the right story, looking right, thinking right, and having the right intentions, all of which Portman achieves through her background in activism, the context as to why she is invited to make a speech as an honouree of activism, and the persuasive rhetoric used throughout.