What Did Churchill Know About Language That We Don't?

More lessons on writing from the masters.



Yesterday I talked about one way that Lincoln created powerful sentences: he would start with big words derived from Latin, then finish with short words that have Saxon origins. The book from which this discussion comes also talks about Churchill and his way with words. He liked some of the same patterns that Lincoln did. A famous example:

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. —Churchill, speech in the House of Commons (1940).

"Human conflict" is Latinate. Every word after it is Saxon. Simply put, the earlier part of the sentence has more complicated words than the later part. The first half sets up the ear for the second, which gains strength by contrast.

But Churchill also made great use of the reverse pattern: starting with simple words, then using language more complex to create a feeling of ascension.

You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. —Churchill, speech in the House of Commons (1940).

What we will do is stated in the simplest conceivable language: 30 words in a row of one syllable apiece, every one of them at least partly Germanic. What we are fighting against is then stated in the opposite way: of the last 13 words of the main sentence, more than half are Latinate, and they create a sense of height and climax. The longer words also allow him to end with a flourish for the ear.

Look at the similar structure of this passage from a speech he gave a few weeks later:

The whole root and core and brain of the British Army, on which and around which we were to build, and are to build, the great British Armies in the later years of the war, seemed about to perish upon the field or to be led into an ignominious and starving captivity. —Churchill, speech in the House of Commons (1940).

The good guys are depicted in short and sturdy words. The disastrous threat they faced is depicted in long and appalling ones.

These examples show that you don't create rhetorical force by just keeping everything simple. You create it by combining simplicity and complexity in ways that take advantage of contrast. The contrasts can move your readers, or amuse them, or hold their attention, or drive a point home.

I'll talk about another aspect of this theme tomorrow. If you're enjoying this discussion, you can find more of it here.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: June 23, 1987

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think you left out the best example, which is the “We shall fight on the beaches” speech. At least this part:

    “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”

    Every word is an Anglo-Saxon word with the exception of “surrender.”

  2. I thought he would write about how Churchill likes to use reversible phrases, like “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”.

  3. Unfortunately Churchill was just as eloquent in expressing his . . . less admirable opinions.

  4. This spring I made good a long-held intention to read all four volumes of Churchill’s comprehensive biography of his ancestor, John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. I did so in part to remedy wide gaps in my knowledge of European history during his time (1650–1722) — but mainly for the sheer joy of reading Churchill’s prose. By no means would this be considered “beach reading,” and I do not recommend it to everyone.

    But if you want to see a master wordsmith at his art and craft, fiercely motivated (for Sir Winston took on, with gusto, all of Marlborough’s contemporaneous and subsequent critics), you could do much, much worse with your time, especially on Kindle, with its built-in dictionary and Wikipedia functions, which I found handy for words like “supposititious,” “ingeminate,” and “scurrility.” Sample paragraph:

    Very different were the mood and outlook of the Tory country gentlemen and Whig doctrinaires who assembled at Westminster. The wars were over; their repressions were at an end. They rejoiced in peace and clamoured for freedom. The dangers were past; why should they ever return? Groaning under taxation, impatient of every restraint, the Commons plunged into a career of economy, disarmament, and constitutional assertiveness which was speedily followed by the greatest of the wars England had ever waged and the heaviest expenditure she had ever borne. This phase has often recurred in our history. In fact, it has been an invariable rule that England, so steadfast in war, so indomitable in peril, should at the moment when the dire pressures are relaxed and victory has been won cast away its fruits.

    1. “for the sheer joy of reading Churchill’s prose”

      You will also enjoy his ‘History of the English Speaking Peoples’.

      (another set that has beautiful prose is, unexpectedly, Grant’s memoirs)

  5. Richard Toye wrote his master’s thesis analyzing audience reactions to Churchill’s speeches (University of Exeter project). An interesting book about Churchill’s influences through his oratory skills: The Roar of the Lion.

    >Choosing a proper word when writing a speech (customized speech editing https://customwritingz.net for conferences).

Please to post comments