No matter how carefully the words have been prepared,

不管你已經用字多麼小心，

you are never quite sure how they are gonna be delivered.

你永遠不能肯定它們將如何被傳達。

Yesterday, I was in London,

昨天我在倫敦，

and I was watching one of my clients, who is a big Australian businessman,

我當時正在看著我的客戶，他是個澳洲的商人，

deliver a speech that I'd written for him.

用我寫給他的稿子進行演講。

I'd written for him this passage, kind of with Winston Churchill in mind,

我寫給他這麼一段文章，像是想到邱吉爾，

about how we've got to fight for our future,

關於我們將如何為自己的未來拼搏；

fight to protect our position, fight our competitors.

為了保護自己的職位拼搏；擊敗我們的競爭對手。

And I'd forgotten about the Australian accent.

而我忘記了澳洲口音。

And I watched from the back of the room with horror as I saw him go,

我在場地的最後排，帶著恐懼，聽著他的演講。

"We've got to 'fart' for our future, 'fart' to protect our position,

「我們將為了未來而幹(fight－音似fart－)；為了保護我們的職位而幹(fight－音似fart－)；」

and I'll tell you what, folks, when I wake up every morning,

我告訴你們，各位，當我每天早上醒來，

there is one thing I know for sure I'm gonna do that day; 'fart'!"

我總是很確定我將要做的一件事情，那就是「幹」(fart－音似fight－)

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑聲掌聲）

So today I'm gonna share with you some speechwriter secrets.

所以今天我將要與你分享一些演講稿寫手的秘密。

I don't know whether you know this,

我不知道你是不是知道這個，

but there is a secret language of leadership;

但是有一個領導的語言秘密。

a secret language of leadership that we all used to be taught at school.

這個領導語言秘密是我們過去經常被學校教導的。

Ancient rhetoric.

古代修辭學。

This was a core part of the curriculum in Ancient Rome, part of the trivium.

這是古羅馬三學科中，最核心的一部分課程。

In London, right the way through to the 19th century,

在倫敦，直到１９世紀，

it was possible to get a free education in rhetoric, but not in mathematics,

我們很可能接受免費的修辭學教育，而不是數學，

reflecting the importance that was placed on the topic.

這反映出修辭學被放在主要科目的重要性。

Today, teaching in rhetoric is restricted; restricted to a powerful, privileged few.

時至今日，修辭學教育是備受限制的；受限於有力的、有特權的少數幾個人。

So what I'm gonna do in my speech is revive this ancient art of rhetoric

所以我將會在我接下來的演講中做的事情是，復甦這個古代修辭學藝術，

and share with you six techniques so that you can all speak like leaders.

並且和妳們分享６個技巧，使你們全都可以像領導人那樣子演說。

So right, okay, stop.

那麼，暫停。

Right, stop listen.

好，停下來聆聽。

Look left, look right, look center.

看左，看右，看中間。

How are you feeling?

你覺得怎樣？

Distressed? Anxious? Little bit edgy?

哀傷？焦慮？有點急躁？

That's because I'm mimicking, hyperventilating.

這是因為我正在模仿，呼吸過度。

This is the authentic sound of fear,

這是恐懼的真實聲音，

and that fear transfers to you.

而這個恐懼傳到你那邊。

This is an ancient Roman rhetorical device;

這就是古羅馬的修辭學工具。

they used to call it asyndeton.

他們稱之為「接續詞省略」。

And it's one leaders still use today.

這是一個領導人還在使用的技巧。

So David Cameron uses it:

所以卡麥隆使用它：

"Broken homes,

「被打碎的家，

failing schools,

受損的學校，

sink estates."

陷落的家產。」

Tony Blair used to use it as well:

布萊爾也使用了它：

"Education,

「教育，

education.

教育，

education."

教育。」

Barack Obama too:

歐巴馬也是：

"A world at war,

「在戰爭中的世界，

a planet in peril,

在苦難中的星球，

the worst financial crisis in a generation.

一個世代中最慘的經濟危機。」

Why three?

為什麼是三呢？

Well, three is the magic number in rhetoric.

恩，在修辭學中有個魔術數字。

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

「政府是民有，民治，民享。」

(In German) "One people, one empire, one leader."

（德語）「一個人，一個帝國，一個領導人。」

(In Italian) "Eat well, laugh often, love much."

（義大利語）「吃的好，常笑，愛多一點。」

(Applause)

（掌聲）

That was the hardest part of this speech to practice,

這是這場演講中最難練習的一部分了。

so thank you for the applause.

所以謝謝你們的掌聲。

This is also an ancient Roman rhetorical device.

這也是古羅馬修辭學中的工具。

They used to call it tricolon,

他們過去稱之為「層遞」。

which makes it sound like a peculiar part of the digestive system.

他聽起來像是消化系統的某個罕見部位。

But it's just putting things in threes.

但是它就僅僅是將東西三個三個放在一起。

You put your argument in threes,

你將你的論述以三為單位放在一起。

it makes it sound more compelling, more convincing, more credible.

這使得論述聽起來更受矚目，更有說服力，更有可信度。

Just like that.

就像這樣。

And so we find the rule of three here, there, and everywhere.

所以我們找到三的定律，在這裡，在那裡，在所有地方。

And so indeed you can tell the history of Verona

所以你確實可以說出維洛那的歷史，

through nothing more than the rule of three.

就只是透過三的定律。

If you think that Caesar used to come here 2,000 years ago,

如果你認為凱薩在２０００年前經常到這裡，

"Veni, vidi, vici."

「我來，我見，我征服。」

400 years ago,

４００年前，

Shakespeare wrote "Romeo and Juliet,"

莎士比亞寫了「羅密歐與茱麗葉」

which was set here.

這件事情發生在此。

"Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo?"

「羅密歐，羅密歐，為何你是羅密歐？」

But of course,

但是當然，

far and away the most momentous event in Verona's history -

維洛那的歷史中，遙遠、最具有歷史性的活動，

today's TEDx;

今天的ＴＥＤ演講。

"Reinvent. Rethink. Relay."

「重新發明、重新想、重新傳遞」

Right.

好的。

Let's move on; number two.

我們繼續吧！第二。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Three sentences in which the opening clause is repeated.

三個句子當中，第一個句子被一直重複述說。

Now this is what Winston Churchill did with his,

現在，這是邱吉爾說過的，

"We shall fight on the beaches,

「我們將在沙灘戰鬥；

we shall fight on the landing grounds,

我們將在降落地上戰鬥；

we shall fight on the fields and in the streets."

我們將在田野、街道上戰鬥。」

Of course, he could have said this a whole lot quicker.

當然，他可以把這整句話說快一點。

But he wanted to communicate his emotion, so he repeated it.

但是他想傳達他的情緒，所以他重複了這句話。

When we are emotional about things, our perspective distorts.

當我們對某件事情充滿情緒，我們的觀點會扭曲，

And this then manifests in our speech.

這當然就反映在我們的談吐上。

And so this is the authentic sound of passion.

所以這是熱情的真實聲音。

I love Verona.

我愛維洛那。

I love Italy.

我愛義大利。

I love pasta.

我愛義大利麵。

I love tiramisu.

我愛提拉米蘇。

I love all of you.

我們愛你們全部的人。

I love the excitement,

我愛激情。

I love the energy,

我愛能量。

I love the enthusiasm here in this room;

我愛在這房間的熱情。

Are you feeling my passion?

你感受到我的熱情了嗎？

You should be because I am a speech writer and I know how to make a point.

你應該感受得到，因為我是一個演講稿寫手，而我知道如何傳達重點。

It sweeps people away.

這橫掃人心。

And this is why this technique is used by slick salesmen and by market traders.

這也是為什麼這個技巧常被狡猾的商人、市集貿易商使用。

"I'm not asking £20, I'm not asking £15,

「我不賣２０英磅，我不賣１５英磅，

I'm not even asking 10 pounds."

我甚至不賣１０英磅。」

It sweeps people onto the next point, which is free balance in statements.

它把人們帶到下個論點，這是敘述中的自由平衡。

"Ask not what your country can do for you,

「別問國家能為你做什麼，

ask what you can do for your country."

問你能為國家做什麼。」

"There is nothing wrong with America

「美國沒有什麼缺點，

that can't be cured by what's right with America."

是不能被美國的優點補足的。」

"To be or not to be."

「做或者不做。」

If the sentence sounds as if it's balanced,

如果句子聽起來像是平衡的，

we imagine that the underlying thinking is balanced,

我們就會把他的思想想像成平衡的。

and our brain is tuned to like things that are balanced.

而我們的大腦本來就喜歡平衡的東西。

Balanced minds, balanced diets, balanced lives.

平衡的心思，平衡的飲食，平衡的生活。

And so we are drawn to these kinds of sentences,

所以我們被拉到這些句子當中。

we are attracted to them even if that balance is actually just an illusion.

我們被這些句子吸引，甚至這些平衡的東西只是假象。

Like, we're looking to the future, not the past.

像是，我們在找的是未來，而不是過去。

We're working together, not against one another.

我們在一起工作，而不是對抗彼此。

We're thinking about what we can do, not what we can't.

我們在思考的事情是我們可以做的事，而不是不可以做的事。

Now let's move on to number four.

現在我們繼續說第四個技巧。

Metaphor.

暗喻。

Metaphor is probably the most powerful piece of political communication.

暗喻可能是政治語言中，最有力量的一部分。

But it's the bit no one ever talks about, the elephant in the room, so to speak,

但是這是從來沒人說過的意點，也就是說在房間裡的一頭大象。

which is extraordinary because we use metaphor once every 16 words on average.

暗喻的話術非常特別，因為我們平均每１６個字詞就會使用一次暗喻。

So our conversation is littered with metaphors, scattered with metaphors.

所以我們的交談中，參雜了一些暗喻，散布了一些暗喻。

We can't speak for very long without reaching for a metaphor,

我們如果不尋求一個暗喻，就不能說出一句太長的句子，

and metaphors are very loaded.

而且暗喻都寓意深長。

See, metaphors are all over the place,

看吧！暗喻無所不在，

and they are political in that they are used by people

而且他們有政治意味，他們被人們使用，

to lead people towards things, or indeed to make them recoil.

用來領導人們贊成某些事務，或者確實使他們畏懼。

And so we use beautiful images, images of people, images of love,

所以我們使用美麗的圖像，人們的圖像，愛的圖像，

images of family, of sunshine, in order to draw people towards things,

家庭的圖像，陽光的圖像，去吸引人們贊成某些事務。

and we use disgusting images- vermin, scary monsters, disease, sickness,

而我們使用噁心的圖像－害蟲，可怕的怪獸，病害，疾病－

in order to make people recoil.

使人們退縮。

And they're all lies, and they are never challenged.

而他們都是謊言，它們從沒被質疑過，

And yet they have an enormous impact on the way that people behave and respond.

但是他們對人們的行為與反應有很深遠的影響。

There's been research showing changing nothing more than the metaphor

已經有研究表示，單單將一段文字轉換成暗喻的方式，

in a piece of text

can lead to fundamentally different reactions from people

可以導致人們根本完全不同的反應。

on questions ranging from

在很多問題中，從像是

whether or not they'll invest in a company,

是否要投資一家公司，

whether or not they will back particular crime policies

是否支援某個特別的犯罪政策。

to even whether or not they'll support a foreign war.

甚至到問他們是否支持一個外國戰爭。

And so this is really important stuff. and it's all around us.

所以這真的是非常重要的東西，而它們就在我們四周圍。

So let me just take three of the big metaphors -

所以請讓我舉出三大暗喻－

three is the magic number -

三是個魔術數字－

three of the big metaphors that are around at the moment.

三個此刻在我們周遭的大暗喻。

"The Arab Spring".

「阿拉伯之春」

You've all heard of The Arab Spring.

你們都聽過阿拉伯之春。

You can't talk about

你們都不能說出

what's going on in the Middle East without calling it an Arab Spring.

在中東發生了什麼事情，如果你不叫它「阿拉伯之春」。

"The Arab Spring".

「阿拉伯之春」

Sun's shining, flowers blooming.

陽光很耀眼，花多都盛開著。

This is a time of regrowth, rebirth, rejuvenation.

這是個重新生長、重生、回春的時刻。

And yet it's a big lie, isn't it?

但是這是個大謊言，不是嗎？

Even the most optimistic, geopolitical experts

甚至最樂觀的地緣政治專家也會

look at the Middle East and say

看著中東，然後說

this is going to take two generations to recover.

這要花２個世代才可以恢復。

It's not an Arab Spring; it's an Arab Inferno.

這不是阿拉伯之春；這是阿拉伯的地獄。

Take another one; "The Calais Jungle".

舉另一個例子，「加來叢林」

Now this a phrase that has really taken root,

現在這個詞真的已經廣泛散布了。

metaphorically speaking, in the last year or so.

暗喻說起來，大約在去年，

If you Google "Calais" and "jungle," you get 70 million results.

如果你Ｇｏｏｇｌｅ「加來」和「叢林」，你會得到７千萬個搜尋結果。

If you google "Calais" and "croissant," you get just half a million results.

如果你Ｇｏｏｇｌｅ「加來」和「牛角麵包」，你只會得到１百萬個搜尋結果。

And what's the image this is planting in your mind?

那麼深植在你心中的這個圖像是什麼呢？

It's planting in your mind the idea that migrants are like wild animals,

它正在你心中植入的想法是，移民像是野生動物，

to be afraid of, they are dangerous, they represent a threat to you.

牠們應該被害怕，牠們很危險，牠們對你構成威脅。

And this is a very dangerous metaphor because this is the language of genocide,

這是非常危險的暗喻，因為這是種族滅絕的語言。

it's the language of hate.

這是仇恨的語言。

It's the same metaphor that Hitler used against the Jews depicting them as snakes.

這就和希特勒用來反對猶太人而將他們描繪成蛇時，用到的相同暗喻。

It's the same language which was used in Rwandan genocide

這是和盧安達種族滅絕時，被胡圖族用來反對圖西族的相同語言。

by the Hutu against the Tutsi; they were described as cockroaches.

他們被形容成是蟑螂。

And so it should be of intense concern to us

所以這個暗喻需要我們的高度關注，

that this is a phrase that is being used now by the mainstream media

這是個現今經常被主流媒體使用到的詞彙，

to talk about some of the most vulnerable people on our planet.

用來說一些在這個地球上最容易受到傷害的人們。

Let's take one more; "The financial storm".

我們再來說一個。「金融風暴」

The financial storm for the financial crisis.

金融風暴代表金融危機。

Was the financial crisis really an act of nature

金融危機真的是自然的行為表現嗎？

as the storm metaphor suggests?

就像是風暴這個暗喻象徵的意思嗎？

So it has nothing to do with greedy bankers?

所以它真的跟貪心的銀行家無關囉？

Or timid politicians?

或者跟膽小的政客無關？

Or ineffective regulators?

或者跟沒用的執法者無關？

The storm plants a phoney image in our minds

風暴在我們的心中植入了一個假象。

that this is something that just swept in, naturally

就像是某個東西侵襲過來，以自然的、平和的方式，

and equally, will just sweep away with no need for action on our parts.

它也將會退去，我們不需要多做任何動作。

It's a big lie.

這是個天大的謊言。

Pope Francis knows that it's a big lie.

教皇弗朗西斯知道這是個大謊言。

And so he doesn't speak using the financial storm metaphor.

所以他不使用金融風暴這個暗喻。

He has a different metaphor.

它有不同的暗喻。

He talks about the dung heap of capitalism.

他說這是資本主義的糞坑。

And so there he is using the metaphor of shit,

所以他用到的是大便的暗喻，

which is wonderful because what he is calling for,

這是個完美的比喻，因為他呼籲的是，

he is demanding a clean-up of the whole system.

他請求整個系統要進行大掃除。

And this is a metaphor that every human being on the planet

這就是每個在地球上的人們，

can instantly understand, will be instantly disgusted by,

可以迅速理解的暗喻，它會被厭惡。

and this is a metaphor that can get a giggle from time to time.

這也是一個暗喻，它無論何時都會被取笑。

So falling into this metaphorical space is one that

所以掉到這個暗喻的宇宙中，

some of our funnier politicians do from time to time.

是一些可愛的政治家常常做的事情。

Boris Johnson, back in the UK,

回到英國，鮑里斯·強森

he's talked about how the labor leader

他說勞動領袖，

emanated from the bowels of the trade union movement.

發源自一碗碗的尿液交易運動。

In my time working in government

當我在政府工作時，

we had Tony Blair and Gordon Brown described as two cheeks of the same arse.

我們將東尼·布萊爾和戈登·布朗形容成同一個屁股的兩片肉。

And Ronald Reagan once talked about government as a baby

雷根總統曾說過政府就像是嬰兒，

with a huge appetite at one end,

一方面有個大胃口，

no sense of responsibility at the other.

另一方面沒有任何責任感。

So let's move on to number five.

那我們繼續到第五個技巧。

Exaggeration.

誇飾。

When we're emotional, our perspective distorts.

當我們充滿情緒，我們的觀點會扭曲。

This manifests in our speech.

這自然會在我們的言談中表現出來。

And people who are emotional about something

當人們對某件事情充滿情緒，

will therefore go over the top.

就會因此變得很極端。

So, "My god, I've been waiting to give this talk my whole life.

所以，「我的天阿！我已經等著做演講等了一輩子了！」

I didn't sleep at all last night,

我昨天整晚都沒有睡覺。

and I am going to give my heart and soul to you."

而我將把我的心和靈魂都獻給你。

Okay, these are all exaggerative statements.

好吧！這全都是誇大的言論。

Leaders do this kind of stuff all the time.

領導人總是在做這種事情。

You might think it's out of order, but in actual fact,

你可能說誇飾太亂了，但是事實上，

exaggeration is just part and parcel of ordinary conversation.

誇飾只是日常溝通上的一小部分。

So they're just replicated in the kind of things that we do naturally

所以他們只是穿插在我們自然情況下做的事情當中。

when we do that.

Let's move on to number six; rhyme.

讓我們往下到第六個技巧。

There is research showing people are more likely

研究顯示，比起沒押韻的句子，人們更容易相信某些有押韻的句子，

to believe something is true if it rhymes than if it does not rhyme,

which feels absurd but it's down to what linguists talk about

這令人覺得荒謬，但是這就是語言學家所說的，

as the processing fluency of language; how easy is language to swallow?

就像是處理語言流量。語言如何被輕易的吞噬？

If you speak using long words and long sentences,

如果你用長的字詞和句子，

it's like giving someone a steak and asking them to swallow it.

這就像是給人一個牛排，要求他們吞了它。

Whereas if you give them something pithy, like a rhyme,