It could be argued that the Irish as a nation are at somewhat of a disadvantage in relation to other English speakers . . . notably the Americans and the British. Despite our long oral tradition, there seems to be something of a paucity of public speaking ability in Ireland, whereas the British have a mastery of the language while the Americans have an innate confidence which often transcends any weakness of message. Certainly, the Irish ability for speechmaking is improving . . . but which tradition would it be best to follow, and which side of the Atlantic will more easily win an argument?

"I think that the British have a much greater tradition of formal oratory, " said writer, broadcaster and PR guru Terry Prone. "This is partly due to their university tradition (although that can be a disadvantage, because the habit of argument is difficult to break), but it is more down to their use of language."

Prone points to Winston Churchill as the definitive public speaker, whose mastery of language enabled him to employ a number of methodologies to generate maximum effect for his utterances, rhetorical techniques such as assonance and alliteration, oxymoron ("Iron Curtain") and anaphora, or repetition ("we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds. . . ).

"His speeches were slow, " she said. "In fact, he was the perfect example of how idea and language can overcome appearance and voice, because his oratorical control was actually rubbish."

Indeed, while performance and content should merge to form the ideal speechmaking ability, there is often conflict as to which is the more important . . . with European speakers tending to place a greater emphasis on the content aspect, often to the detriment of delivery.

"Fluency without content is like having a Porsche without the driver, " said Prone.

"The two are inextricably linked up together. And while a great delivery may be pleasing at the time, the speech itself may have nothing memorable about it afterwards."

Irish speakers, it would seem, are at something of a crossroads when it comes to which tradition to follow, although Prone can point to a number of speakers, from Mary Hanafin to David McWilliams, who she feels are excellent examples of public speakers, and who can engage with their audiences, react to them, and deliver a memorable performance with a memorable message. She points to humour as a device which is often used on this side of the Atlantic as a means of engaging the audience ("Americans have no grasp of irony, " she said), but overall, she warns of the perils of drifting into a sort of accepted status quo of delivering a speech.

"We are in great danger of adopting mediocrity, " she said. "This includes such standards as power point presentations, and utilising old formulae, such as telling what you are going to tell, then telling it, then telling people what you have just told them. The tradition of the Seanachie is critically important for Ireland, in that story has been an element of our culture which has been with us through the ages. We have a particularly strong oral tradition, and a unique ability to tell stories. And it would be a tragedy if we lost our capacity to illustrate concepts through story."

Of course, whatever the old countries' manners of delivering speeches, there is little that can rival the sheer confidence of our American cousins. When an American speaks, most people listen, thanks to the arresting nature of the delivery. And, according to Sandra Sheerin, director of Public Speaking Ireland (and product of the American high school system), the ability to speak is instilled at an early age.

"When high school students are about 14 years old, they have speech delivery classes, and these take place about five times a week, " she explained. "And it is not just a matter of reading paragraphs in front of people.

You are given a topic, and you are told to be informative, or persuasive, or demonstrative. You have to research your topics, and structure you speeches into introductions, bodies of speeches and conclusions . . .as well as being able to deliver the speech itself."

With such a good start, it should be little surprise that US citizens can be so motivational and inspirational in their speeches . . . and this is why American businesspeople can seem so persuasive when they speak in this part of the world. But what about substance?

"Body language makes up 55% of the message. Tone makes up 38%. The words only count for 7%. Americans prefer to leave people with a feeling of trust, rather than having them remember the words which were spoken. They want people to come away from a speech with a positive feeling, and this is why they are so influential in business and politics."

This is not to say that American speakers are devoid of message . . . indeed, some of the great speeches have been made by Americans. For example, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has been heard by nobody alive today, but its words covey a powerful message regarding the fundamental dignity of humanity. And Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, while undoubtedly delivered in a memorable manner, nonetheless contains some iconic imagery. But even without the great messages, American speakers seem to have the ability to convey a feeling . . . and usually a positive and forceful one.

"Bill Clinton is one of the world's most sought after public speakers, " said Sheelin. "But it is not so much his message as his delivery which is important. He is on your level. He shows no arrogance. And his use of body language, combined with his tone of voice, is persuasive, despite the fact that his voice is not powerful."

Confidence is another factor that tends to mark an American speaker.

"Americans are, by their nature, some of the most patriotic people in the world, " said Sheelin. "So people tend to sit up and listen. American's are a product of their environments and school systems, and they seem to know innately what will captivate an audience."