Page 28 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

The Art and Science of Public Speaking Is Demonstrated
Through Strong, Consistent Coverage of Classical and

Contemporary Theories

Canons of Rhetoric
Chapter The fi ve canons of rhetoric are pre-
2
sented in Chapter 2, “Your First
Your First Speech Speech,” and discussed in more
detail in Chapters 7 through 12. Since
ancient times, these classical arts
have been considered the basis for
Objectives www.mhhe.com/brydon6 Key Concepts successful speeches.
After reading this chapter and reviewing the online learning resources at audience
www.mhhe.com/brydon6, you should be able to: brainstorming
• Analyze the basic features of the rhetorical situation as it applies to your canons of rhetoric
first speech. credibility
• Identify the general purposes associated with public speaking. extemporaneous delivery
• Select an appropriate topic for your first speech. general purpose
• Construct a specific purpose for your first speech. impromptu delivery
• Develop a clear thesis statement for your first speech. invention
main points
• Prepare your first speech, using appropriate sources for
information. manuscript delivery
• Organize your speech to (1) open with impact, (2) focus on your memorized delivery
thesis statement, (3) connect with your audience, (4) preview your main preview
points, (5) organize your ideas with three to five main points,
signposts
(6) summarize your main points, and (7) close with impact.
• Present your speech in a conversational, extemporaneous manner. specific purpose
thesis statement
“ Public speaking is not a spectator sport. ”
—MILE SQUARE TOASTMASTERS CLUB 1
Your first speeches to your classmates will help you gain experience and confidence, as you can see in
the face of our student Satinder Gill.
Toulmin Model of Argument
198 Part 3 Putting Theory Into Practice Chapter 8 Supporting Your Message 199
The Toulmin Model of Argument and
Have you ever purchased a product that warns, “Requires some assembly?” If Exhibit 8.2
you have, then you also know what it’s like to learn that the process described on
its explanation of claims, grounds, the box is seldom as easy as described. Assembling the parts of your speech can Saves money and Using Toulmin’s Model
Analysis of an Argument
Backing:
also prove more difficult than initially envisioned. After spending time in the ac-
the environment
tual or virtual library and systematically searching the Web, for example, it’s not
and warrants is introduced as a model uncommon to look at the the notes we’ve compiled and wonder how we will ever Grounds: Warrant: Gas mileage Claim:
make sense of them in a speech. This chapter is designed to help you translate
your research into a meaningful speech. To that end, we first introduce you to a
buy an SUV.
gas mileage.
model of reasoning that can guide you in using the materials you’ve gathered to SUVs get lousy is important. You should not
support your overall message, whether its purpose is to inform or persuade.
for sound arguments in Chapter 8,
Toulmin’s Model of Reasoning Qualifier:
It is likely
“Supporting Your Message,” and claim A three-part model we have found useful was proposed by philosopher Stephen
A conclusion that speak- Toulmin. 2 First, a reasoner has a claim, or conclusion, that he or she wishes Rebuttal:
ers want their audience to establish. Second, there must be grounds or evidence to support the claim. Unless you need
developed in more detail with the to reach as a result of provided by a warrant. vehicle
Finally, there needs to be linkage between the grounds and the claim, which is
an off-road
their speech.
For example, let’s assume a speaker wants to discourage the audience from
grounds buying an SUV. The speaker is making the claim that you should not buy an
Fallacies in Chapter 15, “Thinking The evidence a speaker SUV. A claim alone, however, does not make an argument; there must be
some evidence, or grounds, to support the claim. The speaker might point out
offers in support of a
claim. that SUVs get lousy gas mileage. On the surface this might seem to be reason Three additional features may be present in an argument. The speaker may
enough, but keep in mind that gas mileage per se is not the only thing a buyer provide backing to further support the warrant. Thus the speaker might point backing
and Speaking Critically.” The connection between evaluates. The buyer may be more concerned about performance, vehicle size, out that good gas mileage not only saves the consumer money but is also easier Support for a warrant.
warrant
on the environment. There may also be an exception, or rebuttal, to the argu-
or safety than gas mileage. Thus there must be a warrant, or a reason, to value
grounds and claim.
gas mileage over other considerations. In this case the warrant would be that gas ment. For example, what if someone lives where it is necessary to drive off road rebuttal
mileage is an important factor in choosing a vehicle. or where four-wheel-drive is needed to cope with winter snows? The argument An exception to or a refu-
is not really so much that no one should buy an SUV but that most people don’t tation of an argument.
really need one. Thus the argument needs to have a qualifier to indicate the
Exhibit 8.1 level of certitude of the claim. For example, “it is likely” that you should not buy qualifier
The Toulmin Model of an SUV would qualify the speaker’s claim. Visually, the Toulmin model can be An indication of the level
Reasoning Backing depicted as in Exhibit 8.1. Exhibit 8.2 shows you how this analysis would look of probability of a claim.
using our example of why one should not buy an SUV.
Claims
Grounds Warrant Claim
In Their Own Words We make three basic types of claims when speaking: factual, value, and policy.
A factual claim states that something is true or false. Some facts are clear-cut:
2 plus 2 equals 4. Others aren’t so easy to prove: Is Social Security in danger
Sample Persuasive Speech Qualifier of bankruptcy or not? The hallmark of factual claims is that they are theoreti -
cally verifiable. Claims of value make judgments about what is good or bad, right
ALCOHOL AND TRUTH or wrong, moral or immoral. Much of the debate over so-called wedge issues
by Arjun Buxi such as gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion concern value judgments.
It’s strange that there is this lifestyle that we are all taught. It’s very Rebuttal Finally, claims of policy are statements about what a person should do. Most per -
cool, it’s glamorous, and it’s the place to be, but that is not the truth. suasive speeches deal with either claims of value or policy or both. Most infor -
In reality, it is this vortex of manipulation, perpetrated by the alco- mative speeches are primarily about claims of fact. As we look for grounds to
holic beverage companies. We play a game with them—a game with support our speeches, we need to carefully assess the types of claims we plan to
loaded dice that we are never meant to win. And each day we play it,
we are losing control.
You’ve guessed it! We’re talking about drinking. But don’t worry—
it’s not a temperance movement. There’s no right or wrong, good or
bad, and no one is burning in hell. No. This is plain and simple about
truth, about facts, and about knowledge. That’s all there is. And af-
ter this discussion, let’s all make an informed decision—choose. Be-
cause the power to choose is all we need.
So what are we going to talk about today? We’re going to talk
Arjun Buxi about the chemistry of drinking, the safety and responsibility factors,
the addictive side of it. We’re going to talk about the companies and
their merchandising methods, and fi nally why do we drink in the fi rst place?
But fi rst things fi rst—the chemistry of drinking. According to Caroline Ryan in the BBC’s
online health service, when we have alcohol taken into our body, the brain releases two chemi-
cals: #1 dopamine, #2 endorphin. Dopamine gives us a feeling of satisfaction. So yes, we do
enjoy the drink. But the second one is a natural body painkiller, endorphin. Okay, put the two
together, of course we enjoy drinking! Fast forward maybe eight or twelve hours after the fi nal
drink. Now that’s when the fun begins! You feel maybe a headache coming on—basic nausea, Elaboration Likelihood Model
diarrhea, and sometimes we end up hugging the toilet. But what is this? This is a phenomenon
hereafter known as the “hangover.” Oh yes, we’ve all been there. But what is this?
How does it happen? You see what happens, when we’re knocked out cold, we’re com-
pletely comatose. The body is fi ghting. The body is breaking the alcohol down into its basic Chapter 14, “Persuasive Speaking,” has been signifi cantly revised to
components. The liver is cursing us because he’s doing all the work. And one by-product of
alcohol’s degeneration is acetaldehyde, which is a toxin. And ladies and gentlemen, toxins
have no business being inside the human body, but we put them there because we had the
alcohol. We’re brilliant.
Oh, let’s attack one certain myth here, while we’re at it. The myth is that we sleep better ground discussion in the rhetorical situation, while still including the
when we have alcohol. We sleep longer, and in the case of my roommate, we’re much harder to
wake up, but that’s another story! We don’t sleep better because the body’s fi ghting these tox-
ins all night long, and we wake up the very next morning exhausted, so we haven’t slept better.
Moving further ahead. Now we talk about safety and responsibility. Is it really possible? fi ndings of social science research—credibility, message sidedness,
There’s this article by Manoj Sharma, in the Alcohol and Drug Education Journal, and he says
if we have two drinks—just two—whether it’s two small beers or small glasses of wine sepa-
rated from each other by an hour and not more than that in the whole session, he says maybe
that should be safe. Probably. Is it? Is it even practical? Do you feel two drinks is enough? evidence and persuasion, fear appeals, the Elaboration Likelihood
Shouldn’t there be more? Okay, let’s say I have a burst of willpower and I say, “Oh, only two
drinks tonight!” But wait a minute, there’s a football game going, there’s beautiful people on
the dance fl oor, there’s music, maybe it’s my birthday? Do I say “no” to the third drink, or the
fourth, or the fi fth? Think again because Fox in The Boston Globe (2002) had a study, and he
said that two drinks, just those two supposedly “safe” drinks impair our judgment. We lack Model, and Cialdini’s speaker-friendly six principles of infl uence.
clarity of thought and our logic is skewed. How can we choose rationally? The game is loaded,
and we lose every day.
Moving further on, while we are talking about the companies, they have gall, you know. I
admire their ingenuity, but I hate them nonetheless. You see, Jake Gettleman in The New York
394 Times tells us about this wonderful merchandising idea called “Bud Pong.” Oh, it’s based on
xxvii