Page 45 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

12 Part 1 Foundations

The Public Speaking Transaction

Earlier we said that public speaking is an extension and refi nement of the com-
munication skills you use every day. This means public speaking is similar but
different from conversation and group discussion. The differences are most no-
table in terms of (1) planning, (2) organization, and (3) delivery.
To speak well, we need to plan well in advance of the actual transaction.
We need to think about, analyze, and adapt to our intended audience. What do
we know about our audience members and what do we need to fi nd out about
them? We need to plan for the physical location where we will be speaking. If
it’s a room, does it pose constraints on movement or on eye contact? Can we
mediate our message? It is crucial to plan for all the contingencies we may face.
Public speaking also requires a much more organized and coherent message
than either conversation or group discussion. In conversation and discussion,
communicators can interrupt each other, ask questions, give obvious nonverbal
feedback, and ask for clarifi cation when needed. This is not so easily done in
the case of public speaking. As a result, we need to organize our message so its
meaning is clear and its logic easily followed.
Finally, delivery is more formal with a public speech than with conversation
and discussion. Please don’t get us wrong—this should not be construed to mean
that a speech is stilted or stuffy. Many of the best speeches are conversational in
tone. But let’s face it, there are some differences. We stand up when speaking,
perhaps behind a lectern, whereas audience members are seated. We may use
notes and visual aids to enhance our speech. We also may move about the room
while speaking.
With this in mind, we can now turn to certain principles that reinforce the
similarities between public speaking and its counterparts, beginning with the
idea that communication is transactional. Whether the focus is an intimate con-
versation between lovers, an informative speech before your class, or a speech at
a political rally, the process of communication is best viewed as a transactional
system.
A transaction involves an exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages be-
transaction
tween two or more people. A system is a collection of interdependent parts ar-
An exchange of verbal
ranged so that a change in one produces corresponding changes in the remain-
and nonverbal messages
ing parts. Consider a mechanical system such as a car. Its parts show varying
between two or more
degrees of interdependence. Interdependence exists when things have a re-
people.
ciprocal infl uence on one another. Changes in some of a car’s parts will produce
system subtle changes in others. For example, even minor tire tread wear will affect a
A collection of inter- car’s handling. The change is so subtle, though, that most drivers don’t notice
dependent parts ar- it. In contrast, changes in other parts of the car can produce changes drivers
ranged so that a change cannot help noticing. Engine failure, for example, produces obvious changes
in one produces corres- throughout the hydraulic system of the car, including failure of the car’s power
ponding changes in the
steering and power brakes.
remaining parts.
Perhaps this is why the public speaking transaction seems such a signifi cant
departure from the more familiar contexts of communication in which we en-
interdependence
gage. Whereas the changes that occur to the communication system when mov-
A relationship in which
ing from an interpersonal to a small-group exchange are subtle, the changes that
things have a reciprocal
infl uence on each other. occur to the system when moving to an exchange between one and many can
seem rather pronounced. Consider something as simple as the number of people