Notes on public speaking, for the classes in public speaking, Cornell university

Introduction

Purpose, 3. Fundamental ideas and methods, 4. Advantages of the training, 5. A personal statement, 8.

CHAPTER I. Problem of Delivery, in General — Conversing with an Audience . 10

Private and public speech compared, 10. Being "natural," 16. Mental conditions in conversation, 17, to be accentuated on the platform, 18. Absent-mindedness in reading, in speaking, or extempore, 19. Soliloquizing delivery, 21. Limitations of the doctrine, 24. Mechanical systems, 25. Imitation, 27.

CHAPTER II. Attention — Further Analysis of Mental Action 30

Nature of attention, 30. Phrasing, 31. Centering, 35. Pausing, 36. Relations of ideas, 37. Method distinguished from the mechanical, 39 Illustrative selection, 41.

CHAPTER III. Development of Attention 43

The battle of ideas for attention, 43. Forms of attention, 44. Effect of one's "store of knowledge," 46. Concreteness, 48. Sustaining attention, 52. Practical applications, to preparation, 53; to delivery, 56; to interpretation of selections, 58.

CHAPTER IV. Imagination 60

Forms of imagery, 60. Variations of individuals, 61. Reasons for encouraging imagery, 61. Verbal thinking, 62. Imagination and reality, 64. Limitations of imagination, 65. Applications, 66. Illustration, 69.

CHAPTER V. Feeling 72

Importance of, 72. Sincerity, 73. Control of feeling, 73. James- Lange theory of emotion, 74. Associations, 75. Practical suggestions,

74, 75.

CHAPTER VI. Attention of the Audience — A Chapter of Fragments 78

Audience must be considered, 78. Means of gaining attention, 7o. Association, 79. Concreteness, imagination, 80. Persuasion, 82. References for persuasion, 83. Feeling and persuasion, 83. Persuasion not an isolated or unusual element, 84. Personality and attitude, 85. Persuasion not trickery, 86. Prejudices, 87. Introductions; specific problems, 87. Persuasive force of ideas, 88. Suggestion, 89. Plans and outlines, 89. Coherence, force, unity, simplicity, 91. Point of view, 93. Illustrative outlines, 94. Originality, 96. Bibliography, 98.

CHAPTER VII. Gksture 100

Value of gesture, 100, 102. Origin of, 101. Universality of, 102. Bad effect of repression, 103. Gesture should spring from impulse; first stage of training, 104. Poise, 105. Exercises for poise, 106. Second stage of training; more definite suggestions, 107. Self-consciousness, 108. Third stage of training; exercises and criteria, 109. Movements on platform, 110. Platform manners, Hi. References, 112. References for voice training, 113.

CHAPTER VIII. Study and Delivery of Selections 114

Limitations on use of, 114. Benefits from use of, 114. Objections

to impersonation for beginners, 115. Criticism of high school work,

116. Sources of, 118. Qualities of good selections, 119. Scheme of study, 121.

In Conclusion 126

INTRODUCTION.

With the call for public speakers from pulpit, bar, stump aud lecture platform remaining undiminished, and with the large additional call in these latter days from ever-multiplying organizations with their meetings, conventions and banquets, it comes about that there is today greater opportunity and demand for speech-making than ever before. The average man finds it greatly to his advantage in civic, organization and business affairs, to be able to stand up and speak his mind ; while any man who is known to have something of interest to say, or who has in any way aroused favorable public attention, will be fairly dragged upon the platform. Thus it comes about that never before did so many untrained and ill-prepared men find themselves upon their legs facing audiences, not unfrequently to the regret of both parties. While many work out their own salvation, literally with fear and trembling, more have but scanty success.

I am in the process of preparing a book in which I aim to help the ordinary man meet the demands and opportunities of speech-making. Comparatively little has been written with just this end in view. There are many books on oratory in its loftier phases ; but these are of little use to beginners. There are suggestive books by veteran speakers, but these rarely take up the problems of delivery and preparation in a systematic way. There are books and books on elocution, reading and acting, many of which profess to treat of public speaking; but they are filled with elaborate artificial systems, impressive in their intricacy, but misleading in their promises ; or if valuable for the arts named, these treatises offer little enough for the public speaker, for the reason that these arts have little in common with public speaking ; that is, with the preparation and delivery of the original speech.

To help the beginner one must treat of both preparation and delivery. I have taken delivery first, because the beginner is usually most worried about delivery, which seems to him a very terrible affair ; and, also, because he must begin at once to deliver speeches if he is to discover the nature of speech-making, to realize its problems and its spirit. My first concern is to lead him to see that after all talking in public is a not at all remarkable act, merely the development of a very familiar act. But it must be a development;

hence we must not stop with some vague notion of being natural, but pass on to a study of this development. Some semi-technical matters must be discussed, without getting into these so far that we lose our sense of proportion. At the same time we must not be too fearful of doing some things that seem for the time artificial; for faults must be realized and fought in a definite way. We must not defend our mannerisms as nature. And we must try to improve on nature. Why not? We do in every other activity.

We must avoid the artificiality of the mechanical school and the vagueness of the merely impulsive. The greater danger is in the former. These notes are based firmly on the belief that " right speaking depends upon right thinking. ' ' But we cannot rest with that; we must proceed to discover how thinking can be improved and developed. After that, or along with that, it may be in order to give more direct attention to the technical and semi-technical phases of our subject. We shall not find much space for them in this pamphlet. They have been so fully treated by such writers as Dr. S. S. Curry, an authority upon voice training and the oral interpretation of literature, that there is little wisdom in going far with what would necessarily be a poorer treatment.

Perhaps along about the end of Chapter IV. some students will feel that so much work is suggested that the task is hopeless. It is quite true that complete preparation may take years. When great speeches have been made with apparently little preparation, as in the classic instance of Webster's Reply to Hayne, they have really sprung from years of study, experience and discussion, in which materials have not only been amassed but formulated. "Young man," said Webster sternly to a conceited youth, "there is no such thing as extemporaneous acquisition ! ' '

Granting that the suggestions of the following pages cannot be carried out ideally, in ordinary cases, still it is better to know what might be done, in order that we may work wisely and not fail to work for lack of knowing there is something to do. But after all much can be done in the time ordinarily at our disposal, especially if we begin early and give time for assimilation, instead of forcing through the preparation at the last moment. And it is better to make a few good speeches than many superficial ones. Besides, each speech need not be in a new field. Every educated man should know a good deal about a few subjects, and he can stick to those. Then for each speech he has a foundation and can give all his time to special preparation on the chosen phase. It is indeed rather hopeless when a speaker starts out with no initial interest or knowledge to speak on a topic he has chosen only because he must speak on something. But even then he can, if he will, gain the needed knowledge and interest, and it seems to me a beneficial exercise for those who confess to no interests. Though there are many college students who disclaim interest in all possible topics, frequently this is only a pose and more frequently is due to an idea that none of their real interests will do for themes. Ordinarily such a student is overlooking a good theme right at hand, of which he has real knowledge and in which he has personal interest.

Perhaps at some point, a reader exclaims, " Why so many words to tell us what any sensible man knows, — that a speaker should have a mastery of his subject before he speaks?" Perhaps as an abstract' proposition no one will question this truth ; but practically the need of emphasis is great. Some seem to think they can succeed by mere tricks of delivery and a few smart sayings ; and they are content with the cheapest success. The majority, more sincere, do yet practically ignore the truth, for the reason that they do not know what should be done. From the lower grades up, they have been forming the habit of copying matter from books, with a little condensing and re-arranging, and handing it in to satisfy the unceasing demand for compositions and "papers." The emphasis which is laid upon methods of preparation is due to the experience of nearly twelve years in attempting to teach college students to speak in a genuine, sincere way.

Xow some older critic demands, with triumphant air, "If it is so difficult to lead students to speak with genuine interest, why have them speak at all? Why not wait till they get interested? Then they will speak well enough. If they do not get interested, let them keep still ! ' ' All this is so plausible a half-truth that answer cannot be made in a word. In the first place, young men will not keep still : they are bound to express themselves in some way, good or bad. Some will express themselves well ; very many, if they are not helped to express themselves simply, directly and sincerely, will express themselves badly. If they do not fix good habits, they are likely to fix bad habits. Very many have been taught to speak in an absurd way; they bring bad habits to college. If any one questions this statement, let him attend a few of the innumerable speaking exhibitions in the schools. "Without any teaching, also, many form atrocious habits by imitating cheap but showy "orators." Strangely enough, some of those who most decry the study of public speaking are much given themselves to the declamatory style. Having little respect for the art, they assume that superficiality and "bluff" are the requisites.

Young men should express themselves. From the cradle up we develop through self-expression. Our keenest gratification comes from self-expression. This takes many forms, but surely not the least of these is speech. Moreover, to stand before one 's fellows and try to influence and control them, is to develop personality and leadership. We learn through self-expression. "No impression without expression," says William James in his Talks to Teachers (p. 33) . "Nothing is ever true to any man until he has formulated it for others," says Professor William Harder Squires. And this expression must not be put off till the plastic years are passed, waiting till deep study and large experience may have combined to furnish a commanding interest. Not only will the development be one-sided, but also facility in expression will be lacking; for the assumption that whoever has something to say will say it well, is, as Cicero says, "plausible but not true." It is only a great half-truth. At any rate, it often fails to be true. It would seem to be enough to call to mind the boredom we all suffer from lecturers who really have something to say, but who struggle most painfully in the saying of it. Even when we do listen for the sake of the message, there is great waste of attention.

And finally, will it not be valuable training to follow out the teachings of the chapters which follow? Is there any valid reason why students should not develop interests and go about it methodically? Will they not be getting valuable "by-products" in the way of mental training and control, both in preparation and on the platform? For my part, I reckon the educational value of our courses above the practical, if such a distinction is valid. Heaven f orfend that I should increase public speaking in the world ! I conduct courses for the suppression of public speaking, — of bad public speaking, and most of it is bad. It is not decrease of respect for theart that is needed, however, but increase. If we had the respect of" the ancients, we should be far more careful in our preparation.. While in the following pages I present the act of delivering a publicspeech as perfectly normal, I hope no student will finish his study with the conviction that it is a light thing to hold the attention for ten minutes or an hour of a hundred or a thousand people.

There is no royal road to success as a speaker. No attempt is made in these pages to reveal some way of making sound do for sense, or glibness for thinking. The "gift of gab" is rarely lacking in college students. The attempt to substitute delivery for ideas can result only in bombast and affectation. Delivery should be judged good only as it interprets and impresses ideas and feeling. But we must recognize that bad delivery may spoil a speech otherwise good, and good delivery may make fair subject-matter more effective than excellent matter badly delivered. There must be "a man behind the speech," something to say worth saying, and the ability to say it well.

To those who fear that the study of public speaking will lead to affectation, let me say that depends entirely upon how it is done. The trouble has been that attention has been too exclusively directed to delivery as an end in itself. The means has been mistaken for the end; hence affectation and distortion. If we keep the audience in mind, consider delivery and all else that goes to make a speech, only as means to the ends of conviction and persuasion, then public speaking can be studied as safely as any art. Moreover, the study of delivery has been much too mechanical : the student's mind has been kept for a year or more upon posture, voice, emphasis and the like, until he has come to feel that these matters constitute the whole of public speaking, and he has failed to realize the real business of the speaker. Without neglecting the development of every means of expression, all technical and semi-technical work can be so subordinated that artificiality can be avoided. Or, if it does appear for a time, since many faults cannot be removed without self-consciousness, this is a stage that passes away because the student has a normal view of his work.

There is little use in addressing those who hold all study of public speaking wrong. There are always those who believe, or affect to believe, that we do things better without trying. Often their argument is accompanied with, "I never studied speaking." Or, they point to this and that successful speaker. Of course men can learn to speak in various ways. Much of their training, in any case, must come from practical experience. We can only give them a good start. The same is true of doctors, lawyers, engineers and priests. We can give young speakers their initial experience with a minimum of embarassment ; we can give them sound principles and methods, and we can drive out of them false ideas. We can from many a blunder free them and foolish notion. And we can give them, what it is almost impossible to get elsewhere, criticism at once honest and competent. And the simple fact is that our students do succeed in learning to speak in a Way which does not need radical modification, but chiefly development, in practical life.

I said that I am in the process of preparing a text. I here offer but an incomplete fragment. I print it thus, with all its imperfections, because it is needed in my classes. It is needed, first, because for fixing such principles the printed word is superior to the spoken; secondly, because printed notes save time which can be utilized to give the students more opportunity. I know of no poorer use of time in a class than lecturing, unless one is a notable specialist in an informatory subject. If our classes serve no other purpose, they justify their existence in giving the students a chance in these days of the student-silencing lecture system. And it is impossible to make speakers of students by talking to them. Practice and drill, — these are what count. Nevertheless, there must be some discussion of theory and method in order that we may work wisely and in harmony. I print the notes incomplete because I have no more matter ready. And I print this much now, also, because I wish to try it on. Suggestions for improvement will be thankfully received, whether accepted or not.

I make no apology for venturing into the field of psychology, although I am a rank amateur. If "right speaking depends upon right thinking," we must study mental action. It is folly to disregard the work done by specialists in this field; yet little has been done in applying the truths of psychology to the teaching of public speaking. Scott's Psychology of Public Speaking has a most promising title and contains much of value; yet it is chiefly for the elocutionist and offers little to the public speaker. So far as I know, no other psychologist has undertaken to write upon the subject, and I have obtained more real help from a letter which Professor Titchener has had the great kindness to write in answer to some questions, and which he has given me permission to quote, than from anything printed directly upon the subject. My liberal borrowings from general works are, I believe, all duly credited where used. I wish to express my gratitude to my old teacher, William Harder Squires, Professor of Psychology and Pedagogics in Hamilton College, for a long interview in which we went over the matter in Chapters III. and IV., and to Guy Montrose Whipple, Assistant Professor of the Science and Art of Education in Cornell University, for a great deal of time which he has given me for discussion of the problems of educational psychology involved in Chapters III., IV. and V. I do not wish to throw any responsibility upon them for what they, of course, would have put quite otherwise; but with the assistance of these authorities, I believe we may escape fundamental error, although to a great extent we must go a-pioneering. I shall endeavor to put all in the simplest form, which is not always the briefest and most direct; for I cannot assume that those to whom this discussion is addressed are familiar with even elementary psychology.

I hope some day that a well-equipped psychologist will find time to make a real study of the foundations of this subject. Till then we must grope our way as well as we can.

As for the other parts of the booklet, it would make too pretentious a beginning to so modest an effort, to try to name the various sources of suggestion, — books, teachers, fellow-workers and students. I have no fear that any one familiar with the literature of the subject will bring any charge of plagiarism. Their criticism will be of quite a different sort. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, this is a subject in which nothing is as yet standard. Most of the ideas here put forth will be found suggested in many places; for instance, it it a hackneyed statement that public speaking should be conversational. But nowhere does one find this statement clearly worked out.

I propose to add to these pages further discussion of gesture, the composition of speeches, audiences, criticism, and some other topics of which experience may have given me a little special knowledge. And I shall bring all that I treat, including the study of selections, to bear upon practical public speaking.

Chapter I. The Problem Of Delivery , In General Conversing With An

AUDIENCE.

In order to get a true conception of the nature of our art, let us imagine all memory of speech-making to be blotted out of the world, so that there is no person who remembers that he has ever made a speech or has ever heard a speech. Let us blot out, too, all speeches and all references to speeches in literature, so that there is left no cue or clue to this art. Is this the end of speech-making ? Here comes a man who has seen a great race, or has been in a great battle, or is on fire with enthusiasm for a cause. He begins to talk with a friend he meets on the street ; others gather, twenty, fifty, a hundred. Interest grows intense; he lifts his voice that all may hear. But the crowd wishes to hear and see the speaker better. ' ' Get up on this cart ! ' ' they cry • and he mounts the cart and goes on with his story or his plea.

He is making a speech ; but under the circumstances imagined, no one thinks of it as other than a rather remarkable conversation. It does not seem abnormal, but under the circumstances quite the natural thing. "When does the talker or converser become a speechmaker ? "When ten persons gather ? Fifty ? Or was it when he got on the cart ? Is there any real change in the nature or spirit of the act? Is it not essentially the same throughout, a conversation adapted as the talker proceeds to the growing number of his hearers ? There may be a change, of course, if he becomes self-conscious ; but assuming that interest in story or argument remains the dominant emotion, there is no essential change in his speaking. It is probable that with the increasing importance of his position and the increasing tension of feeling that comes with numbers, he gradually modifies his tone and his diction, and permits himself to launch into a bolder strain and a wider range of ideas and feelings than in ordinary conversation ; but the change is in degree and not in kind. He is conversing with an audience.

Nor is the situation essentially different if, instead of our imagined case, our hero of field or forum is invited to speak before a society concerning his sport, or exploration, or social remedy, and this time he has notice beforehand, has prepared and speaks in a prepared room, a chairman introduces him, the hearers arrive at a fixed time and sit down in regular array. There are differences to be sure ; but these differences do not change the nature of the act of speech. r -

I wish you to see that the act of public speaking is a perfectly natural act, which calls for no strange, artificial methods, but only for an extension and development of that most familiar act, conversation^ If you grasp this idea you will be saved from much wasted effort.

Students at various times have pointed out many differences between private and public speaking. Let us examine the more important of these. First, it is said, a public speaker talks more loudly than one in conversation. Well, a public speaker, just as a private speaker, should speak so as easily to be heard. If you have occasion to speak to a person at the other end of a long table, you raise your voice. If you wish to speak across a noisy stream, you may have to shout. This would not be ordinary speaking to be sure, but it is still conversation and not at all abnormal. The difference is altogether a vocal one. You speak loud enough to be heard.

Again it is said, the public speaker does all the talking; in conversation there is a give and take. These statements are misleading and based upon a misconception of public speaking. There are many conversations in which one party does all or nearly all the talking. Because an old man talks continuously to a young man who listens respectfully, we do not say the old man is making a speech. Our imaginary speaker talked continuously before he got on the cart, with but little response from his hearers. Nor is it true that the public speaker does all the talking. The audience applauds and thereby says, "We approve." It may hiss and thereby say, "We disapprove." Questions may be asked and encouragement shouted. British audiences with their "Hear, hear," are much more inclined to take a hand than American audiences. But all these expressions are but audible signs of what is going on in any audience whether quiet or not. His auditors are thinking answers to the speaker's questions, or asking him questions, or assenting, or making objections ; and the experienced speaker has learned to read less demonstrative, but no less certain signs of the thoughts and moods of his hearers. He can tell by attitude and facial expression whether the other party to this public conversation is interested or bored, approves or disapproves, understands or is puzzled, and he amplifies or drops a point in accordance with what he sees. The story is told of how Rufus Choate reiterated the arguments and pleas of one of his jury addresses for three hours after eleven men were won, until he saw the stern face of the twelfth juror relax in sympathy. Many a passage of good oratorical prose can be turned into dialogue by writing out the questions and objections that lie plainly between the lines. (See for example the selection from Curtis 's "Public Duty of Educated Men," at the end of Chapter II.) The young speaker can do nothing better for himself than to fix firmly in mind that public speaking is a dialogue and to emphasize constantly the part of the audience, anticipating and watching for its response.

. A third difference is said to be that the public speaker prepares, while the converser speaks as things occur to him. It is true that a public speaker should prepare when there is opportunity ; but he is no less a public speaker because he is too indolent, or too busy, or is called upon too suddenly. Nor is a man less a converser because he prepares for a private conversation. Such preparation is by no means an unheard of thing. It should be said here that we are comparing public speech, not with a casual conversation, but with an earnest, purposeful conversation.

Let us suppose a student is chairman of a committee formed, say, for resistance to the abolition of cherished holidays. This student has an appointment "with the President of the University for the purpose of presenting the views of the student body. He talks with his committee. One says, "This is a good argument to use." Another, "That is not the way to put it; this is the way to reach the President." After discussing the arguments, the chairman remembers that the President has promised him but ten minutes. He must cu,t out some points and find brief ways of presenting others, and by the time of his appointment he knows just about what he intends to say and how he will say it. We will suppose that the President says very little, simply listens attentively with but an occasional question. We are assuming a wise student ; hence he will not take a loafing attitude or talk slang. He talks as directly and pointedly and in as good language as he can and stops on time. Has he made a speech or conversed ? Conversed, of course ; but he has sifted his ideas, adapted them to his hearer, and has not presumed upon his hearer's time. He has followed a method excellent for a public speaker.

Suppose further, that at the end of the conversation the President says, "Mr. Smith, I wish you would come to faculty meeting tomorrow and say there what you have here. ' ' At faculty meeting, our chairman has fifty or a hundred hearers. He has to raise his voice a bit, he stands up, perhaps no questions are asked till the end ; but if he has the good sense and self-control to talk to the faculty in the same spirit and largely in the same manner as when he spoke to the President alone, he will probably make an effective speech. If he adopts a rolling tone and an exaggerated manner, he will be ridiculous.

It is all a matter of adaptation. If we are told that public speaking demands more dignity of manner or of language, the answer is already plain. It all depends on circumstances in private as well as in public speech. Our student talks on the same subject to a fellow student in a more free-and-easy style than to the President, and he talks to the faculty in a manner different from that he would employ in addressing a meeting of students. In a similar way can be met every point that is made to show that public speaking and private conversation are essentially different acts, and that therefore the former calls for essentially different treatment. That there are conventional differences has nothing to do with our present discussion.

Do not understand that I am advocating what is sometimes called the "conversational style." I advocate no style. The word style suggests too strongly that all should speak in one manner, while individuality is to be our key-note. The term "conversational style" is further objectionable in that it seems to imply to many that we should speak in a careless, indifferent, indistinct tone. That is not at all what I wish to imply. I urge only that our public speaking should be conversational in its elements and that our method should be the development of conversation. Perdifferent "sounds." It depends on the situation, the subject and the speaker. The same man may in discussing the weather, politics, literature, religion, have several different manners. He may be listless while talking on your hobby, but while talking upon his own, impassioned. We should note, also, the possibility of getting a distorted conception of the style of a speaker like Webster because most of us read only isolated passages, and the lofty strain of an impassioned peroration may be very different from the body of the speech. Each part is fitted to its place. Nearly all have read Webster's apostrophe to the flag at the conclusion of the "Reply to Hayne ' ' ; few have read the four-hour address. Most school children have met with Webster's terrible description of the tortures of the murderer 's mind, so far from ordinary discourse ; but very few indeed have read the whole of that masterly address to the jury in the trial of the murderer of Captain Joseph White. Read all and you will understand the assertion of one of Webster's contemporaries that Webster talked to the jury as if he were a thirteenth juror who had just stepped out in front in order to address them better. Again we must remember that the conversational style of Webster, of whom Carlyle wrote, "No man was ever so great as Daniel Webster looked, ' ' and who made the British laborer exclaim, * ' By Jove, there goes a king, ' ' — that the conversation of such a man would not sound like that of more commonplace people. An acquaintance has told me that he was amazed by Roscoe Conkling's ability to pour out impromptu a lofty diction in the Senate or on the stump, until he knew Conkling personally and found that he never let down in his vocabulary. The grand style was his natural language. It is also true that the diction of the common man tends to become more elevated when speaking of elevated subjects, even in private conversation.