COMPLETE MPU2222 MODULE

People who listen to a speech like that will not soon forget it. They may well be moved to action, as the
speaker intends. The first speech, however, is not nearly as compelling. Listeners may well nod their
heads, think to themselves “good idea” – and then forget about it. The story of Tina and the family who
loved her gives the second speech emotional impact and brings it home to listeners in personal terms.

Speak with sincerity and conviction
Ronald Reagan was one of the most effective speakers in recent U.S. history. Even people who

disagreed with his political views often found him irresistible. Why? Partly because he seemed to speak
with great sincerity and conviction.

What was true for Reagan is true for you as well. The strongest source of emotional power is
the conviction and sincerity of the speaker. All your emotion-laden words and examples are but empty
trappings unless you feel the emotion yourself. And if you do, your emotion will communicate itself to
the audience through everything you say and do – not only through your words, but also through your
tone of voice, rate of speech, gestures and facial expressions.

Ethics and Emotional Appeal
Much has been written about the ethics of emotional appeal in speechmaking. Some people have taken
the extreme position that ethical speakers should stick to reason and avoid emotional appeal entirely. To
support this view, they point to speakers who have used emotional appeal to fan the flames of racial
hatred, religious bigotry, and political fanaticism.

There is no question that emotional appeals can be abused by unscrupulous speakers for
detestable causes. But emotional appeals can also be wielded by honorable speakers for noble causes –
by Winston Churchill to rouse the world against Adolf Hitler and the forces of Nazism, by Martin Luther
King to call for racial justice, by Mother Teresa to help the poor and downtrodden. Few people would
question the ethics of emotional appeal in these instances.

Nor is it always possible to draw a sharp line between reason and emotional appeal. Think back
for a moment to the story about Tina, the Samoyed who was killed near her home by an illegal trapper.
The story certainly has strong emotional appeal. But is there anything unreasonable about the story? Or
is it irrational for listeners to respond to it by backing stronger measures to control illegal trapping? By
the same token, is it illogical to be angered by corporate wrongdoing? Fearful about cutbacks in student
aid? Compassionate for victims of terrorism? In many cases, reason and emotion work hand in hand.

One key to using emotional appeal ethically is to make sure it is appropriate to the speech topic.
If you want to move listeners to act on a question of policy, emotional appeals are not only legitimate
but perhaps necessary. If you want listeners to do something as a result of your speech, you will probably
need to appeal to their hearts as well as to their heads.

On the other hand, emotional appeals are usually inappropriate in a persuasive speech on a
question of fact. Here you should deal only in specific information and logic. Suppose someone charges
your state governor with illegal campaign activities. If you respond by saying, “I’m sure the change is
false because I have always admired the governor,” or “I’m sure the charge is true because I have always
disliked the governor,” then you are guilty of applying emotional criteria to a purely factual question. The
events relative to the governor’s campaign activities are matters of fact and should be discussed on
factual grounds alone.

Even when trying to move listeners to action, you should never substitute emotional appeals for
evidence and reasoning. You should always build your persuasive speech on a firm foundation of facts
and logic. This is important not just for ethical reasons, but for practical reasons as well. Unless you
prove your case, careful listeners will not be stirred by your emotional appeals. You need to build a good
case based on reason and kindle the emotions of your audience.

Page | 151

PERSUADING THROUGH SPEAKER’S CREDIBILITY (ETHOS)
Here are two sets of imaginary statements. Which one of each pair would you be more likely to believe?

The U.S. judicial system needs major changes to deal with the increased number of court
cases. (Sandra Day O’Connor, U.S. Supreme Court justice)
The U.S. judicial system is working fine and does not need any major changes at this time
(Stephen King, novelist)

The horror novel is entering a more sophisticated stage as writers develop new character
types and plot devices. (Stephen King, novelist)
The horror novel is declining in quality compared with other forms of popular fiction.
(Sandra Day O’Connor, U.S. Supreme Court justice)

Most likely you chose the first in each pair of statements. If so, you were probably influenced by your
perception of the speaker. You are more likely to respect the judgment of O’Connor, U.S. Supreme Court
justice, when she speaks about the judicial system, and to respect the judgment of Stephen King, author
of Carrie, The Shining, It and more than 40 other books, when he speaks about trends in the horror
novel. Some teachers call this factor source credibility. Others refer to it as ethos, the name given by
Aristotle.

Ethos or credibility is defined as the audience’s perception of whether a speaker is qualified to
speak on a given topic and it is related to the English word ethics and refers to the trustworthiness of
the speaker/writer. Ethos is an argument based on character. Using ethos means the writer or speaker
appeals to the audience’s sense of ethical behavior. The writer or speaker presents him or herself to the
audience as credible, trustworthy, honest and ethical. Ethos is an effective persuasive strategy because
when we believe that the speaker does not intend to do us harm, we are more willing to listen to what
he/she has to say.

Page | 152

Factors of Credibility

Over the years, researchers have given much time to studying credibility and its effects on speechmaking.
They have discovered that many things affect a speaker’s credibility including sociability, dynamism,
physical attractiveness, and perceived similarity between speaker and audience. Above all, though, a
speaker’s credibility is affected by two factors:

§ Competence – how an audience regards a speaker’s intelligence, expertise, and knowledge of the
subject.

§ Character – how an audience regards a speaker’s sincerity, trustworthiness, and concern for the
well-being of the audience.

The more favorably listeners view a speaker’s competence and character, the more likely they are to
accept what the speaker says. No doubt you are familiar with this from your own experience. Suppose
you take a course in economics. The course is taught by a distinguished professor who has published
widely in all the prestigious journals, who sits on a major international commission, and who has won
several awards for outstanding research. In class, you hand on this professor’s every word. One day the
professor is absent; a colleague of hers from the Economics Department – fully qualified but not as well
known - comes to lecture in the professor’s place. Possibly the fill-in instructor gives the same lecture
the distinguished professor would have given, but you do not pay nearly as close attention. The other
instructor does not have as high credibility as the professor.

It is important to remember that credibility is an attitude. It exists not in the speaker, but in the mind
of the audience. A speaker may have high credibility for one audience and low credibility for another. A
speaker may also have high credibility on one topic and low credibility for another. Looking back to our
imaginary statements above, most people would readily believe Stephen King speaking about horror
novels than Stephen King speaking about the judicial system.

When an audience believes a speaker and has faith in him or her, the speaker enjoys credibility.
Credibility doesn’t just happen; it has to be earned through such personal characteristics as:

· Sincerity and concern for listeners
· Tact and friendliness
· Reputation and character
· Self-confidence and poise
· Experience and special knowledge of the subject.

Speaking of “appearance”, let’s consider the impression that former President Bill Clinton made
throughout the Monica Lewinsky scandal. President Clinton is a very effective public speaker, some even
say charismatic, and in an effort to win the American public to his side, he made every effort to appear
sincere and truthful. His manner is engaging and warm; his style simple, direct, and folksy. However, he
was shown to have lied when he denied his liaison with Ms. Lewinsky. He deceived his closest aides, the
Congress, the public and his family. Thereafter, as much as he may be respected for any
accomplishments associated with his Presidency, his image as a liar colors everything he did or will ever
do. Even when a liar tells the truth, the nagging doubt exists. His gifts for persuasion are tainted; he is
hard to believe.

Page | 153

Types of Credibility

Not only can a speaker’s credibility vary from audience to audience and topic to topic, but it can also
change during the course of a speech – so much so that we can identify three types of credibility:

§ Initial credibility – the credibility of the speaker before or she starts to speak.
§ Derived credibility – the credibility of the speaker produced by everything she or he says and

does during the speech itself.
§ Terminal credibility – the credibility of the speaker at the end of the speech.

All three are dynamic. High initial credibility is a great advantage for any speaker, but it can be
destroyed during a speech, resulting in low terminal credibility. The reverse can also occur. A speaker
with low initial credibility may enhance her or his credibility during the speech and end up with high
terminal credibility, as in the following example:

Barry Devins manages the computer and information systems for a major non-profit research
foundation. Soon after taking the job, he purchased a highly touted internal e-mail system and
installed it on all the foundation’s computers. Barry assumed there would be some glitches, but
they far exceeded anything he had imagined. It took him almost six months to get the system
working properly, and even then people continued to grumble about all the messages they had
lost during the phase-in period.

A year later, the foundation was awarded a large contract, and the president decided to
purchase a new computer system for the entire organization. She asked Barry to take charge of
buying the system and training the staff in its use. She suggested that he outline his plans at a
weekly staff meeting.

As you might expect, Barry had low initial credibility when he stood up to address the staff.
Everyone remembered vividly the trouble caused by the e-mail system, and they were
extremely reluctant to go through such a process again. But Barry realized this and he was
prepared.

He began by reminding everyone that the president had authorized him to purchase a truly
state-of-the-art system that would make their lives easier and improve coordination throughout
the office. He then acknowledged that he had told them the same thing before installing the e-
mail system – an admission that drew a laugh and helped everyone relax. Using a notebook
computer like the ones he intended to purchase, Barry projected a series of PowerPoint slides
showing the capabilities of the new system and a time line for installation. He also explained
that he had checked with several other organizations that had installed the same system, and
they all had told him that it worked flawlessly.

All through his presentation, Barry took the approach, “I know the e-mail system was
something of a disaster, and I have worked hard to make sure we don’t suffer such an experience
again.” By the time he finished, most staff members were eager to get their new computers.
Barry had achieved high terminal credibility.

Page | 154

In classroom speeches, you will not face the same problems with credibility as do controversial
public figures. Nonetheless, credibility is important in every speaking situation, no matter who the
participants are or where it takes place. In every speech you give you will have some degree of initial
credibility, which will always be strengthened or weakened by your message and how you deliver it.
And your terminal credibility from one speech will affect your initial credibility for the next one. If your
classmates see you as sincere and competent, they will be much more receptive to your ideas.

Enhancing your Credibility

How can you build your credibility in your speeches? At one level, the answer is frustratingly
general. Since everything you say and do in a speech will affect your credibility, you should say and do
everything in a way that will make you appear capable and trustworthy. Good organization will improve
your credibility. So will appropriate, clear, vivid language. So will fluent, dynamic delivery. So will strong
evidence and cogent reasoning. In other words – give a brilliant speech and you will achieve high
credibility!

The advice is sound, but not all that helpful. There are, however, some specific, proven ways you
can boost your credibility while speaking. They include explaining your competence, establishing common
ground with the audience, and speaking with genuine conviction.

Explain Your Competence

One way to enhance your credibility is to advertise your expertise on the speech topic. Did you investigate
the topic thoroughly? Then say so. Do you experience that gives you special knowledge or insight? Again,
say so.

Here is how two students revealed their qualifications. The first addressed her study and research:

Before I studied antibacterial products in my public health class, I always used
antibacterial soaps and antibacterial all-surface cleaner for my apartment. I also know
from my class survey that 70 percent of you use antibacterial soaps, cleaners, or other
products. But after learning about the subject in class and reading research studies for
this speech, I’m here to tell you that, try as we might, we cannot build a bubble between
ourselves and germs with antibacterial products and that these products actually create
more problems that they solve.

The second student emphasized her background and personal experience:

Most of us have no idea what it means to be poor and hungry. But before returning to
school last year, I spent three years working at local assistance centers. I worked in every
part of the city with every kind of person. I can’t begin to tell you what I have seen – how
poverty destroys people’s souls and how hunger drives them to desperation. But on the
basis of what I can tell you, I hope you will agree with me that the government help for
the poor and the needy must be increased.

In both of these cases, the speakers greatly increased their persuasiveness by establishing their
credibility.

Page | 155

Establish Common Ground with Your Audience

Another way to bolster your credibility is to establish common ground with your audience. You do not
persuade listeners by assaulting their values and rejecting their opinions. This approach only antagonizes
people. It puts them on the defensive and makes them resist your ideas. As the old saying goes, “You
catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” The same is true of persuasion. Show respect for your
listeners. You can make your speech more appealing by identifying your ideas with those of your audience
– by showing how your point of view is consistent with what they believe.

Creating common ground is especially important at the start of a persuasive speech. Begin by
identifying with your listeners. Show that you share their values, attitudes and experiences. Get them
nodding their heads in agreement, and they will be much more receptive to your ultimate proposal. Here
is how a businesswoman from Massachusetts, hoping to sell her product to an audience of people in
Colorado, began her persuasive speech:

I have never been in Colorado before, but I really looked forward to making this trip. A
lot of my ancestors left Massachusetts and came to Colorado nearly 150 years ago.
Sometimes I have wondered why they did it. They came in covered wagons, carrying all
their possessions, and many of them died on the journey. The ones who got through raised
their houses and raised their families. Now that I have seen Colorado, I understand why
they tried so hard!

The audience laughed and applauded, and the speaker was off to a good start.

This method of establishing common ground is used often in speeches outside the classroom. Now look
at a different approach, used in a classroom speech favoring a tuition increase at the speaker’s school –
a very unpopular point of view with his classmates. He began by saying:

As we all know, there are many differences among the people in this class. But regardless
of age, major, background, or goals, we all share one thing in common – we are all
concerned with the quality of education at this school. And that quality is clearly in danger.
Because of budget reductions, faculty salaries have fallen below those at comparable
schools, library hours have been cut back, and more and more students are being crowded
out of classes they need to take.

Whether we like it or not, we have a problem – a problem that affects each of us.
This morning I would like to discuss this problem and whether it can be solved by an
increase in tuition.

By stressing common perceptions of the problem, the student hoped to get off on the right foot with his
audience. Once that was done, he moved gradually to his more controversial ideas.

Page | 156

Deliver Your Speeches Fluently, Expressively, and with Conviction
There is a great deal of research to show that a speaker’s credibility is strongly affected by his or

her delivery. Moderately fast speakers, for example, are usually seen as more intelligent and confident
than slower speakers. So too are speakers who use vocal variety to communicate their ideas in a lively,
animated way. On the other hand, speakers who consistently lose their place, hesitant frequently, or
pepper their talk with vocalized pauses such as “uh”, “er”, and “um” are seen as significantly less
competent than speakers who are more poised and dynamic.

All of this argues for practicing your persuasive speech fully ahead of time so you can deliver it
fluently and expressively. In addition to being better prepared, you will take a major step toward
enhancing your credibility.

Speaking techniques aside, the most important way to strengthen your credibility is to deliver
your speeches with genuine conviction. President Harry Truman once said that in speaking, “sincerity,
honesty, and a straight-forward manner are more important than special talent or polish.” If you wish to
convince others, you must first convince yourself. If you want others to believe and care about your
ideas, you must believe and care about them yourself. Let your audience know you are in earnest – that
your speech is not just a classroom exercise. Your spirit, enthusiasm, and conviction will carry over to
your listeners.

Page | 157

Persuading through Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

Developed in the 1930s by Alan Monroe, a professor of speech at Purdue University, the motivated
sequence is tailor made for policy speeches that seek immediate action. The sequence have five steps
that follow the psychology of persuasion:

1. ATTENTION
a. Get the attention of the audience.
b. Relate yourself and the topic to the audience.
c. Show the importance of your topic to the audience.
d. Use a startling opening.
e. Arouse your audience’s curiosity or suspense.
f. Pose questions, tell stories, or use visual aids.

2. NEED
a. Establish a need for change--state it clearly.
b. Illustrate with supporting materials – statistics, examples and testimony.
c. Relate it to values/vital concerns of audience.
d. Prime audience to listen to your solution

3. SATISFACTION
a. Offer a solution to the issue
b. Offer a plan for success and show how it will work.
c. Provide details about the plan

4. VISUALIZATION
a. Intensify desire by visualizing the benefits.
b. Use vivid language and imagery.
c. Show what the audience will get from it.
d. Demonstrate how they will profit from your solution.

5. ACTION
a. Encourage a specific call to action.
b. Say exactly what they need to do and how to do it
c. Conclude with a final stirring appeal that reinforces their commitment to act.

Many students prefer the motivated sequence because it is more detailed. It follows the process
of human thinking and leads the listener step by step to the desired action. One indication of its
effectiveness is that it is widely used by people who make their living by persuasion – especially
advertisers. They next time you watch television, pay close attention to the commercials. You will find
that many of them follow the motivated sequence, as in this example:

Page | 158

Attention: It is late in the day. We see a business conference room. A project manager and
several others are gathered around a table. Some are sitting, others are standing.
Need:
Satisfaction: They are putting the final touches on the company’s bid for an important contract.
Visualization: Tightly framed close-ups and quick snatches of conversation heighten the sense
of tension and drama.
Action: “This is great work,” says an associate seated to the manager’s left. “I don’t see
how the competition can beat it.” “They can’t,” the manager replies. “Now we
have to get it to the coast by tomorrow morning. If we don’t, we’re all in trouble.”

The manager and her associate exchange knowing looks. “U.S. Express,” they
say in unison, nodding their heads in agreement. The announcer, in voice-over,
tells us: “U.S. Express guarantees overnight delivery – without fail.”

We see the business conference room the next day. The manager is listening to
the speaker phone. “Your bid arrived this morning,” the voice on the phone
announces. “You really put all the pieces together. The competition couldn’t come
close.” The manager and her colleagues smile in satisfaction. One person raises
his right arm in a signal of triumph.
The audience is urged to rely on U.S. Express whenever shipments have to arrive
overnight.

Try using the motivated sequence when you want to spur listeners to action. You should find it easy
and effective, as did one student who used it in a speech urging classmates to work for passage of a
local tenants’ rights bill. Here are the highlights of his speech:

Attention: Have you ever had cockroaches running through the cupboards in your
apartment? Have you sweltered in the heat because the air conditioning didn’t
Need: work? Or shivered in the cold because the furnace was broken? Or waited months
Satisfaction: for the security deposit you never got back even though you left your apartment
Visualization:
Action: as clean as when you moved in?
Throughout this city students and other apartment tenants are being victimized
by unresponsive and unethical landlords. Just last year more than 200 complaints

were filed with the city housing department, but no action has been taken against
the landlords.
These problems could be solved by passing a strong tenants’ rights bill that
defines the rights of tenants, specifies the obligations of landlords, and
Such bills have worked in a number of college communities across the nation. If
one were passed here, you would no longer have to worry about substandard

sanitary or safety condition in your apartment. Your landlord could not violate the
terms of your lease or steal your security deposit.
A tenants’ rights bill has been proposed to the city council. You can get help get
it passed by signing the petition I will pass around after my speech. I also urge
you to help by circulating petitions among your friends and by turning out to
support the bill when it is debated in the city council next week. If we all work

together, we can get this bill through the council.

Monroe’s motivated sequence us entirely compatible with the standard method of outlining your
speech. The following outline shows how one speaker incorporated the sequence into a speech urging
her classmates to enroll in a self-defense course. In its full form, the outline included supporting materials
for all the points in the speech.

Page | 159

Preview: Enrolling in a self-defense course is an effective way for college students to
Attention: protect themselves in potentially dangerous situations.

Need: Introduction
Satisfaction: I. Have you ever felt unsafe walking home from the library on a dark
evening?
Visualization: II. No matter where we live, crime affects us all – men and women, students
and instructors, young and old.

III. We need to stop being the victims.

IV. Today, I would like to encourage all of you to enroll in a self-defense
course.

Body

I. College students face many crime issues, both as students and as
members of society.
A. Crime and violence are concerns for people in all walks of life.
B. College students, many of whom are away from home for the first
time, are especially easy targets for crime.

II. Enrolling in a self-defense course is one way we can help protect ourselves
in potentially dangerous situations.
A. On campus, the university has a club sport called Shorin Ryu
Karate, which emphasizes practical self-defense.
B. In town, Villari’s Self-Defense and Tai Chi Center offers several

courses in self-defense.
C. You can also find self-defense courses by searching on the

Internet or looking in the Yellow Pages.
III. After taking a self-defense course, you will be much better prepared to

deal with an emergency situation.
A. As I can testify from my own experience, learning the techniques

of self-defense builds your confidence and helps you react
correctly when danger threatens.
B. Many other people have reported the psychological and physical

benefits of taking a self-defense course.

Conclusion

Action: I. So I encourage you to enroll in a self-defense course, whether it be on
campus or off, here or in your hometown.

II. Taking such a course could make the difference in protecting your
property, in defending yourself or a loved one, even in saving your own
life.

III. Ask yourself: Do you want to be the victim or the survivor?

Try using the motivated sequence when you seek immediate action from your listeners. Over the years
it has worked for countless speakers – and it can work for you as well.

Page | 160

Sample Speech with Commentary

The following persuasive speech was presented in a public speaking class. It deals with a question of
policy and provides an excellent example of problem-solution structure.

As you read the speech, notice how the speaker deals with the issues of need, plan and

practicality. Notice also how she anticipates the potential objections of her audience and answers those
objections at various stages of the speech. Finally, observe how clear and uncluttered the speech is.
There are few wasted words, and the ideas progress cleanly and crisply.

Commentary Making a Difference Through the Special Olympics
Speech

The first step in Monroe’s motivated It’s your constant companion. It’s in your pocket, in your
sequence is gaining attention, which the bag, in your hands, or against your head. You use it at home,
speaker does by arousing curiosity about the in class, at the gym, before you go to sleep at night and first
audience’s “constant companion.” The heavy thing when you wake up in the morning. I’m talking, of

use of “you” and “your” also draws the course, about your cell phone. According to my class survey,
audience into the speech. everyone in this room has a cell phone, and all of us use it
dozens of times every day.

The speaker’s questions keep the audience But what if your constant companion is dangerous? What
involved while revealing the topic of the if it’s hazardous to your health? Evidence is piling up that
speech. The quotation from Devra Davis, an long-term use of cell phones can lead to tissue damage,
expert on cell phone radiation, underscores tumors, and even brain cancer. Given that there are well
the importance of the topic. over 4 billion people worldwide using cell phones, we’re

looking at a problem of potentially staggering magnitude.
According to Devra Davis, epidemiologist and author of the
2010 book Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone
Radiation, we may be watching “an epidemic in slow
motion.”

The speaker establishes her credibility by I’d never thought much about the possible perils of cell
referring to the research she has done for the phones before I saw a CBS News report on the subject
speech. earlier this year. But doing extensive research for this speech
made me realize that cell phones do in fact pose a danger to

our health.

By stating that she is not arguing against cell Now, don’t worry, I’m not going to try to persuade you
phones in general, the speaker encourages to abandon your constant companion. I still use mine on a
the audience to listen with an open mind. She regular basis, and I probably always will. But I do hope to
ends the introduction with a transition to the persuade you to make one simple change in the way you use
body of her speech. your cell phone—a change that will protect your health and
could even make the difference between a long life and
premature death. But first, let’s look more closely at the

health risks posed by cell phones.

Page | 161

The speaker moves into the need step of Those risks stem from the fact that cell phones emit small
Monroe’s motivated sequence. She makes amounts of radiation that, over time, can damage tissue.
clear that she will focus on the long-term
dangers of cell phone radiation. Every time you use your cell phone, you expose yourself to
that radiation. The amount is miniscule in comparison to that
given off by x-ray machines—about one one-billionth of the
intensity. However, Ronald Herberman of the University of
Pittsburgh Cancer Institute explains that the problem with
cell phone radiation is not how much is emitted at a single

time, but how much we are exposed to with repeated use
day after day, year after year.

Because most listeners were skeptical about It’s this long-term use of cell phones that has led
the dangers of cell phones, the speaker cites researchers to warn about their danger. In one study, for
high-quality sources to show how harmful example, the World Health Organization tracked 10,000 cell
heavy cell phone use can be. As in other parts phone users over the course of 10 years. As reported in the
of the speech, she clearly identifies each New York Times on November 13, 2010, the data in this
source. study indicated that subjects who used a cell phone 10 or
more years doubled the risk of developing brain tumors.

This paragraph builds upon the previous one Other studies have reached the same conclusion. Perhaps
and presents additional evidence about the most important is a study in the Journal of Occupational and
dangers of prolonged cell phone use.
Environmental Medicine that surveyed all the previous
research on cell phone use. It found “a consistent pattern of
increased risk” for developing brain tumors among people
who used cell phones for more than 10 years.

A vivid example reinforces the statistics and Alan Marks is one of those people. A 58-year-old real
testimony cited in the previous paragraphs
estate developer and father of three, he talked on his cell
phone an hour a day for 23 years. Two years ago, doctors
found a golfball-sized tumor in his brain. “There’s no

question what caused it,” he says. “It was my cell phone.”

The speaker cites evidence to show that the And Alan Marks isn’t the only person to conclude that
example of Alan Marks is not atypical. he’s sick because of his cell phone. Ann Gittleman’s 2010
book Zapped, which deals at length with the health problems
of cell phones, catalogues people who developed blinding

headaches, dizziness, circulatory problems, nausea, and
cancer from the kind of radiation emitted by cell phones.

By citing the usage guidelines provided by cell Still not convinced about the potential dangers posed by
phone makers themselves, the speaker seeks your constant companion? Take a look, then, inside the thick
to dispel any remaining skepticism about cell manual that comes with your phone. You’ll see that all cell

phone radiation. phone manufacturers warn against keeping the phone right
next to your body. Apple, for example, recommends keeping
the iPhone five-eighths of an inch away from your body.
Makers of the BlackBerry recommend that you keep their
phone a full inch away. Cell phone manufacturers don’t

Page | 162

publicize this information widely, but they clearly recognize
that their products are potentially hazardous.

This paragraph begins with a transition into So what’s the solution? As I said earlier, it’s not to stop
the satisfaction section of the speech. As you using cell phones altogether. I still use mine on a regular
can see from the video, the speaker’s delivery basis, and I can’t imagine being without it—and I’m sure you
is extemporaneous, personable, and can’t imagine being without yours. You can, however, take
conversational. seriously the risks of cell phones and find a way to minimize

those risks. Time and again, experts point out that the single
most effective way to reduce the risk is not to press your cell
phone against your head while using it. Since the phone

emits radiation, the closer you put it to your head, the more
radiation you expose yourself to.

Here the speaker states the key element in At the very least, you should hold the phone one-half an
her plan. She enhances her credibility by inch to one full inch away from your ear. But ideally, you
noting that she follows the plan when using should get in the habit of not putting it up to your head at
her own phone. all. I now use my earbuds almost every time I use my phone.
Another option is to use your speakerphone.

Having explained her plan, the speaker As with breaking any habit, changing the way you talk
moves into the visualization section. on your cell phone may be slightly inconvenient at first but
Returning to the example of Alan Marks gives will soon become second nature. You’ll be able to enjoy all
the speech a sense of unity. The quotation the benefits of your constant companion without suffering
from Marks is highly effective. the fate of Alan Marks. If Marks had known the dangers of

prolonged cell phone use, he would have done things a lot
differently. “I wouldn’t have held it to my head,” he says. “I
would have used the headset. I would have used the

speakerphone... And I would not have had the problems I
had.”

The speaker begins the action section of her So please get in the habit of keeping your cell phone
speech. Once again, she relates to the away from your ear when talking, and encourage your
audience by using “you” and your.” friends and family to do the same. Start today, with your

next phone call, and continue every day in the future.

As you can see from the video of this speech, We can avoid the slow-motion epidemic that doctors and
the speaker ends by holding her cell phone to scientists are warning us about—as long as we remember to
her head. This visually reinforces the central keep this away from this.
idea and makes for a dramatic ending.

Page | 163

Summary

Of all kinds of public speaking, persuasion is the most complex and the most challenging. When you
speak to persuade, you act as an advocate. Your job is to sell a program, to defend an idea, to refute an
opponent, or to inspire people to action.

How successful you are in any particular persuasive speech will depend above all on how well
you tailor your message to the values, attitudes, and beliefs of your audience. Careful listeners do not
sit passively and soak in everything a speaker has to say. While they listen, they actively assess the
speaker’s credibility, supporting materials, language, reasoning, and emotional appeals. You should think
of your speech as a kind of mental dialogue with your audience. Most important, you need to identify
your target audience, anticipate the possible objections they will raise to your point of view, and answer
those objections in your speech. You cannot convert skeptical listeners unless you deal directly with the
reasons for your skepticism.

Listeners accept a speaker’s ideas for one or more of four reasons—because they perceive the
speaker as having high credibility, because they are won over by the speaker’s evidence, because they
are convinced by the speaker’s reasoning, or because they are moved by the speaker’s emotional appeals.

Credibility is affected by many factors, but the two most important are competence and character.
The more favorably listeners view a speaker’s competence and character, the more likely they are to
accept her or his ideas. Although credibility is partly a matter of reputation, you can enhance your
credibility during a speech by establishing common ground with your listeners, by letting them know why
you are qualified to speak on the topic, and by presenting your ideas fluently and expressively.

If you hope to be persuasive, you must also support your views with evidence—examples,
statistics, and testimony. Regardless of what kind of evidence you use, it will be more persuasive if it is
new to the audience, stated in specific rather than general terms, and from credible sources. Your
evidence will also be more persuasive if you state explicitly the point it is supposed to prove. No matter
how strong your evidence, you will not be persuasive unless listeners agree with your reasoning. In
reasoning from specific instances, you move from a number of particular facts to a general conclusion.
Reasoning from principle is the reverse—you move from a general principle to a particular conclusion.
When you use causal reasoning, you try to establish a relationship between causes and effects. In
analogical reasoning, you compare two cases and infer that what is true for one is also true for the other.
Whatever kind of reasoning you use, avoid fallacies such as hasty generalization, false cause, invalid
analogy, appeal to tradition, and appeal to novelty. You should also be on guard against the red herring,
slippery slope, bandwagon, ad hominem, and either-or fallacies.

Finally, you can persuade your listeners by appealing to their emotions. One way to generate
emotional appeal is by using emotion-laden language. Another is to develop vivid, richly textured
examples. Neither, however, will be effective unless you feel the emotion yourself and communicate it
by speaking with sincerity and conviction.

As with other methods of persuasion, your use of emotional appeal should be guided by a firm
ethical rudder. Although emotional appeals are usually inappropriate in speeches on questions of fact,
they are legitimate—and often necessary—in speeches that seek immediate action on questions of policy.
Even when trying to move listeners to action, however, you should never substitute emotional appeals
for evidence and reasoning.

Page | 164

SPEAKING IMPROMPTU

Introduction

An impromptu speech is a speech you make without advance preparation. You have no prior notice of
the topic, nor do you have much, if any, time to prepare notes.
However, good impromptu speakers know many different ways to organize their thoughts on the spur
of the moment. They have the ability to quickly review possible organizational patterns as soon as they
hear their topic. Being familiar with such patterns will:

· Help you choose the best way to organize your ideas for your specific topics.
· Make it easier for you to think of things to say and examples to present.

Language Skills

· It is important to remember that the language used in a presentation reflects upon you and
your credibility.

· Use only professional language appropriate to the audience and the topic.
· Make sure that correct grammar and word choices are used throughout the presentation.

Preparation for Impromptu Speech

Step 1: Review Organizational Patterns
First, prepare the body of your speech. Arrange the main points in a clear, logical manner. This
involves choosing an organizational pattern that fits your topic. Read about eight common
organizational patterns below.

1. Past-Present-Future. Use this pattern to discuss how something once was, how it has
changed. And how it will be in the future. For example, in discussing the evolution of the
Olympic games, you might organize your information under the following three headings:
I. The history of the Olympics
II. The Olympics today
III. The future of the Olympics

2. Chronological Order. Use this pattern to describe how events, activities, or process happen
by the hour, part of the day, week, month, or year. It can also be used to explain the steps in a
process. For example, in speaking about making a speech, you might organize your information
under the following headings:
I. Choosing a topic
II. Gathering information
III. Making an outline
IV. Presenting the speech

Page | 165

3. Problem-Solution. Use this pattern to speak about a specific problem and ways to solve it.
For example, in speaking about the problem of choosing the college that’s right for you, you
might present the following solutions:
I. Read different college catalogues
II. Visit campuses of different colleges
III. Talk to people who attend various colleges
IV. Talk to teachers at the colleges you are considering

4. Location. Use this pattern to divide a topic into different geographical locations. For example,
in speaking about interesting marriage customs, you might use the following sequence:
I. Marriage customs in Japan
II. Marriage customs in Saudi Arabia
III. Marriage customs in the United States

5. Cause-Effect. Use this pattern to describe a particular situation and its effects. For example, in
speaking about the effects of stress, you might discuss:
I. The effects of stress on young children
II. The effects of stress on young teenagers
III. The effects of stress on adults

6. Effect-Cause. Use this pattern to describe a particular situation and its causes. For example, in
speaking about reasons for drug addiction, you might discuss:
I. The easy availability of drugs
II. The need to escape from the pressure of work
III. The lack of education about harmful effects of drugs

7. Advantages-Disadvantages. Use this pattern to talk about both positive and negative
aspects of a topic in a balanced, objective manner. For example, in speaking about the death
penalty for those convicted of first degree murder, you might discuss:
I. Advantages of capital punishment
II. Disadvantages of capital punishment

8. Related Subtopics. Use this pattern to divide one topic into different parts, or subtopics. For
example, in speaking about false advertising, you might discuss:
I. False advertising on television
II. False advertising in magazines
III. False advertising on the radio

Step 2: Plan Your Speech (after learning your topic)
I. Choose an organizational pattern that fits your topic.
II. Plan the body of your speech.

III. Think of an attention-getting opener.

Page | 166

Step 3: Guidelines for Impromptu Speaking
Study the following guidelines for impromptu speaking

Introduction
1. Begin with an attention-getting opener
2. State your topic.
3. Preview the organizational pattern you plan to use.

Body
Develop your topic with:

· Examples
· Facts
· Stories
· Reasons
· Other types of details
Conclusion
1. Conclude with memorable remarks.
2. Thank the audience for listening.

Page | 167

REFERENCES

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for Radicals. New York: Random House. p. 81.
Allen, M., Bruflat, R., Fucilla, R., Kramer, M. McKellips, S., Ryan, D. J, & Spiegelhoff, M. (2000). “Testing

the Persuasiveness of Evidence: Combining Narrative and Statistical Forms”. Communication
Research Reports, 17. pp. 331–336.
Aronson, E. (2008). The Social Animal, 10th Ed. New York: Worth. pp. 92–93.
Allison, B. (2004). The student’s guide to preparing dissertations and theses (2nd Ed.). London, England:
Routledge Falmer.
Amato, C. J. (1998). The world’s easiest guide to using the APA: A user-friendly manual for formatting
research papers according to the American Psychological Association style guide (2nd Ed.).
Westminster, CA: Stargazer Pub.
Azirah Hashim. (2005). How to write a thesis: The thesis writing journey from start to finish. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia: University of Malaya Press.
Bartlett, I. (1961). Wendell Phillips, Boston Brahmin. Boston: Beacon Press. p. 192.
Baird, A. C. (1965). Rhetoric: A Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Ronald Press. p. 207.
Bennett, A. (1995). “Economics + Meeting = A Zillion Causes and Effects,” Wall Street Journal, January
10. pp. B1.
Best, J. (2008). Stat-Spotting: A Guide to Identifying Dubious Data. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Berkun, S. (2010). Confessions of a Public Speaker. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Biagioli, M. (2003). Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science (2nd Ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bliss, E. Jr. (Ed.). (1967). In Search of Light: The Broadcasts of Edward R. Murrow, 1938–1961. New
York: Knopf. p. 276.
Brown, A. R. (2011). “Wikipedia as a Data Source for Political Scientists: Accuracy and Completeness of
Coverage,” PS: Political Science and Politics, 44. pp. 339–343.
Butler, H. E. (trans.) (1961). The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity
Press. p. 141.
Calcagni, T. F. (2008). Tough Questions — Good Answers: Taking Control of Any Interview. Sterling,
VA: Capital Books.

Page | 168

Campbell, G. (1988). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. p.
77.

Cavender, N. M. & Kahane, H. (2010). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday
Life, 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Conrad, J. (1991). “Youth: A Narrative,” in Samuel Hynes (ed.), Collected Stories of Joseph Conrad.
Hopewell, NJ: Ecco Press. p. 166.

Creme, P. (2008). Writing at university: A guide for students. Buckingham, England: Open University
Press.

Crannell, K. C. (2012). Voice and Articulation, 5th Ed. Boston: Wadsworth.
Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language, 3rd Ed. New York: Cambridge University

Press.
Duarte, N. (2008). Slideology: The Art and Science of Creating Great Presentations. Sebastopol, CA:

O’Reilly Books.
Eberly, R. A. (2002). “Rhetoric and the Anti-Logos Doughball: Teaching Deliberating Bodies the Practices

of Participatory Democracy,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, p. 296.
Eck, D. L. (2001). A New Religious America. New York: HarperCollins. p. 4.
Fallis, D. (2008). “Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia,” Journal of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology. 59 (2008), pp. 1662–1674.
Few, S. (2009). Now You See It: Simple Visualization Techniques for Quantitative Analysis. Oakland, CA:

Analytics Press.
Gates, R. M. (2011). “About the Institution You Will Someday Lead,” Vital Speeches 77. pp. 71, 138–142.
Gayle, B. M. (2004) “Transformations in a Civil Discourse Public Speaking Class: Speakers’ and Listeners’

Attitude Change,” Communication Education, 53. pp. 174–184.
Geary, J. (2011) I Is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How It Shapes the Way We See the

World. New York: Harper.
Gibaldi, J. (2003). MLA handbook for writers of research papers (6th Ed.). New York, NY: Modern

Language Association of America.
Greene, K., Campo, S. & Banerjee, S. C. (2010). “Comparing Normative, Anecdotal, and Statistical Risk

Evidence to Discourage Tanning Bed Use,” Communication Quarterly, 58. pp. 111–132.
Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory, 8th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 205–216.

Page | 169

Hock, R. (2010). The Extreme Searcher’s Internet Handbook: A Guide for the Serious Searcher, 3rd Ed.
Medford, NJ: Cyber Age Books.

Hoeken, H. & Hustinx, L. (2009). “When Is Statistical Evidence Superior to Anecdotal Evidence in
Supporting Probability Claims? The Role of Argument Type,” Human Communication Research,
35. pp. 491–510.

Humes, J. (1976). Roles Speakers Play. New York: Harper and Row. p. 25.
Humes, J. C. (1978). A Speaker’s Treasury of Anecdotes about the Famous. New York: Harper and Row.

p. 131.
Holloway, B. R. (2008). Technical writing basics: A guide to style and form (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Holtom, D. (1999). Enjoy writing your science thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide to planning

and writing dissertations and theses for undergraduate and graduate science students. London,
England: Imperial College Press.
Huckin, T. N. (1991). Technical writing and professional communication: For non-native speakers of
English. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jariah Mohd Jan. (2003). Guide to the preparation of research reports: Dissertations and theses. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia: IPS.
Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in Human Communication, 6th Ed. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Johnson, J. R. & Szczupakiewicz, N. (1987). “The Public Speaking Course: Is It Preparing Students with
Work-Related Public Speaking Skills?” Communication Education, 36. pp. 131–137

Kirkman, A. J. (2006). Punctuation matters: Advice on punctuation for scientific and technical writing
(4th Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Kaye, J. S. (2007). “Gathering Dreams and Giving Them Life”. Vital Speeches, 73. pp. 239–242.
Knapp, M. L. & Hall, J. A. (2010). Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction, 7th Ed. Boston:

Wadsworth. pp. 12–15.
Li, X., & Crane, N. B. (1996). Electronic styles: A handbook for citing electronic information. Medford, NJ:

Information Today.
Locke, L. F. (2007). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposal (5th Ed.)

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
Lovelace, H. W. (2001). “The Medium Is More than the Message,” Retrieved from

www.informationweek.com (July 16, 2001). p. 74.

Page | 170

Maggio, R. (1997). Talking About People: A Guide to Fair and Accurate Language. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx
Press. p. 26

Mayer, R. E. (ed.) (2009). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. & Johnson, C. I. (2008). “Revising the Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning,” Journal

of Educational Psychology, 100. pp. 380–386.
Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). “A Personalization Effect in Multimedia

Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal
Style” Journal of Educational Psychology, 96. pp. 389–395.
Matthews, J. R. (2000). Successful scientific writing: A step-by-step guide for the biological and medical
sciences (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McCroskey, J. C. (2006). An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, 9th Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
pp. 84–96.
Miller, G. R. (2002). “On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions,” in James Price Dillard and Michael
Pfau (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. pp. 3–16.
Mohd. Yusof Hj. Othman. (1996). Panduan penyelidikan sains dan penulisan saintifik. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Mungo, A. (1980). “A Child Is Born,” Winning Orations, 1980. Mankato, MN: Interstate Oratorical
Association. pp. 49–50.
O’Connor, M. (1991). Writing successfully in science. London, England: E & FN Spon.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and Research, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p. 185, 218
- 219.
Oliver, R. T. (1965). The History of Public Speaking in America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. p. 143 - 145.
Papper, B. (2011) “2010 Salary Survey: News Salaries Stabilize,” Radio Television Digital News
Association. RTDNA. Retrieved from Web. 15 April 2011
Perloff, R. M. (2010). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century,
4th Ed. New York: Routledge. pp. 178–181, 210 – 213, 216 – 218, 251 – 254, 259 - 261.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (2014). (8th Ed.). Washington,
D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Reinard, J. C. (1988). “The Empirical Study of the Persuasive Effects of Evidence: The Status after Fifty
Years of Research,” Human Communication Research, 15. pp. 37–38.

Page | 171

Reinard, J. C. (2009). “Persuasion in the Legal Setting,” in Dillard and Pfau, the Persuasion Handbook.
pp. 543–602.

Reinhart, A. M., Marshall, H. M., Feeley, T. H., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). “The Persuasive Effects of Message
Framing in Organ Donation: The Mediating Role of Psychological Reactance”. Communication
Monographs, 74, pp. 229–255.

Reynolds, G. (2011). The Naked Presenter. Berkeley, CA: New Riders
Reynolds, G. (2008). Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation and Delivery Berkeley, CA: New

Riders Press.
Reynolds, R. A. & Reynolds, J. L. (2002). “Evidence,” in James Price Dillard and Michael Pfau (Eds.). The

Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice .Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 429–
430.
Rubens, P. (2001). Science and technical writing: A manual of style (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rugg, G. (2004). The unwritten rules of PhD research. Maidenhead, England: Open University
Press.
Ruby, L. (1954). The Art of Making Sense. Philadelphia: Lippincott. p. 261.
Russey, W. E. (2006). How to write a successful science thesis: The concise guide for students. Berlin,
Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.KGaA.
Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics, 4th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Sarnoff, D. (1970). Speech Can Change Your Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. p. 73, 189 - 190.
Sharp, H. Jr., & McClung, T. (1966). “Effects of Organization on the Speaker’s Ethos,” Speech
Monographs, 33. pp. 182–183.
Sheridan Libraries, “Evaluating Information Found on the Internet,” Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved
from Web. April 14, 2011.
Simons, H. W., Jones, J. G. (2011). Persuasion in Society, 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge. p. 46.
Smith, R. A., & Fink, E. L. (2010). “Compliance Dynamics within a Simulated Friendship Network I: The
Effects of Agency, Tactic, and Node Centrality”. Human Communication Research, 36. pp. 232–
260.
Stephenson, M. T. (2003). “Examining Adolescents’ Responses to Anti-Marijuana PSAs,” Human
Communication Research, 29. pp. 343–369.
Stewart, C. J & Cash, W. B, Jr. (2011). Interviewing: Principles and Practices, 13th Ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Page | 172

Thompson, E. C. (1960). “An Experimental Investigation of the Relative Effectiveness of Organizational
Structure in Oral Communication”. Southern Speech Journal, 26. pp. 59–69.

Titsworth, B. S. (2004). “Students’ Notetaking: The Effects of Teacher Immediacy and Clarity.”
Communication Education, 53. pp. 305–320

Trimmer, J. (1998). The essentials of MLA style: A guide to documentation for writers of research papers,
with an Appendix on APA style. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Turabian, K. L. (2007). A manual for writers of research papers, theses, and dissertations: Chicago style
for students and researchers (7th Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Turk, C. (1989). Effective writing: Improving scientific, technical and business communication (2nd Ed.).
London, England: E. & F.N. Spon.

Wood, J. T. (2011). Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture, (9th Ed.) Boston: Wadsworth.
Winans, J. A. (1922). Speech-Making. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. p. 141.
Williams, J. & Colomb, G. G. (2010). Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace, 10th Ed. New York: Longman.
Wolfram, W. & Ward, B. (Eds.). (2006). American Voices: How Dialects Differ from Coast to Coast.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wolvin, A. D. & Corley, D. (1984). “The Technical Speech Communication Course: A View from the Field,”

Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 49. pp. 83–91.
Walton, D. (1961). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Winkler, A. C. (1999). Writing the research paper: A handbook with both the MLA and APA documentation

styles (5th Ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Yang, J. T. (1995). An outline of scientific writing: For researchers with English as a foreign language.

Singapore: World Scientific.

Page | 173