Re: metadiscourse

[Ben Kovitz <apteryx -at- CHISP -dot- NET>]

Doug Nickerson quoting Simon North, enabling me to reply to two messages at
once:

>And Simon North beat me to the punch: The Toastmasters International
>mantra of  "tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em, then tell 'em
>what you told 'em," is pretty good structure--in public speaking anyway.

In this message, I am going to tell you two thoughts that I just had about
the Toastmaster mantra.  These thoughts are that this structure works
better in public speaking than in print, and that actually, it's can
sometimes be mind-numbing in public speaking, too.

The first of the two thoughts is that I think this works much better in
public speaking than in print.  This is because in print, you have
headings, whose only counterpart in speech is explicit statements about
what you're going to say.  Metatext in print is boring and condescending
mostly when it duplicates what a heading says without adding any content.

The second of the two thoughts is that the "introductory content" principle
works pretty well in public speaking, too.  Well-chosen introductory
content creates interest in the additional content that you're about to
provide, without putting people to sleep by creating an expectation that
you're going to repeat yourself a lot.  My mind immediately wanders the
second I hear that sort of formulaic "Tell 'em" stuff, and I don't think
I'm alone.  I don't let my mind wander on purpose; it just happens, and
after that, I *can't* force myself to pay attention unless something
happens to jolt me back into the present.  I try, but I just *can't*!

I see two main uses of the "Tell 'em" principle--that is, two reasons for
using it, that, when inapplicable, mean that you probably shouldn't use the
principle.  The first main use of the "Tell 'em" principle that I can think
of right now is to provide a mental framework for listeners to hold what
you're saying, when you have more ideas to say than can fit into the human
7 +/- 2 short-term memory.  Thus numbering your points up front and saying
the number before each point as you make it helps people follow along.

The other main use of the "Tell 'em" principle has to do with the summary
part at the end.  Usually in a speech you want the audience to draw some
sort of conclusion, such as "Vote for me" or "Scrap Microsoft Word and buy
Framemaker instead."  It's unwise to leave a conclusion to implication.
Asking people to put two and two together is asking too much.  You have to
do it for them: at some point, you have to tie all the strands together and
explicitly make something of it.  In fact, saying at the end of each point
how that point ties into the conclusion is another good idea.

In conclusion: headings do in print what the "Tell 'em what you're gonna
tell 'em" principle does in public speaking, and when the "Tell 'em"
principle is used even when the content doesn't call for it, listening to a
speech can be as grating as reading this message.

--
Ben Kovitz <apteryx -at- chisp -dot- net>
Boulder, Colorado


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=