Speakers not only talk but they also listen to their fellows’ speech and they monitor their own speech for errors. This essay on ‘speech critique’ describes empirical evidence on spoken word planning and its relationships with comprehending and self-monitoring. From speaker to listener, my research would highlight all the issues related to speech, audience and speaker in form of critique. As a matter of fact, it is not only my observation of myself as a speaker – I have conducted research on my speech and my class fellows’ speech keeping myself in the shoe of audience and speaker, both. Research suggests that the interplay among speaking, comprehending, and self-monitoring is not only in interest in its own right, but it also illuminates classic issues in spoken word production, thereby bridging the gap between word utterance and understanding.
Preparation
Students of any age face a significant challenge when they stand even in front of their own class. (Boyce et al, 2007) Therefore students must be well prepared before presenting themselves in a speech or presentation. Two elements are so fundamental to all good speechmaking that the beginning speaker should recognize them early in his training and should gain experience with them at once: (1) arranging, supporting, and amplifying his ideas, and (2) delivering his ideas in a direct, conversational manner. (Bryant & Wallace, 1947, p. 27) I prepared my speech keeping in mind the notion that speech is as casual a function as breathing or walking. The main reason behind this concept which I developed was to learn being confident before the audience. Being aware of the fact that communication requires no greater skill than merely thinking aloud and listening to the thoughts of the other person, I started planning for my speech.
Semantics
For speech preparation, I made many efforts to polish my future speech in which learning semantics is one. The problem which I confronted in semantics has concerned the definition of truth, or truth-conditions, for the sentences of certain languages. No speaker can afford to neglect his instruments of communication. First, the instruments, apart from the words which accompany their use, are of tremendous help in communicating ideas, emotions, feelings, and attitudes. The voice, through its inflections, its changes in loudness, in rate, and in quality, carries meanings which are not expressed by written symbols alone. Emotion and feeling and the absence of emotion and feeling colour our vocal tones. Often what the speaker says without words affects his hearers as directly and surely as his language. Gesture is similarly expressive. Consequently, the young speaker, even if voice and action are ‘adequate’, should seek to make them more flexible. If he seeks the utmost flexibility of which his means of communication are capable, the training will be long and arduous, and like the singer and actor he will want to take full advantage of courses in voice training and in singing.
Content
One of the speaker’s most valuable assets, therefore, is a large and ready store of ideas, information, and amplifying and illustrative material for his explanations and arguments. I prepared my speech including all the reading, observing, thinking, investigating, conversing, and writing which a speaker can do. No doubt the speech was well organized to be delivered in 25 minutes, but at the time of delivery I felt my audience confused over too much wordiness and too much elaboration. It seemed like it was more than explanation than being a speech itself. My planning worked as long as I saw faces sitting in front of me appreciating my notion. As soon as I got a twist in my topic with a glimpse of confusion on my audience’s face, my confidence began to shatter.
Physical Delivery
Apart from the confidence factor, I noticed that my speech failed to form a style. However I am still unable to identify the real causes behind that lack of relationship which existed between my style of delivery and ethical proof. It has been alleged, and with demonstrable reason, that personal character is clearly revealed by the speaker’s style of expression. While I was taught that this concept has been considered chiefly in relation to written, rather than oral, expression, the thesis seems equally applicable to the latter. I prepared my speech in context with the fact that as a speaker, in a face-to-face situation, a speaker is more or less the style. Speaker’s words reveal his inner character (Thonssen & Baird, 1948, p. 406).
The secret of a man’s personality is not always revealed by his actions and words but I planned to deliver a speech so that to form a particular style reflecting my own thoughts in the form of words. However, it may be said that the qualities of style are closely identified with the qualities and limitations of the man, and accordingly tell us a good deal about him. The analyst of a speaker’s or writer’s style will undoubtedly be able, to detect broad distinctions of temperament, both moral and emotional, in the productions. He will be able to find evidence linking the speaker with his inborn traits, his training, habits, and general outlook on life. But he cannot expect a man’s expression to be an open revelation of his character. The epigrams ‘style is the man’ and ‘the man is the style’ are only conditionally acceptable. I adopted a simple style.
Together with tone of voice, facial expression must be one of the most powerful vehicles for the communication of emotion. Yet there is a surprising imbalance of research into facial expression as an independent paralinguistic parameter, compared with research into its use as a dependent parameter. In this sense, facial expression can be considered dependent when used in support of verbal acts, such as interrogation, for example, with raised eyebrows. It would seem more profitable, however, to consider facial expression as being dependent not solely on verbal elements but, rather, on a combination of verbal elements and other non-verbal parameters, such as posture, gesture and eye control. This is to assert that, in its dependent aspect, facial expression is necessarily multi-valued and that a specific expression has communicative value only in conjunction with a constellation of particular values on both verbal and non-verbal parameters.
Oral Delivery
Fuller appreciation of a speaker and his speeches results from acquiring insight into the way he went about preparing his talks. This is not a simple matter. The problem has its roots in the orator’s early training, his home life, possible influence of church and school and various clubs, his reading habits and favourite methods of study, and a host of other factors. There are probably as many methods of delivery as there are public speakers. Each orator has his own way of going about the business of delivering a talk. Whatever the method, the critic will want to discover it. In general, the critic should find out whether the speech is delivered from memory, from manuscript, or extempore; and, if the latter, whether the man spoke with or without notes. The orator’s own reflections on his method, when obtainable, are of real service.
Preparation for the next Speech
It is obviously important for speakers or participants in face-to-face interaction to be able to see each other’s faces, for facial expression and eye-contact purposes and, more generally, to be mutually available for visual inspection so that proximity, posture, body movements and gestures can be registered and appropriately controlled. In most situations, participants have a certain degree of choice as to exactly how to arrange themselves spatially to achieve this (Laver, 1996, p. 135).
Throughout the speech I was lacking confidence and courage to face my audience for a longer while (Baskerville, 1994) therefore I decided to concentrate on the following points: Body movements and gestures are the moment-to-moment variations superimposed on an overall posture and can involve minor movements of the whole body or movements of only a part of the body, as in arm, hand or head gestures. A major figure in the general study of bodily movement, to which he has given the widely accepted name kinesics, is the American anthropologist Ray Birdwhistell.
The dependent body movements and gestures, necessarily associated with speech, fall into two groups. The first group is used to regulate the exchange of speaker role, signalling either the incipient completion of a speech contribution or the incipient beginning of a contribution by the still silent listener. Kendon (1972) has called this a regulative function. Movements include the speaker raising his head to look directly at the listener at the end of his contribution, and also turning his head to look away from the listener, either when beginning to speak or during points of silence where he wants to keep possession of the role of speaker.
The second group of body movements and gestures is more closely connected to the speech material itself, in a variety of ways. First, they are said to be used in a function of linguistic support, in serving to identify the grammatical class of the verbal units involved. Birdwhistell (1970) has maintained that gestures that move away from the body (distal gestures), versus those that move toward the body (proximal gestures), are closely associated with verbal elements to do with distinctions of time and space and with various personal pronouns. Distal gestures accompany he, she, it, those, they, that, then, there, any, some, while proximal gestures accompany I, me, us, we, this, here and now. Past and future tenses are said to be linked to distal gestures, but with movement toward the rear and the front of the body, respectively.
Another function of body movements and gestures, noted by Birdwhistell, is to act as devices of emphasis, where the vocally most prominent verbal element in a stretch of speech tends to have a pattern of movement associated with it that stands in contrast to patterns of movement elsewhere. Body movements are also used to mark the semantic segmentation of a speaker’s discourse, with each new development or new topic tending to be marked gesturally or with a slight body movement. Birdwhistell and Kendon suggest that segmental units of speech, from groupings of phrases to individual phrases down even to the level of individual syllables, can be marked by distinct types of body movements and gestures. The marking by body movements of the rhythmic structure of speech at the level of the phrase is supported to some extent by Dittman and Llewellyn (1969) and by Dittman (1972).
Like proximity, with which it has an interactive relationship, gaze direction and eye contact is a paralinguistic parameter that participants in conversation control very delicately, and one to which they are very sensitive. Eye contact seems to have three chief functions: monitoring the behaviour of the other participant, regulating the progress of the interaction, and controlling the expression of mutual affiliation. Eye contact with head movements is in regulating the time-sharing of the interaction in negotiating moments of exchange of the speaker role. Eye contact on the part of the current speaker, when this is associated with appropriate intonation, body movement, and facial expression, offers the speaker role to the listener.
If these findings about body movements and gestures being characteristically associated with both the grammatical identity and the syntactic structure of the speaker’s linguistic performance are valid for the majority of speakers, then this provides the listener with a very important set of perceptual clues for decoding the verbal material of the conversation.
The purpose of a speech is to inform or make clear, to interest and entertain, and to convince or persuade. Whereas the expository speech aims to explain, to make an audience understand, without regard to what may happen to the audience’s opinions or actions, the persuasive speech aims to influence an audience’s attitude toward some person, thing, opinion, or action. People’s attitudes towards a speaker depicts favourable, undecided, or unfavourable. The persuasive speaker always wants his hearers to respond favourably to what he has to say. In other words a speaker wants his audience to get up to his expectations and his expectations require hard work and to do every effort to gain the trust and loyalty of the audience.
Critiques of the speeches delivered by other students in class
During speech, the speaker looks intermittently at the listener, in order to monitor such details as whether or not the listener is attending to his messages and understanding them, whether or not the listener is making preliminary signals toward laying claim to the speaker role, and so forth. This quality I found in most of my other class mates. Though they were confident in their speeches and therefore remained able to acquire others’ attention, but I noticed their speech possess the following weaknesses:
Slips of the Tongue
The delivery of a speech is whatever the speaker says and does during the moments that he assumes an active role in the communicative situation. His bodily appearance and movement, his dress, his facial expression, his carriage, his gestures are visual signs of what he is and what he thinks and forms some impression on the audience. His voice and pronunciation are the auditory signs of what he is and of what he thinks.
I observed this weakness in many classmates’ speeches and let them know that they can overcome this flaw in running speech by adopting a specific ‘proofreading’ mode of listening. What I assume about their weakness is that they consider facing the rest of the class as though we were bound by a shared, tacit and social agreement. A speaker has to think both ways; as a listener and as a speaker as well, to keep the occurrence of tongue-slips out of conscious awareness, to look beyond them, as it were, to the regularised, idealised intended utterance.
The Credibility Problem
The biggest problem to be surmounted for most in-experienced speakers is to overcome their nervousness during speech. The best way to ensure credibility without being nervous is to make and plan the presentation well structured for the audience to understand. Although most of my class mates worked hard to cope up with delivering effective speech which is evident from their knowledge on the topic, but nervousness seemed to disable common sense, and normal intelligence gets swamped by anxiety.
Nervousness is a very real problem, and is the root of most of the other problems with speaking. We all talk competently in a group of friends, but as soon as the group of friends becomes a wall of strangers, nervousness usurps our every-day competence, and we need the prop of advice. (Turk, 1985, p. 100) It is a mental phenomenon which is overcome through the passage of time and experience, attitude, and knowledge about the cause and function of the anxiety.
A universal phenomenon which is confronted by every speaker, because every nervous speaker thinks that he or she is the only one in the world to suffer. When a speaker compares oneself to other speakers, he or she feels their own shameful failure as a personal inadequacy. Nervousness when facing an audience is very common and resides for the reason that the speaker counts himself or herself aloof from the rest of the world. The speaker forgets the fact that he is not the only one to suffer as everyone suffers from nerves, even experienced professionals, and the reason why we are not aware of this is simply that the basic effect of nerves doesn’t show. Of course nervousness doesn’t show providing the gestures are controlled, butterflies in the stomach are invisible to the audience.
Speech Clarity
Ordinarily a speaker wishes his audience to listen and to understand. People will listen if a speech is interesting, and they will understand if it is clear. The speaker cannot shift the blame for lack of clarity or for dullness. If he is not understood or if he is not listened to, the fault is ordinarily his. If, however, a speaker has something of real consequence to say, and if he applies to his presentation the principles of clarity in composition, he has gone a long way towards being interesting. If he perceives clearly, his audience has a chance to perceive clearly.
I found my classmates lacked in clarity of speech, therefore many remained unable to convey their own understanding regarding the topic. The basic requirement for clearness in a speech is that the speaker be completely clear in his own mind. It is not enough that he be full of his subject. He must know precisely what his purpose is, and he must be vividly aware of just what he means both in his main proposition and also step by step and detail by detail.
Public speaking may be thought of as applied thinking, and the thinking must be completed before it is applied. Speakers sometimes seem to have a general sense of what they are driving at and an approximate notion of the course which they are going to follow, without having worked out their ideas clearly ahead of time. Apart from the classroom speech, what I have noticed is that in public speaking, the projector and screen are set up, the slides are in boxes in the cupboard, but the selection and arranging of the slides and the focusing of the projector are left for the audience to watch. The result may be curious, but it is usually not clear. The same thing happened with my class mates. Though they were not delivering presentations, it still seemed to me as if they expected from the audience to listen and understand by assumption. Two of my class mates lacked effective supporting material.
What would I choose to improve the paper?
If I have been given a chance to make changes, I would have updated the factual information. There can be no substitute for factual information in a speech intended to inform, and most speeches to influence thought or conduct and even to amuse will be the better for providing the audience with information. The speaker, of course, must still seek out the sources of the information he wishes, and he must go to the trouble of reading and absorbing the facts, but librarians, commercial consultants, informed friends, and even teachers are usually ready to help him find what he wants.
Failure to provide sufficient information in sufficient detail is usually attributable to one or both of two causes. Either the speaker has not seen to it that he himself knew enough to be able to inform his audience adequately, or he has chosen to talk on a subject which was too large to be handled in the length of time available. The first offence, under most circumstances, is an affront to the audience and is inexcusable. The second is an error of judgment, the avoiding of ‘Finding the Subject’. If a speaker hasn’t time to say enough on all the points he proposes to discuss, he had better leave out some of the points. If a matter cannot be explained fully enough to be clear, it is better not to make the attempt at all choosing that subject or topic.
Since factual information often involves figures and statistics, the handling of statistics clearly and vividly is a special knack which the expository speaker must cultivate. He must take care to make his figures and his statistical information significant and understandable to his listeners. One of my class speakers lacked such handling. As he talked about some mathematical facts, he was unable to mention the figures appropriately for which the audience was confused asking him to write the figures on the board. This wasted his time. In presenting figures and mathematical information the speaker should be sure that his audience has standards of comparison for judging the significance of the information. To say, for example, that the average grade in this class in public speaking is 78 may be quite true and exact. For the members of the class to appreciate the significance of that average, they need to know what the average grade in such classes usually is. (Bryant & Wallace, 1947, p. 175)
How can the author improve this paper?
Apart from the consideration of improving voice, pronunciation and gesture paper could be improved by organizing and structuring materials and information in an easy and convenient manner. The paper could be planned better if ‘wordiness’ is avoided. Formal headings such as ‘Problem’, ‘Solution’ or Analysis’ are neither informative nor useful, because they do not focus attention on the essence of the following paragraphs. Better headings should be used.
For example “Apart from the classroom speech, what I have noticed is that in public speaking, the projector and screen are set up, the slides are in boxes in the cupboard, but the selection and arranging of the slides and the focusing of the projector are left for the audience to watch”. That paragraph not only indicates wordiness but also elucidates that public speaker does not consider his audience important. There are four ways to form a hierarchy of headings: numbering, indenting, and using capital and lower case letters and bolding or underlining.
Critiques of speech presentations viewed outside of the classroom including television, radio and other media sources
Anyone who is genuinely concerned with speechmaking will not wish to mutilate his ideas or to defeat his careful preparation by shoddy, careless, and ineffective delivery. Because a speech is built for a specific occasion and a special audience, ordinarily it lives but once; you will not get the chance to make it again. Yet, as essential as delivery may be to oral communication, it is not unduly difficult even for those who have never made a ‘public’ speech. Acquiring a good delivery rests upon a few fundamental principles; if one can appreciate their wisdom and willing to follow directions, one can learn to speak with clarity and confidence.
Despite the abundance of public speaking courses and the proliferation of speech evaluation forms of every kind, no standardized and psychometrically tested evaluation form has been available in the past. Nor has such a form been available that was grounded in the communication discipline’s conceptualization of public speaking competency. The Competent Speaker was developed to address that need for a standardized and tested speech evaluation form (Christ, 1994, p. 220).
Today television presentations and speeches are dependant upon scripts. There is simply no talent in the individual newscasters or presenters to face the audience directly. Instead the main purpose of television is seen as an ‘Instructional’ one in which television is designed for direct use in the classroom and is dependant upon the classroom teacher guidance for determination of its content, presentation, and effective utilization. The adaptation of televised lessons to the needs of different schools and different teaching situations is very difficult. A lecture or demonstration on kinescope or tape is often too far below the level of some students, too far beyond the level of others; unless it is screened and adapted it is not likely to be as useful as the classroom teacher’s own focused presentation. This is not merely a matter of the level of the content, rather it is related to a basic mechanical problem in the use of TV: the fact that television goes at a fixed rate and that children learn at different rates. Yet TV teaching, if it is to be curriculum-centred, virtually requires that the classroom teacher follow the curriculum lead of the TV teacher. So, what is the use of media if it remains unable to cater its’ audience level of understanding?
The content is often ill-adapted to local needs, and the initiative is taken away from the classroom teacher who should be the person who knows best the needs of her particular students. The typical situation in the use of presentation by television is that the teacher is told to use it; she does not choose to do so herself. This often leads to resentment or indifference to the TV lesson, and it was unanimously agreed by all the respondents, proponent and opponent alike, that the classroom teachers’ attitude can make or break the effectiveness of educational TV (Stanford, 1962, p. 19).
There is reason to believe, also, that the use of educational television can speed up education as in the past in Hagerstown it has been demonstrated that college mathematics can be introduced at the high school level. The difficulty that has remained is the unmatched understanding on both levels. This understanding does not let both, the television and the audience to understand each other’s level of understanding. Consider television or media as a speaker and the audience as listener. However the success behind entertainment and news channels such as ENews, BBC or CNN is the public acceptance of the speaker.
Media viewers and listeners unlike public speaking must realize that everybody never listens at the same time; therefore media cannot acquire everyone’s level of taste and understanding or attention. While millions listen to the same program, millions of others are listening, by choice, to something else or, because they do not have a satisfactory choice, are not listening at all. Despite network operations, the range of choice varies for different listeners. Many are ‘earthbound’ in quite a narrow sense. Rural listeners are particularly limited in what they may choose to hear. The time of day and other occupations condition the number of people who can listen, even if they want to, at a given hour. Daytime listening is a prerogative mostly of women, as late-night time listening is of insomniacs and night watchmen. Thus, radio’s public is never whole. But outward circumstances are as nothing, in terms of their fragmentation of the listening public, as compared with tastes.
Of course the radio news and discussion programs often hit home in unpleasant ways. Mary Lee McCrackan remembers of the 1928 national elections: “The Al Smith-Herbert Hoover presidential campaign shook Virginia to the roots. There may have been a projection of how it would turn out, but the reporting was so much slower than today’s TV, and everyone was kept in suspense. Today, the TV has the President elected before the polls close in California”. Lois Garrison recalls that a close friend’s father, who owned an independent grocery store in the early 1930s, would come home and listen solemnly ‘for hours’ to radio talks about how chain groceries were expected to put ‘private’ grocers out of business.
With the formation of NBC in 1926 and CBS the following year, listeners began to become familiar with some radio reporters’ and commentators’ names and intonations. Lowell Thomas was one of the radio reporters who broadcast sightings of Charles Lindbergh’s plane during a flight to Paris, and by 1930 Thomas had earned a regularly scheduled news casting time. (Late in his career, the reporter-adventurer quipped that his own epitaph should read, “Here lies the body of a man who was heard by millions of people… who were waiting to hear ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy’.”) H. V. Kaltenborn, ‘dean of radio commentators’ (according to his daily introducer), had gone on the air for the Columbia Broadcasting System in its inaugural year, and after a shift to NBC in 1940 he would experience the wrath of President Harry Truman, who mocked the newscaster’s lilting delivery of an erroneous report that Thomas E. Dewey had won the 1948 election. Kaltenborb survived the presidential mimicking before the newsreel cameras, and he remained on the air until 1955, when many other radio fixtures were rapidly disappearing (Barfield, 1996, p. 63).
Later in the 1930s, American radio listeners began to hear increasingly frequent transatlantic accounts of political machinations and social unrest in Europe. Voicing these reports were earnest-toned young correspondents. During the Depression decade, radio earned increasing credibility in covering domestic events. Families and whole communities developed their own patterns of listening to regularly scheduled newscasts. As radio’s reporting voices grew more and more persuasive, listeners found intonations and political leanings that suited their own tastes. While some commentators sounded tweedy and could be imagined to be speaking not from studios but from libraries with backdrops of leather-bound books, the field correspondents, often recruited from newspaper staffs, spoke in unaffected tones that held traces of North Carolinian or Midwestern roots. Listeners could trust them.
During recent decades the Federal Communications Commission, taking a the-more-stations-the-better stance, accelerated broadcasting’s evolution by allowing the AM and FM bands to become crowded electronic platforms for ‘shock jocks’ and long-and-loud-breathing pundits. ‘Urban Contemporary’ joined ‘Top 40’ as a highly favoured music format, often offered by ‘ghost’ stations without announcers, turntables, or compact disc players, but staffed by an engineer or two to supervise the importing of programs from large syndicated tape reels or from contracted satellite services.
For veteran listeners, most of this contemporary radio feast is really famine. To aging ears, high fidelity stereo transmission seems only to clarify the sameness of the wallpaper music, the insistent commercials, and the strained efforts to startle. Radio has become what, at the cost of a few cents’ worth of electricity per day, the homeowner leaves playing in an empty house as a would-be foil to would-be burglars while family members are at work, at school, and at the mail. Radio is the booming bass which marks the passing of a young driver going nowhere in particular, fast. Such uses of radio seem to be misuses in judgments of those whose ears, minds, and memories have known earlier forms and formats of the medium between the early 1920s and the 1950s and, in some places, even later (Siepmann, 1950, p. 87).
Media often conducts interviews therefore there is even more evidence, resulting from similar, as well as variant, interview techniques. One such variant allows of a much fuller and more intensive exploration of the minds of the persons interviewed. They are not asked predetermined questions (which inevitably circumscribe and reduce the spontaneity of the response) but are encouraged to describe their experiences in their own way. Only thereafter are prescribed questions introduced. It is to an inquiry of this kind that we now turn for more light on the public’s state of mind as once more revealed in the context of radio though not as confined to radio or even, necessarily, deriving from its influence alone.
If at the conclusion of a speech, a listener responds with such comments as “What a wonderful speech, his voice is squeaky”, “What silly mispronunciation, His gestures were lovely, but such an awkward stance”, the speaker knows that his hearers have been distracted by the manner of his presentation. (Bryant & Wallace, 1947, p. 46) If, on the other hand, the audience is talking about what was said, if the hearers respond with discussion and questions, with objections and arguments, the speaker knows that he has stimulated thought. A good practical test of delivery under any circumstances, even in the classroom, is this: “Did the audience forget that I was making a speech?” The beginning speaker will be wise to ponder this apparent paradox: If nobody notices delivery, it is good; if delivery is talked about, whether in praise or in censure, it is bad.
The best evidence of a successful speech is to speak before a group even if it is for the first time, as it would in private conversation. Most of us, however, realize that we are no longer engaged in private, informal colloquy; the ‘platform’ is a new situation and our minds have not been at work there. Consequently, in the face of some self-consciousness and perhaps a touch of fright, we go ahead, and by gaining experience in the speaking situation, we become accustomed to it. That is, we learn to think and-talk on the platform as the occasion and circumstances demand. Actually our mind does not behave in a new and strange manner; it only learns to adapt, to function genuinely, spontaneously, and freely in a new and different situation.
Work Cited
Barfield Ray, (1996) Listening to Radio, 1920-1950: Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.
Baskerville M. Dawn, (May 1994) “Public Speaking Rule #1: Have No Fear; Workplace Presentations Are as Common as Computers. Here’s How to Master Your Nerves So You Can Be at Your Best” In: Black Enterprise. Volume: 24. Issue: 10. p: 76
Boyce S. Janet, Morgan, Sheila, R. & Riley G. Jeanetta, (2007) “Fearless Public Speaking: Oral Presentation Activities for the Elementary Classroom” In: Childhood Education. Volume: 83. Issue: 3. p: 142+
Bryan C. Donald & Wallace R. Karl, (1947) Fundamentals of Public Speaking: D. Appleton- Century: New York. Laver John, (1996) The Gift of Speech: Readings in the Analysis of Speech and Voice: Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.
Siepmann A. Charles, (1950) Radio, Television and Society: Oxford University Press: New York.
Stalnaker C. Robert, (1999) Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought: Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Stanford University, (1962) Educational Television: The Next Ten Years: Stanford University: Stanford, CA.
Thonssen Lester & Baird A. Craig, (1948) Speech Criticism, the Development of Standards for Rhetorical Appraisal: Ronald Press Co: New York.
Turk Christopher, (1985) Effective Speaking: Communicating in Speech: E & FN Spon: London.