PLAIN SPEAKING : JUDGING AN ORATORY CONTEST
Thor May
Suva, Fiji
Abstract: This paper attempts to explain the criteria which judges are likely to apply in the
Fiji National Oratory Contest. It comments upon some features of the 1989 contest, and
suggests factors which may have underlain the performance of contestants. However, the
analysis is not merely local to an historical time or place. Oratory contests are a special case
of the “speaking competitions” which are widespread in countries where English is learned
as a second language. The cultural beliefs and traditions which come into play in public
speaking are especially important in cross-cultural situations. The solutions discussed here
have universal relevance for speakers and judges.
Introduction
Although this paper was first written in 1989, the state of oratory has not
changed much, and the skills involved in judging oratory continue to receive
little attention. This professional neglect is especially true of the "speech
contests" which are held regularly all over the world where people are
learning English. The requirements imposed for these speeches are always
deeply affected by the cultural and educational values in each locale. This is
understandable, but frequently such requirements, and the attitudes behind
them, have little to do with good English speech. Of course, "good English
speech" is itself a contested idea. Even putting aside all of the expected
cultural biases, the judging of these speeches is very often a travesty.
In general, the "speech judges" have no training at all in judging speeches,
and have never thought analytically about the task. If they are native
English speakers, they are considered to be automatically qualified. Of
course, they are not qualified, and if challenged are rarely able to offer a
coherent defence of their preferences. The whole process is manifestly unfair
to student language learners who think they are receiving an expert
evaluation of their abilities. This little paper is an attempt to identify at least
some of the issues involved in student speech contests. It deals with a
specific speech contest in Fiji, but most of the comments can be usefully
generalized to other situations.
Each year in Fiji some secondary schools are entering their finest speakers
into a national oratory contest. Hopefully the number of schools participating
will grow as they come to understand the purpose of the contest and its
benefits.
In 1989 I was asked to be one of the judges, and this short paper is an
2
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
outcome of that experience(1). It would not be appropriate to comment here
on individual participants, but some general observations could help future
contestants to make the best use of their talents.
1 My fellow judges are in no way responsible for the views expressed in this paper.
1. What is an oratory contest?
Firstly, consider the nature of this particular contest. The medium is English.
That is important. All Pacific language communities, as well as various
peoples from the Indian sub-continent, have impressive traditions of oratory.
In fact the time and skill these speech communities put into oratory as a
cultural achievement dwarfs that in many native English speaking cultures;
(as an Australian I come from a particularly poor oral tradition). However,
the style of oratory which is admired in each tradition is rather different. One
of the agonizing choices which judges in the National Oratory Contest have
to make is how to evaluate speakers who have been influenced by these
various cultural models. I will have more to say about this presently.
A dictionary definition of oratory is 1. eloquent speaking; 2. the art of public
speaking. For many, eloquence means something like flowery, elaborate
speaking. It need not be so. I still keep a poster which an exasperated
colleague once pinned to my office door. The poster contains an empty
cartoon speech balloon, and below it the words: It often shows a fine
command of language to say nothing. His silent protest was most eloquent.
Well, we can hardly have an oratory contest in which the speakers say
nothing! However we can pay attention to how much they try to say, how
quickly and in what manner.
The winner of the Fiji National Oratory Contest represents the country in
Australia for the International Plain English Speaking Award. We have
already noted that there are many possible styles of oratory, each one
admired according to this tradition or that.
The International Award has been established to promote a certain kind of
speaking. The key to it is found in the words plain English, and the ideas
associated with plain English in this context are direct, simple, competent.
The Award is a reaction against those styles which could be described as
circular, elaborate, exaggerated or "full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing." Clearly, a judge who selects a competitor in Fiji for an
International Plain English Speaking Award has to be influenced by the
speaker's mastery of a plain English speaking style.
3
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
2. Evaluating the 1989 National Oratory Contest
Now that the kind of oratory appropriate to the National Oratory Contest is
understood, I will examine some specific points from the 1989 contest.
Contestants had to give a prepared speech (8 minutes), a short interview,
and an impromptu speech (3 minutes). Each activity was evaluated for
content, fluency, poise and clarity. Judges therefore worked from a matrix,
weighted for points :
Content Fluency
Poise
Clarity
Total
Prepared
10
6
3
1
20
Interview
7
4
2
2
15
Impromptu 7
4
2
2
15
Overall
Total
50
To some extent individuals give such categories their own interpretation. For
me, they implied the following :
a) Clarity
I took clarity to mean phonological clarity rather than clarity of meaning.
Clear speech comes from a combination of natural voice qualities (some
people are luckier than others) and careful articulation. Both voice quality
and articulation can be improved with special training, although this is not
widely attempted nowadays. On the whole the contestants were impressive
in this category. Maybe using English as a second language (as all of these
people did) makes speakers careful. I would predict a comparable group of
Australian high school students to show more slurring and indistinct speech.
b) Poise
Poise has to do with composure, self-possession, physical balance, and in
fact all the "body language" which is so important in helping us to interpret
spoken messages. Poise is an extremely difficult thing to maintain on a stage
in front of hundreds of people who are all looking for your slightest
weakness. The poise of the 1989 contestants was generally remarkable.
Most kept their cool under conditions that would reduce the rest of us to
quivering jellies. There are a few things which it helps public speakers to
4
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
remember :
i) Take you time. Move your body parts slowly. A quick arm gesture can
make you look like a chicken with a broken wing. If you are nervous, keep
your arms out of the action altogether for the first couple of minutes .
ii) Try to keep a good posture. It not only looks nice, it improves you speech.
Especially avoid a hunched or drooping neck and shoulders. Breathe deeply.
Walk with grace; don't shuffle.
iii) Do look at the audience, even if you feel they are going to eat you. You
are talking to them, not at them. Poor speakers with a memorized speech
tend to hold desperate "private" monologues with themselves, while the
audience gets bored watching from the outside. Play a trick on yourself :
pretend that the audience is examining your clothes, your watch ... anything
but you. Once your mind thinks nobody is looking at "you", nervousness will
vanish.
c) Fluency
My Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics defines fluency as "..the
features which give speech the qualities of being natural and normal,
including native-like use of pausing, rhythm, intonation, stress, rate of
speaking, and the use of interjections and interruptions."
Native-like fluency in these terms is a tall order for any second language
speaker. Even for native speakers we have to ask "..fluent according to
which dialect?". There are hundreds of millions of speakers of English,
speaking dozens of dialects. The language is no longer the property of any
nation or culture. It is not necessary, or even desirable, that all English users
should speak in exactly the same way. However it is desirable that any
speaker can be understood with ease by the speakers of all the other
dialects. For this reason it is useful to keep some speech standard in mind,
usually a "broadcast standard" in the region, or internationally what we call
"mid-Atlantic dialect", which is supposedly the socially neutral dialect
evolved by businessmen travelling between London and New York.
The speakers in the 1989 National Oratory Contest were all more fluent in
English (by regional or international standards) than one would expect from
a random sample of Fiji's citizens. That is hardly surprising. As a judge I
thought it important to take note only of those features which were likely to
interfere with international communication, or in some cases attract social
5
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
stigma through misunderstanding. This led me to include some
grammatical breakdowns involved in the notion of fluency. The following
elements of fluency came to attention in the 1989 contest :
i) Stress Patterning
Speech stress is anything which gives a particular element prominence :
duration, loudness, pitch change, full Vs abbreviated vowels ... and so on.
It operates at a series of levels, from word to phrase, sentence and
complete utterance.
Stress patterning is difficult for all second language speakers. The only
noticeable problem for most contestants however was the syllable-stress
on some individual words (local news-readers have similar problems). For
example, contribute bothered a couple of speakers; somebody else
mispronounced Caribbean. The solution with prepared speeches is to go
over the material with a native speaker before the contest. A couple of
speakers had stress-patterning problems stemming from their idea of what
the contest was about : they preferred to shout one or two words in every
phrase, which was anything but plain English.
ii) Pausing
Pausing is manipulated by almost all skilled speakers to hold attention and
to emphasize points. It was clear in the oratory contest that all speakers
had been coached to pause at critical moments. Unfortunately many of
them forgot to manage long and short pauses in a balanced way
throughout the speech. The problem arose partly because people had
memorized speeches word for word and recited them in a rush to get the
whole business over with. Giving a speech is not a self-absorbed activity
like cleaning your teeth. It is a two-way communication with other people.
A speaker gives out words, then pauses briefly to get back non-verbal
signals : nods, glances, sighs, "vibrations"... Response from an audience is
a difficult thing to define, but the speaker who ignores it has ceased to
communicate. A speaker communicating via audience responses knows
when to pause, naturally. It is even possible to glance at notes in a relaxed
way, if the audience contact is right.
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
6
Thor May
1989
iii) Segmental Phonology
Some vowel & consonant sounds in Pacific English dialects differ markedly
from Standard British English. It doesn't matter much, and can even be
charming. There is one phoneme contrast though which has the potential to
cause trouble for some speakers :/i/ & /I/, using the International Phonetic
symbols; that is, the ee in feet and the i in fit. For example, a couple of
contestants seemed to be saying these when they meant this.
iv) Morphology
Quite a few speakers used non-standard word forms. The Fiji English dialect
seems to have an interesting morphological (ie. word-formation) rule which
gives rise to the following :
a
bread
(=loaf of)
-s
a
plastic
(bag)
-s
an
alphabet
(letters)
-s
a
slang
(words)
-s
In other words, people say things like a bread, two plastics, three alphabets,
four slangs instead of a loaf of bread, two plastic bags, three alphabet
letters, four slang words or some slang (as a collective noun). I am quite
certain that this pattern is not recognized as non-standard since even
prestigious figures use it on important occasions. That is fine, in Fiji.
Internationally it is likely to cause some secret smiles.
v) Syntax
Because the set speeches were well prepared, the syntax showed few flaws.
The interviews and impromptu speeches flustered some speakers into
grammatical errors which contrasted sharply with their earlier smooth
delivery. This is a minefield for second language speakers of course. The
best that an individual contestant can do is to know personal weaknesses
(e.g. Verb/Subject agreement), stay cool, take his/her time and try to think
a little before speaking.
7
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
d) Content
Judges in the National Oratory Contest were instructed to give by far the
heaviest weighting to content. This is reasonable. A person who has nothing
useful to say has no business making a speech. In this category it was
necessary to consider not only what speakers had to say, but how well they
organized it. Also, the information that a speaker omits by choice or by
ignorance conveys a great deal. Sometimes it is cleverer to imply than to
assert; in other cases explicit statement is the most effective. Finally, the
impact of any speech depends crucially upon how well the style of delivery
matches the content.
i) Sincerity
Let us take up that last matter, because it was a source of difficulty for
several contestants, at least in my evaluation. Suppose the theme were
"peace on earth". A speaker with such a theme whose body language, tone
and delivery all screamed naked aggression would make a very strange
impression. The audience would be justified in questioning his/her sincerity.
A speaker who nobody believes is wasting his time.
ii) Subject Knowledge
Sweeping statements are a dead giveaway that the speaker is talking from a
very shallow understanding of the topic. The speech roughed out from
scanning the first paragraphs in a couple magazine articles, cribbed from a
collection of "famous speeches" or strung together from popular slogans,
might fool a casual listener for a little while. Professional judges are unlikely
to be impressed. A large percentage of the speeches which are given every
day in organizations, businesses and meetings are of this low calibre. Adolf
Hitler would never have won an oratory contest on originality. Oratory
contests exist to promote skills of good thinking expressed in clear, wellorganized language.
A couple of speeches in the 1989 Oratory Contest showed evidence of very
careful research, organization and original thought. They were naturally
rewarded with high marks. The judges were impressed by the way in which
the interviewer probed each speaker on his or her chosen topic. Those who
had not explored the topic in depth were quickly exposed. I have to say that
most contestants showed little in-depth knowledge of their subject.
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
8
Thor May
1989
iii) Organizing Information
Cultural traditions for organizing and presenting information vary
dramatically. The British student who "compares and contrasts" the ideas of,
say, two prominent thinkers, then makes a critique and rejects one, would
receive little sympathy and low marks in Japan. The Japanese student
describes each set of ideas in turn, without direct comment, and leaves the
listener/reader to infer a conclusion. This in turn would earn low marks in a
Western school or university; (Ballard, 1987).
Robert Kaplan (1971) did a fascinating study of "Cultural thought patterns in
intercultural education". He studied several hundred compositions from
students of many cultural backgrounds and finally offered a set of graphs to
describe the ways in which they developed ideas in paragraphs :
English
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Semitic
Oriental
____
|
___
Russian
|
|
______
____
________
|
|
___________
a) Linear
development
from narrowly
defined
premises to a
logical
conclusion
Romance
b) Repetition
with gradual
extension to a
new position
c)Parallel with
progressive
narrowing to a
topic focus &
conclusion
d) Indirect
approach with
frequent
digression to
very loosely
related ideas,
creating a
"climate" to
justify the
conclusion
______
|
e)Defined topic
with a specific
focus leading to
a range of
vague
generalities
about the
theme
It might be wise not to take Kaplan's graphs too literally. The general idea is
clear though, and very relevant to the ways in which Pacific Islands oratory
contestants might construct speeches. Readers are invited to compare the
structure of a traditional Rotuman or Fijian speech with the construction of a
9
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
company report delivered by a Western businessman. Both are highly
functional in their own environment, but might receive a poor reception in
other settings.
The general purpose of the Fiji National Oratory Contest suggests that it
should be judged by the preferred patterns of "British" argument structure.
That structure is reflected in the general bias of the British-ANZ education
system which has been adopted by Fiji,and it is likely to be the unconscious
bias of the judges.
The British structure depends upon a set of linear links in a chain of
argument. These links may be based upon a sequence of events over time,
or upon cause and effect, upon logical deduction/induction, upon some
hierarchy in nature ...or any one of a thousand other links. Whatever the
linkage, it should be clear, consistent and complete. An audience trained in
this tradition will be persuaded according to how effectively such patterning
is carried through. Of course, they will also be swayed by emotion, humour
and other tricks of the trade which are woven into the fabric of a speech.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to explain the criteria which judges are likely to
apply in the Fiji National Oratory Contest. It has commented upon some
features of the 1989 contest, and suggested factors which may be
underlying the performance of contestants. The paper is in no sense a
"complete guide to public speaking". There are many books on this subject,
and some of the ones available in the University of the South Pacific library
are listed in the bibliography. The National Oratory Contest deserves to grow
and succeed. These comments will have served a purpose if they encourage
more schools to coach more students in the ancient art of oratory.
______________________________________
Thor May
Lecturer in Linguistics
Dept. Literature & Language
University of the South Pacific
P.O. Box 1168 Suva, Fiji
[email protected]
10
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
References
Ballard,B (1989) Seminar on discourse styles, School of Humanities, USP;
visiting lecturer from Australian National University
Bettinghaus E (1972) The Nature of Proof, pub. Bobbs-Merrill Co,USA
Kaplan, R.B. (1971) "Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education", in
H.Allen & R. Campbell (eds) Teaching English as a Second Language,
pub.Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.
Richards J, J.Platt & H.Weber (1985) Longman Dictionary of Applied
Linguistics, pub. Longman, UK
Roach P. (1983) English Phonetics & Phonology: a Practical Course, pub.
C.U.P., UK.
Stubbs M. (1983) Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural
Language, pub. Basil Blackwell, UK
The Tasman Dictionary, (1981) pub. Macquarie Library P/L, MS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson,M E.Nichols & H.Booth (1974) The Speaker and His Audience 2nd
ed., pub. Harper & Row, NY
Asante,M & J.Frye (1977) Contemporary Public Communication :
Applications, pub. Harper & Row, NY
Bradley,B (1974) Fundamentals of Speech Communication : the Credibility of
Ideas, pub. W.C.Brown & Co, USA
Brandreth,G (1983) The Complete Public Speaker, pub. Robert Hale,UK
Carnegie,D (1962) The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking, pub.
Association Press, NY
11
Marks,W (
UK
Plain Speaking: Judging an Oratory Contest
Thor May
1989
) How to Give a Speech, pub. Inst. of Personnel Management,
Ryckman,W (1983) The Art of Speaking Effectively, pub. Dow Jones-Irvin,
USA
Smithers,D (1985) How to Develop a Winning Way with Words, pub. Unwin,
Australia
Stedman,W (1981) A Guide to Public Speaking, 2nd ed., pub. Prentice-Hall,
NJ
White,E (1982) Practical Public Speaking, 4th ed., pub. Macmillan, NY
copyright Thorold (Thor) May 1989. All rights reserved