Jay VerLinden
Department of Speech Communication
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521
jgv1@axe.humboldt.edu
A paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL
November 20, 1997
In April 1993 I took a couple of students to the National Individual Events Tournament at Wichita State University. Since it was their first NIET and their first exposure to the kind of competition found at that tournament they observed many practices they had not encountered before. I remember after the tournament was over they commented that everyone in the elimination rounds of informative speaking they watched had at least seventeen source citations in their speeches.
Those students commented on an unwritten rule of Forensics that they noticed at that tournament. Without knowing it they had been adapting to the unwritten rules of Forensics competition ever since they began the activity. Some of the rules were explicitly presented to them by their coaches and other students, some of them they picked up through observation, but as they continued in Forensics they learned more of the unwritten rules of their events, as do other students. When they got to a national tournament they started to become aware of the unwritten rules for that level of competition.
Unwritten rules are a necessary and inevitable part of intercollegiate Forensics. They fill in gaps left by the formal rules of the events which can never be complete enough to cover everything that is expected of competitors. They also help competitors and their coaches predict what they must do for competitive success. However, unwritten rules have the potential to lead to practices that may not be in the best interests of the students or the activity. The unwritten rules of Forensics are deserving of scrutiny to identify those that are valuable and those that are detrimental. In addition, the unwritten rules of Forensics are worthy of study as examples of communication rules in general, and as a means of teaching and research about communication that transcends the competitive situation.
In this essay I will examine some of the unwritten rules of Forensics competition, focusing specifically on those involved in the public address events of Persuasive Speaking, Informative Speaking, After Dinner Speaking, and Communication Analysis. I will first explain what I mean by unwritten rules and how they seem to become established. Then I will evaluate the unwritten rules of which I am aware, including the rules regarding topic selection, the rules of speech content, and the rules of delivery. Then I will explore some options for adjusting to the unwritten rules that are established. Finally, I will suggest some options that awareness of the unwritten rules in Forensics provide for the communication discipline.
WHAT ARE UNWRITTEN RULES?
Some may consider unwritten rules in Forensics to be unwarranted, unnecessary, and only applicable to a situation in which written rules are available. I believe the unwritten rules of Forensics are actually a natural and normal part of communication, and should be thought of as such. Considering the unwritten rules of Forensics from a communication rules perspective not only helps us better understand the rules themselves, but also casts them in a much more important light that goes beyond merely deciding whether those rules should be accepted as a means of determining who delivered the better speech in an educational exercise.
All human communication activity involves rules that the communicators learn as members of their culture. Communication success is partly based on proficiency in following those rules. The rules communicators follow include syntactical rules of the language they use, rules of nonverbal communication, politeness rules, and many others. In most communication situations those rules are taken for granted and the communicators are unaware of them. The rules of communication are not often made explicit or raised to conscious awareness, and when they are it is generally in response to a violation of the rules or to give advice to someone who may be unaware of the rules.
Unwritten rules are not the idiosyncratic preferences of individuals, either in everyday conversation or in forensic competition. When writing about extemporaneous and impromptu speaking, Preston summarizes the unwritten rules of those events:
Aside from the formal rules followed with some variation by over two hundred individual events speaking tournaments across the nation, the events are also governed by informal conventions. While empirical validation of such conventions has, at best, been indirect, critics often discuss the at tournaments. Conventions such as signposting, following the structure outlined, reviewing the (preferably three) points, taking a clear stand on the question, and taking a step to physically highlight the transitions between ideas, certainly govern both events as strongly as do the rules themselves. Short speeches and notes are generally discouraged." (17)
The unwritten rules he identified are similar to those for prepared public speaking events, and are conventions accepted by most, if not all, of those regularly involved in the activity.
Susan Shimanoff identified the characteristics of communication rules. She wrote:
"A rule is a followable prescription that indicates what behavior is obligated, preferred, or prohibited in certain contexts. This definition has several strengths. First, it is consistent with the presuppositions of the rules perspective on human behavior. It stresses that humans may choose to follow prescriptions, and it implies that following rules should result in behavioral regularities. Second, the definition includes all of the relevant characteristics of rules, and it specifies what kind of prescription is appropriate to rules (i.e., obligatory, prohibitive, or preferred). Third, this definition encompasses both explicit and implicit rules." ( 57, emphasis in original)
Her definition applies to a wide variety of communication behavior associated with Forensics, from the communication between students and coaches, to the communication between competitors and judges, and including the communication involved in the presentation of the events themselves.
The unwritten rules of forensic events clearly fall within Shimanoff's definition. Each individual contestant and judge can decide whether or not to follow the rules, if he or she is aware of them. Some of the rules oblige contestants to perform certain behaviors, prohibit other behaviors, and make other behaviors preferred over others. In addition, while the activity has some explicit rules written in tournament invitations it also involves implicit rules, which is the focus of this paper.
The only reason we talk about "unwritten" rules is because Forensics is a competitive activity and some rules have been made explicit as a way to regulate the activity. Even so, there are a large number of unwritten rules that are so taken for granted that we rarely give them a thought. In fact, there are far too many communication rules involved in Forensics competition to try to discuss them all in this essay. The unwritten rules of Forensics could include rules such as "speak English," "stand at the front of the room as you speak," "don't interrupt other speakers," and "be polite to the judges." Those rules go beyond those that explicitly govern the activity, but anyone who violates them would probably be sanctioned in some way.
I will address the unwritten rules of the actual presentation of public address events in Forensics. I will not address the unwritten rules that seem to me to be uncontroversial and based on a long tradition of public address in this country. I will, however, examine those unwritten rules that appear to be specific only to Forensics competition, that do not seem to govern public address in other contexts, and that may be educationally or theoretically problematic.
EVOLUTION OF UNWRITTEN RULES
The unwritten rules of public speaking events seem to have reasonable paths of evolution. Some that are not of concern at this time, such as the use of clear previews of the body, signposting ideas, using sound evidence to support claims, etc., are based on rhetorical theory and communication research, so are also practiced outside of Forensics. In the rest of this essay most of my attention is focused on unwritten rules that I find questionable, but I want to acknowledge that there are also many unwritten rules that are favorable.
Other unwritten rules probably evolved over time as competitors saw what was successful, and modeled their practices after what they saw. The practices that were modeled were probably encouraged among peers and, later, among students who they coached and judged. Some practices that have become conventions were probably based on attempts to avoid negative ballots. Students and coaches alike probably took note of what judges objected to and warned others against those practices. Over time the advice may have become prescriptions and the practices became expected of superior speeches.
As I considered the various unwritten rules of which I am aware I realized that the rules that, in my opinion, are questionable have at least one of two characteristics. First, some of them may lead to violation of sound rhetorical practices if done outside the Forensics environment. Thus, if there is carryover of what is learned in Forensics to other public speeches, as I believe there is, then we might be teaching students poor habits. Second, some of the unwritten rules may lead to restrictive a priori standards of evaluation, that do not take into account the particular topic, the particular speaker, and the particular context. Although some of the unwritten rules may legitimately be applied to most speeches, there may also be speeches that violate the rules and are still sound and effective. When unwritten rules are applied too rigidly they can stifle the experimentation that leads to learning to make good rhetorical choices.
As I discuss the unwritten rules I will address rules that seem to accompany the written rules of the American Forensic Association's National Individual Events Tournament.. That is simply because I have never been to a National Forensic Association tournament, so I have no basis to address the rules of that organization. I do not think they are so different from the NIET, but I cannot say for certain. There are some instances, though, in which the NFA's written rules are different from those of the AFA, so unwritten rules for one organization are the written rules of the other.
There are three cautions I think we should keep in mind as we consider unwritten rules. First, the unwritten rules are not applied by every judge, so exceptions will undoubtedly be found. My conclusions are generalizations based on my observations at tournaments, gathering information from students from my school and other schools, and by monitoring discussions on the IE-list, but they are not meant to be thought of as absolutely required by everyone. Second, some unwritten rules are not usually a factor when there are other clear qualitative differences between speeches. For example, a well reasoned, well supported, and well delivered speech without a preview is not likely to lose to a poorly reasoned, poorly supported, and poorly delivered speech with a preview. Some of the unwritten rules I will discuss are probably often used to make decisions when speeches are pretty much equal, while others are used to determine which speeches are even in the running. Finally, there are probably occasions when people succeed because they violate some unwritten rules. Such competitors may break new ground and violate some unwritten rules with such skill that they begin the transition to other unwritten rules. While the unwritten rules I discus seem to me to be rules that are generally applied at this time, they are also subject to change.
THE UNWRITTEN RULES OF TOPIC SELECTION
Unwritten Rule #1: Topics Chosen For Speeches Must Not Have Been Successfully Used Recently: When choosing topics for Forensic competition students generally try to choose topics that haven't been done before. They probably learned from their own ballots, the ballots of teammates, or from coaches that some judges will comment that the topic has been overdone, or just that the topic was used successfully the year before, and that seems to be a reason for lower rankings. I should note, though, that sometimes a comment that the topic has been used is not a reason for decision but a caution that, if the student goes on to national competition, the topic may keep him/her from doing well.
Using the freshness of the topic as an evaluative criteria may have evolved as a response to potential plagiarism and the potential that a student may copy the best parts of a speech by a former competitor. It may also have evolved to avoid comparisons with "competitors" who are not actually in the round at the time. A judge who remembers an excellent speech on a topic from the year before may unwittingly evaluate the present speech based on the memory of the previous speech, so students may be cautioned to avoid such comparisons.
Steering students towards new topics has some value because it tends to expand what is spoken about in competition. Rather than having a small choice among safe and trite subjects, students have the opportunity to search and discover material about which an educated citizenry ought to be aware. Finding new subjects is also of benefit to individual students because it expands their bases of knowledge. If they don't succeed by talking about subjects that virtually everyone already knows about then they will have to explore new territory, which is educationally beneficial to them. Students probably should be encouraged to discover topics that haven't already been used.
However, I don't think that means the freshness of the topic selection should be an unwritten rule by which students must abide if they are to succeed. As an unwritten rule it takes the focus of the competition off the speaker and what he or she does to present the subject and places it on the judge's background. If the judge is familiar with a subject the speech has little chance to do well, if the judge has not seen the topic before the speech has a better chance. As an unwritten rule it also fails to recognize that the topic may be quite new to the individual student even if the judge, who may see hundreds of speeches in Forensics and hundreds more in classes during the course of a year, has become familiar with it. It is also a bad decision criteria because many worthwhile and appropriate topics call for repetition. Repetition increases retention, increases understanding, and increases persuasiveness, so in and of itself it is not necessarily something to be avoided. Finally, the emphasis on finding completely new topics implies that in all rhetorical situations there is something wrong with addressing what has already been addressed. When students put their skills to use outside of competitive Forensics they will face many situations in which they must address subjects that are not new, and they should not get the impression that there is something wrong with that.
Rather than determine from the outset that a speech is flawed because the topic is familiar, the judge should listen to the speech and determine what the effect of that familiarity is. If the speech adds to what was done in the past, or presents ideas in different and effective ways, then the familiarity is not really relevant. If the speech simply duplicates what has already been done, or presents the information ineffectively, then the problem is not the topic, but the approach to the topic.
Unwritten Rule #2: Persuasive Speeches Must Have a Solution the Audience Can Enact. In addition to finding worthwhile and urgent problems that deserve to be addressed, persuasive speakers also must attend to the means of solving those problems. It is not enough to simply convince the audience that the problem exists, but the speaker must try to get the audience to do something about it.
The difficulty with the audience as agent of change as an unwritten rule is that it tends to constrain the choices of topics. There is no shortage of problems in the world, but the number of those problems that individuals can do something about is considerably smaller. Important topics simply will not be addressed if the speaker must try to get the audience to act on them, or, if they are addressed, the speaker may have to resort to a "write your congressional representative" type of solution.
This unwritten rule is also problematic because the written rules for both AFA and NFA explicitly allow persuasive speeches that do not call for action. Over time the unwritten rule has established a preference for behavioral change over attitude or belief changes.
Nevertheless, this unwritten rule has a sound basis. If the only purpose of a speech is to convince an audience that a problem exists then the speech may as well not be delivered. Unless the speech is part of a larger campaign in which one stage is meant to develop the need for change and later stages will address the enactment of change, a speech that stops at establishing the problem is unlikely to have any effect on eliminating the problem. While some audience members may be motivated to act in such a situation, they may be frustrated because they do not have an idea of what to do or they may leave believing they are powerless to do anything.
I also believe this unwritten rule is justified as a preferential rule because advocating behavioral change creates additional challenges for the speaker. Changing attitudes and beliefs is generally a prerequisite for changing behavior, so a speech that advocates behavioral change also includes appeals for other types of change. However, there are also topics for which changing attitudes or beliefs is extremely difficult, so the challenge involved is equal to the challenge involved in most behaviorally oriented speeches. Thus, judges should be open to the possibility that a speech striving for changing attitudes or beliefs has merit.
The unwritten rule that persuasive speeches should address a solution which the audience can carry out is also educationally sound because it teaches the speakers to address topics appropriate to their audiences. One of the characteristics of a sound response to a rhetorical situation is addressing an audience capable of carrying out the appropriate actions. Lloyd Bitzer states, "In any rhetorical situation there will be at least one controlling exigence which functions as the organizing principle: it specifies the audience to be addressed and the change to be effected" (7). He goes on to say, "properly speaking, a rhetorical audience consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change" (7).
Contemporary public address theory places the audience at the center of the process, including making subject choices based on the audience. Simply put, if the speaker cannot present an effective means for the audience to be involved in solving the problem, that speech should be presented to a different, more fitting audience. The audience in intercollegiate Forensics consists of a variety of judges and fellow competitors and finding topics that involve that audience makes good rhetorical sense. Otherwise we are teaching students that there is no real connection between the speech and the audience.
Unwritten Rule #3: The Topics For Informative Speeches Must Be Made Relevant to the Audience. This unwritten rule is similar to that for the persuasive speeches. It calls for the speaker to explain, in some way, why the audience ought to listen to the information the speaker presents. Instead of assuming that all information has equal value it calls for choices made with the audience in mind.
This unwritten rule also tends to constrain topic choices. Significant topics may be avoided because the connection to the audience is not obvious to the competitor. Also, some have argued on the IE-list that, because knowledge in and of itself is good, all topics inherently relate to all audiences and ought to be used.
This unwritten rule is also based on sound principles of public speaking, however. Speeches should be appropriate for the audience, and even if the information in and of itself is valuable if it does not fit the audience the speech should not be delivered to that audience. Moreover, audiences should not be expected to automatically perceive the relevance of topics to themselves. While there are some who find any topic fascinating the reality is each topic is competing for attention with hundreds of other topics both within and outside of Forensics, and most audiences will find only a small number of them worth attending to. Part of the challenge of gaining and maintaining audience attention is finding ways of convincing the audience that a subject with which they are not already familiar is worth their time.
There is considerably more leeway for topic selection in informative speaking than in persuasive speaking, though. Topics that, at first, do not seem to fit the Forensic audience can be tailored for them with a little thought and effort. Rather than teaching students to simply discard topics, this unwritten rule teaches them to think about ways in which their topics are appropriate for the audience and to address that issue in their speeches. Rather than assuming the audience will understand their connection to the topic this unwritten rule calls for the speaker to help the audience understand how the information applies to them.
This unwritten rule is also beneficial for the competitive environment. If there is no need for speakers to make the connection to the audience clear during the speech there would be greater dependence on delivering speeches that match the judges' interests, and the variety of judges would make that an impossible task. If the judges are told what the connection to them is, they, like other audience members, can better understand why the speech is being delivered to them.
THE UNWRITTEN RULES OF SPEECH CONTENT
Unwritten Rule #4: Visual Aids Are Required In Informative Speaking. Although the written rules for Informative Speaking are permissive and say visual aids may be used, the obligatory unwritten rule is that visual aids must be used. The use of visual aids in informative speaking does have merit both because people generally retain information better when they see it as well as hear it and because it establishes one event in which the visual augmentation of verbal information is emphasized. There is value in developing the ability to coordinate a sound oral message with supplementary material and Informative Speaking is the only event that really encourages the development of that skill.
This unwritten rule may be bad in the sense that some worthwhile topics that don't lend themselves to visual aids well may be eliminated and may lead to students choosing topics based on their potential for using visual aids. It may also have the unfortunate effect of causing speakers to "force" unnecessary visual aids into their speeches. If a student violates the unwritten rule and presents a speech that is clear and informative he or she may receive lower ranks only because there was no visual aid.
On the other hand, the benefit of this rule is that it may force some competitors to be more creative in order to develop appropriate visual aids. Realizing that some visual aids will be expected they will attempt to think of legitimate ways to incorporate some into the speech instead of simply deciding no visual aids are needed.
Ultimately the decision to use visual aids or not is up to the speaker, but the reaction to the absence of visual aids is up to each judge. If there is no visual aid and a judge thinks there should be, that judge should have the responsibility to identify what visual aids would have helped the speaker achieve his or her purpose. If the comments are something like, "Great speech, but you don't have any visual aids so you are ranked lower" then the judge has avoided his or her responsibility. If the comment explains why a visual for some part of the speech would have been helpful in achieving understanding, he or she has provided a legitimate reason for decision.
Judges should also be open to a variety of types of visual aids. The preference seems to be for pictorial visual aids. While such visual aids are worthwhile for some subjects, other subjects may lend themselves best to key-word visual aids that help the audience follow ideas and that visually reinforce the oral message. Rather than assume that pictures are good and words are bad on visual aids, the value of the aids for communicating the message should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Unwritten Rule #5: Visual Aids Are Prohibited in Persuasive Speaking. This unwritten rule is the reverse of the "rule" requiring visual aids in informative speaking. Although there is no statement about visual aids in the written rules, persuasive speeches are expected to be purely oral with no aids to augment the message.
It is a counterproductive unwritten rule because it implies that visual communication has no place in persuasion. However, visual communication can be a very powerful means of persuasion to which students in Forensics ought to have access. In addition, the use of visuals in persuasion creates pragmatic and ethical choices that are different from those made in informative speaking events, thus adding more to the educational experience.
Unwritten Rule ##6: After Dinner Speeches Must Be Uproarious. The unwritten rule in After Dinner Speaking seems to be the final rank is dependent on the audience response, with the judge included as part of the audience. If there is a great deal of laughter the speech must have been very good; if there is little laughter then the speech must have been less worthy of a high ranking.
Focusing primarily on the immediate audience response as a measure of After Dinner Speaking quality is a poor convention because it minimizes the rhetorical purpose of the speeches. Even though the written rules indicate the speech should demonstrate sound public speaking principles, when the strength of the audience response is emphasized the principles of public speaking become much less important. The emphasis on laughter also leads to the inclusion of "antics" in after dinner speeches that are included only to get strong responses, because contestants believe without strong responses they are not competitive.
There is nothing wrong with strong responses to after dinner speeches in and of themselves, if they arise from material that is truly integral to the speech. The objection is to strong responses becoming ends to themselves. It is quite possible for very good after dinner speeches to enlighten, move, and delight without causing gales of laughter, but causing smiles and understanding instead. That should be accepted by both competitors and judges, without creating an unwritten rule that After Dinner Speeches must not be uproarious. The question should be how well the humor adds to achievement of the rhetorical purpose of the speech.
Unwritten Rule #7: Communication Analysis Must Use A Published Method. Some people claim that the unwritten requirement that competitors in Communication Analysis use a published method is bad because it stifles creativity. Someone using common sense, the argument goes, can insightfully analyze communication without needing to get a method from anyone else and ought to be able to use their creativity to develop their own method. Fully explaining the argument and the responses to it would take much more space than I have here, but I think this unwritten rule is actually good because it promotes scholarship and understanding of difficult material. Following the rule, however, also leads to three unfortunate outcomes.
First, the use of published methods often confuses a method with an application of a method. The student will find an article by, say, Edgar Smith that analyzes Public Service Messages based on Burke's principles of identification. If Smith says there are three means of achieving identification in Public Service Messages the student may take that article and use "Smith's Identification Theory" as the basis of the speech. In such a case, Smith has applied Burkean Identification Theory as his method; he hasn't created a theory or method of his own, and the competitor should not present the method as Smith's.
The second unfortunate result of using published methods is that competitors seem to gravitate towards the most obscure method they can find. From a competitive standpoint doing so makes good sense. Some of the judges the student faces are probably familiar with more well known critical methods, and know them better from their graduate training than competitors do. If the competitor makes a statement the judge disagrees with the judge may not only let the student know he or she is incorrect, but also lowers the student's rank. By finding an obscure method the student faces less risk of the judge arguing with him or her on the ballot. Using less familiar methods can be good if the method really does fit the artifact, and has the potential to bring new thinking into the critical arena. However, if all the judges are really unfamiliar with the methods of analysis used they can give less informed and less educational feedback to the competitors, which reduces the value of engaging in the competition.
The third potential outcome of reliance on obscure methods is it can lead to significant distortions of the method chosen and those distortions will not be caught. Distortion of concepts is inherent in Forensics competition simply because the competitors are in the process of learning about subjects and they are going to make mistakes. That is compounded in Communication Analysis because they have only ten minutes to explain the method and apply it to their artifact. Even if they accurately understand the method reducing the explanation to three minutes or less is very likely to at least distort by omission. Once again, if obscure methods are chosen judges are less likely to be able to offer constructive feedback about what the competitor says.
Unwritten Rule #8: Communication Analysis Must Use a "Critical" Method. Years ago the NIET adopted the name of Communication Analysis for the event rather than Rhetorical Criticism. That name choice allowed students to choose artifacts other than public speeches to analyze, and many students have taken advantage of that freedom. That name choice also opens the event to methods of analysis other than critical methods, and virtually nobody has taken advantage of that opportunity.
This unwritten rule is unfortunate because it eliminates a large body of communication theory from use in Forensics. Some of that theory could provide better explanations for what happened in the communication than does critical rhetorical theory. For instance, it is not uncommon for students to choose artifacts from television or print media, but it is uncommon for them to use mass communication theory to analyze those artifacts. Some of the judges at tournaments may be more familiar with other communication theory than with rhetorical theory, so could provide better ballots for student who chose those methods. Using other theory also has the potential to open Forensics more to the rest of the communication field. If the theories are accurately used and the analysis is sound, that has the potential to lead to better relations between this activity and other faculty.
I should also acknowledge that the NFA counterpart of Communication Analysis is Rhetorical Criticism and the written rules for that event specify the use of a critical method. Thus, the unwritten rule for the AFA event is actually a written rule for NFA. For those who face both sets of rules as they compete at different tournaments, conforming to the requirements of the more restrictive rule make a good deal of sense. It becomes important, then for judges to be very aware of the differences as they travel from tournament to tournament, so they do not penalize students who use the more permissive written rule at tournaments where other than critical methods are allowed.
Unwritten Rule #9: Each Event Must Include an Abundance of Different Source Citations. There should be little doubt that citing sources of information is important in public address. Doing so avoids plagiarism by giving credit where it is due and can enhance the speaker's credibility. After twenty years of teaching basic public speaking classes I believe most speakers could afford to include many more citations in their speeches. However, counting the number of citations is not a sound way to determine the quality of a speech. It seems to have led to a kind of "citations race," in which each contestant tries to win by throwing more citations out than anyone else in the round, and emphasizes the use of a different source with each citation. If anecdotes are true, that has had the unfortunate result of the use of "creative" source citations, such as citing the same source in different ways so it appears the speaker has more sources of information than he or she really has.
Even if there is no widespread distortion of sources, my objections to this unwritten rule is it teaches unrealistic practices that should not be duplicated outside the competitive environment. To the extent that it teaches students to cite sources when appropriate the rule is positive. But if it teaches students to fill their speeches with citations to the exclusion of explanations, reasoning, and sound original thought the rule is negative. To the extent that it encourages thorough research in preparation it is educationally sound. But if it teaches students that repetition of a source citation must be avoided, which simply is not true.
Students, coaches, and judges should approach the use of source citations critically, determining if more really is better. Additionally, judges should make individual decisions to determine if it really is worse to cite the same source several ties during the speech than to have a different sources for each citation.
Unwritten Rule #10: Source Citations Must be Overly Detailed. By overly detailed I mean that every citation must have the complete and specific date of publication. I've discussed the problems involved in overly detailed source citations before (VerLinden 1996) and I won't repeat the entire argument here. However, I will say that providing the complete date for every citation is a poor practice because it teaches that including unnecessary, confusing detail is a good rhetorical choice. Complete dates are good if the detail helps to prove the point being made, but much of the time it is a poor practice and speakers should use more judgment in deciding how specific they need to date their sources. At the same time, judges should avoid penalizing speakers for not including the complete date unless the complete date is somehow necessary for the speaker to make his or her point.
Unwritten Rule #11: Source Citations Must be Extremely Current. This rule puts a premium on having the most recent citations in the round. Anything a year or more old should be replaced with newer material. Anything more than a couple of months old is questionable.
This rule is another a priori standard that is much too restrictive. Recency of evidence is, in general, something to strive for, but it is not necessarily called for in all cases. For instance, some topics may call for a historical approach in which older evidence is actually preferable to newer evidence. In addition, sometimes the newer citation is merely a secondary source summarizing what was said much earlier, but is presented as new and up to date. Uncritically insisting on the latest sources can lead not only to poor choices, but to choices that are, at best, ethically suspect.
THE UNWRITTEN RULES OF DELIVERY
In my opinion, in general the delivery of speeches in public events address is poor to adequate. Most speeches, even those delivered by some of the most accomplished students in Forensics, are presented in a stilted, uninvolved, unnatural manner. The best delivery happens in After Dinner Speaking, probably because the students have to adapt to interruptions from the audience and it's accepted that they respond to other speakers. They have to be more "in the moment" than do speakers in events that allow them to deliver a set script, and it shows in their performances. My opinion is also that the reason delivery is not better is because of the unwritten rules of delivering contest speeches.
Unwritten Rule #12: Speeches Must Be Memorized. It does not take students long to discover that, in order to be successful in Forensics, they must memorize their speeches. Novices and experienced competitors alike can be seen at tournaments throughout the year talking to bushes as they try to finishing memorizing a speech before their round begins. It's also not uncommon for novices and experienced speakers to leave a round predicting they placed first because they were the only speaker who did not use notes, as if that is the only quality of an excellent speech.
All of the AFA public address event descriptions say that minimal notes may be used, yet the unwritten rule is competitors may not use any notes and must have their speeches totally memorized. I suspect this practice evolved because delivering a speech from memory seems more difficult than delivering it from notes, so it became a tie breaker when the quality of speeches was very close. As students and coaches realized this they turned to memorization to avoid losing the competitive edge, and that lead to memorization as a norm. The evolution is likely to be different in areas that use NFA rules, though, because the NFA rules explicitly state that speeches must be delivered from memory.
Some would argue that after a certain amount of practice a contest speech is memorized anyway, so memorization will naturally occur. If that happens it does make sense for a speaker to get rid of the notes, but I don't think it happens as often as we might think. If it was a natural occurrence students would not put in the time or the effort talking to walls and bushes at tournaments to actually memorize the speech. Moreover, most successful contestants update their speeches regularly, and do not rely only on rehearsals to allow them to naturally learn their speeches. Instead, they make a conscious effort to memorize their speeches.
There are several reasons I think this unwritten rule is bad as a rule. First, it directly contradicts public address pedagogy which says it is better to speak extemporaneously than to memorize the speech, for a variety of reasons. Second, the strength of this unwritten rule creates a situation in which Forensics fails to teach students how to more effectively speak well using notes, or to acknowledge that speaking from notes can be done well, even though most speakers will deliver their speeches from notes in the future. Third, it leads to a lack of spontaneity and generally results in an artificial style of delivery.
A better situation would ensue if judges were to let the unobtrusive use of notes be as valued as a memorized speech. If the notes do get in the way of delivery, if the speaker calls attention to them, or if the speaker has the notes in his or her hand but does not use them, then there is a reason to let that to influence ranks or ratings. But if the notes are used well that should be rewarded.
There is another choice besides memorizing the speech and using notes, however. That is to learn the outline and direct quotations and extemporize the rest of the speech. Doing so is no more difficult than memorizing an entire speech and has a better chance of maintaining a spontaneous and natural delivery. It also has a better chance of teaching students a practice that they are more likely to use throughout their lives.
Unwritten Rule #13: Persuasive Speakers Must Not Show Emotion In Their Delivery. As a judge I've watched countless speeches in which the speakers told about tragic and horrible events in a manner as passionate as if they were telling me how many yards of dental floss were produced last year. They did not seem at all bothered that terrible things were happening, and their speeches were less persuasive because of it.
I suspect that the lack of passion shown in most persuasive contest speeches is born of the legacy of debate in forensics. Debate emphasized argumentation and logic above emotional appeals and that carried over into the public speaking events, which were often judged by debate coaches and former debaters. It has also been important for Forensics to justify itself as an academic activity to emphasize sound argumentation and avoid the appearance of valuing emotional appeals. An academic, scholastic style that we often see at tournaments developed. Interestingly enough, when debaters read evidence of tragic happenings they commonly show righteous outrage in their voices, faces, and bodies, but persuasive speakers rarely show that same level of involvement.
In a sense it is good for persuasive speakers to concentrate on their arguments because it helps to prevent them from depending only on sad stories or other tricks to pull at their audience's emotions. There is a limit to the benefits of avoiding emotionalism, however. Once sound arguments are developed for the content of the speech they ought to be matched with convincing vocal and physical delivery to have the most persuasive effect.
Avoiding passion in persuasive speaking is an unwarranted unwritten rule because it removes an important persuasive device from the educational package that is forensics. Instead of teaching students to make sound arguments and deliver them in a convincing manner they are taught to make sound arguments and deliver them in a way that is not likely to command attention outside of the arena of competitive Forensics. In addition, it teaches students to deliver their speeches in a style that is most likely to reduce credibility because the feelings they display fail to match the content of what they are saying.
Unwritten Rule #14: Public Address Events Will Be Delivered Using Choreographed Movement. Another way in which natural delivery is eliminated from the public address events is by choreographing the movement during the speech. Although there is some adaptation, generally regardless of the configuration of the room, the seating of the audience, or other relevant factors the competitors try to use the same movement at the same time every time they deliver their speeches.
There is some value to working on the movement during the speech. If students know when and where they should move they can avoid standing stock still, standing on one place and shifting their weight, and aimless wandering during the speech. They can also use movement to indicate transitions.
However, choreographing the movement, as currently practiced, tends to look unnatural and calls attention to itself. Steps are taken with no motivation other than it's time to take a step and gestures become mechanical and stiff. In general, competitive speeches look polished, composed, confident, and better than those of most college speakers, but they also perpetuate some of the excesses of the elocutionary movement and are not examples of excellent physical delivery.
WHAT TO DO
The unwritten rules of forensics are not likely to change quickly or easily because they are so deeply entrenched in the culture of the activity and because the activity has no real means of making such changes. The unwritten rules of Forensics that may deserve to be changed are based on the experiences of those in the activity not on theory or research. As such they are only likely to change as supplanted by new unwritten rules based on competitive success. The attitudes and behaviors of some coaches, judges, and competitors may change as a result of panels like these, but they are likely to be few. In addition, pressure to revert back to the unwritten rules will increase if the changes do not quickly result in competitive success.
Changes in the unwritten rules of Forensics would call for a high degree of judge agreement, and there is no mechanism for gaining such agreement. While it is possible that the written rules could be changed that would not necessarily change the way judges rank contestants. Many judges in this activity are proudly independent souls who will evaluate what they see based on what they think is appropriate, even if they are not consistent with the rules. Other judges are simply not involved in Forensics enough to care what the rules say, but they have enough background to know what should be done for a good speech. Enforcing changes in the written rules would be unenforceable and could lead to an even worse situation.
Even if changing the written rules did change judge and contestant behavior, addressing the unwritten rules would require so many written rule changes that it could create a nightmare. We could conceivable end up with so many rules for each event that nobody could really follow them all. Thus, unwritten rules would again evolve, some of which might directly conflict with the expanded written rules.
As an activity we are probably better off acknowledging that the unwritten rules exist, attempting to change those we believe are not good for our students, and accepting those that are beneficial. As a communication activity, Forensics will have unwritten rules whether we want them or not.
One thing coaches can do, and I think should do, is discuss with their students the contextual nature of communication in general, and public speaking specifically. They should explain that Forensics speeches differ from speeches in other contexts in many ways, including the unwritten rules of the activity. As public speakers students will have to adapt to different audiences and different contexts, and by directly confronting the unwritten rules of Forensics the coaches have an opportunity to teach communication principles that extend beyond the competitive situation. As Friedley says, "Knowing a specific rule that transfers across all contexts and all relationships is not nearly as important as developing "rule sensitivity"--knowing when and how to adapt to the specific rules in a given context most effectively" (53). Rather than try to eliminate unwritten rules, then, the unwritten rules should be taken as an educational opportunity.
BEYOND CATEGORIZATION
The call for this panel was to "identify the unwritten rules and examine their impact on intercollegiate forensic competition." As I thought about the subject more, though, it occurred to me that thinking about unwritten rules creates some opportunities for Forensics to integrate more with other parts of the discipline.
I agree with Don Swanson (1992a) when he wrote
There seems to be a disturbing trend over the last two decades for intercollegiate forensic programs to become more isolated from mainstream speech communication curriculum. Earlier in the century, forensic activity was responsible for the growth and development of many speech communication departments. Forgetting their roots, today many of those departments have divorced or distanced themselves from their forensic programs, much like they might distance themselves from an unfamiliar relative. On many campuses forensics is a stand-alone activity program. Forensic educators have speculated on reasons for the evolutionary direction for many programs. Those reasons include: Programs being supported by activities funding sources rather than by institutional instructional budgets; forensic programs being staffed with positions that are non-tenure track or worse, with only graduate teaching assistants; a lack of commitment to teaching rhetoric, public address or argumentation; and a new generation of faculty comprising the majority of department that are simply unfamiliar with forensics. (49)
I think integration of the educational mission of Forensics with the broader discipline is important for the survival of Forensics as more and more of our colleagues come from backgrounds that do not include Forensics and do not emphasize public address. As I've said elsewhere, I think Forensics can serve as a "laboratory" setting for students in Speech Communication (VerLinden 1984) and the idea has been developed by Sheryl Friedley for Interpersonal Communication, Raymond Bud Zeuschner for Small Group Communication, Don Swanson (1992b) for Organizational Communication, and Gary Dreibelbis and Paul Gullifor for Mass Media. Thinking about this subject has led me to recognize that Forensics can also contribute to students' communication education in other ways.
Awareness of unwritten rules provides an opportunity to become more aware of adaptation to audience and context. As coaches discuss with students why they should or should not do certain things the coaches can make use of the opportunity to tell the students that adapting to the unwritten rules is really not different from adapting to the audience in any other situation. The differences are often that people involved in Forensics for any length of time are more aware of the unstated expectations, and public speakers in other situations are rarely provided written evaluations or ranked in relation to others. Unwritten rules also give coaches the opportunity to emphasize the need to adapt to different contexts. Practices that are expected in Forensics are often not only not expected in other contexts, but may have negative effects. That does not mean the practices are necessarily bad in the context of Forensics, but that the wise communicator will not expect them to be universally applicable.
Awareness of the unwritten rules in Forensics also provides the opportunity to go beyond Forensics to begin teaching students about communication rules in general. Forensics is the entry to other lessons about communication that both help students better understand human communication and better communicate with others. I do not mean to suggest such teaching needs to come in the form of a formal lesson. In fact, one of the wonderful characteristics of Forensics is the opportunity to teach students about a wide variety of ideas, both within and outside of Forensics. As students are told what they ought to do to be competitively successful, or as comments on ballots are discussed, coaches can let students know that they adapt to communication rules all the time, and perhaps steer them toward classes in which the subject is discussed.
Finally, awareness of unwritten rules provides an opportunity for scholars in Forensics to engage in research that extends beyond the boundaries of the competitive situation. For example, one area of research is concerned with the communication practices involved in socializing individuals into larger groups. The socialization includes families (Becker), educational groups (Myers, Staton-Spicer and Darling, Staton and Hunt) and business organizations (Brown, Bullis and Bach, Jablin). The process is studied from the rhetorical perspective (Pribble), qualitatively (McComb) and experimentally (Miller). Students who become involved in Forensics enter a new community, and have to learn the communication rules of that community. Each year Forensic coaches help new students join the community. The way new members learn the unwritten rules for events as well as the way they learn the other cultural rules of the community lend themselves to research that could provide new insights or confirm previous finding about communication activity in general. A common complaint among Forensics professionals is that the research they do about Forensics is not well respected when it comes time for tenure and promotion decisions, and taking advantage of opportunities for research programs that are more meaningful to others in academia could be very beneficial.
Evaluating unwritten rules may just be a way to express some personal preferences. The arguments I make for or against particular rules can certainly be countered by others who hold different opinions. Such a dialogue would be healthy because it could make everyone more aware of the existence of such rules and make conscious decisions about their value. I hope that such awareness would lead to better ballot explanations of the reasons why competitor's choices led to the evaluations they received. I also hope that thinking about unwritten rules will encourage some to engage in educational practices and research that emphasizes the value of the activity to the discipline in general.
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC ADDRESS EVENT RULES
AFA INFORMATIVE SPEAKING: An original, factual speech by the student on a realistic subject to fulfill the general aim to inform the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time is 10 minutes including the introduction.
NFA INFORMATIVE: The contestant will deliver an original factual speech on a realistic subject to fulfill a general information need of the audience. Visual aids that supplement/reinforce the message are permitted. The speech must be delivered from memory. Maximum 10 minutes.
AFA PERSUASIVE SPEAKING: An original speech by the student designed to inspire, reinforce, or change beliefs, attitudes, values, or actions of the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.
NFA PERSUASION: A speech to convince, to move to action, or to inspire on a significant issue, delivered from memory. Maximum 10 minutes.
AFA AFTER DINNER SPEAKING: An original humorous speech by the student, designed to exhibit sound speech composition, thematic coherence, direct communicative public speaking skills, and good taste. The speech should not resemble a nightclub act, an impersonation, or comic dialogue. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.
NFA AFTER DINNER: Each contestant will present an original speech whose purpose is to make a serious point through the use of humor. The speech should reflect the development of a humorous comedic effort, not a stand up comedy routine. The speech must be memorized. Maximum 10 minutes.
AFA COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS: An original speech by the student designed to offer an explanation and/or evaluation of a communication event such as a speech, speaker, movement, poem, poster, film, campaign, etc., through the use of rhetorical principles. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Manuscripts are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.
NFA RHETORICAL CRITICISM: Contestants will deliver an original critical analysis of any significant rhetorical artifact. The speaker should limit the quotation of, paraphrasing of, or summary of, the analyzed artifact to a minimum. Any legitimate critical methodology is permissible as long as it serves to open up the artifact for the audience. The speech must be delivered from memory. Maximum 10 minutes.
Works Cited
Becker, Judith A. "Pragmatic Socialization: Parental Input to Preschoolers." Discourse Processes. 17 (1994): 131-148.
Bitzer, Lloyd. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1 (1968): 1-15.
Brown, Mary Helen. "That Reminds Me of a Story: Speech Action in Organizational Socialization." Western Journal of Speech Communication. 49 (1985): 27-42.
Bullis, Denise M. and Betsy Wackernagel Bach. "Socialization Turning Points: An Examination of Change in Organizational Identification." Western Journal of Speech Communication. 53 (1989): 273-293.
Dreibelbis, Gary C. and Paul Gullifor. "Forensics as a Laboratory Experience in Mass Media." National Forensic Journal. 10 (1992): 77-82.
Friedley, Sheryl A. "Forensics as a Laboratory Experience in Interpersonal Communication." National Forensic Journal. 10 (1992): 51-56.
Jablin, Frederick M. "An Exploratory Study of Vocational Organizational Communication Socialization." Southern Speech Communication Journal. 50 (1985): 262-282.
McComb, Mary. "Becoming a Travelers Aid Volunteer: Communication in Socialization and Training." Communication Studies. 46 (1995): 297-316.
Miller, Vernon. "An Experimental Study of Newcomers' Information Seeking Behaviors During Organizational Entry." Communication Studies. 47 (1996): 1-24.
Myers, Scott A. "The Availability and Helpfulness of Graduate Teaching Assistant Socialization Activities." Communication Research Reports. 11 (1994): 221-228.
Preston, C. Thomas. "Literal and Metaphorical Advocacy: Differentiating the Limited Preparation Public Speaking Events." Argumentation and Advocacy. 27 (1990): 14-24.
Pribble, Paula Tomkins. "Making An Ethical Commitment: A Rhetorical Case Study of Organizational Socialization." Communication Quarterly. 38 (1990): 255-267.
Shimanoff, Susan B. Communication Rules: Theory and Research. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publications, 1980.
Staton-Spicer, Ann Q. and Ann L. Darling. "Communication in the Socialization of Preservice Teachers." Communication Education. 35 (1986): 215-230.
Staton, Ann Q. and Sandra L. Hunt. "Teacher Socialization: Review and Conceptualization." Communication Education. 41 (1992): 109-137.
Swanson, Don R. "Introduction." National Forensic Journal. 10 (1992a): 49-50.
Swanson, Don R. "Forensics as a Laboratory Experience in Organizational Communication." National Forensic Journal. 10 (1992b): 65-76.
VerLinden, Jay. "A Critique of Source Citations in Forensic Speeches." National Forensic Journal. 14 (1996): 23-36.
VerLinden, Jay. "Integrating Forensics into the Curriculum." Association for Communication Administration Journal. 54 (1985): 79-80.
Zeuschner, Raymond Bud. "Forensics as a Laboratory Experience in Small Group Communication." National Forensic Journal. 10 (1992): 57-64.