Term
| Theory of Persuasion (William James) |
|
Definition
That which controls attention, determines action
1) Show significant proposal
2) Shock the audience if you can
3) Make use of conflict concerning proposal
4) Arrouse the audience's curiosity
5) Make speech easy to follow
6) Use variety |
|
|
Term
| Why study delivery? (5 reasons) |
|
Definition
1. makes a difference to the audience can turn people onto or off of your subject.
2. helps the speaker better understand accedental communication.
3. can enhance the audiences understanding of the subject.
4. can affect the atitude of the audience.
5.good delivery can enhance the speakers ethos with the audience. |
|
|
Term
| what is the effect of delivery on attitude change? |
|
Definition
| the delivery must be coupled with a quality/strong message otherwise it has no effect on attitude. |
|
|
Term
| Define the nature of good delivery. |
|
Definition
| Good delivery is said to need 2 things Naturalness and good conversational quality. |
|
|
Term
| what are the 4 elements of good delivery? |
|
Definition
1 Direct eye contact. helps you get feedback. allows for you to alter the way you are delivering the speech.
2 Effective use of voice. volume, pitch, fluency, rate, articulation/pronunciation & pause.
3 Effective bodily action. Posture, Movement, gestures, facial expression.
4 Variety - keepes the presentation from being boring. |
|
|
Term
| What are the 8 tests for validity in relation to evidence? |
|
Definition
1 do i have enough evidence to support the claim? - what is the nature of the controversy. do not rely on a single piece of evidence.
2. is the evidence clear?
3. is the source reliable? is it in print? what is its past performance?
4. is the evidence credible? does the source have a background? is it trustworthy?
5.is the evidence unbiased? sources that have less to gain. know source. strongest is least biased.
6. is the evidence statistically sound? stats dont lie but ppl do. be suspicious of statistics. look at how the study was conducted.
7.is the evidence an index of what we want to know? does it prove claim? is it the most recent avalible? |
|
|
Term
| define fully causal reasoning (& 4 tests for validity) |
|
Definition
Saying that a certain force is a factor that is capable of producing something else.
1. is the cause capable of producing said effect?
2. is the cause the distinguishing factor (biggest reason?)
3. is there a reasonable probability that there will be no other undesirable effects from the cause?
4. is there a counteracting cause? a cause that can distroy the effect. |
|
|
Term
| define reasoning by example (4 tests for validity) |
|
Definition
making a sieries of specific cases/instances to draw a conclusion.
1. are there enough examples to support the conclusion?
2. are the examples typical? do the majority fall to your side?
3. are negitive examples non- critical?
4. do the examples cover the critical period of time which is expressed in the conclusion? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the faculty of discovery in any case. a means of persuasion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (1) good moral character, (2) good sense, (3) good will. |
|
|
Term
| primary element of good delivery. |
|
Definition
| naturalness and good conversational quality. wording at the time of thought rather than strict rehersal. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| communication from the speaker that is not intentional. usually though body language. communicates an unintended message. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| proof via logic - by example. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| proof via emotions. appealing to the audiences values or belifes. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| proof via credibility - the character of the speaker as perceived by the audience. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| establishing a relationship between two signs and saying that the preasence of one sign means that the other is preasent. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| inferring conclusions from premises. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| anything that generates proof in the mind if the audience. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| comparative reasoning. drawing similarities between two cases and arguing that if somthing works a way in one then it will for the other. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a systematic arrangement of argument. starting with a major premise (broad) & moving to a minor premise ( specific) and finishing with a conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| rhetorical syllogism (enthymeme) |
|
Definition
| Deals in probability rather than certainty. (major premise is usually ommited) |
|
|
