Communication Today: Relevance, Impact, and Responsibility

1 Communication Today: Relevance, Impact, and Responsibility

1.1 Principles of Communication

“Good communication is the bridge between clarity and confusion.” -Nat Turner

Humans’ ability to communicate using formalized systems of language sets us apart from other living creatures on the Earth. Whether these language conventions make us superior to other creatures is debatable, but there is no question that overall, the most successful and most powerful people over the centuries have mastered the ability to communicate effectively. In fact, the skill of speaking is so important that it has been formally taught for thousands of years.

1.2 Forms of Communication

Forms of communication vary in terms of participants, channels used, and contexts. The main forms of communication, all of which will be explored in much more detail in this course, are intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, public, and mass communication. If you find one of these forms particularly interesting, you may be able to take additional courses that focus specifically on it. You may even be able to devise a course of study around one of these forms as a communication major. The following is a discussion of the similarities and differences among each form of communication, including its definition, level of intentionality, goals, and contexts.

Intrapersonal Communication

Intrapersonal communication is communication with oneself using internal vocalization or reflective thinking (Vocate, 1994). Like other forms of communication, intrapersonal communication is triggered by some internal or external stimulus. We may, for example, communicate with our self about what we want to eat due to the internal stimulus of hunger, or we may react intrapersonally to an event we witness. Unlike other forms of communication, intrapersonal communication takes place only inside our heads (Vocate, 1994).

The other forms of communication must be perceived by someone else to count as communication. So what is the point of intrapersonal communication if no one else even sees it?

Interpersonal Communication

Interpersonal Communication is communication between people whose lives mutually influence one another (Hartley, 1999). Interpersonal communication builds, maintains, and ends our relationships, and we spend more time engaged in interpersonal communication than the other forms of communication. Interpersonal communication occurs in various contexts and is addressed in subfields of study within communication studies such as intercultural communication, organizational communication, health communication, and computer-mediated communication. After all, interpersonal relationships exist in all those contexts.

Interpersonal communication can be planned or unplanned, but since it is interactive, it is usually more structured and influenced by social expectations than intrapersonal communication. Interpersonal communication is also more goal oriented than intrapersonal communication and fulfills instrumental and relational needs. In terms of instrumental needs, the goal may be as minor as greeting someone to fulfill a morning ritual or as major as conveying your desire to be in a committed relationship with someone. Interpersonal communication meets relational needs by communicating the uniqueness of a specific relationship. Since this form of communication deals so directly with our personal relationships and is the most common form of communication, instances of miscommunication and communication conflict most frequently occur here (Dance & Larson, 1972). Couples, bosses and employees, and family members all have to engage in complex interpersonal communication, and it doesn’t always go well. In order to be a competent interpersonal communicator, you need conflict management skills and listening skills, among others, to maintain positive relationships.

Group Communication

Group communication is communication among three or more people interacting to achieve a shared goal (Powell, 1996). You have likely worked in groups in high school and college, and if you’re like most students, you didn’t enjoy it. Even though it can be frustrating, group work in an academic setting provides useful experience and preparation for group work in professional settings. Organizations have been moving toward more team-based work models, and whether we like it or not, groups are an integral part of people’s lives. Therefore, the study of group communication is valuable in many contexts.

Group communication is more intentional and formal than interpersonal communication. Unlike interpersonal relationships, which are voluntary, individuals in a group are often assigned to their position within a group. Additionally, group communication is often task focused, meaning that members of the group work together for an explicit purpose or goal that affects each member of the group (Powell, 1996). Goal-oriented communication in interpersonal interactions usually relates to one person; for example, you may ask your friend to help you move this weekend. Goal- oriented communication at the group level usually focuses on a task assigned to the whole group; for example, a group of people may be tasked to figure out a plan for moving a business from one office to another.

You know from previous experience working in groups that having more communicators usually leads to more complicated interactions. Some of the challenges of group communication relate to task-oriented interactions, such as deciding who will complete each part of a larger project. But many challenges stem from interpersonal conflict or misunderstandings among group members. Since group members also communicate with and relate to each other interpersonally and may have preexisting relationships or develop them during the course of group interaction, elements of interpersonal communication occur within group communication too. Part of this course deals with group communication, you will learn how to be a more effective group communicator by learning about group theories and processes as well as the various roles that contribute to and detract from the functioning of a group (Powell, 1996).

Public Communication

Public communication is a sender-focused form of communication in which one person is typically responsible for conveying information to an audience (Beebe & Beebe, 2021). Public speaking is something that many people fear, or at least don’t enjoy. But, just like group communication, public speaking is an important part of our academic, professional, and civic lives. When compared to interpersonal and group communication, public communication is the most consistently intentional, formal, and goal-oriented form of communication we have discussed so far.

Public communication, at least in Western societies, is also more sender focused than interpersonal or group communication. It is precisely this formality and focus on the sender that makes many new and experienced public speakers anxious at the thought of facing an audience. One way to begin to manage anxiety toward public speaking is to begin to see connections between public speaking and other forms of communication with which we are more familiar and comfortable. Despite being formal, public speaking is very similar to the conversations that we have in our daily interactions. For example, although public speakers don’t necessarily develop individual relationships with audience members, they still have the benefit of being face-to-face with them so they can receive verbal and nonverbal feedback (Beebe & Beebe, 2021).

Mass Communication

Public communication becomes Mass communication when it is transmitted to many people through print or electronic media (Bryant & Miron, 2004). Print media such as newspapers and magazines continue to be an important channel for mass communication, although they have suffered much in the past decade due in part to the rise of electronic media. Television, websites, blogs, and social media are mass communication channels that you probably engage with regularly. Radio, podcasts, and books are other examples of mass media. The technology required to send

mass communication messages distinguishes it from the other forms of communication (Bryant & Miron, 2004). A certain amount of intentionality goes into transmitting a mass communication message since it usually requires one or more extra steps to convey the message. This may involve pressing “Enter” to send a Facebook message or involve an entire crew of camera people, sound engineers, and production assistants to produce a television show. Even though the messages must be intentionally transmitted through technology, the intentionality and goals of the person actually creating the message, such as the writer, television host, or talk show guest, vary greatly. The President’s State of the Union address is a mass communication message that is very formal, goal oriented, and intentional, but a president’s verbal gaffe during a news interview is not.

1.3 The Process of Communication

A young man holding a microphone smiles and gestures with his hand towards the audience.

All of us encounter thousands of messages in our everyday environments, so getting your idea heard above all the other ones is a constant battle. Some speakers will try gimmicks, but we strongly believe that getting your message heard depends on three fundamental components: message, skill, and passion. The first part of getting your message across is the message itself. When what you are saying is clear and coherent, people are more likely to pay attention to it. On the other hand, when a message is ambiguous, people will often stop paying attention.

The second part of getting your message heard is having effective communication skills. You may have the best ideas in the world, but if you do not possess basic public speaking skills, you are going to have a problem getting anyone to listen. In this book, we will address the skills you should possess to effectively communicate your ideas to others.

Lastly, if you want your message to be heard, you should communicate passion for your message. One mistake that novice public speakers make is picking topics in which they have no emotional investment. If an audience can tell that you do not really care about your topic, they will just tune you out. Passion is the extra spark that draws people’s attention and makes them want to listen to your message.

Basic Components of Communication

Source/Encoder

Communication begins with an origin—the person sending the message, known as the source, sender, encoder, or speaker. The term “encoder” is often used since encoding involves sending a message. In public speaking, we act as sources both verbally and nonverbally, whether speaking or listening, making “speaker” not always the most fitting term.

Receiver/Decoder

In communication, the receiver is the primary intended audience, ranging from a few individuals in conversation to thousands in public speaking. Known as the listener, receiver, or decoder, this role involves decoding—receiving and interpreting a message. Receivers can process both intended and unintended messages.

Channel

The channel is the primary medium for communication, such as face-to-face, telephone, texting, letters, or mass media. The chosen channel can impact your message’s effectiveness. Some messages are best delivered face-to-face, while others suit an email or text. Consider how public speaking in person differs from delivering a speech via a computer screen.

Message

The message is the core idea or information you wish to convey, categorized as verbal or nonverbal. Verbal messages use language and word choice to communicate ideas, significantly affecting reception. Nonverbal messages involve vocal characteristics, gestures, body movements, and facial expressions, indicating enthusiasm or disinterest. Feedback is a receiver’s response, expressed verbally or nonverbally, such as clapping or asking questions.

Noise

Noise is any interference that prevents a message from being received as intended. It can be external or internal to the communication participants. Common types include physical, physiological, psychological, and semantic noise. Understanding these components provides a foundational grasp of communication, aiding your progress in this course. Additionally, exploring different communication views and models across channels is beneficial.

Models of Communication

A basic model of human communication is one of the first topics that most communication teachers start with in any class. For our focus on public speaking, we will introduce three widely discussed models in communication: linear, interactional, and transactional.

Infographic showing a message traveling in a channel and through noise from a source to a receiver.

The linear model of public speaking comes from the work of Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949). The original model mirrored how radio and telephone technologies functioned and consisted of three primary parts: source, channel, and receiver. The source was the part of a telephone a person spoke into, the channel was the telephone itself, and the receiver was the part of the phone where one could hear the other person. Shannon and Weaver also recognized that often there is static that interferes with listening to a telephone conversation, which they called noise.

Although there are a number of problems with applying this model to human communication, it does have some useful parallels to public speaking. In public speaking, the source is the person who is giving the speech, the channel is the speaker’s use of verbal and nonverbal communication, and the receivers are the audience members listening to the speech. As with a telephone call, a wide range of distractions (noise) can inhibit an audience member from accurately attending to a speaker’s speech. Avoiding or adapting to these types of noise is an important challenge for public speakers.

nfographic showing a message traveling in a channel and through noise from a source to a receiver. In addition, there is now feedback traveling from receiver to source.

The interactional model of communication developed by Wilbur Schramm builds upon the linear model (Schramm, 1954). Schramm added three major components to the Shannon and Weaver model. First, Schramm identified two basic processes of communication: encoding and decoding. Encoding is what a source does when “creating a message, adapting it to the receiver, and transmitting it across some source-selected channel” (Wrench, McCroskey & Richmond, 2008). When you are at home preparing your speech or standing in front of your classroom talking to your peers, you are participating in the encoding process.

The second major process is the decoding process, or “sensing (for example, hearing or seeing) a source’s message, interpreting the source’s message, evaluating the source’s message, and responding to the source’s message” (Wrench, McCroskey & Richmond, 2008). Decoding is relevant in the public speaking context when, as an audience member, you listen to the words of the speech, pay attention to nonverbal behaviors of the speaker, and attend to any presentation aids that the speaker uses. You should then interpret what the speaker is saying.

Although interpreting a speaker’s message may sound easy in theory, in practice many problems can arise. A speaker’s verbal message, nonverbal communication, and mediated presentation aids can all make a messageeither clearer or harder to understand. For example, unfamiliar vocabulary, speaking too fast or too softly, or small print on presentation aids may make it difficult for you to figure out what the speaker means. Conversely, by providing definitions of complex terms, using well-timed gestures, or displaying graphs of quantitative information, the speaker can help you interpret his or her meaning.

Once you have interpreted what the speaker is communicating, you then evaluate the message. Was it good? Do you agree or disagree with the speaker? Is a speaker’s argument logical? These are all questions that you may ask yourself when evaluating a speech.

The last part of decoding is “responding to a source’s message,” when the receiver encodes a message to send to the source. When a receiver sends a message back to a source, we call this process feedback. Schramm talks about three types of feedback: direct, moderately direct, and indirect (Schramm, 1954). The first type, direct feedback, occurs when the receiver directly talks to the source. For example, if a speech ends with a question-and-answer period, listeners will openly agree or disagree with the speaker. The second type of feedback, moderately direct, focuses on nonverbal messages sent while a source is speaking, such as audience members smiling and nodding their heads in agreement or looking at their watches or surreptitiously sending text messages during the speech. The final type of feedback, indirect, often involves a greater time gap between the actual message and the receiver’s feedback. For example, suppose you run for student body president and give speeches to a variety of groups all over campus, only to lose on student election day. Your audiences (the different groups you spoke to) have offered you indirect feedback on your message through their votes. One of the challenges you may face as a public speaker is how to respond effectively to audience feedback, particularly the direct and moderately direct forms of feedback you receive during your presentation.

Infographic of the transactional model of communication showing the co-creation of meaning between both source and receiver inside their fields' of experience.

One of the biggest concerns that some people have with the interactional model of communication is that it tends to place people into the category of either source or receiver with no overlap. Even with Schramm’s model, encoding and decoding are perceived as distinct for sources and receivers. Furthermore, the interactional model cannot handle situations where multiple sources are interacting at the same time (Mortenson, 1972). To address these weaknesses, Dean Barnlund (2008) proposed a transactional model of communication. The basic premise of the transactional model is that individuals are sending and receiving messages at the same time. Whereas the interactional model has individuals engaging in the role of either source or receiver and the meaning of a message is sent from the source to the receiver, the transactional model assumes that meaning is co-created by both people interacting together.

The idea that meanings are co-created between people is based on a concept called the “field of experience.” According to West and Turner, a field of experience involves “how a person’s culture, experiences, and heredity influence his or her ability to communicate with another” (West & Turner, 2010). Our education, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, personality, beliefs, actions, attitudes, languages, social status, past experiences, and customs are all aspects of our field of experience, which we bring to every interaction. For meaning to occur, we should have some shared experiences with our audience; this makes it challenging to speak effectively to audiences with very different experiences from our own. Our goal as public speakers is to build upon shared fields of experience so that we can help audience members interpret our message.

1.4 Communication is Learned

Everyone is born with the capacity and ability to communicate, but everyone communicates differently. This is because much of communication is learned rather than innate. As we have already seen, communication patterns are relative to the context and culture in which one is communicating, and many cultures have distinct languages consisting of symbols.

A key principle of communication is that it is symbolic. Communication is symbolic in that the words that make up our language systems do not directly correspond to something in reality. Instead, they stand in for or symbolize something. The fact that communication varies so much among people, contexts, and cultures illustrates the principle that meaning is not inherent in the words we use. For example, let’s say you go to France on vacation and see the word poisson on the menu. Unless you know how to read French, you will not know that the symbol is the same as the English symbol fish. Those two words don’t look the same at all, yet they symbolize the same object. If you went by how the word looks alone, you might think that the French word for fish is more like the English word poison and avoid choosing that for your dinner. Putting a picture of a fish on a menu would definitely help a foreign tourist understand what they are ordering, since the picture is an actual representation of the object rather than a symbol for it.

All symbolic communication is learned, negotiated, and dynamic. We know that the letters b-o-o- k refer to a bound object with multiple written pages. We also know that the letters t-r-u-c-k refer to a vehicle with a bed in the back for hauling things. But if we learned in school that the letters t-r-u-c-k referred to a bound object with written pages and b-o-o-k referred to a vehicle with a bed in the back, then that would make just as much sense, because the letters don’t actually refer to the object and the word itself only has the meaning that we assign to it.
We are all socialized into different languages, but we also speak different “languages” based on the situation we are in. For example, in some cultures it is considered inappropriate to talk about family or health issues in public, but it wouldn’t be odd to overhear people in a small town grocery store in the United States talking about their children or their upcoming surgery. There are some communication patterns shared by very large numbers of people and some that are particular to a dyad—best friends, for example, who have their own inside terminology and expressions that wouldn’t make sense to anyone else. These examples aren’t on the same scale as differing languages, but they still indicate that communication is learned. They also illustrate how rules and norms influence how we communicate.

1.5 Public Speaking in the Twenty-First Century

Effective public speaking involves understanding your audience, defining speaking goals, selecting engaging speech elements, and delivering the message skillfully. Despite its importance, many people dislike giving speeches. You might be reading this book for a class assignment, a personal or professional speech requirement, or simply out of interest, though the latter is less common.

People spend millions annually on professional speakers, like the 2010 TED conference, where attendees paid $6,000 each to hear 50 speeches. While you may not present at TED or go viral on YouTube, effective speaking is essential in various situations, including virtual meetings.

The good news is anyone can learn to give effective presentations. You don’t need celebrity status or fancy words; clarity and memorability are key. This book offers techniques to craft engaging speeches and present them in your style.

Successful speakers plan, organize, and revise their material. This book guides you through the basics of effective public speaking and helps you create impactful presentations.

1.6 Why is Public Speaking Important?

In today’s world, we encounter countless messages, including hundreds of advertising messages daily. With overwhelming content, accessible communication is crucial. To understand public speaking’s importance, we’ll explore its role in everyday life and discuss its personal benefits.

Everyday Public Speaking

Daily, people worldwide engage in public speaking before audiences. You might speak to college students, present in a psychology class, address the Student Government Association, or speak at a religious function. These interactions offer opportunities to impact your community. Public speeches typically fall into three categories: informative, persuasive, and special occasion.

Informative Speaking

Informative speaking is a prevalent form of public speaking aimed at sharing knowledge with an audience. It serves various purposes, such as instructing coworkers on new software, reporting project progress to managers, or discussing volunteer activities. The common goal is to impart information.

Many professions, beyond TV announcers, teachers, lawyers, and entertainers, benefit from public speaking skills. Informative speaking is integral to occupations like physicians lecturing to students, teachers presenting to parents, and firefighters demonstrating fire control techniques. Financial planners may conduct sessions on retirement planning.

With 70% of jobs involving public speaking (Aras, 2012), effectively transmitting ideas is a crucial personal and professional skill. Learning to speak effectively is essential in today’s world.

Persuasive Speaking

Persuade aims to convince, motivate, or influence others to change beliefs, take action, or reconsider decisions. Examples include advocating for music education, convincing clients to buy products, or inspiring students to attend college.

With the shift from manufacturing to service careers, effective communication is crucial. Top CEOs emphasize that great leaders must persuade, build support, and negotiate (Farrell, 2011). Professional speakers can earn millions by motivating others. Whether frequent or occasional, persuasive speaking is challenging but can be personally and professionally rewarding.

Special Occasion Speaking

Special occasion speaking speaking encompasses a variety of events, such as introductions, wedding toasts, award presentations, eulogies, after-dinner speeches, and motivational speeches. This form of speaking dates back to ancient Greece, where Aristotle identified epideictic speaking as significant.

Professionals, including religious leaders and comedians, often deliver entertaining special occasion speeches. Effective special occasion speaking requires preparation and practice, as evidenced by awards shows and wedding toasts.

Personal Benefits of Public Speaking

Oral communication skills were the number one skill that college graduates found useful in a business setting, according to a study by sociologist Andrew Zekeri (2004). That fact alone makes learning about public speaking worthwhile. However, there are many other benefits of communicating effectively for the hundreds of thousands of college students every year who take public speaking courses. Let’s take a look at some specific personal benefits you will get both from taking a course in public speaking and from actually giving public speeches.

Benefits of Public Speaking Courses

In addition to learning the process of creating and delivering an effective speech, students of public speaking leave the class with a number of other benefits as well. Some of these benefits include developing critical thinking skills, strengthening verbal and nonverbal skills, and building public speaking confidence.

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

A key benefit of a public speaking course is enhanced critical thinking, including problem-solving. Preparing persuasive speeches involves addressing real issues and proposing solutions, considering both positive and negative consequences. For example, solving a campus parking shortage may initially seem simple, but deeper analysis reveals challenges like costs, environmental impact, and limited space.

Critical thinking in public speaking aids in persuading others and is valuable in life. Oral communication and problem-solving skills are highly rated for business success (Zekeri study).

Public speaking also improves research skills. Effective speakers provide credible evidence to persuade audiences, refining your ability to find and use various sources.

Strengthening Verbal and Nonverbal Skills

A public speaking course enhances both verbal and nonverbal communication skills. Whether experienced or new to public speaking, practicing and receiving feedback improves overall communication. Feedback helps identify habits like hair twirling or mispronunciations.

Effective speaking skills boost employability and career advancement. Employers and organizations like NACE prioritize good communication skills (Koncz & Allen, 2012). Articulating thoughts clearly aids in job interviews and performance (McKay, 2005).

Many invest in speech coaches and workshops to improve nonverbal skills, often paying over $100 per hour. Leverage your professor as a built-in speech coach to enhance your skills.

Building Confidence in Public Speaking

A public speaking class boosts confidence in public speaking by reducing anxiety. Most people feel anxious about speaking publicly, regardless of experience. Research by Rose and Rancer shows anxiety levels decrease over a semester (1993). This is partly due to increased exposure to public speaking.

The course familiarizes students with the process, enhancing confidence and reducing apprehension. You’ll also learn strategies to overcome speech anxiety, which will be covered in detail throughout this book.

Benefits of Engaging in Public Speaking

Once you have learned the basic skills associated with public speaking, you will find that being able to effectively speak in public has profound benefits, including influencing the world around you, developing leadership skills, and becoming a thought leader.

Influencing the World Around You

If you dislike something in your local government, speak out! Speech is a powerful tool for societal change. Citizens worldwide influence change by speaking out on issues like fracking or supporting local leaders. Searching “citizens speak out” online reveals numerous examples of impactful speech.

In a democracy, the right to stand up and speak out is a privilege not available everywhere. If you’re seeking change, use the power of speech to be the force of change.

Developing Leadership Skills

Aspiring to climb the corporate ladder and attain a leadership position? Public speaking skills are crucial. Hackman and Johnson emphasize their necessity for leaders (2004). Effective communication is key to guiding followers.

Bender states, “Powerful leadership comes from knowing what matters to you. Powerful presentations come from expressing this effectively” (1998). Developing public speaking skills is vital for leaders, prompting executives to invest in workshops, coaches, books, and tutorials annually.

Becoming a Thought Leader

Effective public speaking can establish you as a thought leader, even without an official leadership role. Joel Kurtzman coined this term for individuals contributing new business ideas. Ken Lizotte states, “when your colleagues, prospects, and customers view you as one very smart guy or gal to know, then you are a thought leader” (2008).

Thought leaders engage in behaviors like conducting research and communicating ideas through writing and public speaking. Achieving thought leader status is personally and financially rewarding, increasing desirability and income. Business gurus emphasize “intellectual capital,” combining knowledge and communication skills (Lizotte, 2008).

Thought leaders use public speaking to shape the future, whether addressing executives or delivering webinars.

1.7 Communication Competence

Communication competence has become a focus in higher education over the past couple of decades as educational policy makers and advocates have stressed a “back to basics” mentality (McCroskey, 1984). The ability to communicate effectively is often included as a primary undergraduate learning goal along with other key skills like writing, critical thinking, and problem solving. You likely haven’t heard professors or university administrators use the term communication competence, but as we learn more about it in this section, you will see how communication competence can benefit you in many aspects of your life.

Defining Competence

We have already defined communication, and you probably know that to be competent at something means you know what you’re doing. When we combine these terms, we get the following definition: communication competence refers to the knowledge of effective and appropriate communication patterns and the ability to use and adapt that knowledge in various contexts (Cooley & Roach, 1984). To better understand this definition, let’s break apart its components.

The first part of the definition we will unpack deals with knowledge. The cognitive elements of competence include knowing how to do something and understanding why things are done the way they are (Hargie, 2011). People can develop cognitive competence by observing and evaluating the actions of others. Cognitive competence can also be developed through instruction. As you build a repertoire of communication knowledge based on your experiential and classroom knowledge, you will also be developing behavioral competence.

The second part of the definition of communication competence that we will unpack is the ability to use. Individual factors affect our ability to do anything. Not everyone has the same athletic, musical, or intellectual ability. At the individual level, a person’s physiological and psychological characteristics affect competence. For example, you might know strategies for being an effective speaker, but public speaking anxiety that kicks in when you get in front of the audience may prevent you from fully putting that knowledge into practice.

The third part of the definition we will unpack is ability to adapt to various contexts. What is competent or not varies based on social and cultural context, which makes it impossible to have only one standard for what counts as communication competence (Cooley & Roach, 1984). Social variables such as status and power affect competence. In a social situation where one person—say, a supervisor—has more power than another—for example, his or her employee—then the supervisor is typically the one who sets the standard for competence. Cultural variables such as race and nationality also affect competence. A Taiwanese woman who speaks English as her second language may be praised for her competence in the English language in her home country but be viewed as less competent in the United States because of her accent. In summary, although we have a clear definition of communication competence, there are not definitions for how to be competent in any given situation, since competence varies at the individual, social, and cultural level.

Despite the fact that no guidelines for or definitions of competence will be applicable in all situations, the National Communication Association (NCA) has identified many aspects of competence related to communication. The primary focus has been on competencies related to speaking and listening, and the NCA notes that developing communication competence in these areas will help people in academic, professional, and civic contexts (Morreale, Rubin, & Jones, 1998). To help colleges and universities develop curriculum and instruction strategies to prepare students, the NCA has defined what students should be able to do in terms of speaking and listening competencies by the time they graduate from college:

1. State ideas clearly.

2. Communicate ethically.

3. Recognize when it is appropriate to communicate.

4. Identify their communication goals.

5. Select the most appropriate and effective medium for communicating.

6. Demonstrate credibility.

7. Identify and manage misunderstandings.

8. Manage conflict.

9. Be open-minded about another’s point of view.

10. Listen attentively.

These are just some of the competencies the NCA identified as important for college graduates. While these are skill focused rather than interpersonally or culturally focused, they provide a concrete way to assess your own speaking competencies and to prepare yourself for professional speaking and listening, which is often skill driven.

Developing Competence

Knowing the dimensions of competence is an important first step toward developing competence. Everyone has some experience with and knowledge about communication. After all, you’ve spent many years explicitly and implicitly learning to communicate. For example, we are explicitly taught the verbal codes we use to communicate. On the other hand, although there are numerous rules and norms associated with nonverbal communication, we rarely receive explicit instruction on how to do it. Instead, we learn by observing others and through trial and error with our own nonverbal communication. Competence obviously involves verbal and nonverbal elements, but it also applies to many situations and contexts. Communication competence is needed in order to understand communication ethics, to develop cultural awareness, to use computer-mediated communication, and to think critically. Competence involves knowledge, motivation, and skills. It’s not enough to know what good communication consists of; you must also have the motivation to reflect on and better your communication and the skills needed to do so.

One way to progress toward communication competence is to become a more mindful communicator. A mindful communicator actively and fluidly processes information, is sensitive to communication contexts and multiple perspectives, and is able to adapt to novel communication situations (Burgoon, Berger, & Waldron, 2000). Becoming a more mindful communicator has many benefits, including achieving communication goals, detecting deception, avoiding stereotypes, and reducing conflict. Whether or not we achieve our day-to-day communication goals depends on our communication competence. Various communication behaviors can signal that we are communicating mindfully. For example, asking an employee to paraphrase their understanding of the instructions you just gave them shows that you are aware that verbal messages are not always clear, that people do not always listen actively, and that people often do not speak up when they are unsure of instructions for fear of appearing incompetent or embarrassing themselves. Some communication behaviors indicate that we are not communicating mindfully, such as withdrawing from a romantic partner or engaging in passive-aggressive behavior during a period of interpersonal conflict. Most of us know that such behaviors lead to predictable and avoidable conflict cycles, yet we are all guilty of them. Our tendency to assume that people are telling us the truth can also lead to negative results. Therefore, a certain amount of tentativeness and mindful monitoring of a person’s nonverbal and verbal communication can help us detect deception. However, this is not the same thing as chronic suspicion, which would not indicate communication competence.

1.8 Dialogic Theory of Public Speaking

Public speaking is often seen as a monologue, but Ronald Arnett and Pat Arneson suggest it can be viewed as a dialogue (1999). The dialogic theory rests on three principles:

Dialogue is more natural than monologue.
Meanings are in people, not words.
Contexts and social situations impact perceived meanings (Bakhtin, 2001a; Bakhtin, 2001b).

Dialogue vs Monologue

The dialogic perspective emphasizes dialogue over monologue. Lev Yakubinsky noted that public speaking often becomes dialogue when audiences engage by asking questions. Nonverbal behavior like nodding or scowling provides feedback, enhancing dialogue (Yakubinsky, 1997).

Approaching public speaking as a dialogue increases engagement and attentiveness to audience responses, fostering more active audience participation.

Meanings Are in People, Not Words

In public speaking, recognize that you and your audience may interpret words differently. Geissner and Slembeck emphasize that word meanings should be mutually understood (1986). For example, “dog” might evoke a pet for you but a traumatic memory for someone else.

Craft messages with the audience in mind and use feedback to ensure intended meanings are received. Understanding your audience allows for appropriate language choices. For instance, using teenage slang at a senior center may hinder clear communication.

Contexts and Social Situations

Russian scholar Mikhail Bahktin (2001a, 2001b) notes that human interactions take place according to cultural norms and rules. How we approach people, the words we choose, and how we deliver speeches are all dependent on different speaking contexts and social situations. On September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama addressed school children with a televised speech (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-national-address-americas-schoolchildren). If you look at the speech he delivered to kids around the country and then at his speeches targeted toward adults, you will see lots of differences. These dissimilar speeches are necessary because the audiences (speaking to kids vs. speaking to adults) have different experiences and levels of knowledge. Ultimately, good public speaking is a matter of taking into account the cultural background of your audience and attempting to engage your audience in a dialogue from their own vantage point.

Considering the context of a public speech involves thinking about four dimensions: physical, temporal, social-psychological, and cultural (DeVito, 2009).

Physical Dimension

The physical dimension of communication involves the real or touchable environment where communication occurs. For example, you may find yourself speaking in a classroom, a corporate board room, or a large amphitheater. Each of these real environments will influence your ability to interact with your audience. Larger physical spaces may require you to use a microphone and speaker system to make yourself heard or to use projected presentation aids to convey visual material.

How the room is physically decorated or designed can also impact your interaction with your audience. If the room is dimly lit or is decorated with interesting posters, audience members’ minds may start wandering. If the room is too hot, you will find people becoming sleepy. As speakers, we often have little or no control over our physical environment, but we always need to take it into account when planning and delivering our messages.

Temporal Dimension

According to Joseph DeVito, the temporal dimension “has to do not only with the time of day and moment in history but also with where a particular message fits into the sequence of communication events” (DeVito, 2009). The time of day can have a dramatic effect on how alert one’s audience is. Don’t believe us? Try giving a speech in front of a class around 12:30 p.m. when no one’s had lunch. It is amazing how impatient audience members get once hunger sets in.

In addition to the time of day, we often face temporal dimensions related to how our speech will be viewed in light of societal events. Imagine how a speech on the importance of campus security would be interpreted on the day after a shooting occurred. Compare this with the interpretation of the same speech given at a time when the campus had not had any shootings for years, if ever.

Another element of the temporal dimension is how a message fits with what happens immediately before it. For example, if another speaker has just given an intense speech on death and dying and you stand up to speak about something more trivial, people may downplay your message because it does not fit with the serious tone established by the earlier speech. You never want to be the funny speaker who has to follow an emotional speech where people cried. Most of the time in a speech class, you will have no advance notice as to what the speaker before you will be talking about. Therefore, it is wise to plan on being sensitive to previous topics and be prepared to ease your way subtly into your message if the situation so dictates.

Social-Psychological Dimension

The social-psychological dimension of context refers to “status relationships among participants, roles and games that people play, norms of the society or group, and the friendliness, formality, or gravity of the situation” (DeVito, 2009). You have to know the types of people in your audience and how they react to a wide range of messages.

Cultural Dimension

The final context dimension Joseph DeVito mentions is the cultural dimension (DeVito, 2009). When we interact with others from different cultures, misunderstandings can result from differing cultural beliefs, norms, and practices. As public speakers engaging in a dialogue with our audience members, we should attempt to understand the cultural makeup of our audience so that we can avoid these misunderstandings as much as possible.

Each of these elements of context is a challenge for you as a speaker. Throughout the rest of the book, we will discuss how you can meet the challenges presented by the audience and context and become a more effective public speaker in the process.

1.9 RESOURCES

Discussion Questions

What areas of public speaking do you think will be most challenging for you? Why? What are some plans to overcome these challenges?
How might becoming a more effective and confident public speaker affect your life? Consider the differences between personal and professional impacts.
What are your feelings and/or experiences with public speaking? How might this skill be used in your future?
Think about your own field of experience through positionality and perspectives. How has your gender, work history, religious affiliation, relationship status, educational experiences, major, socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, race, hometown, political affiliation and life experiences influenced your attitudes, beliefs, and values? Give some concrete examples.
What are the three fundamental components of getting your message across according to your text? Do you feel any components are missing or should be added?
What are three ways that you will use public speaking in your future career (personal & professional)?
What are the key differences between intrapersonal and interpersonal communication? How do these differences affect the intentionality and goals of each form?
How does group communication differ from interpersonal communication in terms of structure and purpose? Can you provide examples of situations where each form would be more appropriate?
How does mass communication utilize technology differently compared to other forms of communication? What are some advantages and disadvantages of this reliance on technology?
Consider the impact of mass communication on your daily life. How do you think mass media shapes public opinion, and what role do you play as a consumer of mass communication?

Activities

Reflect on your own desire for improved communication and public speaking skills in your life. Set three or four personal and/or professional goals you hope to achieve by taking this class.
Think of a career path that you are considering. Using that occupation do a quick internet search of that position with the term, “public speaking”. Discuss your findings with a classmate or friend.(e.g. “nurse and public speaking”).
Form six groups. Each group will be given a blank piece of paper, crayons/markers/colored pencils, and a different process of public speaking (linear model of public speaking, interactional model of public speaking, transactional model of public speaking, dialogic theory of public speaking, contexts and social situations of public speaking). Groups should draw a model or picture that represents their selected process of public speaking. Groups will display and explain their drawings to the class.
Divide the class into groups and assign each group a specific form of communication (intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, public, mass). Have each group prepare and present a short skit or scenario demonstrating their assigned form of communication. Follow up with a class discussion on the similarities and differences observed.
Assign students to analyze a piece of mass communication (e.g., a news article, TV show, social media post). Have them identify the message’s goals, audience, and the technology used for transmission. Discuss how the message’s formality and intentionality impact its effectiveness and audience reception.

Attribution

Sections 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.8 are adapted from Introduction to Speech Communication, copyright © 2021 by Sarah E. Hollingsworth; Megan Linsenmeyer; Terrisa Elwood; Sasha Hanrahan; and Mary Walker, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, except where otherwise noted.

Section 1.2, 1.4, and 1.7 are adapted from Communication in the Real World, copyright © 2022 by Faculty members in the School of Communication Studies ,James Madison University, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, except where otherwise noted.

References

Arnett, R. C., & Arneson, P. (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age: Community, hope, and interpersonal relationships. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Bakhtin, M. (2001a). The problem of speech genres. (V. W. McGee, Trans., 1986). In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition (pp. 1227–1245). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. (Original work published in 1953).

Bakhtin, M. (2001b). Marxism and the philosophy of language. (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans., 1973). In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition (pp. 1210–1226). Boston, MA: Medford/St. Martin’s. (Original work published in 1953).

Barnlund, D. C. (2008). A transactional model of communication. In C. D. Mortensen (Ed.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp. 47–57). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Beebe, S. A., & Beebe, S. J. (2021). Public speaking: An audience-centered approach (11th ed.). Pearson.

Bender, P. U. (1998). Stand, deliver and lead. Ivey Business Journal, 62(3), 46–47.

Berkun, S. (2009, March 4). Does public speaking matter in 2009? [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.scottberkun.com/blog.

Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 662–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02650.x

Burgoon, J. K., Berger, C. R., & Waldron, V. R. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal communication. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00154

Cooley, R. E., & Roach, D. A. (1984). A conceptual framework. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 11-32). Sage.

Dance, F. E. X., & Larson, C. E. (1976). The functions of human communication: A theoretical approach. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

DeVito, J. A. (2009). The interpersonal communication book (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Edmund, N. W. (2005). End the biggest educational and intellectual blunder in history: A $100,000 challenge to our top educational leaders. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Scientific Method Publishing Co.

Geissner, H., & Slembek, E. (1986). Miteinander sprechen und handeln [Speak and act: Living and working together]. Frankfurt, Germany: Scriptor.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice. Routledge.

Hartley, P. (1999). Defining what we mean by interpersonal communication. In Interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 16-27). Routledge.

Keith, W. (2008). On the origins of speech as a discipline: James A. Winans and public speaking as practical democracy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 38(3), 239–258.

Lizotte, K. (2008). The expert’s edge: Become the go-to authority people turn to every time [Kindle 2 version]. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from Amazon.com (locations 72–78).

McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Communication competence: The elusive construct. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 260). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Morreale, S., Rubin, R. B., & Jones, E. (1998). Speaking and listening competencies for college students. National Communication Association.

Mortenson, C. D. (1972). Communication: The study of human communication. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Poe, M. T. (2011). A history of communications: Media and society from the evolution of speech to the internet. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Powell, D. (1996). Group communication. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 50-53. https://doi.org/10.1145/227210.227225

Rose, H. M., & Rancer, A. S. (1993). The impact of basic courses in oral interpretation and public speaking on communication apprehension. Communication Reports, 6, 54–60.

Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of communication (pp. 3–26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Survey of Human Communication (OER text). Retrieved from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. LibreTexts content is licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.

Vocate, D. R. (1994). Intrapersonal communication: Different voices, different minds. Lawrence Erlbaum.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2008). Human communication in everyday life: Explanations and applications. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Yakubinsky, L. P. (1997). On dialogic speech. (M. Eskin, Trans.). PMLA, 112(2), 249–256. (Original work published in 1923).

Zekeri, A. A. (2004). College curriculum competencies and skills former students found essential to their careers. College Student Journal, 38, 412–422.

Media Attributions

Principles-of-Communication-2-red
Source-3-red
Interactional-Model-of-Communication-red
Transactional-Model-of-Communication-red
Why-take-a-Public-Speaking-Course-red

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Oral Communication for INAG110 Copyright © 2025 by Amy Fisher and the University of Maryland Institute of Applied Agriculture is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.