New Series

Since the title of the blog is Parts of Speaking, and since I originally started it with the mission of discussing communication topics, I am going to post through the next month on the subject of public speaking, using my curriculum in the class I teach.  Each day will be a short observation.

Today, the starting place: Communication always involves a content and relationship dimension.  This is a highly important concept and one that budding public speakers often forget.  The process of communication (and it is a process, not an event) involves content (ideas, information, facts), but that is not all.  Public speakers often think that’s all that is going on, but that’s only a part.  There is also always a relationship dimension; in other words, there are statements or implications being made about power, liking, connection, trust, and status.  In rhetorical studies, we call that angle “ethos” or “credibility,” which we will talk about more later.   

 Content is primarily shared through verbal (language) means.  Relationship is shared by both verbal and nonverbal means.  You have probably heard the old chestnut “93% of communication is nonverbal.”  That is often quoted, but somewhat out of context.  Alfred Mehrabian was the scholar of nonverbal communication who came up with that number, but it is best to relate that number (which is probably extreme) to the relationship dimension of communication.  In other words, while some of the relationship dimension (how much we trust or like others) is conveyed through verbal means (words), most of it is conveyed through nonverbal means (voice, eye contact, facial expression, posture, gestures, clothing, time, touch, space).

Interestingly, people tend to focus on the “reportorial” side of public speaking (just the facts, ma’am) and not the relational side.  Aristotle called this relational, trust-based side “ethos” which we today tend to call “credibility.”  Credibility comes from many factors, as we will see in the class, but some of them are psychological more than logical, relational more than informational.  Why do we trust people?  Not just because they are competent and intelligent.