![]()
Chapter 1
Types of Professional Talks
THE FOUR TYPES OF TALKS
Memorized Talk
This type of talk is rarely used, especially in a substantial presentation. It requires too much time; it is fraught with great danger because the failure to remember leads to unneeded embarrassment; it usually becomes an inferior form of presentation, unless the speaker is a trained actor.
However, it must be pointed out that there may be instances in which a speaker will want to memorize a certain passage (a poem, a quotation) or certain statistics to be used in the talk. The memorized talk is so poor a possibility for medical speaking that no further mention of it will be made in this book.
Manuscript Talk
This is a talk in which the speaker reads verbatim from a written manuscript. The speaker might have prepared a written paper (for publication) and, when asked to present it orally, decided to read the paper to the group. Or, the speaker may prepare a speech especially written for the occasion and then read it to the audience. The speaker may commission an outsider (especially one skilled in writing speeches) to prepare a manuscript for this presentation. The first two are very frequent occurrences at professional meetings, and the last is rather rare. Because of the frequency of the first two, more will be described about them later in the book.
Extemporaneous Talk
Some dictionaries define extemporaneous as carefully prepared but delivered without notes or text. They also offer impromptu as a synonym. Certainly, there is a great deal of semantics in defining these two words and differentiating them.
For purposes of clarity in this book, I shall use relatively common meanings. Extemporaneous will be used to mean prepared (either with or without notes or text) but delivered without writing out the specific words.
Here, too, there are a number of variations. Some speakers may prepare a fully written manuscript for the talk and then use it as an outline or prompter for the extemporaneous talk. Very often, when this is done, the speaker may “mark up” his manuscript to serve as a sort of outline during the speech. Other speakers may prepare outlines (of varying kinds) to serve as prompters for their talk.
Impromptu Talk
Impromptu here will be used here to mean an on-the-spot, improvised presentation where there is no formal preparation—only an accumulation of knowledge that permits the speaker to call on this background on the spur of the moment.
All these talks require preparation in varying degrees and varying amounts. In those written out or outlined, the preparation is obvious. The impromptu talk requires some background and a pool of knowledge from which to draw, either as a spur-of-the-moment commentary or in reply to questions. For example, I could never give an impromptu talk on architecture, or carpentry, or nuclear science. I have no background, and therefore, an impromptu talk is impossible. However, in the field of medicine, at least some certain aspects of medicine, I could answer questions or make a spontaneous commentary if called upon to do so.
Probably the most famous story about impromptu talks concerned Daniel Webster, one of the greatest orators who ever served in the U.S. Senate. On one particular day, a subject came up about which Daniel Webster felt strongly. He rose to his feet, asked for the floor, and gave one of his brilliant orations; it lasted almost three hours. When he finished, he was surrounded by well-wishers, one of whom asked, “Senator Webster, how long did it take you to write that speech?” Webster looked at the questioner briefly and replied, “Thirty years, thirty years.”
My readers may question where teaching in professional school fits into this classification. Although most of this book is devoted to other kinds of presentations, the professional lecture is usually an extemporaneous presentation, with instructors using outlines or audiovisual slides to focus on a prepared subject. For the most part, reading of a manuscript occurs rarely, and when it does, the result is almost disastrous. Impromptu talks, even by an instructor who has a fabulous background in the subject, generally show lack of concern for the audience; they will almost never be adequately organized and should never be used.
![]()
Chapter 2
Writing a Professional Speech
The aim of a professional speech is to create the best communication between the speaker and the audience. Oral and written communication are different so writing a medical paper for oral presentation requires skills in addition to the usual writing skills. In many instances, this means modifying a published paper so that the listeners' absorption and understanding is maximum.
Why is an oral presentation different? It is obvious that the listeners cannot go back and reread a sentence or word they have missed. They must be able to have instantaneous recognition and understanding of the words and thoughts as they are being spoken. In order to achieve this, the writing must be different from the usual published presentation. In fact, the manuscript should always reflect the speaking style of the speaker, whether he or she is doing the writing or not.
Does this mean that a splendidly written (published or about-to-be published) paper cannot be read? First, most of us have an exaggerated idea of how “splendidly written” our articles are once they have been accepted for publication. Second, most papers written for publication are deliberately made to be understandable to the eye (and not to the ear, which is different). Third, because of the first two reasons, the words and phrases themselves tend to be flat and boring and require the investment of much concentration and energy for a listener to comprehend. And fourth, these three may sometimes combine with what may be a dull, uninteresting reading style that puts the audience to sleep.
Thus, I recommend that a speech written for publication never be read to an audience. Further, if a professional talk is to be read, either prepare it de novo or rewrite the publication paper to put it in proper condition for reading.
WRITING THE TALK
First, I highly recommend that speeches being prepared for delivery should originally be tape recorded using a dictating machine. We human beings can think at least five times as fast as we can handwrite, and we have a tendency in writing to edit as we go along. This creates two problems. First, the editing interferes with the smooth flow of thought that the writer has initially. By the time you write down your thoughts, and do even light editing as you write, you often forget what you had in mind. Second, the slower pace of writing (or typing) slows down the entire process. Dictating is preferred also because this type of composition will reflect your style of speech. However, I must emphasize that very few people can turn out a finished speech manuscript with a single dictation, anymore than most people can turn out a finished manuscript for publication in one writing. Therefore, the manuscript for a speech must be rewritten (no matter which method you use for the first draft), perhaps several times. It needs rewriting for accuracy of thought and word, and it needs rewriting to be certain it is understandable to the ear.
Since listeners have a shorter attention span than readers and cannot refer back to words or thoughts already spoken, the manuscript must be carefully reviewed from the standpoint of the listener.
What then are some of the clues to making a manuscript better for speech than for publication?
- A manuscript for speech should contain shorter sentences, and they must have absolute clarity.
- The manuscript should contain both simple and compound sentences. Complex sentences may be used from time to time for variety, but the author must be absolutely sure that they are clear and have no confusing parts to them. Use fewer of them than in a manuscript for publication. (This paragraph is a good example of the mix of sentences.)
- A manuscript for speech should contain stronger, punchier words.
- Watch out for “whiches.” These generally prolong sentences and confuse the listener. It is much better to make separate sentences because the listener may have difficulty identifying the antecedent of the “which.” Try reading to someone the following sentence: “The patient vomited and I gave him medication which caused him to be very thirsty.” Just in reading this, confusion abounds. How much more complicated it is to decipher this statement purely by listening.
- Watch out for “this” or “that” when they are used to refer to a complex antecedent. They present the same problem as “which.” Think about listening to this sentence: “I gave the patient penicillin and a venoclysis as treatment for infection. This complicated his hospital stay.” What does “this” refer to? Penicillin? Venoclysis? Infection? If it's ambiguous when reading it, think about how it sounds.
- For similar reasons, a speaker should never make references using words such as “former,” “latter,” “above,” “previous,” or similar words. Again, in reading, you can look back to see what the word refers to. But in listening, there is no looking back. These references are to previously spoken ideas, and the listener may already have lost track of them. It is far better to repeat, in a capsule word or phrase, the idea that you are referring to so that there is no question in the listener's mind which idea you mean. You can say, “that program” instead of “the former” or “my therapeutic approach” rather than “the latter.”
- The same care applies to personal pronouns.
- Avoid stumble words. These are words with which a particular speaker may have difficulty because of the combination of vowels and consonants that occur. Not everyone has the same difficulties in speaking, and you will have to identify those words or phrases you are likely to stumble on. There are people who can say, “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers,” without making a single mistake and say it as fast as necessary. On the other hand, there are people who stumble over simple combinations of words such as “especially susceptible,” which is one of my stumble phrases. This is an example of why it is necessary to know yourself and your speaking abilities.
- Avoid sibilants. Even the best of speakers gets into difficulty with the “S” sounds, particularly if they occur in series; it may sound like the speaker is whistling. This is made even worse if he or she is using a microphone. Words such as “lawlessness” or “uselessness” should be eliminated if you have the least bit of difficulty with them. “Especially susceptible,” referred to previously, is another “whistler.” Other phrases should be substituted for them. Learn to know your own speech patterns well.
- Transition words should be used; they greatly help the listeners' understanding. Introductory words such as “now,” “however,” and others should be used to tie one thought into another for clarity to the listener.
- Simplify all difficult words and symbols. This means substituting simple words for complex words when they mean the same thing, such as “breathe” for “respire.” (This is just as applicable in writing for publication.) It also means sometimes using a nonverbal symbol or gesture to help the listener understand. For example, if you are discussing a complex chemical formula, you don't want to repeat the entire formula symbol by symbol each time you say it or use a complex chemical term. If there is not a key word that will describe it, then perhaps writing the formula on a blackboard or projecting it on a screen and pointing to it each time will make it clear. Or, you might refer to it each time by such a term as “this compound.”
- In writing for listening, you should only use the first and second person (I, me, you) and never impersonal words such as “one,” “this researcher,” or “this writer.” These are stilted and confusing. Always use the active voice: this is the way we talk in our normal conversations, and this is the way you should talk from the platform.
- Although references to other publications are frequent in published articles, they appear to be wasted in most talks, unless the publication or writer is of universal stature and known by everybody. Quoting names that are unknown or unrecognizable to most of your audience will not impress them, but it might make them think you are a name-dropper. Allusions to unknown persons or to unknown events or to information known only to the speaker and a specific group will lose the audience and have no value whatsoever. On the other hand, referring to or quoting a universally known authority will be understood and may give authority to your talk.
ALWAYS REMEMBER, YOU ARE TALKING TO A LISTENER!
WRITING FOR OTHERS
To write a speech for someone else, you must know the speaker, for the speech must reflect the personality of the speaker, not the writer. The writer should know the speaker's likes and dislikes, capabilities and limitations. What kinds of humor is the speaker capable of? In what kinds of humor is he or she somewhat restricted? How intellectual is he or she? How populist? The better the writer knows the speaker, the better the speech will be. It is important that the speech reflect the tone and intellect and interests of the speaker in order to be consistent and credible. Good publication writers are not necessarily good speech writers, although they may be.
It should go without saying that the writer is not doing a presentation of his or her own but rather should write the talk as though the speaker had written it. If a speechwriter produces a manuscript that sounds like the speaker's own words, it is a good, well-prepared talk.
Once the manuscript is prepared, the writer must review it with the speaker, and no matter how much “pride of authorship” there is, the writer should never push anything on the speaker if the speaker is uncomfortable with it. It may be necessary (and wise) to review the talk with the speaker several times. It is of equally great value for the speaker to rehearse the talk in front of the writer. This allows for two important things: rehearsal gives both of them an opportunity to check the speech and the presentation, and the writer gains an opportunity to check on the speaker's delivery and to help with ...
