Sunday, February 20, 2011

Online Analysis of Informative Speeches: Chili Peppers & Acupuncture Speeches


Marissa Perszyk
February 16, 2011
Comm 1212
Bottom of Form

General observations:

1. What are the general purposes of each speech?
            The general purpose for the speech “The Hidden of Chili Peppers” was to inform the audience what the speaker had learned about of the history of chili peppers, why chili peppers are so spicy, what to do if one eats a chili pepper that is too spicy, and some of the different ways that chili peppers are used other than the use of adding spice to foods.
2. What would be the specific purpose for Chili Pepper speech?
The specific purpose for the speech is the statement, “Today I’d like to share with you what I’ve learned about the history of chili peppers, why they can be so spicy, what to do if you eat a too-hot pepper, and some of the ways peppers are used other than in foods.” I know that this is the specific purpose of the speech because it is a single infinitive phrase that states precisely what the speaker hopes to accomplish in the speech.
 
3. What is the Central Idea (thesis) for each speech?
The central idea for this speech is that statement “…you just took a bite of a screaming hot chili pepper.” I know that this is the central idea because it is a one sentence statement that sums up the major idea of the speech.  

4. How do the speakers catch attention?
The speaker catches the reader’s/listener’s attention by opening asking a series of questions that get the audience thinking and engaged with the speech. In doing this the speaker is drawing the reader/listener in by painting a picture of what happens to the chemistry of one’s body as they eat chili peppers.

5. How does author of Chili Peppers show credibility?
The author of the Chili Peppers speech shows credibility a number of six times throughout the speech by listening both the author AND the book title of each source. The author also shows credibility by mentioning their own experience with chili peppers which establishes their own credibility.
6. List the previews for each speech.
            The preview for the Chili Pepper speech is
1.      what I’ve learned (the speaker) about the history of chili peppers
2.      why they can be so spicy
3.      what to do if you eat a too-hot pepper
4.      and some of the ways peppers are used other than in foods

            The preview for the Acupuncture speech is
1.      the history of acupuncture
2.      the speaker’s experience with acupuncture
3.      and the medical uses for acupuncture

7. What type of organizational pattern are used for each of the speeches?
The Chili Pepper speech is more of a topical, point by point, type of speech whereas the Acupuncture speech is more of a causal speech, talking about the effects of acupuncture. I believe that the Chili Pepper speech is more of a topical speech because the author lists the main points that they will talk about and then goes through them point by point, and I believe that the Acupuncture speech is a causal speech because I fell that the author explained the reasons why acupuncture is used and how it effects the body and also the speech lists the different symptoms and causes where acupuncture could be done and how it has worked in today’s society.

8. List statistics cited in one of the speeches.
In the Acupuncture speech there is a statistic that says, “The National Institute of Health report that more than 8 million Americans have tried acupuncture, and its use throughout the rest of the Western world is growing fast.” There is also another statistic in the Acupuncture speech that says, “The World health Organization lists more than 40 conditions that can be effectively treated with acupuncture, including ear, nose and throat ailments.” These statistics that are given help support the speech a lot by proving to the audience that you as a speaker did the research and know the facts of what you are talking about.

9. List Authorities cited or quoted in one of the speeches.
The sources that the author of the Chili Peppers speech used to support their statements are The Cambridge World History of Food, Carolyn Dille and Susan Delsinger, authors of the book The Chili Pepper Book, P.W. Bosland author of the book Spices, Herbs, and Edible Fungi, Dave DeWitt in the Chili Pepper Encyclopedia, The New York Times, and author Jack Challem of The Nutrition Reporter. These six sources are all used properly and appropriately throughout the speech and add enough support to the statements to make them believable.   

10. What stories or narratives does the author of Acupuncture speech tell to illustrate their ideas?
The author of the Acupuncture speech opens her speech by sharing a personal story about her grandmother’s fight with severe arthritis and how her doctor suggested acupuncture. Then after the author explains the success story that acupuncture had on her grandmother’s life, the author explains that they too have a personal experience with acupuncture and how it has helped take away the migraine headaches they would get.

11. Consider both speeches. First give one example of a transition between two main ideas in one speech. Second, give one example of a transition in the second speech. In other words, what do the authors say to smoothly go from one point to a new point?
The authors in the two speeches both have really good transitions. The author of the Chili Peppers speech does a really good transition by saying, “Now that we know a little bit about the history of chili peppers, let’s see why they can put such a fire in our belly.” This is a wonderful transition because the author has made it very clear that they are switching topics by stating what they had just talked about and what they will talk about next. The author in the Acupuncture speech uses transitions by saying for example, “Now that you know what happens when you’re treated by an acupuncturist, you’re probably wondering how acupuncture works.” The author of this speech is doing basically the same type of transition but words it differently.   

12. Compare and contrast the conclusions of the speeches. How are they alike and how do they differ?
 The conclusions of the speeches are similar in the sense that they both reinforce their central idea and summarize what they spoke about in the order that the points were present. However they are different in that the author of the acupuncture speech closes with a direct reference back to the grandmother that was discussed in the introduction of the speech. Also the author of the Acupuncture speech opens her conclusion with the phrase, “Today we have looked at…” and the other of the Chili Peppers speech opens her conclusion with the phrase, “In closing…”


Evaluative Comments:

3. How do the author's build credibility?
The others of both of the authors do a very good job on building credibility and supporting their work properly. Both of the authors build credibility by listing both the author and the title of the work before they present their information. Both of the authors also do a good job, especially the author of the Acupuncture speech, on creating credibility through them by explaining to the audience their involvement with the topic.

4. Choose one of the two speeches: What impresses you about the speech?
Personally I would have to say that the Chili Peppers speech impressed me the most. I may be bias on the speech because I love spicy food, but I feel like that the author did a wonderful job at coming up with four, good, solid points and did an even better job giving a simple, yet precise answer. The author to this speech did a good job researching up on their topic and presenting their information well. The speech was easy to follow and it was very interesting to read.



Extra Credit: Chinese National Debate Team


Marissa Perszyk
February 7, 2011
Comm. 1212
Extra Credit

Chinese National Debate Team

I attended the impromptu debate /speech meeting that was held Thursday, February 3rd, in room HSC 102 from 3:30-4:30. I am glad that I took time to attend this event because I am beginning to feel more confident in my own speaking capabilities by watching others. The event was very relaxed and was even entertaining. The floor was open up to anybody who desired to speak. A total of seven people spoke. Our guests, The Chinese Debate Team, had three members (one boy and two girls) and a coach (who was also a woman), but only the two girls had the urge to speak. Even our President, Dr. Castleberry spoke! Each person that chose to speak had 2-4mins to give an impromptu speech on a random topic were given. Kay, the first Chinese student that went, was the winner of the event. She spoke about Chinese food vs. American food. She was very confident and both her poise and her language that she used. She was also very funny in the way that she described “American Chinese food.” Another thing that I noticed is that she incorporated some funny personal stories into her two minute speech. In doing this she was able to draw the audience in (at least me anyway). James is a Northwest student and I think that he did a wonderful job in delivering a concise, funny speech. His topic was “Roommates from hell.” With this topic he was able to make his speech delivery very personal which made his speech that much more interesting to listen to. He also did a good job at projecting his voice and making good eye contact with the audience. Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, Joe Castleberry also got the courage to deliver a speech, his topic was “ghosts I would like to meet.” With his speech, Dr. Castleberry had a lot of good, solid facts to support his point and also gave examples of what he was talking about. He talked to us about how he would like to meet the ghost of Gorge Washington. Even if you had no idea who George Washington was, after listening to Dr. Castleberry talk for a couple minutes you would know because he did a very good job at educating his audience. He also used repetition in his wording which helped engrave in me the main points of his speech. He also shared a joke that got a good laugh out of the audience, which is a wonderful way to engage your audience. He also used his hands to help the audience further visualize what he was talking about.
All in all, I am glad that I took the time to attend this event. I feel like by attending these events, I am able to further build confidence and also further understand the correct way to deliver a speech. My goal by attending these events is to become a better public speaker by learning from those who do it best.

Extra Credit Debate


Marissa Perszyk
January 17, 2011
Professor Gillespie
COMM 1212


Extra Credit Debate
Friday January 14, 2011 7:30pm

            I attended the Harvard vs. Northwest University debate held on Friday, January 14, 2011. The debate was split into two opposing sides. Each team had four speakers that were allotted seven minutes each to speak on their side of the issue. The topic of the evening was about if social networks, facebook for this debate, are good or bad. Northwest University represented the side that was against social networks, such as facebook, and the visiting team, Harvard, took the stance that facebook is good for all people. It was shocking to me to hear that Harvard, our opposing team, won the debate. This is shocking to me because I feel that Northwest University was more convincing as to why I should delete my facebook account rather than to keep it, which is what Harvard was trying to persuading me to do. Even though I have a facebook, and do not plan to ever delete it, I feel that Northwest University had more convincing, factual, and fundamentally valid points as to why one should delete their facebook account. Perhaps I do not know how the speaker’s performance was evaluated, or how the different criteria for public speaking are to be considered, but I feel that the opposing side did not give solid points. Additionally, the comments and questions Harvard asked while the Northwest speakers were speaking were sarcastic—said to get a reaction from the audience. Out of all the speakers, the opening speaker for Northwest University did a particularly wonderful job introducing his side, teaching the audience what the structure of the debate would look like. It was both informational and enjoyable. He spoke with confidence, carried his voice well, and I both followed and agreed with what he was saying, even though I do not plan to delete my facebook at all. But the judges saw it differently. I guess I have a lot to learn.