Conversations represent a free-flowing, spontaneous, fluid process of communication. The conversationalist is both a speaker and a listener in an ongoing interaction. The conversation itself is a series of fragments that may or may not fit together well. In contrast, public speaking defines the roles of speaker and listener more clearly. Speeches may seem fresh and spontaneous, but good speeches are the product of carefully considered research, audience analysis, design, wording, and practice. In public speaking, the medium of communication can affect the message, as in the case of speeches presented on radio or television. Finally, the environment in which communication occurs can change dramatically.
Speaker and Listener Roles Are Clearly Defined. In conversation, it is often hard to tell who the speaker is and who the listener is. In public speaking, however, there is seldom doubt as to who the speaker is and who the listeners are. Moreover, public speaking spotlights the role of the speaker. Whether speakers can take advantage of this prominence depends on their ability to reward listeners with interesting and useful messages. As Aristotle pointed out more than two thousand years ago, our impressions of speakers themselves affect how we respond to what they say. We are far more inclined, he observed, to react favorably when we think speakers are competent in their subject matter and when we trust them. These ancient qualities of competence and integrity form the basis of the modern term credibility. Aristotle also noted that audiences respond more favorably when speakers seem likable— when they seem to be people of good will. Modern researchers have uncovered still another important speaker characteristic, forcefulness (or dynamism). Some speakers strike us as vital, action-oriented people.
