Communication shapes our understanding of the world and our interactions with others. Exploring different forms of oral discourse reveals the diverse ways we express ideas and resolve conflicts. By examining various genres, such as debates, interviews, and conversations, we can better understand the nuances of human communication.
Introduction
Communication lies at the core of human interaction, influencing how we perceive the world and connect with one another. In this collection, I have gathered videos that highlight and contrast different genres of oral discourse. These videos demonstrate the various ways we engage in spoken communication, ranging from the structured nature of debates to the subtleties of interviews and the collaborative spirit of group discussions.
Public oral discourse refers to the practice of communicating ideas, opinions, or information verbally in a public setting. This can include speeches, debates, discussions, presentations, and other forms of spoken communication intended for an audience.
Public oral discourse is often characterized by its focus on addressing a broad audience, engaging listeners, and potentially influencing public opinion or decisions. It plays a vital role in civic life, education, and various professional fields, where clear and effective communication is essential.
In the following sections, I provide definitions and examples of various discourse genres, from the formal structure of debates to the dynamic exchanges in interviews and conversations. Each genre offers a unique lens through which we can understand the complexities and subtleties of human communication.
The Need for Diverse Forms of Oral Discourse
Oral discourse is fundamental to our social and intellectual lives, serving as the primary means by which we share ideas, resolve conflicts, and build relationships. Each form of oral discourse fulfills a distinct role in this ecosystem:
- Debates are essential for examining contentious issues. They allow for a structured exchange of opposing viewpoints, help us critically evaluate different perspectives, and develop informed opinions.
- Interviews provide a platform for eliciting detailed information and insights from individuals. They can reveal personal stories, expert knowledge, and nuanced perspectives that might otherwise remain hidden.
- Conversations are the bedrock of everyday interaction, enabling us to build and maintain social bonds. Whether friendly or challenging, they foster mutual understanding and personal connection.
- Panel Discussions and Group Conversations bring multiple voices together, promoting collaborative thinking and collective problem-solving. They reflect the complex, multifaceted nature of real-world issues and encourage diverse input.
The Ecology of Oral Discourse
The concept of an “ecology of discourse” refers to the interconnected and interdependent nature of different forms of communication. Just as a natural ecosystem relies on the balance and interaction of various species to sustain itself, oral discourse relies on the coexistence and interaction of multiple genres to create a richer communicative environment.
Each type of discourse contributes uniquely to our collective understanding:
- Formal debates provide clarity and rigor, sharpening our analytical skills and exposing us to well-argued positions.
- Informal discussions offer flexibility and openness, encouraging spontaneous, free-flowing exchange of ideas.
- Structured interviews bring depth and focus, allowing for a thorough exploration of specific topics.
- Casual conversations foster intimacy and immediacy, strengthening personal connections and social cohesion.
By studying this diverse array of communicative practices, we gain a deeper appreciation for the richness of human interaction. We learn to recognize the value of different approaches and the importance of context in shaping effective communication.
In the following sections, you will find definitions and examples of various discourse genres, from the formal structure of debates to the dynamic exchanges in interviews and conversations. Each genre offers a unique lens through which we can understand the complexities and subtleties of human communication.
Debates
Tag: debate (23)
The term debate encompasses two distinct forms of discourse, each serving a unique purpose in the exchange of ideas:
- Informal Debate: This form of debate is a more casual and open-ended discussion between two or more individuals. Participants express differing opinions on a topic, often without strict rules or structure. Informal debates can occur in everyday conversations, classrooms, or social gatherings, where the primary goal is to explore various perspectives, foster understanding, and engage in thought-provoking dialogue.
- Formal Debate: In contrast, a formal debate follows a structured format, typically conducted in settings like parliaments, academic institutions, or public forums. Participants are often divided into opposing sides, each presenting arguments for or against a specific issue. Formal debates are governed by established rules, including time limits, rebuttals, and often a moderator to ensure fairness. The purpose is to critically examine the topic at hand, with the outcome sometimes leading to a decision or vote based on the arguments presented.
These two forms of debate illustrate the versatility of this genre in addressing complex issues, whether in a casual setting where ideas flow freely or in a formal context where arguments are meticulously constructed and evaluated.
Contrasting Civil and Aggressive Debate Styles
In a debate, the style can significantly affect how the discussion unfolds. In a civil debate, participants focus on critiquing ideas rather than attacking the person presenting them. They avoid using personal insults or demeaning language and, instead, allow each other time to speak and respond. The arguments are based on logical reasoning and supported by facts, with a polite and professional tone maintained throughout.
On the other hand, an aggressive debate often involves hostile or mocking language aimed at embarrassing or dominating the opponent. Participants might interrupt or talk over each other, relying more on emotional appeals rather than well-reasoned arguments. The goal in an aggressive debate is often to score points rather than engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas, with little regard for etiquette or decorum.
The key difference between the two styles lies in the approach: civil debates focus on the arguments while maintaining respect, whereas aggressive debates focus on overpowering the opponent through personal attacks and emotional manipulation.
Here are two examples of civil formal debates that highlight the structure and impact of this genre:
Munk Debate: Political correctness: a force for good?Oxford Union Debate: Islam Is A Peaceful Religion
And here is an example of an aggressive formal debate:
First Presidential Debate Quickly Turned Into A Heated Shouting MatchInterviews
Tag: interview (2)
Interviews are frequently televised with experts in a particular field, politicians, or people in the public eye.
An interiew is not a convesration. The participants are not equals, and they have well-defined roles.
Interviews can broadly take three forms.
- A friendly interview is when the interviewer is overly courteous and never challenges the interviewee on their responses. The interviewer’s purpose is to allow the interviewee to express their opinions freely.
- A challenging interview is when the interviewer courteously challenges and constantly presses the interviewee on their views. The interviewer’s purpose is to try to reveal the truth of the situation.
- An aggressive interview is when the interviewer challenges, goads, and baits the interviewee. In this case, the interviewer’s purpose is to ridicule or reveal the interviewee’s hypocrisy or lies.
This article in the Guardian, The Aggressive Political Interview by Jason Wilson, examines the history of televised political interviews.
Friendly Interviews
Munk Dialogues - Rudyard Griffiths interviews Zhang WeiweiChallenging Interviews
David Frost interviews Margaret Thatcher about the sinking of the BelgranoAggressive Interviews
Cathy Newman interviews Jordan PetersonAndrew Neil interviews Ben Shapiro
Jeremy Paxman interviews Michael Howard
One-to-One Conversations
One-to-one conversations like interviews can be friendly, challenging, or aggressive.
Friendly Conversations
Lex Friedman has a conversation with Douglas MurrayAgressive Conversations
Jordan Peterson, in conversation with Helen LewisPanel Discussions
Panel discussions offer the advantage of bringing together diverse perspectives, allowing audiences to gain a broad understanding of complex issues. The dynamic interaction among panelists can lead to engaging and insightful debates, and audience participation through Q&A enhances the discourse’s relevance.
However, the format also has its drawbacks. The need to cover multiple viewpoints often limits the depth of exploration on any single issue. Dominant personalities can overshadow others, leading to an imbalance in the conversation, and the emphasis on maintaining civility may result in superficial consensus, reducing the discussion’s overall impact. While panel discussions are effective for introducing topics and showcasing various perspectives, they often sacrifice depth for breadth.
Somewhat better panel discussion with Q&A
Group Conversations
Krishnamurti, David Bohm, and G. NarayanKnowledge Café
Al Jazeera Cafe - Kenya's unwinnable war
POST NAVIGATION
CHAPTER NAVIGATION
Tags: Bohm Dialogue (4) | conversation (195) | debate (23) | dialogue (63) | discourse (13) | interview (2) | panel discussion (1)
SEARCH
Blook SearchGoogle Web Search
Photo Credits: Midjourney ()
7 - 8 October 2024 , 10 am – 4 pm ET
Conversational Leadership is about appreciating the transformative power of conversation, practicing leadership, and adopting a conversational approach to working together in a complex world.
Information and Registration
On formal debates, you might want to include the US Presidential Debates, both for their history and their performative element. To stay away from contemporary controversies, and example might be the first televised debate Kennedy-Nixon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYP8-oxq8ig), or for their historic importance and as examples of a totally different debate style the Lincoln-Douglas debates (https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/lincoln-douglas-debates-1858/). It might also be important to connect debates to the principles of parlamentarism, for which it is a foundational element.
A possible item might be not spoken forms of discourse such as the scientific form of discourse by publication of papers, or online forms like discussion fora, wikis (with the associated example of wikipedia battles for control of the online record), or even the forms of discourse (civil or otherwise) practiced on social media in general, maybe incl. trolling or other forms of detraction and manipulation. Formal and IMHO fairly effective forms of this might be consultations by government agencies, standard setting processes by industry and other association (think RFCs of the IETF).
On interviews, it might be worthwhile to distinguish push- vs. pull interviews, i. e. interviews, where the interviewers want to get what they are looking for vs. those, where the interviewee wants to push their points. Discussion could include sponsored interviews, interviews with pre-cleared questions and investigative interviews and depositions.
Attached to the panel discussion, townhall formats might be added, where the emphasis is on the few-to-many communication between the speaker or panel and the audience, as opposed to the few-for-the-many of the panel discussion or in extremis the speech.