Metadiscourse debate technique?

January 16, 2015 7:16 AM

I noticed during a debate that someone seemed to be buying time to think on his feet by 1) repeatedly summarizing what he just said and 2) repeatedly previewing what he was about to say. It was simultaneously gimmicky and rather effective. Does doing this have a name? Is it taught? Or do people pick it up naturally?
posted by zeek321 to Human Relations (7 answers total)

Rhetoric.
posted by tel3path at 7:37 AM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]

It's certainly taught in speechmaking contexts: "Tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them."
posted by jeffjon at 7:43 AM on January 16, 2015

The common quote here is "Tell the audience what you're going to say, say it; then tell them what you've said." (Dale Carnegie). In terms of an actual name for it, I'd file it under the rhetorical construct of amplification, but there's probably a better term I'm unfamiliar with.

Is it taught? Yes. In general, most people have a horrible time picking up information from listening. In teaching, this is why the same point may be repeated multiple times through multiple delivery mechanisms (homework, lecture, reading). In public speaking, this is why speakers tend to either repeat themselves constantly or speak very slowly/deliberately. In law, this is why the very format of the forum is designed for repetition (opening statement for previewing, evidence for argumentation, and closing argument for summarizing).

You'll notice that speakers that make too many points without summarizing and condensing them are generally considered to be "confusing" or "hard to follow". This actually isn't generally because the actual content of the speech is confusing, it's most people can't simultaneously process the speech while listening to it. An interesting exercise is to read speeches. You'll find that a lot of "confusing" speeches make perfect sense while read, and a lot of "good" speeches seem horribly redundant and simplistic while read.
posted by saeculorum at 7:46 AM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]

Community college speech teacher here. We definitely teach students to do this, and it does help the audience remember speech content better, as already noted. No fancy names for it that I am aware of. We just call those steps 'internal summaries' and 'previews.'
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:07 AM on January 16, 2015

I've heard it called "roadmapping" - particularly in the "here's where I'm going" sense. That's what I write on debate ballots, anyway.
posted by Ms Vegetable at 8:42 AM on January 16, 2015

I was active nationally in the high school and university debate circuits. Yeah, this is taught (although I'm sure some people can also pick it up naturally) and in debate typically the first part is called roadmapping ("I will prove that A is good because of B, C, and D and also because the absence of A leads to E") and then you expand and provide details and then summarize your main points ("in conclusion, I have proven that A is good because of B, C, and D and also because the absence of A leads to E") - this part was just called summarizing or less frequently wrapping up. Neither of these are meant to waste/buy time; the roadmap is like a verbal outline for your audience so they know what the hell you're driving at and the summary reclarifies and solidifies your thesis after dumping a ton of corroborating details on them.

It is however possible that you watched a debate where someone roadmapped and summarized a bit too much because they lacked content. That does happen.
posted by vegartanipla at 11:32 AM on January 16, 2015

I've heard it called both roadmapping and signposting, if that helps your search, and in my experience this is explicitly taught (high school and college speech and debate world).
posted by andoatnp at 1:16 PM on January 16, 2015