The simple and obvious approach extemp is to answer the question in a somewhat organized fashion and to do so within 7 minutes. Of course, training the mind to critically engage the extemp process and to start imposing some sort of structure onto speeches, whether they be nationally recognized formats or not, can contribute a lot to success. I attended extemp camp at the University of Texas (UTNIF) and in 2004 they recommended “Unified Analysis.” Another structural form used with great aplomb by some very successful extempers is “Layered Analysis.”
Thinking about Questions
Timing
Introductions and Conclusions
Points
Presentation
THINKING ABOUT QUESTIONS:
First of all, a speaker should examine the question chosen before digging out files (or panicking for that matter).
Example: How can the United States best support Georgia in the Georgian-Russian conflict?
Breaking this question down, there is the object under evaluation – the US. But what about the US? Or how is the US to be evaluated? The context for evaluation is Georgia, or how the US supports Georgia. Finally, the question makes itself more specific by telling the speaker it wants to know about what the US should do about Georgia in regards to the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
This first question needs the speaker to come up with an answer, in contrast to some question that have a yes or no answer. An example of that would be: Is Sarah Palin the right vice presidential candidate for John McCain. Questions like that are in a way easier since there are only two answers.
Even the newest extempers are familiar with the convention of having three points within an extemp speech. Sometimes, when faced with a question that does not invite a yes or no answer, it’s easy to fall into the trap of saying that the answer to this question is “threefold” or there are “three reasons” or something like that. Unified Analysis says there must be an overarching umbrella answer, and that the three separate points join together to support that answer.
“What” and “How” are two keywords that appear often in questions.
Example: What can China do to defuse tensions in Tibet?
So an overarching answer could be something like adopting a policy of reconciliation. The points used to justify this answer would be the components of this proposal, and would have to not only show that the proposal is feasible, but also why this proposal is the right thing to do for practical or ethical reasons. Examples of points that contribute to the overarching goal but accomplish different things within the answer are: engaging in talks with the Dalai Lama, supporting native Tibetan politicians, and preserving Tibetan culture.
If the question were: How can China defuse tensions in Tibet? The answer and points could still be the same but the emphasis shifts to the plan of action, how it will work, why it will work instead of why this plan and its three components are the best plan. “Can” and “Should” are also important keywords; the former is about discussing possibilities while the latter is about an imperative for action, whether it be out of self-interest or an ethical/moral obligation.
Not all questions are created equal; some are outdated by the time the tournament occurs, some have assumptions in them that the extemper will either have to accept or address. Questions pertaining to controversial subjects are always harder in that the judge(s) may have a very different opinion.
TIME ALLOCATION
The usual breakdown of 7 minutes happens roughly like this:
Introduction – 1:30
Point 1 – 1:30 (including transitions)
Point 2 – 1:30
Point 3 – 1:30
Conclusion – 1:00
This means the speaker has started the body of their speech when the timekeeper gives “5 down.” However, timekeepers can be neglectful so it’s good to have an internal sense of timing.
The breakdown of prep time is different for everyone but it always helps to have the question slip in a same place ahead of time so that when it’s time to leave the prep room, there isn’t a panicked search for it amongst the scattered files. Writing down too much on paper is discouraged; neat outlines with pertinent competition information, the question copied down exactly, accurate source names and dates, polished introductions, and memorized, snappy tag lines are encouraged.
INTRODUCTIONS AND A BIT OF CONCLUSION
Introductions are often more complicated than conclusions because the first impression made is very important when there are only 7 minutes for the speaker to make his or her mark.
Introduction components:
The Attention Getting Device – creatively demanding. AGDs that work well with diverse audiences aren’t over personal, or overly generalized. Something witty or insightful or engaging that eases the listener into the topic and has a clear link to the question.
Statement of Significance – concise and hard-hitting explanation of why the following speech and the question it answers is addressing an important issue. A source is used here.
The Question – repeated exactly as written and emphasized with appropriate pauses before and after delivery.
The Umbrella Answer – confident and not too wordy. “Reasons” is sufficient for the preview.
The Preview – signposting, showing the judge(s) where this speech is going. Short and sweet tags, said separately and slow enough for keywords to be written down.
Conclusion components:
Repeat question verbatim
Repeat answer essentially verbatim
Repeat three reasons with keywords
Revisit the AGD and leave a powerful last line
DELVING DEEPER INTO THE POINT
When making a point for an argument within a paper or an extemp speech, a very simplified version of the Toulmin Model of Argument is a good idea.
Claim: your idea, statement, topic sentence, point, tag, etc.
Warrant: why your claim is true, evidence, data and how it supports your claim
Impact: why this claim is important, its meaning or consequence, the big picture
The impact leads back to the question and why the point just presented answers the question in its own way while contributing to the strength of the overarching answer.
Unified Analysis has its own substructure for each point:
Tag – what was presented in the introduction, verbatim to stimulate the judge(s)’ memory
“On Top Analysis” – Giving some context to the tag, why this content is included, and foreshadowing the subpoints to follow – very brief
Subpoint A with evidence/examples
Subpoint B with evidence/examples
Impact of what has just been discussed
Returning to the question and transitioning to the next part of the answer
Returning to the slight difference between the What and How questions of China and Tibet, when answering the What question, Subpoint A could be the feasibility of a step and Subpoint B could be whether or not this step falls within ethical or reasonable parameters. When answering the How question, Subpoint A could be what the step is and how could it be executed, and Subpoint B could be the expected results of the step.
Unified Analysis strives to make each point an independent and unique argument unto itself that can answer at least one facet of the complex issue brought up by the question.
Layered Analysis, from what I can gather, modifies the extemp speech by bringing more theoretical thinking into the answering of the question. Its introductions and conclusions may reflect an awareness of theoretical resonance while its substructure seems to be different as follows:
Claim
Theory – an abstracted observation to do with political science, political economy, etc.
Link – application of the theory to the current event being discussed
Impact
Click here for the only example and explanation I’ve been able to find about Layered Analysis on the internet.
PRESENTATION
Language:
Identify and define the importance of people, places, and organizations – apposition should be marked by pauses in speech.
Example: Beijing,[pause] the capital of China
Always use the full name of something the first time it is mentioned, identify and use its acronym afterward.
Be extremely clear but concise when answering and previewing.
Project your voice in large rooms and try not to rush your speech.
Watch out for overused wording and word “crutches.”
Punctuation and emphasis should be evident in vocal patterns.
Body:
Have a direct line of eye contact to the judge(s) and nothing obstructing your body.
Body should be in a straight line with hands at sides until needed for gestures.
Stand still for intro, a few steps to one side for the first point, few steps back to center for the second point, a few steps to the other side for the third point, and back to center for the conclusion.
Gestures are to be used sparingly but confidently. They should be above the waist.
Attitude:
An extemper should be neither too expressive or aggressive. While there is an element of persuasion in extemporaneous speaking, it is more about considering a question in an informed and reasoned manner. An extemper should be able to speak to rather than at his/her listeners and take them along the thinking and evidence that led to the conclusion presented at the beginning. Be a person with intelligence and personality having an interesting conversation about something that really matters.
