ORGANIZING AN IMPROMPTU SPEECH
USING UNIFIED ANALYSIS
by Robert C. Carroll
For too long, impromptu speaking
has been dominated by speeches that ad-
dress just about everything imaginable, with
the exception of the topic assigned to the
speaker. In my previous article, "Organiza-
tion an Extemporaneous Speech using Uni-
fied Analysis", I argued that Unified Analy-
sis (UA) is "the one best organizational
pattern" for the body of an extemporane-
ous speech. Unified Analysis itself is based
on the influential article, "Extemporaneous
Speaking: Unifying the Analysis," by David
Ross. This organizational pattern unifies
all the analysis offered by the speaker
around answering the question, hence its
name. This organizational structure can also
be successfully applied to impromptu
speaking and in this article I will do so by
reviewing the types of impromptu topics,
the purpose of the event and the most com-
mon method of organization, and then, ap-
plying UA to each of these types of topics.
Before proceeding further, it is nec-
essary to review the three basic types of
impromptu topics. These are: (1), famous
people/places/events - historic or contem-
porary figures and locations and events;
(2), words - conceptual (abstract) and op-
erational (objects and things); and (3), quo-
tations/phrases/proverbs.
In impromptu speaking, with each of
the three types of topics, Unified Analysis
(or UA) can be carefully applied, especially
if the purpose and strategy of the event is
kept in mind. The purpose of the event is
for a speaker to present a clearly structured
defense of a thesis he or she has extrapo-
lated from the topic. The strategy for justi-
fying this abstraction becomes more clear
when we examine each of type of topic in
depth and apply Unified Analysis to it. The
speaker develops arguments which justify
his or her extrapolation and explain why it is
the best. In the process, the impromptu
speaker uses examples to support his or her
arguments in the same way an extempora-
neous speaker uses evidence to support his
or her rationale. Thus, examples and evi-
dence exist only to explain and support
good argumentation, not replace it. Hence,
the Cardinal Rule of Impromptu Speaking
has evolved: Examples Are Used Only To
Illustrate An Argument, Never To Substi-
tute For One.
The most common method of orga-
nizing impromptu speeches has been
termed either argument-by-example, or ex-
ample-based impromptu, or list-pattern
speaking. Whatever name it assumes, this
is the pattern:
Topic: Topic
Thesis: Comment on the topic
I. First Main Point - Historical Example
II. Second Main Point - Political Example
III. Third Main Point - Literary Example
IV. Personal Reference
The major problem with this organi-
zational pattern and analytic strategy is that
the examples are used in the speech to sub-
stitute for arguments. That is not the pur-
pose of an example; an example is used to
help clarify or illustrate an argument that
the speaker is try to make - it assists in mak-
ing the argument, but it is not the argument
itself. By using this pattern/strategy, all a
speaker does is spend most of the speech
relating examples to the topic and not ana-
lyzing the topic; any reasonably intelligent
speaker can "stock" examples and relate
these examples to almost any topic, while it
takes the exceptionally intelligent speaker
to argue a thesis using logic and support/
illustrate this logic using cases/examples.
Famous Persons/Places/Events
The first type of impromptu topic is
the famous person or place or (current)
event. Though I disagree with many when
I argue that these topics make for poor im-
promptu speeches because they are too lim-
iting, the fact remains that they are used
and a speaker must be prepared for them.
In argument-by-example, an abstraction is
drawn from the person or place and this ab-
straction becomes the thesis for the speech,
while examples are used to describe this
thesis. In essence, these examples serve as
arguments. This is not a bad approach, but
it is limiting. Besides, the abstraction, if too
limited, can become a word, and the speaker
has thus changed the topic for the speech.
Take the example of "Jerry Garcia", the de-
ceased vocalist/songwriter/guitarist of the
band The Grateful Dead, an acceptable topic
because he is immediately recognized by
most competitors and judges and was a
newsworthy figure. If the speaker chooses
as the abstraction the thesis: "Jerry Garcia
is a symbol of the achievement in everyone's
lives" and then proceeds to speak on
achievement for five minutes, then the topic
might as well have been the word "achieve-
ment" and not the person "Jerry Garcia".
The speaker has essentially substituted a
new topic (a word for a name), or at the very
least, has deviated substantially from the
existing topic.
Unified Analysis solves this problem.
In Unified Analysis: (1), several different
reasons why this person/place/event is sig-
nificant or important are offered; (2), these
reasons become the main arguments in the
speech; and (3), examples are used to sup-
port these arguments. Unlike the other two
types of topics, Unified Analysis does not
offer an abstraction for this topic. This is
why I believe famous names and places/
current events make poor impromptu top-
ics; because a speaker cannot draw an ab-
straction from them. Unified Analysis uses
examples to support arguments which sup-
port a central thesis; that the famous name
or place is indeed significant (if it was not, it
would not be the topic) and not as argu-
ments themselves. Take the example of
"Jerry Garcia" once again. The Unified
Analysis approach would be: "Jerry Garcia
was a significant figure in contemporary
American society for two reasons: first he
was an influential musician; and second, he
lived a self-destructive lifestyle." These two
reasons or influences or accomplishments
are each examined in turn and examples are
used to support them. The same approach
is used with a famous place or object, such
as "Mount Everest" or "Empire State Build-
ing", or a current event, such as "Near East
peace" or "Contract with America".
Name: Jerry Garcia
Thesis: Jerry Garcia, the deceased vo-
calist/songwriter/guitarist for the band
The Grateful Dead, was a significant fig-
ure in contemporary American society:
I. Because he was an influential
musician.
II. Because he lived a self-destructive
lifestyle.
