[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
differences will be touched upon again in the chapter on "Description."
Exposition furthermore does not include an account of how events happened--that is narration. When Peary
lectured on his polar discoveries he explained the instruments used for determining latitude and
longitude--that was exposition. In picturing his equipment he used description. In telling of his adventures day
by day he employed narration. In supporting some of his contentions he used argument. Yet he mingled all
these forms throughout the lecture.
Neither does exposition deal with reasons and inferences--that is the field of argument. A series of connected
statements intended to convince a prospective buyer that one automobile is better than another, or proofs that
the appeal to fear is a wrong method of discipline, would not be exposition. The plain facts as set forth in
expository speaking or writing are nearly always the basis of argument, yet the processes are not one. True,
the statement of a single significant fact without the addition of one other word may be convincing, but a
moment's thought will show that the inference, which completes a chain of reasoning, is made in the mind of
the hearer and presupposes other facts held in consideration.[12]
In like manner, it is obvious that the field of persuasion is not open to exposition, for exposition is entirely an
intellectual process, with no emotional element.
The Importance of Exposition
The importance of exposition in public speech is precisely the importance of setting forth a matter so plainly
that it cannot be misunderstood.
"To master the process of exposition is to become a clear thinker. 'I know, when you do not ask me,'[13]
replied a gentleman upon being requested to define a highly complex idea. Now some large concepts defy
explicit definition; but no mind should take refuge behind such exceptions, for where definition fails, other
CHAPTER XIX 109
forms succeed. Sometimes we feel confident that we have perfect mastery of an idea, but when the time
comes to express it, the clearness becomes a haze. Exposition, then, is the test of clear understanding. To
speak effectively you must be able to see your subject clearly and comprehensively, and to make your
audience see it as you do."[14]
There are pitfalls on both sides of this path. To explain too little will leave your audience in doubt as to what
you mean. It is useless to argue a question if it is not perfectly clear just what is meant by the question. Have
you never come to a blind lane in conversation by finding that you were talking of one aspect of a matter
while your friend was thinking of another? If two do not agree in their definitions of a Musician, it is useless
to dispute over a certain man's right to claim the title.
On the other side of the path lies the abyss of tediously explaining too much. That offends because it
impresses the hearers that you either do not respect their intelligence or are trying to blow a breeze into a
tornado. Carefully estimate the probable knowledge of your audience, both in general and of the particular
point you are explaining. In trying to simplify, it is fatal to "sillify." To explain more than is needed for the
purposes of your argument or appeal is to waste energy all around. In your efforts to be explicit do not press
exposition to the extent of dulness--the confines are not far distant and you may arrive before you know it.
Some Purposes of Exposition
From what has been said it ought to be clear that, primarily, exposition weaves a cord of understanding
between you and your audience. It lays, furthermore, a foundation of fact on which to build later statements,
arguments, and appeals. In scientific and purely "information" speeches exposition may exist by itself and for
itself, as in a lecture on biology, or on psychology; but in the vast majority of cases it is used to accompany
and prepare the way for the other forms of discourse.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]