Impromptu speaking is a speech that a person delivers without predetermination or preparation. The speaker is most commonly provided with their topic in the form of a quotation, but the topic may also be presented as an object, proverb, one-word abstract, or one of the many alternative possibilities. While specific rules and norms vary with the organization and level of competition, the speeches tend to follow basic speech format and cover topics that are both humorous and profound.
Collegiate impromptu speaking
Impromptu speaking is an individual event offered and regulated by both the and the , both of whom follow nearly identical formats in proctoring the event. Both organizations provide seven minutes of time to be allocated between speaking and preparation as the speaker sees fit, allow minimal notes to be used, and provide undisclosed prompts to determine the speech's topic. While the competitor's success and ranking is ultimately determined by the judge's decision, there are several general criteria that many competitors and judges adhere to:
Experienced speakers are generally expected to avoid exceeding two minutes of preparation time, with some speakers preferring to use only one minute or less.
The speaker is to create an interpretation of the prompt and use it to establish an argument/thesis that the speech will support.
The speaker is heavily encouraged to use examples in the "body" of their speech to support their argument.
Advanced speakers often use theories in conjunction with examples that illustrate them.
As with any competitive speech, the speaker is expected to offer a clear and defined structure in their speech.
Competitors are advised to avoid giving pre-prepared, or "canned" impromptu speeches.
Neither the AFA nor NFA regulate specific speech formats to be used by competitors, however there are two formats that are predominantly used: Two point format: I. Introduction II. First main point A. Supporting example B. Supporting example III. Second main point A. Supporting example B. Supporting example IV. Conclusion Three point format: I. Introduction II. First main point A. Supporting example III. Second main point A. Supporting example IV. Third main point A. Supporting example V. Conclusion
Editorial impromptu
In 2008, the National Forensics Association officially introduced a new form of impromptu for competition. In this event students are given a short editorial to which they will develop a response. Students will be allowed nine minutes to divide between preparation and speech time. Speakers must speak for at least five minutes. Limited notes, prepared in the round, are permitted. Editorial Impromptu represents an attempt to return “impromptu” to impromptu speaking. The speech should involve the development of an argument in response to the thesis developed or opinion shared in a given editorial.
High school competitions
Typically in high school speech competitions, a competitor is given 30 seconds to select a topic from a set of topics. The competitor will then have 5 minutes to compose a speech of five minutes with a 30-second grace period. There is a general outline for impromptu speeches, it is as follows:
Introduction/roadmap
First section
Second section
Third section
Conclusion
The introduction begins with an attention-getter, the statement of the topic and an outline of the speech. The conclusion is usually like the introduction except backwards, ending with a profound statement, although a lighthearted ending is also accepted. For the three body points, there are many kinds of formats that can be used. For example, if the topic is a quote, a competitor may go over how the quote is true, how the quote is false, and why he or she believes what he or she believes. Other examples are: past, present, future; local, national, international. More advanced speakers will use formats that look deeper into a subject such as: physical, moral, intellectual; books, video, digital However, many speakers choose not to follow a format at all. That being said, most beginners who fail to follow a solid format often find themselves lost in a jumble of ideas. Judging usually involves one judge in the preliminary round, one to three judges in the semi-finals/qualifying round, and a panel of three judges in the finals round. Judges look for overall coherency, impact, and confidence, and usually overlook basal errors due to the short preparation time.
