loudness in public speaking as contrasted with private speaking. The only safe rule to follow is that public speaking should be just as loud as is necessary in order that those who are supposed to hear can hear easily without effort or strain. Precisely the same thing is true of private speaking. Some public speaking is carried on in a very quiet voice; some private speaking is carried on in a very loud voice. There is no basis for saying that when volume reaches a certain point the speech changes from conversation to public address.

Nor can the completeness or formality of the preparation be relied upon to establish a difference between conversation and public speaking. Some public speeches (even some good public speeches) are specifically not prepared for at all, any more than is the most casual conversation prepared for. And on the other hand, many private conversations, formal interviews between one person and another, are very elaborately prepared for and organized, their themes being properly introduced, substantiated, and concluded.

In sum, it seems impossible to think of any specific quality or characteristic which clearly distinguishes conversation from public speaking. What then is the difference between them? The only essential difference between them is in the size of the audience. And it is impossible, of course, to say at just what point the number of listeners changes the speech from private conversation to public address. There are cases which are clearly conversation and there are other cases which are clearly public speeches. In between lies a twilight zone where it is difficult to distinguish the conversation from the public address.

Two students sitting at the dinner table, discussing a recent ruling of the faculty in regard to the student daily paper, are doubtless engaging in private conversation. Suppose that while they are talking the dining room fills up with other students, and one of those who has been discussing the faculty ruling attracts the attention of the other students in the dining room to what his friend is saying and urges the friend

to tell the group what he has just been saying privately. Has the speech suddenly become a public speech? Probably some would say it depends upon the number of people in the dining room. If there are only four or five others present, it is probably still private conversation. If there are upwards of one hundred present, it is clearly public speaking. Some might be inclined to say that it would be public speaking if the student arose from his chair and talked while standing, but this certainly cannot be taken as a definite test because many important public speeches are delivered with the speaker sitting; and of course, many private conversations are carried on with the speaker standing.

II. INFORMAL CONVERSATIONS

"What is conversation; what is it for; why do people converse with each other? The Latin conversari from which the English conversation is derived means to associate with, or to commune with. Conversation is a way of living with others. It is a mental and spiritual fellowship, adjustment, pleasure, fun." It is inaccurate to think, as is sometimes said, that all, or most worthwhile conversations are for the purpose of conveying information to or instructing others. While it is true that all the general ends of speech may be served by private as well as by public speaking, it seems substantially accurate to say that most of the best and worthwhile conversations are indulged in for purposes of mental and spiritual fellowship, as suggested in the quotation above. Good private speaking is less likely to be exclusively designed to influence the hearers in specific ways. In private conversation we talk to other people more largely for our own pleasure; not, of course, for the pleasure of hearing ourselves talk, but for the purpose of adjusting ourselves to people whom we meet in social situations of various kinds, and of helping others to adjust themselves to us. We converse with them in order that we may live

3 Woolbert and Weaver, p. 219.

with them in harmony for a few minutes, or a few hours, as the case may be. Conversation is a way of living with others, - a matter of social adjustment, - primarily a means of pleasure, enjoyment. When you meet a chance acquaintance on a tramp and fall in step and walk for an hour or two, you probably talk. Your conversation may have no purpose outside of making the time pass pleasantly. Adjustment, pleasure, mental and spiritual companionship, social life at its best, these are the objectives of conversation.

It follows, therefore, that the best way to prepare for conversation is identical with the best way to prepare for living happily with other members of the human race. It seems obvious that the happiest people are the best conversationalists and that unhappy people are usually not very charming conversationalists, which is only another way of saying that the people who adjust themselves most easily to all sorts of human situations are the happy people, and are good conversationalists by the very fact of their easy adjustment to human situations. So the characteristics which go to make a good conversation are the characteristics which go to make a good life, good social human existence. A knowledge of human nature; a knowledge of various interesting aspects of human industry; a knowledge of human history, and literature, and science, and art; of human activities, desires, ambitions, weaknesses, shortcomings, disasters, diseases: such knowledge prepares one to become a good conversationalist.

Again, the good qualities of conversation are the good qualities of a good human being, sincerity, sympathy, frankness, freedom; or the absence of duplicity, selfishness, secretiveness, repression, inhibition, suspicion, bitterness, hatred. The poor conversationalist is mum, tiresome, depressing, shy, secretive, because he is basically that kind of person; so that in this aspect as in all other aspects of speech training, we have to deal pretty fundamentally with the qualities, powers, and abilities of the individual concerned. Here, as elsewhere, it is very close to the truth to say that

"speech is a symptom." The following sentences from Dean Ainger's essay on "The Art of Conversation" contain good advice for all those who desire to become better conversationalists:

"I think when we have come away from a conversation our sense of its having been a success, pleasant and interesting, is somehow bound up with certain qualities of the heart rather than of mind that have helped to make it so. The speakers were kind and genuine, the reverse of obtruding, endowed with tact and skill, and this state of things rather than the stories we laughed at or the new information we gained, remains as the dominant impression." "Take care of the heart, I would almost say to those who aim at being pleasant in conversation, take care of the heart and the intellect will take care of itself, for the art of conversation is closely bound up with the deeper, wider art of giving pleasure. We have to cultivate first (and happily this can be cultivated) the art of give and take. . . . Modesty, forbearance, kindliness, tact, the desire to please and the desire to be pleased, will tell in the long run against mere brilliancy or a parade of information, still more against the affectation of universal scepticism and universal cynicism which wrecks human intercourse in so many companies these days."

It should be clear from the foregoing discussion that private speech and public speech are so close to each other in all aspects that practically everything said in Parts I, II, and III of this book applies equally to conversation and public speaking. In origin, development, motivation, material, objectives and technique they are alike. This truth needs only to be recognized to make speech education and speech re-education easier.

III. FORMAL INTERVIEWS

A. Defined. In the formal interview we have the type of conversation which is probably hardest to distinguish from public speaking. Here, usually, by a special appointment, two people come together, the one to give and the other to

4 Alfred Ainger, Lectures and Essays, Vol. II, pp. 290-292. Copyright 1905, The Macmillan Company. Reprinted by permission.

receive information or opinion or both on some definite topic. While the purpose of a formal interview is usually an exchange of information or opinion, it may well be that the interview may have a persuasive end, such as would be the case if a student were to interview the president or dean for the purpose of soliciting some particular privilege, or an applicant were to interview an employer in the hope of obtaining a position.

B. Preparation for a Formal Interview. On the part of the one who seeks the interview (whether he comes for information, justice, or position) very careful attention should be given to its preparation. He should know precisely what he wants; he should prepare a plan for getting it. This should include very accurate information in regard to the person to be interviewed, his name, his position, his relation to the subject matter of the interviw. It should also include a careful consideration of the matter to be discussed, a survey of the interviewer's interest in the matter, his knowledge of it, so that he may be able to participate on both sides of the give and take which is likely to develop in the interview. Frequently it will be well to write down a list of questions to be brought up and this list might be carried in a notebook or memorized before the interview.

C. The Interview Itself. If the preparation in information and attitude is adequate, that is, if the interviewer is well prepared intellectually and emotionally for the interview, it ought to be possible to establish an atmosphere of poise, friendliness, confidence, coöperation, frankness at the beginning of the interview. Brevity, courtesy, and definiteness should characterize the questions asked. But important questions should not be omitted. The "Who," "What," "Where," "When," "Why," and "How" of the journalist should be carefully checked over and all worked into the interview if they prove to be pertinent.

After all the material from the interview has been gathered by the interviewer, it should be verified in cases in which there