12. READING THE SPEECH: There are many people whose position in the work world requires them to give public speeches from time to time. Often such people are not used to giving speeches at all, and consequently, they are not used to giving speeches well. This public speaking inexperience is often expressed in such things as excessive stage fright, jitters and other examples of stage - or execution - related difficulties during the speech itself.
They compound those execution troubles, moreover, by taking the time to write out the speech word-for-word, and then they stand before their audience and read that same speech word-for-word. Almost uniformly the results are exceptionally poor and unacceptable. Is that any wonder? What person in his right mind would want to listen to somebody reading some unintelligible mishmash for twenty minutes?
But why are the results poor and unacceptable? Shouldn’t a well-thought-out and well-written speech be more readily acceptable to an audience than some extempore speech given by a person without notes or written material? One might be inclined to think so. The actual reality, however, is quite different from what one would expect.
Speeches which are read often fail to catch the lilt of spoken language. Instead, such speeches emulate the nature of written language rather than the nature of spoken language. We must remember, however, that written language is invariably artificial and contrived - except when it attempts to accurately capture actual dialogue - because written language is an argument rather than a story. Understand that highly important point: written language is always an argument. If the speaker is a gifted reader (and most assuredly, almost no one is), his speech may be marginally acceptable. But there are so few people who read well naturally: most adopt a sing-song - and monotonous - speaking style when they are reading - with absolutely dreadful results.
One problem with reading a speech, I fear, lies in the inappropriate use of juncture. Natural, spoken speech is often characterized by fits and starts and spurts of language, well-separated by strategic pauses, or with what linguists call juncture - the “silent space” between words. An inept reader invariably fails to properly render the text with appropriate uses of juncture. Instead, the reading sounds like a tape recording of a sewing machine running, with all of its cloying mechanical monotony. In the end no one in the audience will be able to recall anything at all about the speech. And that, of course, is the real test of any speech: can a member of the audience paraphrase what the speaker has said? If the auditor cannot paraphrase the speech, then that person surely cannot remember the speech. And, if the speech cannot be remembered, then it cannot influence the auditor, which is the ultimate intent of any speaker’s efforts.
Moreover, another problem with reading a speech, I think, lies in the inherent bulkiness of the written text. Invariably, a written sentence is longer and more convoluted than the spoken sentence. The added length requires additional time on the part of the listener to make those words comprehensible. But the speaker who reads his speech has a tendency to go through his material in a nonstop sort of manner, preventing his listeners from comprehending what he’s saying. The problem can often be corrected simply by writing the speech using very short and accessible sentences. But not many speakers are capable of doing that. Instead, they compose 18th century sentences, filled with endless parallel clauses and phrases, and then they wonder why no one understands what they are saying when they read that mishmash to their audiences.
Let us summarize. A written speech is an argument. Arguments list reasons or descriptions of things, and suggest alternative courses of action for the auditor to employ. The actual speech, however, is a verbal performance that aims to persuade the listener. And if the speaker presents, instead, a list of reasons, his listeners end up with a bullet-list or a to-do list that can be stuffed into a purse or pocket and be quickly forgotten.
13. SEWING-MACHINE SPEECH: You’ve all heard them: they speak in a dull (and rapid) monotone, without syntactical separation or juncture, hardly pausing long enough to capture another breath, and chattering away like a ‘53 Chevy with really bad lifters. They have all the intelligibility of a pan of frying bacon: all sound, sizzle and splatter; but nothing of any real substance. They could talk to you for three days without letup and you wouldn’t understand a single word they said. They are sewing-machines pretending to be speakers, and their lazy, inconsiderate speech habits are never ever worthy of your attention. Walk away from them. No, I just said that incorrectly. Get on your feet and run away from them.
They compound those execution troubles, moreover, by taking the time to write out the speech word-for-word, and then they stand before their audience and read that same speech word-for-word. Almost uniformly the results are exceptionally poor and unacceptable. Is that any wonder? What person in his right mind would want to listen to somebody reading some unintelligible mishmash for twenty minutes?
But why are the results poor and unacceptable? Shouldn’t a well-thought-out and well-written speech be more readily acceptable to an audience than some extempore speech given by a person without notes or written material? One might be inclined to think so. The actual reality, however, is quite different from what one would expect.
Speeches which are read often fail to catch the lilt of spoken language. Instead, such speeches emulate the nature of written language rather than the nature of spoken language. We must remember, however, that written language is invariably artificial and contrived - except when it attempts to accurately capture actual dialogue - because written language is an argument rather than a story. Understand that highly important point: written language is always an argument. If the speaker is a gifted reader (and most assuredly, almost no one is), his speech may be marginally acceptable. But there are so few people who read well naturally: most adopt a sing-song - and monotonous - speaking style when they are reading - with absolutely dreadful results.
One problem with reading a speech, I fear, lies in the inappropriate use of juncture. Natural, spoken speech is often characterized by fits and starts and spurts of language, well-separated by strategic pauses, or with what linguists call juncture - the “silent space” between words. An inept reader invariably fails to properly render the text with appropriate uses of juncture. Instead, the reading sounds like a tape recording of a sewing machine running, with all of its cloying mechanical monotony. In the end no one in the audience will be able to recall anything at all about the speech. And that, of course, is the real test of any speech: can a member of the audience paraphrase what the speaker has said? If the auditor cannot paraphrase the speech, then that person surely cannot remember the speech. And, if the speech cannot be remembered, then it cannot influence the auditor, which is the ultimate intent of any speaker’s efforts.
Moreover, another problem with reading a speech, I think, lies in the inherent bulkiness of the written text. Invariably, a written sentence is longer and more convoluted than the spoken sentence. The added length requires additional time on the part of the listener to make those words comprehensible. But the speaker who reads his speech has a tendency to go through his material in a nonstop sort of manner, preventing his listeners from comprehending what he’s saying. The problem can often be corrected simply by writing the speech using very short and accessible sentences. But not many speakers are capable of doing that. Instead, they compose 18th century sentences, filled with endless parallel clauses and phrases, and then they wonder why no one understands what they are saying when they read that mishmash to their audiences.
Let us summarize. A written speech is an argument. Arguments list reasons or descriptions of things, and suggest alternative courses of action for the auditor to employ. The actual speech, however, is a verbal performance that aims to persuade the listener. And if the speaker presents, instead, a list of reasons, his listeners end up with a bullet-list or a to-do list that can be stuffed into a purse or pocket and be quickly forgotten.
13. SEWING-MACHINE SPEECH: You’ve all heard them: they speak in a dull (and rapid) monotone, without syntactical separation or juncture, hardly pausing long enough to capture another breath, and chattering away like a ‘53 Chevy with really bad lifters. They have all the intelligibility of a pan of frying bacon: all sound, sizzle and splatter; but nothing of any real substance. They could talk to you for three days without letup and you wouldn’t understand a single word they said. They are sewing-machines pretending to be speakers, and their lazy, inconsiderate speech habits are never ever worthy of your attention. Walk away from them. No, I just said that incorrectly. Get on your feet and run away from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment