“Speaking moistly……oh what a terrible image.” I laugh every time. A legit, out-loud laugh. Every time.
But it’s a kind laugh. It’s a laugh full of empathy and humanity and, in fact, respect.
This guy has been speaking live to a national audience every day for almost thirty days. I suppose it gets easier, but still it must be a bit terrifying.
He must on some level think, What if I don’t know the answers to their questions? What if my mind just goes blank? What if I say something embarrassing? Like ‘speaking moistly’?
His instant recognition of the ridiculousness of it is a gem of pure honesty. It gives us a little insight into his character. All of his prepared words don’t do that. His prepared words are necessary and important and are easing the worries of this country. But this moment shows us a little about the guy behind the mask curtain.
Well, ladies and gentlemen. Here it is. This is what it looks like when your biggest public speaking fears come true. And look, he’s still alive, he’ll be back out there today and quite frankly he seems even more human than he did yesterday.
Sure we’re laughing at his expense, but the underlying respect is still there. As I’ve said before, the payoff to speaking genuinely is well worth the cost. Be prepared, but don’t be afraid to show people your character.
So what’s holding you back from getting your message out there? Prepare. Then do it. Be clear. Be yourself. Be heard.
Don’t let your fears keep you from sharing what you’ve got with this world. Someone out there needs it.
I mean, come on. “Speaking moistly.” Again, out loud. Every single time.
Two days before Christmas, I walked right into the middle of the arena.
Not a hockey arena, but Teddy Roosevelt’s arena, the one where he tells us to ignore the critics in the stands—to jump in, do it ourselves, and give it all we’ve got. Usually I’m the one coaching from the sidelines, and I know the view from there very well. I have helped countless people hit it out of the park when delivering messages in public, despite their anxieties and fears. This time it was my turn.
That morning, while still in my PJs in front of the computer, an online CBC piece featuring my work with accents appeared. Then the reporter let me know that the documentary she had also prepared would be airing on CBC Radio One at 5pm. Then a terrifying email arrived in my inbox, a request to do a live interview in the afternoon with NEWSTALK1010.
I wanted to say no to the live interview request. Live radio, super scary! What if I say the wrong thing? What if I can’t think of anything to say at all? But I did what I tell others to do, and said yes. According to my partner, I too hit it out of the park. (I’m ignoring his possible bias and running with that review.) If you want to have a listen, skip to the 21 minute mark.
In saying yes, I was reminded that the view from the middle of the arena is decidedly different than the one seen from the sidelines. It’s not always pretty, and in this case it badly needed dusting.
I did the interview from my car, which I don’t recommend, but I was parked outside my next client’s office at Shopify and, frankly, a girl’s gotta make a living.
I do recommend these three steps to help you the next time you find yourself invited into the middle of the arena:
I wanted to say no, a hard no, but I said yes. I said yes because Informed Opinions tells us that not enough women experts are being asked to share their knowledge in the media. I said yes because I want my accent clients to know they are not alone in their struggles, and that sometimes the problem isn’t actually theirs. And I said yes because I wanted to put my skills to the test, to once again confirm that what I tell my speech-coaching clients in similar situations actually works. Just say yes. Even though every fibre of your being is saying nopety nope nope nope.
2. Make a Simple Plan
Decide what one message you want to get across. Not five messages, one. Put that message in the middle of a page and draw a circle around it. If listeners only hear that one message, it’s a win. Auditory processing is hard. Keeping it simple is a gift to your audience. Draw three (ish) circles beside that message. There, put the points that support and add to your main message. Simple simple simple. Trust me.
I too went down the road of what ifs, and wanted to add detail after detail to make sure I had it all there—but none of that made it onto to that grease-stained paper. Keeping it simple helped keep me focused. Here’s what my plan looked like. It’s not pretty but it worked.
The interviewer started in a place that wasn’t my main point, but it was covered by the side circle, so it was easy to pivot to the main message. Simple and clear. I know it worked because at the end of the interview, the host closed with “I like the fact that she says it’s about being clearer, and not necessarily losing the accent.” That’s the message in my middle circle! Simple and clear hits a home run.
3. Breathe and believe.
I used to think this whole “belly breathing thing” was kinda flakey and no big deal, but now I’m a reformed and recovering chest breather. Whenever I can, I consciously breathe without much movement in my chest. Instead—and this was really helpful before the interview when the nerves started—I put my hand on my belly and make sure that it, and not my chest, is expanding on the inhale. Whenever that nervous feeling came, that’s what I did, over and over. This stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system (rest and digest) instead of the sympathetic nervous system where chest breathers live (fight, flight, freeze). It’s not flakey, it’s science.
I’ve worked with enough high level professionals to know that even the best of them get the imposter syndrome monster rearing its ugly head at the worst possible moment. I was lucky enough to have a smart and supportive partner who gave me a pep talk to put that monster back in its place when I wanted to say no to that interview. And I replayed his words in my head as I was waiting for the call, doing my belly breathing.
You know more than you think. So put that monster back under the bed. If you can’t get it back in its place yourself, surround yourself with people who believe in you. Do whatever you need to do to ignore it. Breathing from the belly, not the chest, helps.
So the next time you’re invited to step up to the microphone and speak publicly, do it.
Say yes. Make a simple plan. Breathe and believe.
These three steps work. Be diligent, trust them, and you’ll trust yourself.
Now, off to your arenas everyone. Maybe take a second to dust if you have time.
“Why do you want to work on your accent?” This is the first thing I ask prospective clients. If your answer is ‘Because I want to sound like a native speaker’, then I may not take you on as a client. And I realize that might seem like a bad business decision. If you are willing to pay for my help, why not give you hope that you can lose your accent? Well, because it’s not the honest truth. The honest truth is that you will not lose your accent entirely.
It’s what many in the world of “Accent Reduction” don’t want you to hear. Some advertise Start Speaking like an American Today! Lose Your Accent in 28 days! In the 23 years that I have worked in this field, I can tell you the number of accented speakers who have left my practice sounding like a native English speaker: Zero. Nada. Hasn’t happened.
But do they come away with increased clarity? Absolutely.
Increased confidence that their message will be heard? Yes. 100%.
But that is not the same as sounding like a native English speaker. I’m not saying that there aren’t people in the world who were born into another language, learn English later, and can pass as a native English speaker. But those people have likely been fully immersed in that 2nd language early in life (before puberty), or have some super special talent for imitating accents. If that’s you, yay you. You’ll likely soon be receiving an Academy Award and everyone will say “Her accent was perfect!” If you’re not expecting a red carpet appearance any time soon, then it’s time to shift your perspective on your accent.
Since English has become the most common Lingua Franca (bridge language, trade language), we hear it spoken in many ways by people who learned it later in life. We hear these many accented speakers slap the rules and sound systems of their first language onto English like a hockey player competing in a figure skating competition. Sure, the basic moves are there, but it’s not exactly the same sport. You may have been the Wayne Gretzky of your first language, but even Wayne Gretzky would probably drop Tessa Virtue on her……virtue (sorry Tessa).
So if your goal is to lose your accent entirely, I am here to tell you to change your goal. It is not only unattainable, it is unnecessary.
Your accent should be an asset. If the person you are speaking to has a problem with it, the problem may just be theirs, not yours. There is accent bias out there, and some people simply won’t see you as a leader, no matter how clear you are. I believe we can change those people by giving them more experience in seeing accented speakers in positions of power. We are getting there. But change takes time.
Now, if clarity is an issue, then let’s talk.
There are differences between language patterns that impact intelligibility and those that simply sound different from a native speaker. This difference is represented by two approaches to accent work outlined by Munro and Derwing, 1995: comprehensibility and nativism. If the expectation is that you will be understood, but still have an accent, that’s comprehensibility. If the expectation is that you will sound like a native speaker, that’s nativism. And frankly it is an unrealistic goal. I work from the comprehensibility camp. I’m all about clarity.
If your listener is annoyed or distracted because you don’t sound like a native English speaker, that is not your problem. They are operating from a bias, conscious or unconscious, and there’s not much we can do about them. But if your listener genuinely doesn’t understand what you’re saying and asks you to repeat yourself often, that’s a problem with comprehensibility. If the difference between how you produce English and how a native speaker produces English results in this lack of clarity, then let’s work on that.
Sometimes a clarity problem comes from a difference in the sound systems of the two languages (consonants and vowels), but often the difference is in the prosody (stress, rhythm, and intonation). I often find that targeting English prosody can be the biggest game-changer for how understandable my clients are to their listeners. There is no one-size-fits-all to this work, but that doesn’t mean small groups can’t be effective. Sometimes it’s easier to hear your own differences from someone else than to hear it from your own mouth. But be warned that we might not work on perfecting that pesky “TH” sound—because when someone says “Sank you”, native English speakers may hear that it sounds different than when they say it, but they still know it’s “Thank you”. That’s the difference between sounding like a native speaker vs. being clear.
So let me be clear. My aim for you is clarity. Not sounding like a native speaker.
A lesson in public speaking from the sports world.
Sports broadcasters are real pros. They are articulate and expressive; words come easily to them. They have a natural talent, and they have spent hours upon hours honing it.
Athletes also have loads of natural talent and thousands of hours of practice behind them. But not usually in talking. There are exceptions (John McEnroe for one), but athletes aren’t nearly as expressive or articulate as those trained to broadcast their games. So athletes are taught to speak in safe soundbites, which they often deliver with flat intonation. My husband, who has produced hockey shows for many years, maintains that this is helpful to the players. I see his point. Their real expertise, the product of their hours and hours of practice, is in playing the game, not talking about it. But still, it is so satisfying when a post-game interviewer gets some novel content delivered with real enthusiasm from an athlete. So refreshing.
It’s also refreshing when sports administrators deliver their speeches in a memorable way. Sports administrators? You know, those guys in suits that we don’t pay much attention to during the season but then are given the microphone at the awards ceremonies. Remember sitting through an International Olympic Committee President’s speech in the opening or closing ceremonies of the games, thinking Man this guy should stop talking really soon. Why does he think we care what he says? Bo-ring.
So I was pleasantly surprised when the Toronto Raptors won the championship game of the NBA finals. Not only that the Raptors won it all. (But wow. What a ride that was.) But pleasantly surprised for the awards ceremony afterwards. You see, when it was all over, I didn’t want to leave the tv. I kept watching and watching, eating up all the post-game interviews with the players, the presentation of the championship trophy and the Larry-O (great nickname Kawhi). In that awards presentation ceremony, one guy stood out. (No, not Kawhi. I think we can all agree that Kawhi Leonard’s strengths aren’t likely to be found in front of a microphone.) It was NBA Commissioner Adam Silver.
He knows we’re not watching to hear him. So he keeps it short and sweet. One minute exactly. Thank. You. Adam. Silver.
It’s only a minute, but in that short time he does everything he needs to, and does it without rushing. In concise, clear sentences that are obviously prepared and practiced, he does all that’s required, and with class. He acknowledges the runners-up, the host city (for its final game as host), the entire country of Canada—even provides an emotional narrative by referencing basketball’s beginnings in Canada, describing it as coming full circle. Then, the presentation of the championship trophy.
Short and sweet. Clear as a bell. Memorized, but still delivered from the heart.
In and out.
Well done, Adam Silver. Usually in-and-out’s don’t count for points, but for this one you get the MVP of the awards ceremony.
(And a runner-up to Masai Ujiri for his boyish, contagious enthusiasm.)
So consider this performance the next time you are asked to say a few words, but you know you aren’t the main attraction (introducing a speaker, giving a wedding toast, acting as a panel mediator).
Prepare and practice. Keep it short and sweet. It doesn’t have to be long to be memorable. In and out for the win.
For politicians, it’s a minefield out there, and speaking off the cuff is full of potential pitfalls. But playing it safe and reading exclusively from a script can be damaging too.
In this public statement, Trudeau did something he rarely does; he mentioned his late father. The pundits say it was a mistake. I say, “More of that, please.”
After politicians speak, journalists transcribe the words and decipher their meaning and dissect the legalities and the implications. But let’s be honest. The average Canadian pays much less attention to those details. From a content perspective they are mostly just hearing the messages that confirm what they already believe.
In my logical left brain, I agree that talking about his father seems like a bad idea politically. But personally and emotionally, that was the one part of his address that I actually felt –how to put it– I actually felt he was really SAYING something. With some frank honesty. It was the one part of his speech where he wasn’t being a teacher reading to us from the front of the class.
It seems that he’s really talking to us, that he really means what he is saying. It’s not perfect. But I believe him. I’d love an EEG or functional MRI to confirm it, but I suspect that at the moment he begins this part of his speech, the right side of his brain starts lighting up like fireworks. The creative, emotional centres finally get in the game.
And when these parts of a speaker’s brain get in the game, so do those of their listeners. And that’s the magic of speaking off the cuff, from the heart.
From a speech science perspective, expressing novel content spontaneously has certain characteristics: increased pause lengths between thoughts, varied intonation patterns, varied speech rates, hesitations, revisions, increased use of fillers. So sure, you could fake it by reading the words and employing these features. Or you could skip all that and just mean what you say.
It’s a leap of faith to come off the page and speak from the heart. It’s scary and risky, but the payoff is big. It connects you to your listeners and convinces them in ways that encyclopedias full of hard facts cannot.
So even if what you are saying isn’t the best writing, the most adept messaging, the smartest political move–the connection that you make with your listeners may be worth more than that. Consider Mr. Trump to the south of us. When we see his words on paper, they are often ridiculous. Hell, sometimes they are not even words. But somehow, he’s convincing a lot of people that he’s an authentic guy. This is the somehow. Although we may completely disagree, we still think he means what he says. And strangely, that counts for a lot.
So the next time you’re giving a speech or a presentation, find a story you can tell, a personal anecdote that reflects your message. (Practice telling it. Record yourself and revise as needed.) Tell your story early on so that you can come off the page and connect to your audience. It will make all the difference. Get your right brain in the game.
It’s about trust, and if we trust that you mean what you say, you may just win us over.
Outside of that, you’re just a guy reading out words in front of the class.
Steve Bannon was more convincing during Saturday’s Munk Debates. (Be it resolved, the future of western politics is populist not liberal…)
Between Bannon and David Frum, in both form and content I give Bannon the better score, at least for their 8 minute opening arguments. And believe you me, I did not see that coming. But here’s why:
Form: How they look and sound
In his delivery, Bannon comes across as more relaxed than Frum. His voice is full, deep. He ends most of his statements low, and he uses a lot of pauses, especially after key phrases. He smiles a bit. He looks to me like a belly breather. This is a great asset in public speaking. Belly breathers are able to keep themselves out of the fight or flight response. They look calm and unruffled. They often take a full breath between thoughts, which gives the listener time to process their words. Bannon looks like he trusts himself. So strangely I trust him more. I don’t like it, but there it is.
In contrast, Frum does not look or sound relaxed. His voice sounds tight, he is stingy with his air. There is rarely a pause–he is always quick to get to the next point after he makes one. He looks like a chest breather. He is almost gasping for air at times. This is not a reassuring delivery that instils confidence. I find myself wanting to agree with his words, but the overall sense I get is that he is all in his head, and he’s just trying to convince me — that he doesn’t necessarily believe what he’s saying himself. He speaks quickly in a way that makes me feel a bit frantic. He is looking at his notes a lot, which tells me he doesn’t trust himself. All of this makes me trust him less. Less than Steve Bannon?! Sadly, yes.
Content: What they say
Most importantly, Bannon states his key argument 12 seconds in. Right off the top he gives us his thesis statement, his bottom line, saying,
It’s not a question of whether populism is on the rise or whether populism is going to be the political future. The only question before us is ‘Is it going to be populist nationalism or populist socialism?’
We get to attach everything else he says to this central argument. It focuses the listener. Then Bannon repeats this thesis statement at the end. As one should. We need to hear these things a few times. Auditory processing is hard. Repetition helps.
Conversely, Frum finally gets to his thesis statement after the SIX MINUTE mark. After an eternity of prelude (which includes Frum listing off Steve Bannon’s accomplishments), he finally states,
“Why will this populist movement lose and why will our Liberal institutions prevail? This new populism is a scam. It’s a lie. It’s a fake. It has nothing.” Ok great, but why didn’t you say that sooner?
Six minutes later, we finally get his central point. I think he even calls it the bottom line (although he says that so rushed that it’s unclear.) We shouldn’t have to wait so long for the thesis statement. We are left floundering, trying to process every little bit of his presentation and get to the crux of it ourselves. So those six minutes have been much harder and much less effective than they could have been. And our first impression has already been set and hardened.
When I work on a presentation or a speech with my clients, I start by asking them, “What’s the bottom line?” Then I have them put that at the top. And then repeat it a few times throughout. Auditory processing is hard. Repetition helps.
And just zip it and breathe once in a while. It helps convince us that you trust yourself, so then maybe we will too. Because these days, we need good people to be the ones we trust.
A good speaker gives the audience time. Slowing down can make a speaker sound more confident, and help the listener understand the message. It’s a win-win.
That applies to everyone. And it can be especially true for speakers with an accent.
Accents are an asset. They give the audience a peek into the complexity of a person. They show a life experience beyond their current location, a dip into the depth of their character.
There may be times, however, when an accent does hinder the clarity of a message. Sometimes specific speech sounds are missing, sometimes words aren’t highlighted in the way listeners expect, and the meaning of the message is lost. Sometimes those differences don’t matter at all, and sometimes they do.
Listen to a quick 30 seconds of this video to see a great example of a clear and accented speaker:
This delivery of this speech is solid. It’s clear and easily received. And accented.
This is Accent Confidence..
To see what Cynthia sounded like before our work together, listen here:
We had very specific speech goals to address. Speech rate is part of it, and it is the most obvious in this example. We changed that specifically through word stress by lengthening out the stressed syllables (e.g. deVELoper). And through pausing and intonation. We also targeted the ‘th’ sound, only because Cynthia is a perfectionist. (I usually don’t bother with “th”—substituting it with another sound doesn’t usually affect clarity.) Cynthia’s confidence in this performance is also enhanced by her breathing patterns. I start with a solid breathing foundation with most of my clients, and it often yields unexpected results.
Accent Confidence clients may work on English consonants, vowels, or (in my opinion the most important) English prosody (stress, rhythm, intonation.) Most work on a combination of all three. Regardless, the goal is never to rid the speaker of their accent. Only to make their speech clear and confident.
Cynthia was a good speaker to begin with, but her latest speech shows impressive progress. Who knows where you’ll see her next.
Find out what parts of your speech might be limiting your message, and which simply highlight your life experience. What to change, and what to celebrate.
What can we really change about how we communicate? And will it actually make a difference? It’s difficult to describe the impact on a message that altering your delivery can have.
Well, as the old saying goes, an mp3 is worth a thousand words.
Listen to these 7 seconds. It is a recording of one phrase, delivered before and after one dedicated client’s work with me.
It says so much about the importance of intonation and rate in delivering a message. Hard to explain, but easy to understand once you hear it. The second message is more expressive, clearer, and not as harsh as the first attempt.
This is the kind of work that I do. (To be clear, it takes more than 7 seconds to get here. But it’s worth it.)
There are many factors that can change how a message is received:
There has been a lot of criticism about the use of uptalk and vocal fry. But is it fair?
Uptalk is the tendency for speakers to go up in pitch? At the end of every phrase? Even though they’re not asking a question? Vocal fry or glottal fry is the sound that is created in the lowest register of the human voice. It’s a low, creaking sound. In speech pathology, it had historically been considered a damaging vocal pattern, but that is up for debate. (It can accompany a disorder, but not cause it.) Regardless of whether or not it damages the vocal folds, it can create a usage problem in that it takes a lot of effort to hold the arytenoid cartilages together tightly enough to make the sound. That’s a lot of tension for those throat muscles to maintain, and the cost of that tension is vocal fatigue.
By definition, vocal fry uses very little airflow. So there’s no projecting this voice. But it is low in pitch, I’ll give you that.
Also up for debate is whether or not people should be criticized for using it. Author and feminist Naomi Wolf told young women to stop it. Young women were incensed. They said REALLY?! We’re criticized for how we look, how we dress, how we behave, and now we’re being criticized for how we TALK? You should be listening to what we say, not how we say it. In fact, in a perfect world, I agree. People really should listen to what others are saying, regardless of how they look or sound.
Only I don’t make the rules.
And the rule here is The Medium Is The Message.
Your voice is the medium, so what message is your listener receiving? Do they hear confidence? Calm? Insecurity? Anxiety? Studies suggest that different generations hear different things in a voice that uses vocal fry and uptalk. But one thing is certain, if they are distracted by your voice, then the message they hear is likely very different than the one your words are trying to convey.
Did you ever live with a roommate and you got along great and everything was just fine until suddenly it wasn’t? When THAT THING your roommate did started to drive you crazy? Maybe it was that they never put away the dishes. Maybe it was the sound of their chewing. Or that they never cleaned the toilet. (Oh wait that was me.) Whatever it was, once you became consciously aware of it, and it had a name, that roommate was doomed. You could see nothing else. Everything they did was seen through the lens of this flaw. Such is the case with vocal fry and uptalk. Once people name the sin, the speaker is doomed. Vocal fry and uptalk haters can’t receive the message you’re sending. They can’t unhear it, and they can hear nothing else.
Your words may be inspirational, concise, and logical. But if your listener can’t hear them because they are focused on the way your voice creaks at the end of every sentence, or goes up in pitch, then your intended message is compromised. They will be so distracted by the delivery that they won’t be able to process your words.
You’re right, this is not fair. Your peers won’t mind the vocal fry or uptalk. They may be using it themselves. So if your friends are the ones hiring and promoting you, then there should be no problem. That’s not the case in most workplaces, though. The people hiring and promoting you really should be listening to what you say, not how you say it. But no one said life was fair. And people don’t always do what they should. The unfairness is compounded since more criticism for fry and uptalk is aimed at women for these perceived sins, even though young men are guilty too.
But if you want to stand up for your feminist rights, choose another hill to die on. This one’s not nearly high enough. Because really, taming your fry and uptalk isn’t such a horrible thing. You may think it defines you, but I think it defines you in the same way that beards define hipsters. Sure, everyone’s got one, it makes them fit in, and it looks cool. But in the end, many beards are honestly not very attractive. You know the ones I’m talking about. My guess is that in a few years, these guys will look back at old photos and feel glad they eventually shaved. (I know, because I’ve got photos from the 80’s. Not a pretty decade.)
[Here is a side note for the vocal fry and uptalk haters: stop judging. Why so angry? Do your very best to listen to the words. If you have a trusting relationship with the speaker, and you genuinely think their communication is holding them back professionally, offer them encouragement. Gently point out that some listeners can only hear the fry or uptalk (especially older listeners), and you believe their professional communication will be an uphill battle if they limit themselves with this delivery. But the uninvited criticism and the vitriol attached to this topic reek of indignant superiority and sexism, which is hurtful, not helpful. So be aware of your biases and tread carefully.]
If you are a chronic uptalker or vocal fryer, then to ensure being heard in your professional life, practice delivering your message using the full range of your voice that you were given. You have an incredible system of vocal cords and a resonating body that can express a vast variety of emotions and intentions. Why limit it? Stay out of that creaky fry zone. As soon as you hear the crackle, try to raise your pitch a bit to get out of it. Be generous with your breath. End your sentences high when it’s required, but also end low when that’s called for. Variety and range make for great speaking voices.
If you want help figuring this out and changing those patterns, your friendly neighbourhood speech pathologist is a good place to start.
Your fry voice and uptalk do not define you. They are not all you’ve got. They are limiting not only in how you’re perceived, but also in how fully you are able to express yourself. Your voice is the medium, so why not make your medium an extra-large?
1. Men are more attracted to women with higher voices.
2.We are more likely to vote for women with deeper voices.
So if sex sells, can we surmise that Hillary Clinton lost out on a few votes? We can at least say that she was unfairly criticized because of her voice. She was called shrill. Screechy. Nagging.
And when Brit Hume from Fox News said that Hillary “has a not-so-attractive voice“, we of course see that as a criticism. But in fact I suppose he’s right. That’s why she got elected in the first place. If it were an attractive voice according to the studies, then it would likely be higher pitched. High-pitched voices don’t get elected. Seems unfair, but welcome to womanhood. Lo and behold, you can’t have it all. When it comes to your voice, you can either be electable, or attractive. But apparently not both.
So, when I hear Hillary Clinton at 21 years old with a whole lot of head voice (that men find attractive), I think yeah, sure, it’s nice enough to listen to, but I probably wouldn’t vote for her. And something told Hillary the same thing. So she changed. She decided to become electable, consciously or not. That’s how the voice works. We make changes as we go, usually subconsciously. Sometimes those changes work out for the best. Sometimes we regret them. (Which is where I suspect vocal fry will end up in about 10 years, but I digress.)
And society changed. In these modern times, North American society doesn’t have a lot of respect for women who speak exclusively in head voice. Think of Melanie Griffith’s character in Working Girl.
They all thought she was sexy, but no one was going to promote her.
Hello society, you only respect deeper voices? All right then! Here’s my chest voice. I’ll use it as much as I possibly can. Hey! I got elected! Well that worked out great!
Except for when they say she sounds like she’s lecturing or combative. “You should sound softer! Kinder! Gentler!”
Also, Hillary got older. That tends to happen with humans. (Crazy!) Both aging and using chest voice lower women’s voices. This article does a great job of explaining the science behind Hillary’s changing and adapting voice. Kudos to the author for tracking down voice scientist Ingo Titze. He really knows this stuff. The good thing about lowering your voice is that it gets you elected. But the problem is, and Ingo Titze wrote this to me in an email a few years back, the problem with women using primarily chest voice (WHICH GOT THEM ELECTED), is that “Women will be at a disadvantage if they lower their speaking pitch to the male speaking range. The generally smaller female larynx drives less airflow, which means females will likely “press” more to increase their vocal power. This comes at a cost.”
What is the cost? Ingo, what is the cost?!
Well, it’s that when they try to get louder, when they want to increase their vocal power, women who use chest voice tend to press their voice. And that can make her sound Annoying! (Thank you Sonny Bunch.) Or Screechy! (Thank you Joel Achenbach.) Or like she has a Very Average Scream! (Thank you Donald Trump). Oh hey, speaking of the Donald, guess who else presses his voice?
Standing in front of a crowd of thousands, it’s pretty hard not to want to increase your vocal power. Sure, there’s a microphone, but it’s thousands of people! When Hillary or Donald are in front of a crowd, they press their voices. But very different things come up when you google Hillary Clinton Voice and Donald Trump Voice. (That is the “sexist double standard” part of all this.) And after years of pressing a voice, it can become more and more hoarse. Indeed, there is a cost.
I’d like to suggest that criticizing Hillary Clinton for using her chest voice is like criticizing a giraffe for having a long neck.
Giraffe! Sure, you can now eat leaves from the tops of trees, but come on! It’s SO HARD for you to bend down and drink water. The lions might get you! What were you thinking?!
And the giraffe’s all like, “Dude, I was thinking about NOT DYING OF HUNGER.” My long neck is what helps me survive! I didn’t really consider the water-drinking, but I guess I’ll just have to take my chances.
Yeah, but you might get eaten by LIONS!
Yeah, but I wouldn’t even BE HERE if not for my long neck.
The giraffe adapted.
The lions can only take you down if you actually exist. But first you gotta survive.
Bottom line, maybe we need to stop criticizing the giraffe for having such a long neck. It’s what got her this far.
Do you press your voice? Ingo Titze has something that can help:
I recognize that taking cultural sensitivity advice from Little Britain is a very bad idea. Still, there is a valuable lesson to be learned from Weight Watchers Counsellor Marjorie Dawes. Not surprisingly, it has very little to do with fashion.
These Little Britain sketches are illustrating something pretty problematic. In a 1992 study (Rubin), students listened to a taped lecture recorded by an English speaker with a regional Ohio accent (same as the students) and they were shown a picture of the lecturer. Half of the students were shown a picture of a white instructor and the other half were shown a picture of an Asian instructor. Students who saw the picture of the Asian instructor believed that they had heard an accented lecturer. They performed worse on a task measuring their comprehension of the lecture.
In a nutshell, students listened to an instructor, and if they thought she was Asian, they had a harder time understanding her. Even though the lecturer’s voice was actually a white woman speaking with the same regional accent as theirs. If they thought she was white, no problem. Wow our brains are stupid sometimes.
So, if you have an ‘accent’ compared to the people around you, the next time you find yourself misunderstood you may not be at fault.
If you’re the listener and you’re having a hard time understanding someone, excuse yourself, run to the bathroom and take a quick look in the mirror. Really look at yourself. If you see any trace of Marjorie Dawes there, then I suggest you change your attitude.
And your eyeshadow.
Rubin, 1992. Nonlanguage Factors Affecting Undergraduates’ Judgments of Nonnative English-SpeakingTeaching AssistantsAuthor(s): Donald L. RubinSource: Research in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Aug., 1992), pp. 511-531Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196047 .