Script or notes?
One of the first problems a speaker faces when he or she starts to prepare his presentation in earnest, is how is he going to record it so that he is reminded as he talks? In other words, what sort of notes is he going to make? Nine times out of ten, this question is never considered. Some sort of notes are produced, usually depending on factors such as what other people have been seen to do, what sort of notes were used at school, and sheer chance. Notes to speak from seem just to happen, without thought, and the speaker muddles through. Poor notes, however, are an added strain when talking, and can cause you to miss sections of the talk, lose the place, and dry up. So it is worth thinking about the best way of taking notes. As with everything to do with speaking, a little thought in advance saves a deal of embarrassment and confusion on the day.
The first question is, should you write down the talk and read it out, or use some sort of note form? And should those notes be full and detailed, or skeleton notes? To help solve this first problem, let me describe four ways of preparing a talk, showing the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Written scripts
In many ways the most obvious thing to do, and often the fiirst method chosen by inexperienced and nervous speakers, is to write the talk out in full, and read it out from the script. This is a method which is often used for technical papers, and symposia, and is therefore one which a young professional is most likely to be familiar with. He or she may even think it is the only proper way to deliver a so called
86 Effective Speaking
talk. In symposia the text may even be distributed in full before the talk, and time spent solemnly reading it out during the meeting. Anyone who has been to a conference where this is done, knows that it is quite impossible to listen to the text being read out. It is painfully monotonous, and has little to do with the experience of talking to someone who is an expert in the subject. The process is only called ‘speaking’ by courtesy, and because a voice is used. It has more in common with a public reading, usually being given by someone peculiarly inept at reading aloud.
Why, then, do people write full scripts, and read them out? Partly because it seems to be expected of them, partly because of the obvious advantage of a written script—it gives the speaker confidence. But the disadvantage is overwhelming: written language is not spoken language. This statement needs some clarification. Here is an example of spoken language—an accurate transcript of a BBC broadcast:
Well if you take one of these animals and put it between two electrical terminals in a laboratory, and create a strong static electricity field, which doesn’t hurt the animal at all, it’s perfectly lively and unaffected by it, but it will start to discharge electrons; they fan out from the openings of the body, the openings in its external shell, its exoskeleton, and there’s an avalanche of electrons moving out and knocking into molecules of gas in the air, nitrogen molecules mostly, and these are excited, and because they are excited, they glow, and so each individual insect gives out rather a weak light, but if you look at it, in a darkened room, you can see this glow fanning out in all directions.
As you can see, it is very different from written language. If the same conversation were written, it would presumably go something like this: Harmless laboratory experiments demonstrate that the animal discharges electrons in a strong field of static electricity. They fan out, avalanch like, from the openings in the exoskeleton, exciting nitrogen molecules in the air which then glow. As a result the insects give out a weak light, which, in a darkened laboratory can be seen to fan out in every direction.
We have got so used to the kind of simulation of spoken language used in novels, that we fail to notice what people actually say when they are speaking. Spoken language, when it is carefully and accurately
Making notes 87
transcribed from a recording, has little in common with written language. Among the main differences are the fact that the grammar of spoken language usually seems strange, even obscure, when the passage is written down. This is because the structure of a spoken passage is made obvious by the intonation—the way the voice goes up and down in pitch, emphasizing certain words, and making pauses between phrases. Spoken language doesn’t need grammar, to give a meaning to the sequence of words. Indeed, to put it another way, the grammar of written language has probably evolved in order to replace the intonation of the spoken voice. And this is what causes the problems, for just because written language has grammar, it doesn’t need, and doesn’t encourage, intonation. In other words, the written form positively encourages the use of a flat monotonous voice; indeed it may be difficult to use intonation and variety when reading written material, because the grammar will make it superfluous. The difference between spoken and written language can be summed up in one simple fact: spoken language doesn’t have sentences. If you look carefully at the transcript of the BBC talk above, you will notice that it is not really possible to decide where one sentence ends and another starts, and certainly few of the sentences are grammatically complete. We speak in a collection of phrases, not in sentences.
Spoken language is not written language.
Spoken language has two other important differences from written language. Firstly, speaking uses much repetition. The typical way of explaining, amplifying, and exploring a point is to add an extra phrase in a sort of phonological bracket. By dropping or raising the voice, it is made clear to the listener that the information is a sort of sideline, or footnote, which is meant to clarify what is being said, rather than introduce a new point. Speakers also tend to restart sentences in different ways, trying to get across what they mean by different routes, and when they feel the point is clear, not bothering to complete or tidy up what they have started to say. There is also much trying out of different words, and rhetorical repetition for emphasis. All these features contribute to the muscular, flexible, and alert feeling of spoken language. It is like a living contact with the mind of the speaker, whereas written language is a fossil record of his or her thoughts.
The second way in which spoken language differs from written language is that the choice of vocabulary is very different. Written vocabulary is formal, and explicit. Spoken vocabulary tends to be
88 Effective Speaking
familiar, and everyday. Indeed, it is usually possible to get someone to simplify and clarify a tortuous written sentence by asking him to look away from the page, and say what he means. A writer who has solemnly written: ‘Tests were conducted on the loader to ascertain the maximum failure capacity’, when asked what he meant, would say something like: ‘We loaded it up until the cable broke’; a simpler, and clearer, way of explaining a technical point.
Writers, then, use formal grammar, single expressions, and elaborate, abstract vocabulary: speakers use intonation, repeat things until they are clear, and use everyday words. There are great differences between spoken and written language, and when written language is read out, it is less effective. I am not suggesting that there is a difference of worth, between written and spoken language. They are simply used for different purposes; one is to communicate face to face, the other communicates remotely. Misusing the difference is one cause of boring presentations. It you read out written language, your voice will naturally lack intonation. The structure of what you say will be over formal, and the vocabulary will be too abstract. This is why listening to written papers being read out is so difficult. The listener gets no sense of contact with the speaker’s mind—there seems to be a wall of fog between the living mind of the speaker, and the listener.
Written language often sounds false and clumsy when it is read out, and what I have said in the last few paragraphs should explain why. The added problem is that many people are poor readers; their reading voices are stumbling and monotonous. It is possible to read written text in an interesting way—actors do it constantly—but it requires great skill. It is certainly not to be recommended as a way of giving a technical or informative presentation.
Another disadvantage of reading is that the presenter loses eyecontact with the audience. Because he or she has to follow the text, it is impossible to do more than glance up at his listeners from time to time, whereas someone speaking spontaneously will naturally be looking round at the listeners. When reading, a presenter also loses the chance to make gestures and arm movements, which are naturally suppressed when reading from a script because they seem artificial. None-the-less reading a written text is a method often used. It is one I don’t recommend. In all but exceptional circumstances, it is a sure way of losing the attention and interest of the audience. It is an expensive way of buying the confidence that you won’t forget what you are going to say. You may not forget, but the audience almost certainly will.
Making notes 89
which helps boost confidence, by providing safety points to return to if the impromptu flow of words breaks down. The technique is to write down the opening and closing sentences, as well as sections within the speech, for use in the case of emergencies. By providing islands of security, you will increase your self-confidence. It also provides natural resting places, and if the worst happens, and you dry up, there is something to say while you are finding your feet again. But don’t write down more than a few sentences, otherwise the whole talk will acquire the monotonous flavour of the written script. The first sentence of each new topic, and the conclusion of each section, is as far as you should go. Inbetween, use ordinary notes.
The learned text
A second method sometimes used by inexperienced speakers is to write the talk out in full and learn it by heart. The advantage is that it avoids the loss of eye-contact and gesture. But the method has dis-advantages; there is the danger of forgetting the lines, and anxiety about remembering them is an added strain. The speaker is also at the mercy of interruptions, which can make him or her lose the thread of the talk. Another disadvantage is that the speaker spends time and energy in wasteful rote learning, and therefore has less time and energy to use in preparing the content of the talk. But the main disadvantage of the written text still remains. When written language is spoken, whether it is read or remembered, it sounds stilted, formal and unnatural.
From notes
The third method, and the one which all experienced speakers recommend, is to prepare the talk carefully, but to deliver it from notes, choosing the actual phrasing extempore. The great advantages of this method are these: firstly it has flexibility, spontaneity and openness. Feedback from the audience can vary the structure and content of the talk to fit in with their needs and interests. The second advantage is that there is eye-contact and natural gesture. The speaker can look at his audience while he talks, and his gestures are a spontaneous reflection of the structure of his thought. These important aspects of speaking are discussed more fully in chapter nine. Having only notes for most of the presentation forces the speaker to talk to the audience naturally and spontaneously. He or she will probably find this easier, and more enjoyable, than they expect.
90 Effective Speaking
All experienced speakers use this technique of talking from brief notes. Research confirms that it is the most acceptable method for the listeners. Coats and Smidchens (1966) show that when a lecture is constructed around a few key points it is much more effective for the listeners than hearing a paper being read.1 The only exception to this
rule is that it is useful to read quotations. It gives a variety of approach, which is the key to interesting (that is effective) speaking. It also lends an air of authority to the quotation, because the audience accords it the extra credibility allowed to the printed word.
Not prepared
A fourth method, worth mentioning for completeness, is speaking without any written preparation at all. As a way of preparing a talk it has no advantages; its disadvantages are that you may imagine you have prepared more in your mind than you actually have. Only writing it down will show what is really there, help to focus and clarify your thoughts, and identify the points you want to make. The other obvious disadvantage it that it makes it too easy to forget; you are likely either to dry up completely, or to miss out important points. It should never be used except for unexpected invitations to speak. Without notes, a talk usually lacks a plan and a structure, so speaking without notes should be confined to very short speeches. If you suddenly find that you are expected to talk, if possible, make scribbled notes on an envelope in the last few seconds while you are being introduced. If you also move slowly while the person who introduced you sits down, you stand up, and everyone shuffles about, it will give you added time to think. There is no need to worry about the pause; the audience will be glad to have a short break from listening.
There is only one rule for these unprepared, impromptu, talks. Make only one point, one joke, or tell one anecdote, then shut up. Brevity is the only virtue of the impromptu talk. The exception is the speech given by the experienced after-dinner speaker. Like an actor, he has a sheaf of jokes and anecdotes tucked away at the back of his mind, and has only to staple together two or three familiar routines before he talks. He can then run on ad-lib like a gramophone in a groove, apparently totally confident. It is an illusion. Unless you have the experience, don’t try to emulate it. It’s like trying to climb Mt Everest without the professional’s climbing equipment. You will fall off!
Making notes 91
Notes are to help you
The notes you make are the most important insurance policy for the success of the talk. The product of the preparation stages is a set of notes, and they represent the only permanent part of the talk. Speaking is ephemeral, while notes endure. But notes are not the whole talk. You will find, as you talk, that ideas and facts from the work you did in preparation will come back to you, and you may decide, impromptu, to use a piece of information which you did not put in the notes. There is nothing wrong in this: the purpose of a talk is to say what you know about a subject, and notes are for assistance, not to replace knowledge.
The main advantage of good notes is to ensure that you do not forget what you intend to say. A great deal of research has been done on memory (there are many specialist textbooks on memory, for instance), and one of the most consistent results is that stress affects memory. Its usual effect is to make us forget important things, but stress can also cause complete black-outs of memory, as well as causing sudden vivid remindings about things previously buried in the subconscious. The effect of stress is unpredictable: it makes memory irrational and random. And the speaker is under as much stress as most people experience in their day to day lives. It is therefore especially important that he or she takes steps to compensate for the erratic and unreliable performance of the memory under stress.
Some people are unfortunate enough to go completely numb and silent when facing an audience—their memory switches off. The brain processes that operate recall are notoriously out of reach of the will power. We are quite unaware of the process of laying down memories, we feel no pain, no sense of effort, and no sense of choice. We can only predict, in a fairly random way, what we will find memorable, and what we are likely to forget completely. Brain specialists believe that quite large parts of the grey matter are involved in the recording and recall of memories, just as we now know that huge parts of the brain are involved in decoding the information from our retinas, before passing it on to the conscious part of the brain. But we are not aware of the process of stereoscopic vision, just as we have no consciousness of the processes of memory. We often need some object to remind us; notes are a kind of external memory that is under conscious control. Notes jog your memory, and produce what the audience perceives as a fertile flow of ideas and enthusiasm.
92 Effective Speaking
Some people, instead of seizing up in front of an audience, become uncontrollably garrulous under strain. They always find plenty to say; the trouble is that it may, or may not, be relevant. Good notes are just as important for this kind of person. The art of good talking is not just to fill the alloted time; it is to use the time wisely to say as much as possible that is useful and necessary. The most useful function of notes is not just to remind you of the material, but to give it structure. They provide a plan or map of the structure of the talk.
Notes are the main way in which the content and structure of the talk can be controlled. Without notes, most talks are formless ramblings. With notes they can be an orderly set of points, with a