Write for the eye, not the ear

I’ve been reading Teaching Listening and Speaking: From Theory to Practice, by Jack C. Richards. It’s mostly about language acquisition (and language instruction), so you might not expect to find a gem for public speaking…

But today I came across something so exciting I just knew I was going to have to write about it.

Here it is in Richards’s own words:

***

“Spoken discourse has very different characteristics from written discourse… for example, spoken discourse is usually instantaneous. The listener must process it “on-line” and there is often no chance to listen to it again.

[…]

“Spoken discourse has also been described as having a linear structure, compared to a hierarchical structure for written discourse. Whereas the unit of organisation for written discourse is the sentence, spoken language is usually delivered one clause at a time and longer utterances in conversation generally consist of several clauses co-ordinated. Most of the clauses used are simple conjuncts or adjuncts.”

***

Now, why was this so exciting to me?

Not just because I’m a language-learning nerd (which I am). It’s also because it sheds light on something that is at the heart of what makes a great speech.

You see, there’s a difference between writing for the eye and writing for the ear.

Anyone who has worked with me before knows I say this all the time.

And the reason most speeches are so bad (read: forgettable, and completely lacking in authority and impact) is because they’re written for the eye.

Not the ear.

The quote I gave above from Richards helps to explain why – and what the difference is.

When we read, we read in sentences. We read like every sentence is part of a larger whole (which it is).

This means we can be relatively complex in writing. It means we can draw together threads and references that are far apart, and our audience will probably ‘get’ it.

But the spoken word is different.

When we speak, we speak in ‘chunks’ of a clause at a time.

More importantly, that’s also how our listeners hear us.

So if we use the long sentences, the complex clauses, the tangled webs of references that I see all the time in written material…

…well, we lose our audience.

Here’s what I mean. Take the following sentence as an example (I’m taking the example from Richards):

“The guy I sat next to on the bus this morning on the way to work was telling me he runs a Thai restaurant in Chinatown.”

We hear this in 7 ‘chunks’ or clauses:

1. The guy

2. I sat next to

3. On the bus

4. This morning

5. Was telling me

6. He runs a Thai restaurant

7. In Chinatown

Notice how this sentence builds out the picture in a linear fashion. At each step it anticipates the natural question and answers it:

‘The guy.’ What guy? ‘The one I sat next to’. Sat next to where? ‘On the bus.’ When? ‘This morning.’ Right, I know whom you’re talking about now. What about him? ‘He was telling me’ What? ‘He runs a Thai restaurant.’ Oh really? Where? ‘In Chinatown.’

See what I mean?

This makes it flow. It makes it easy to understand.

Now let’s compare it with this extract from an opinion piece I audited a few years ago (this extract was before I improved it, and I’ve removed identifying details!):

“A number of recent reports have incorrectly suggested that [CLIENT] has reduced its focus on XYZ as a result of changes to the program. The reality is quite the opposite and we welcome the opportunity to clarify some of the facts.”

Let’s follow the clauses or ‘chunks’ here:

1. A number of recent reports

2. Have incorrectly suggested

3. That we have reduced our focus

4. On XYZ

5. As a result

6. Of changes to the program

7. The reality is quite the opposite

8. And we welcome the opportunity

9. To clarify some of the facts

Yeesh. Long clauses, not a clear build up.

Try this version instead:

“Several recent reports have suggested that changes to [CLIENT’S] ABC program have reduced its focus on XYZ. This is false.”

1. Several recent reports

2. Have suggested

3. That changes

4. To our ABC

5. Have reduced its focus

6. On XYZ

7. This is false

Clearer. Shorter. Simpler. And – what we always want – stronger.

The first one is ‘report-speak.’ The second one is natural speaking.

So think about this next time you’re preparing a speech or presentation: are your sentences written so that the audience can listen clause-by-clause?

If not – change it.

Or better yet, call in the expert. (Yeah, that’s me.)

I’ll make your speech stronger, clearer, and bolder every time, or I work for free. That’s the Alexander guarantee.

If you’re ready to level-up your communication, hit ‘reply’ or email me at [email protected] and let’s talk.

Alexander