How long-winded is Arabic and how much do its native speakers gesticulate?

In previous posts, I've suggested that the long-winded nature of Latin-based languages like Italian and French are more long-winded than Nordic and Germanic ones and that this may have an impact on how much speakers of such languages use gestures when speaking (HERE & HERE).

I don't read a word of Arabic, nor do I know what an 'IDF Room' is. But I was intrigued enough by this notice on a wall in my hotel in Dubai to get my camera out:

On the face of it, it looks like a serious competitor to one from an Italian notice posted last year (HERE):

But, whereas three syllables of English were enough to translate nine syllables of Italian, I have no idea how many beats are depicted in the Arabic writing above (or whether the English version 'cheats' by using an acronym that defies translation).

Nor do I know whether native speakers of Arabic are reputed to gesticulate more vigorously than native speakers of English.

So today's question is to ask whether anyone can shed any light on these intriguing questions?

UK Business Communicator of the year, 2012: Gillian Tett

Brian Jenner of the UK Speechwriters' Guild recently announced that the title of UK Business Communicator of 2012 has been awarded to Gillian Tett of the Financial Times.

For me, as a former sociologist, it is particularly pleasing to see someone with a PhD in social anthropology, another allegedly 'useless' subject, making a mark with much wider audiences than those in academia.

The full citation is reproduced below between the two clips of her in action.

Citation

The world economy is choked with thorns. Few commentators seem to be able to tell us how or why it’s happened. The financial journalist, Gillian Tett, has emerged with a simple and compelling story explaining what went wrong.

The UK Speechwriters’ Guild has awarded Gillian Tett, US managing editor of the Financial Times, and author of Fool’s Gold, the prize of UK Business Communicator 2012. This is for three reasons.

The first is that she is an excellent public speaker. Her voice suggests that she’s not a natural, but her delivery is measured and clear.

The second reason is that her content is excellent. The key story she tells again and again is how she attended a conference of bankers at the European Securitisation Forum in the Acropolis Centre in Nice in 2005 to find out what was going in the credit world.

Despite being an experienced financial journalist, she had no idea what the speakers were talking about.

‘Finance was presented as an abstract mathematical game that took place in cyberspace replete with concepts such as ‘Gaussian copula’, ‘delta hedging’ and ‘first-to-default basket’.’

The bankers’ PowerPoint presentations did not inform or entertain. They had more in common with the Tajik wedding rituals she had studied at university. These rituals were about asserting identity and status within a social group. The bankers spoke a language totally unintelligible to anyone outside the clan.

Tett became determined to unpick the world of collateralised debt obligations. As a journalist with a background in social anthropology, she was able to find similes to describe what was going on. She presents her findings with a wry but appropriate sense of humour.

There is no mystery to how her speeches work.

Tett makes simple analogies everyone can understand (comparing derivatives to sausages). She uses anecdotes involving human beings acting at specific times in specific places. She self-deprecatingly refers to herself as a ‘hippy’ in a world of mathematics and astrophysics geeks. Despite being in a world overflowing with acronyms, she uses words that are familiar to everyone.

The third reason that Gillian Tett has won the award is that she has highlighted a problem that preoccupies the UK Speechwriters’ Guild.

Tett has warned of the ‘silo curse’. Groups of people get together in finance, medicine, engineering, the military and Government bureaucracy. They innovate at an extraordinary pace but they learn to speak a language that nobody else understands.

If everyone outside these organisations becomes convinced that their activities are dull, boring and technical, they will avoid scrutiny with potentially catastrophic results for the rest of society.

To counter this Gillian Tett has identified the ‘urgent need for a large cadre of ‘cultural translators’’, who can explain what is happening in the silos to everyone else. ‘We need people who can join up the dots and present the big picture.’ The UK Speechwriters’ Guild is such a cadre.

Brian Jenner
Chairman of the Judges, UK Speechwriters’ Guild
February 2012

The
Winner
2012
The
world
economy
is
choked
with
thorns.
Few
commentators
seem
to
be
able
to
tell
us
how
or
why
it’s
happened.
The
financial
journalist,
Gillian
Tett,
has
emerged
with
a
simple
and
compelling
story
explaining
what
went
wrong.
The
UK
Speechwriters’
Guild
has
awarded
Gillian
Tett,
US
managing
editor
of
the
Financial
Times
and
author
of
Fool’s
Gold,
the
prize
of
UK
Business
Communicator
2012.
This
is
for
three
reasons.
The
first
is
that
she
is
an
excellent
public
speaker.
Her
voice
suggests
that
she’s
not
a
natural,
but
her
delivery
is
measured
and
clear.
The
second
reason
is
that
her
content
is
excellent.
The
key
story
she
tells
again
and
again
is
how
she
attended
a
conference
of
bankers
at
the
European
Securitisation
Forum
in
the
Acropolis
Centre
in
Nice
in
2005
to
find
out
what
was
going
in
the
credit
world.
She
had
no
idea
what
the
speakers
were
talking
about.

Is the sound of music on TV getting more and worse?

Many outstanding movies have been greatly enhanced by outstanding music. Famous film scores by composers like John Willams, Enno Morrikone and John Barry have deservedly won a much wider audiences among listeners around the world.

And, as I've noted before, even political speeches can occasionally be enhanced by suitable background music (e.g. HERE).

But what do we hear from our television screens these days? Is there more music than there used to be? Is it louder, less appropriate and more poorly chosen than it used to be?

Birdsong

The recent BBC drama serialisation of Birdsong has already prompted me to complain (again) about 'the open-mouthed school of acting' (HERE). But just as irritating (to me at least) were the repetitive few bars of plinky-plonk piano music in the background (which you can sampleHERE for a few more days).

Music in factual and documentary films?

It got me wondering whether I'm alone in finding background music an annoying and unnecessary distraction to whatever it is we're trying to watch?

Nor is not just to be heard in dramas, as it now seems to be infecting more and more BBC factual programmes.

Countryfile

For example, viewers of Countryfile on BBC1 have to put up with it week after week, as in the following examples from a discussion of proposed badger-culling. :

Frozen Planet

And, as if viewers of the Frozen Planet might otherwise have objected to David Attenborough's commentary on the brilliant film footage, the producers apparently thought it necessary to impose the continual distraction of irrelevant and more or less continuous backgound music - as in this sequence on polar bear mating behaviour:

Or do the makers of these programmes really believe that irrelevant music adds significantly to our enjoyment and appreciation of the films?

If so, I'd very much like to know why and to see what evidence (if any) they have to support their case...

P.S. Aurorora borealis au musak

I'm very grateful to Keenan Malilk (@kenanmalik) for posting a link to this video on Twitter earlier today, along with a comment - "..annoying music but astounding video all the same" - that suggests I may not be alone in my dislike of pointless musical backgrounds to otherwise impressive film-footage:

Speaking of the moon: Gingrich v. Kennedy

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has told us that, by the end of his second term (about 2 minutes into the above), there would be Americans living on the moon. With enough of them there, they'd even be able to become a state of the USA.

And why not?

After all, in 1961, President Kennedy had made the first of two famous speeches about American plans to send a man to the moon. The first was to Congress (below), followed up a year later by his "We choose to go to the moon" speech at Rice University (HERE).

So if Kennedy could get away with such an ambitious goal, why not Gingrich?

Er, at least 3 reasons:

1. Kennedy had already been president for more than a year when he went public with his proposal.

2. Before that, he'd already had time to consult with the relevant experts and no doubt had a pretty good idea that a man on the moon within a decade was entirely possible.

3. Kennedy never made any colonial claims on the moon. Nor, though he may have left a US flag there, did Neil Armstrong - or anyone else.

Obama's State of the Union speech: (2) Enhanced by PowerPoint?

When I first started watching the version of President Obama's State of the Union speech posted on YouTube by the White House, I wondered what the blue rectangle on the right hand side was for.

But all quickly became clear: it was for PowerPoint style slides and they, presumably, were what transformed it into an 'enhanced version'.

So we got to see a picture and the wordds MORE THAN 1 MILLION AMERICAN TROOPS SERVED IN IRAQ BETWEEN 2003-2011

Then a wanted poster for Osama bin Laden with a big red cross through it.

Then more pictures of US troops followed numbers of how many of them had fought in various wars.

And so on and on and on, through pictures, bar charts, graphs, diagrams lists of bullet points, on the US economy, education, etc., etc., etc.

Enhancement or distraction?

Watching this, I was left gasping, wondering who on earth in team Obama believes that his speeches are actually enhanced by such distractions, unless it was the same person who thought that background musak 'enhanced' the film of his speechwriters preparing the speech (see previous post).

Does it mean we can now expect President Obama to take a slide projector along with him during the forthcoming presidential campaign?

I think not - for the obvious reason that he's a good enough communicator to know that the words in his speeches and the way he delivers them are enough on their own to get his messages across.

What's more, I very much hope that this White House model of an 'enhanced presentation' doesn't give other lesser speakers (e.g. most British politicians) the idea that this is the way to improve their own speeches 'going forward'.

See for yourself

If you haven't seen it yet, it's well worth watching all the way through - and coming to your own conclusion as to whether the visual aids enhance or distract from what he said.

Obama's State of the Union speech: (1) Behind the scenes with the speechwriters

Few British political speechwriters though there may be, anyone who writes any kind of speech is likely to be interested not only in this film but also by the fact that it had nearly 400,000 views on YouTube within 24 hours of being posted there.

A cunning part of team Obama's communication strategy perhaps, but there's something very refreshing about a top politician openly admitting that he gets help with his speeches and being willing to give a public platform to those who help him.

So far, I've only watched it once and found the most annoying part was the awful background musak - but the producers of the film maybe know something that I don't about how distracting noises can enhance the impact of such propaganda...

The State of the Union address itself seemed to go down pretty well. But the video posted by the White House had another major distraction - on which more shortly in Part (2).