One of the most fascinating aspects of formant analysis is
its relevance to psychologists. Linguists have found that pitch level, range
and variability can suggest a lot about someone’s mood. For example, Klaus
Scherer, famously charted
the emotional correlates to certain phonetic qualities. Although his findings
are relatively intuitive, such as the fact that fear is related to high pitch
level, wide pitch range and large variability, they provide an interesting
framework for making more sophisticated inferences about the psychological
foundations of speech formation. More recently, a communication analytics
company named Quantified Impressions used software to find that a speaker’s
voice quality accounted for “23%
of the listener’s evaluation” or interpretation of the success and message of
the speech. If we put these two insights together it seems as though human
beings have a systematic way of revealing and interpreting speech construction
and pitch qualities that transcends the content of the actual speech.
Quantified Impressions also claimed that content accounted for only 11%
of the listener’s evaluation of the speech. Put these two findings together and
you may realize that a speech coach is more conducive to success than a college
education. The Wall Street Journal wrote
that “A strong, smooth voice can enhance your chances of rising to CEO [while]
a nasal whine, a raspy tone or strident volume can drive colleagues to
distraction”. Linguists have begun to decode the implicit rules that govern
what we reveal when we speak and how other perceive certain forms of speech.
The implications of this discipline and of the Modulation Theory of
Speech could be extremely far reaching. For example, liars and psychopaths
are known to demonstrate
flattened intonation when speaking. Pamela Meyer, a social media expert and
professional lie detector, uses some of
these insights and works with businesses in order to identify liars and preempt
fraudulent activity. Additionally, Mrs. Meyer trains business executives to
identify qualities that suggest dishonest activities – making the linguistic
skill set even more relevant to business people.
These
actionable insights about human beings can lead to incredible advances in
entertainment, therapy, education and surveillance in the future. But more
interesting than the potential outcomes are the origins of this implicit code.
Evolutionary
biologists hypothesize that the role of pitch in signaling and communication
has a clear origin. Before environments were safe enough for the development of
sophisticated languages, expression analysis or body language understanding,
our ancestral animals would communicate in at stressful moments solely through
cries and vocal signaling. In these situations, content was mostly stored in
pitch, as little else was possible, and consequently humans have a hardwired
system for interpreting vocal cues. Norman D Cook summarized
this theory by writing “our tree-climbing ancestors were communicating long
distance by chirping, purring, squealing and growling at one another – using
auditory signals to establish and maintain dominance relations, to signal
dangers and opportunities and to find suitable mates for reproduction.”
Let us
assume that there exists a coherent and comprehensive implicit subconscious
structure for the interpretation of intonations. Given that the goal of
language is to communicate messages, should we not be more focused on training
our pitch variations than we are now? Is this not especially important, given
the evidenced and material affects that intonation can have on our career, that
this is taught to us systematically?
I definitely think that more emphasis should be put on learning how to speak to others, whether it’s in a social setting or a more formal environment. A lot of the advice I have come across in regards to public speaking always seems to target the physical aspect of speaking. We are always told to maintain eye contact, stand up straight, use our hands while we talk, etc. While all of these points are important, they are all about looking confident while speaking. However, as you point out in your post, it’s also very crucial (possibly more crucial) to sound confident. This is what I believe most people cannot do very well, especially when it comes to public speaking. Training pitch variations and having more control of one’s voice would definitely help a person in various aspects of his/her life.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting, the idea that persuasive speaking should be taught and emphasized in the way you describe. Certainly, our current systems of education very much emphasize persuasive writing (rather than speaking), and historically, education in persuasive speaking was very widespread amongst the aristocracy in ancient Greece and Rome because that was the primary way they would communicate with an illiterate electorate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in a certain way, it does seem a bit odd to teach things that, as Cook describes, are already instinctual. If we already manipulate our intonation without acute training, wouldn't training only allow people to control their intonation in a way that's dishonest and manipulative? Of course, in a sense, modern actors' training involves being able to do this, but having "dishonesty" as a skill for the general public does have its moral issues. For most people, their instinctual and untrained control of intonation communicates well enough how they feel.