Rasheed
Jul 6th, 2007, 07:17 AM
I'm trying to improve my (Dutch language) speech, because in my own recordings I'm having trouble understanding myself. I think I'm doing something wrong, but I'm not exactly sure what. Perhaps some of you more experienced talkers can help me with the theory of speech, so I know what to look for, and how to improve the way I talk, to have more control and be more intelligible.
I recorded two brief interviews on Dutch tv about the recent flooding in Great-Britain. The interviews were taken in Yorkshire, both in a local dialect. However, the first person clearly wasn't as professional a speaker as the second, who seemed to be a spokesman of some kind (and a short question from a reporter from the BBC, I guess).
Here are the MP3 files (located on Box.net; you can either play them in your browser or download as a file):
non-pro speaker (http://www.box.net/shared/9xioaug5bk) (13.7 s, 109.2 kB)
pro speaker (http://www.box.net/shared/pycf1qifeh) (10.3 s, 83.3 kB)The non-pro speaker is less easy to understand than the spokesman. I think it is because the spokesman puts spaces after important words, so the snippet of text can be absorbed by the listener, and the non-pro apparently puts spaces when he needs to breathe.
Is that analysis correct, and are there more things the second speaker does to make his conversation more intelligible?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Edit: I also noticed another difference. The second speaker has more "presence", more "energy" in his voice, more tone, while the first speaker has a much "thinner" voice. The more energetic voice has more dynamics (soft and loud) than the more subdued voice, with less difference between loud and soft.
Or am I hearing things that aren't there?
I recorded two brief interviews on Dutch tv about the recent flooding in Great-Britain. The interviews were taken in Yorkshire, both in a local dialect. However, the first person clearly wasn't as professional a speaker as the second, who seemed to be a spokesman of some kind (and a short question from a reporter from the BBC, I guess).
Here are the MP3 files (located on Box.net; you can either play them in your browser or download as a file):
non-pro speaker (http://www.box.net/shared/9xioaug5bk) (13.7 s, 109.2 kB)
pro speaker (http://www.box.net/shared/pycf1qifeh) (10.3 s, 83.3 kB)The non-pro speaker is less easy to understand than the spokesman. I think it is because the spokesman puts spaces after important words, so the snippet of text can be absorbed by the listener, and the non-pro apparently puts spaces when he needs to breathe.
Is that analysis correct, and are there more things the second speaker does to make his conversation more intelligible?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Edit: I also noticed another difference. The second speaker has more "presence", more "energy" in his voice, more tone, while the first speaker has a much "thinner" voice. The more energetic voice has more dynamics (soft and loud) than the more subdued voice, with less difference between loud and soft.
Or am I hearing things that aren't there?