You’ve made a number of interesting points. I’ll take them one by one.

1. Chunking is not exactly the same as “heading for the full stop” although I think that’s great advice. With chunking you might break each sentence into several phrases separated by pauses. Speaking in short sentences is best, but for those who struggle with that, chunking works well to allow the listeners to process a long sentence.

2. Agree with your point about rules. Like the way you’ve expressed it.

3. I don’t recommend that an “um” be used deliberately as a technique. Rather my view is that if you occasionally “um” as part of your normal conversational style it’s not a big deal.

Thanks John for your contribution to the discussion – look forward to more.

Olivia

“Assertive people generalize”, is a favourite phrase of mine when I encourage people to become more assertive. It requires regular full-stops, which are effectively invitations to an interlocutor to respond (whether in conversation or in a meeting, or in a large theatre)

I always thought Tony Blair’s enormous pauses between phrases happened because he wanted the interpreters to translate in his gaps, rather than over his next phrase. That way, he could guarantee his listeners could appreciate his tone all the more without the interference of an interpreter in the ear-piece.

That was until I heard him pause so long on a plosive “P” word (that is holding his lips in the “P” shape for effect) that he had to re-start the phrase. It went something like : “so, ou have to p…..you have to persuade through etc etc” That’s when I realised he’d had the benefit of either a good coach or an innate talent.

If you are presenting bad news (eg any investment company in the last year), you need to appear assured and in control. Pauses in those presentations are much much better than “er” words.

I’m totally with you when it comes to so-called “rules”. Of course an “er” is OK, just as much as hands in pockets can be OK in some circumstances. The only strict rule should be that one should ALWAYS be wary of people who lay down rules as imperatives.

For instance, I quote Mehrabian on my Blog and in my courses. So there I’m sure he would approve of my application, although you might not agree entirely with my thoughts. Let me know!

When you say “people do want to see that we’re thinking” I am reminded of every coach and theatre director I have ever admired.

Watching and hearing people think is at the heart of what we should be teaching; and it’s two way, applies to listener and speaker as well.

Your reference to the deliberate use of an “um” as in a suspensory pause kind of technique is entering dangerous territory. Are we really in the business of persuading people to use this sort of technique as a technique? I was once mesmerised by a deliberate “dry” by Max Wall and Trevor Peacock in a production of “Waiting for Godot”. After the interminable pause, the agitated looks between them, the hesitant delivery of the next lines, it was clear to the audience that something had gone wrong. It was electrifying. And I’m sure a deliberate manipulation by the two (highly expert) performers.

Used in the context of business presentataions, such maniplultion needs to be supported by a ratioinale that proves an ethically sound motive. Otherwise we face such hazards as the collapse of banking systems!

The challenge comes during a presentation where it shows that you have not really rehearsed well enough about what you are intending to say.