卡耐基演講·四、多用具體、耳熟能詳?shù)淖盅?/h1>

所屬教程:閱讀經(jīng)驗(yàn)

瀏覽:

2021年11月21日

手機(jī)版

掃描二維碼方便學(xué)習(xí)和分享

四、多用具體、耳熟能詳?shù)淖盅?p>講演者的第一目標(biāo)是駕馭聽眾的注意力；要做到這一點(diǎn)，還有一項(xiàng)極為重要的技巧，然而，它卻完全為人們所忽視。一般的講演者，似乎并沒有注意到它的存在，也恐怕從未感覺到它、想到過它。我所指的這個(gè)技巧，就是使用能形成圖畫般鮮明景象的詞句。能夠讓聽眾感覺輕松愉快的講演者，是最能塑造景象在你眼前浮現(xiàn)的人。使用模糊不清的、煩瑣的、無顏無色的語言的講演者，只會(huì)讓聽眾打瞌睡。In the process of getting and holding attention, which is the first purpose of every speaker, there is one aid, one technique, that is of the highest importance. Yet, it is all but ignored. The average speaker does not seem to be aware of its existence. He has probably never consciously thought about it at all. I refer to the process of using words that create pictures. The speaker who is easy to listen to is the one who sets images floating before your eyes. The one who employs foggy, commonplace, colorless symbols sets the audience to nodding.

景象！景象！景象！它們就像你呼吸的空氣一樣，是免費(fèi)的呀！而把它們點(diǎn)綴在講演里，你就更能歡娛別人，你也就更具影響力。Pictures. Pictures. Pictures. They are as free as the air you breathe. Sprinkle them through your talks, your conversation, and you will be more entertaining, more influential.

赫伯特·史賓塞早就在他那篇著名的論文《風(fēng)格哲學(xué)》中指出，優(yōu)秀的文字能夠喚起讀者對(duì)鮮明圖畫的聯(lián)想：Herbert Spencer, in his famous essay on the "Philosophy of Style," pointed out long ago the superiority of terms that call forth bright pictures:

“我們并不作一般性的思考，而是作特殊性的思考。我們應(yīng)該盡量避免寫出像這樣的句子：We do not think in generals but in particulars ... We should avoid such a sentence as:

一個(gè)國(guó)家的行為習(xí)慣、風(fēng)俗及娛樂，如果是殘酷而且野蠻的，那么，他們的刑罰必然也很嚴(yán)厲?！甀n proportion as the manners, customs, and amusements of a nation are cruel and barbarous, the regulations of their penal code will be severe!'

我們應(yīng)該把它改寫成下面這種樣子：And in place of it, we should write:

一個(gè)國(guó)家的老百姓如果喜愛戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)、斗牛以及欣賞奴隸公開格斗取樂，那么他們的刑罰將包括絞刑、燒烙及拷打?！盜n proportion as men delight in battles, bull fights, and combats of gladiators, will they punish by hanging, burning, and the rack.' "

《圣經(jīng)》和莎士比亞的著作中，也同樣充滿可以呈現(xiàn)出圖畫的字句，簡(jiǎn)直多得像果汁廠附近的蜜蜂。如果一位平凡的作家說，某件事是多余的，完全是把已經(jīng)很完美的事情還想再加以改善。莎士比亞會(huì)怎么樣講？他寫出了不朽的圖畫似的字句：“替精煉過的黃金鍍金，替百合花上油彩，把香水灑在紫羅蘭上。”Picture-building phrases swarm through the pages of the Bible and through Shakespeare like bees around a cider mill. For example, a commonplace writer would have said that a certain thing would be "superfluous," like trying to improve the perfect. How did Shakespeare express the same thought? With a picture phrase that is immortal: "To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw perfume on the violet."

你有沒有注意到，那些世代相傳的諺語，幾乎全都是具有視覺圖像的字句?！耙圾B在手，勝過兩鳥在林。”“不雨則已，一雨傾盆?！薄澳憧梢园疡R牽到水邊，但卻不能逼它喝水?！钡鹊取Ｄ切┝鱾骱脦讉€(gè)世紀(jì)而且廣被使用的比喻里，也不難發(fā)現(xiàn)同樣的圖畫效果：“如狐貍那般狡猾?！薄敖┧赖孟褚幻堕T釘?！薄跋癖〖屣?zāi)前闫桨??！薄坝驳孟袷^?！盌id you ever pause to observe that the proverbs that are passed on from generation to generation are almost all visual sayings? "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." "It never rains but it pours." "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." And you will find the same picture element in almost all the similes that have lived for centuries and grown hoary with too much use: "Sly as a fox." "Dead as a doornail." "Flat as a pancake." "Hard as a rock."

林肯也一直使用有視覺效果的語言來講話。當(dāng)他對(duì)那些每天送到他白宮辦公桌上的冗長(zhǎng)、復(fù)雜的官式報(bào)告感到厭倦時(shí)，他說：“當(dāng)我派一個(gè)人出去買馬時(shí)，我并不希望這個(gè)人告訴我這匹馬的尾巴有多少根毛。我只希望知道它有什么樣的特點(diǎn)?！彼挪粫?huì)用那種平淡的語句來表達(dá)。Lincoln continually talked in visual terminology. When he became annoyed with the long, complicated, red-tape reports that came to his desk in the White House, he objected to them, not with colorless phraseology, but with a picture phrase that it is almost impossible to forget. "When I send a man to buy a horse," he said, "I don't want to be told how many hairs the horse has in his tail. I wish only to know his points."

我們要把眼睛看向那些形象明確又獨(dú)特的事物上，用語言描繪出內(nèi)心的景象，使它突出、顯著、分明，像落日余暉映照著公鹿頭角的長(zhǎng)影。比方說，聽到“狗”這個(gè)詞，我們多少會(huì)想起它的具體形象——也許是只短腿、長(zhǎng)毛、大耳下垂的小獵犬；一只蘇格蘭犬；一只圣伯納犬，或是一只波密雷尼亞犬等。但是，演講者如果說出“牛犬”（注：一種短毛、方嘴、勇敢、頑強(qiáng)的狗），你腦海里浮映出的形象該會(huì)具體不少?！耙恢挥邪呒y的牛犬”是不是浮映出比剛才更鮮明的形象？說“一匹黑色的雪特蘭小馬”是不是比說“一匹馬”逼真了很多？“一只白色、斷了條腿的矮種公雞”，難道不比僅僅是“雞”一個(gè)字給人更具體的圖像嗎？Make your eye appeals definite and specific. Paint mental pictures that stand out as sharp and clear as a stag's antlers silhouetted against the setting sun. For example, the word" dog" calls up a more or less definite picture of such an animal-perhaps a cocker spaniel, a Scottish terrier, a St. Bernard, or a Pomeranian. Notice how much more distinct an image springs into your mind when a speaker says "bulldog" -the term is less inclusive. Doesn't "a brindle bulldog" call up a still more explicit picture? Is it not more vivid to say "a black Shetland pony" than to talk of "a horse"? Doesn't "a white bantam rooster with a broken leg" give a much more definite and sharp picture than merely the word "fowl"?

威廉·斯特倫克在《風(fēng)格的要素》一書中這樣闡述：“那些研究寫作藝術(shù)的人，如果他們觀點(diǎn)有一致的地方，那么這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)就是：他們認(rèn)為能夠抓住讀者的注意力，最可靠的方法是要具體、明確和詳細(xì)。像荷馬、但丁、莎士比亞等這樣一些最偉大的作家，他們高明的地方，就是由于他們?cè)谔幚硖厥獾那榫?，并敘寫關(guān)鍵的細(xì)節(jié)時(shí)，他們的語句能喚起讀者腦海里的景象?！睂懽魇沁@樣，講話也是這樣。In The Elements of Style, William Strunk, Jr., states: "If those who have studied the art of writing are in accord on anyone point, it is on this: the surest way to arouse and hold the attention of the reader is by being specific, definite, and concrete. The greatest writers-Homer, Dante, Shakespeare-are effective largely because they deal in particulars and report the details that matter. Their words call up pictures." This is as true of speaking as of writing.

多年以前，我和參加“成功演講”課程的學(xué)員進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)：講事實(shí)。我們訂了一個(gè)規(guī)則：在每個(gè)句子里，必須有一個(gè)事實(shí)、一個(gè)專有名詞、一個(gè)數(shù)字或一個(gè)日期。我們獲得了革命性的成功。學(xué)員們拿它當(dāng)做游戲，彼此指出概略化的毛病。沒用多長(zhǎng)時(shí)間，他們便不再說那些只會(huì)飄浮在聽眾頭上晦暗不明的語言了，他們說的是大街上普通人明確、活潑的語言。I once devoted a session years ago in my course in Effective Speaking to an experiment in being factual. We adopted a rule that in every sentence the speaker must put either a fact or a proper noun, a figure, or a date. The results were revolutionary. The class members made a game of catching one another on generalities; it wasn't long before they were talking, not the cloudy language that floats over the head of an audience, but the clear-cut, vigorous language of the man on the street.

法國(guó)哲學(xué)家艾蘭說：“抽象的風(fēng)格總是不好的，在你的句子里應(yīng)該滿是石頭、金屬、椅子、桌子、動(dòng)物、男人和女人?！薄癆n abstract style,” said the French philosopher Alain, “is always bad. Your sentences should be full of stones, metals, chairs, tables, animals, men, and women.”

日常對(duì)話也是這個(gè)樣子。事實(shí)上，本章中說過的一切有關(guān)當(dāng)眾說話時(shí)的技巧，同樣適用于日常交談。是細(xì)節(jié)使談話充滿生氣和光彩的，任何人要想成為高超的交談?wù)撸伎衫斡涍@一勸告，從中會(huì)有很多的收獲。銷售員使用它，也會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)它特有的魔力。那些擔(dān)任主管職務(wù)的人、家庭主婦和教師們，也能夠發(fā)現(xiàn)自己在下達(dá)命令和傳播知識(shí)、消息時(shí)，因使用了具體、實(shí)際的細(xì)節(jié)而使傳達(dá)內(nèi)容變得清楚，效果當(dāng)然也好了。This is true of everyday conversation as well. In fact, all that has been said in this chapter about the use of detail in talks before groups applies to general conversation. It is detail that makes conversation sparkle. Anyone who is intent upon making himself a more effective conversationalist may profit by following the advice contained in this chapter. Salesmen, too, will discover the magic of detail when applied to their sales presentations. Those in executive positions, housewives, and teachers will find that giving instructions and dispensing information will be greatly improved by the use of concrete, factual detail.