I innocently created a You Tube video for Farsi first language speakers, hoping to share insights gleaned from the number of Persian first language speakers I have worked with over the years, and it was very interesting.
The video had been on the net for some time with little scuttlebut, and then, about a week ago, a number of Persian first-language speakers (20 or so, perhaps in Iran) started watching it and commenting. Many of them were upset that was using the term "Farsi" because, in their opinion, it's an Arab bastardization of the real name, which a few of wrote should be "Parsi." They also informed me that as an English first language speaker myself, I should be using the term "Persian language" not Farsi, which to them would be like be saying "I speak francais or espanol." To me, this didn't seem to be a big deal ... I might say "I speak francais" for example, but apparently it was a much bigger issue for them.
They were also very unhappy that I mentioned they needed to work on their /v/ sound, claiming it was only their /w/ sound that is at issue. Interestingly enough, everyone is different, and the /v/ sound in American English is different from the one they are using, even though it is arguably closer to the expected American pronunciation when they attempt to make it than what happens when they try to pronounce a /w/. Of course, this brings us back to the classic linguistic argument about comparative analysis, which suggests on the one hand that if a sound doesn't exist in your first language, it will be hard for you to pronounce, but as we in the linguistics field know, this theory was debunked only a few years later when data from numerous studies suggested that some things (and not just in accent, but in grammar as well) are just easier to do than others (or more intuitive) regardless of one's first language. The /v/ sound may well be one of the ones that's just challenging for everyone. I have Persian first language clients who can make great /w/ sounds, but not native-like /v/'s. Go figure!
I find that Russian speakers with strong /v/'s need to learn to soften them, so no matter what your first lanaguage is, it is highly likely to impact your production of English if you are unaware of its influence.
I responded to the Farsi You Tube clients by apologizing for offending anyone. One person suggested I refer to my video as "Iranian/Perian or Farsi first-language Speakers Video" to cover all fronts and be politically-correct, but the biggest thing I was accused of was trying to change Persian accents or somehow disrespecting them, and nothing could be further from the truth. To set the record straight, I love all accents ... I'm not the one discriminating against people and not promoting them to the next level because of their accents. I'm one of the professionals attempting to help them!
Silicon Valley first language speakers of the "Persian" language, however, are a small subset of all Persian speakers, so I am the first to admit that my suggestions and lessons learned are completely biased by the select group I work with.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Gaining Insight into the "Neutral" Accent
I talked to a "neutral" accent trainer in India this week. It was actually fascinating. I could clearly understand him, yet his accent was not one anyone would recognize.
He tells me that at some point, the decision makers around outsourced call centers in India decided to take the "best" of various accents and combine them - best meaning the easiest to pronounce, and perhaps the clearest.
For example, he mentioned the American /k/ sound is thought to be cumbersome and "too much work," so the British one has been integrated into the "neutral" accent. Likewise, the American stop /t/ in "important" is thought be easier to pronounce than the British equivalent.
It seems to be ( from the cursory phone meeting we had - very brief) that "tense" articulation is also part of the "neutral" accent. The focus was very much on the vowels, which makes a lot of sense. Clarity is key in this pursuit, not authenticity.
I'm planning to have a more in-depth conversation with him to determine exactly what "neutral" accent trainers focus on when working with Indian first-language speakers, (and also, how in the WORLD they can stay up all night just to be on US time and make that work for them long-term).
He mentioned they use my You Tube videos for training purposes, and that was the wonderful. I'm glad they are helpful to people in a remote land.
He tells me that at some point, the decision makers around outsourced call centers in India decided to take the "best" of various accents and combine them - best meaning the easiest to pronounce, and perhaps the clearest.
For example, he mentioned the American /k/ sound is thought to be cumbersome and "too much work," so the British one has been integrated into the "neutral" accent. Likewise, the American stop /t/ in "important" is thought be easier to pronounce than the British equivalent.
It seems to be ( from the cursory phone meeting we had - very brief) that "tense" articulation is also part of the "neutral" accent. The focus was very much on the vowels, which makes a lot of sense. Clarity is key in this pursuit, not authenticity.
I'm planning to have a more in-depth conversation with him to determine exactly what "neutral" accent trainers focus on when working with Indian first-language speakers, (and also, how in the WORLD they can stay up all night just to be on US time and make that work for them long-term).
He mentioned they use my You Tube videos for training purposes, and that was the wonderful. I'm glad they are helpful to people in a remote land.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Cultural Differences - Timing
I'm becoming more and more aware of the cultural differences of doing business in India, especially at this point in regards to timing.
In the US, if a client is interested in something, especially for themselves rather than a full corporate program, the decision making process is pretty short: they sample, they buy or they think about it for a short time and buy, or they have a specific request (like call me in 3 months when my manager says there will be funding).
In India, I find things to be very different: more players, longer deicison making periods (or at least wait times), and less certainty in moving forward. Of course, it makes sense that spending corporate $$$ on training is tighter now and that things have to be looked with greater scrutiny, but the buying patterns are decisively different.
In some cases, they are unpredictable. Clients buy, but you don't see them coming! You may be in negotiation with someone who disppears and resurfaces with an intent to "go forward" unexpectedly or someone who seems on track to go forward may back out at the last minute with little or no explanation.
This can happen in the US, but usually it's related to the company making the sale dropping the ball in the communication or follow through process. With India, it seems to related to something else.
My focus is not on the frustration (although culturally, that is one component!) but rather on the opportunity to learn how Indians buy ... the mental process behind making a decision is culturally different from how Americans making buying decisions. I have a strong suspicion that knowledge in this area would not only help to make the process more comfortable but also would shed light on what to do and say (or not do and say!) along the way.
I welcome any thoughts/comments on this topic!
In the US, if a client is interested in something, especially for themselves rather than a full corporate program, the decision making process is pretty short: they sample, they buy or they think about it for a short time and buy, or they have a specific request (like call me in 3 months when my manager says there will be funding).
In India, I find things to be very different: more players, longer deicison making periods (or at least wait times), and less certainty in moving forward. Of course, it makes sense that spending corporate $$$ on training is tighter now and that things have to be looked with greater scrutiny, but the buying patterns are decisively different.
In some cases, they are unpredictable. Clients buy, but you don't see them coming! You may be in negotiation with someone who disppears and resurfaces with an intent to "go forward" unexpectedly or someone who seems on track to go forward may back out at the last minute with little or no explanation.
This can happen in the US, but usually it's related to the company making the sale dropping the ball in the communication or follow through process. With India, it seems to related to something else.
My focus is not on the frustration (although culturally, that is one component!) but rather on the opportunity to learn how Indians buy ... the mental process behind making a decision is culturally different from how Americans making buying decisions. I have a strong suspicion that knowledge in this area would not only help to make the process more comfortable but also would shed light on what to do and say (or not do and say!) along the way.
I welcome any thoughts/comments on this topic!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Cost over Quality
I haven't been blogging for awhile. I admit it. Mostly because I've been focusing on our self-study program promotion and delivery in Silicon Valley. It's been a bit discouraging to approach the Indian market because I'm finding that there is a definite preference for "low cost" over "high quality."
As practitioners, we have to ask ourselves what our priorities are. Of course, we want to move into new markets and create niches for ourselves, and we often have to be creative to do that, but I find myself strategizing how to make it "cost effective" by international standards without compromising quality?
It's understandable that in Silicon Valley (where I live) people are willing to pay for value - they see and experience the difference, have lived here for many years and already tried low-cost options that didn't yield a great result and are ready for something better, but what about internationally where the cost is the driving decision maker (or breaker)?
I found when discussing options with contacts in India that it was all about "price" and not about "how effective is your training? how is it different? what is the value?"
In the US, we take courses around "value proposition" and probably because everyone does, it's an easier concept to relate to and understand. The "cultural barrier" in a sense is conveying the long term potential (in profitability and quality)to the "gatekeepers" who are in the position to choose a more effective solution for their employees.
I'm in the processing of strategizing ways to reduce the "human effort" - which always reduces the cost! - like offering more video and self-learning as opposed to live instruction, especially a blended approach to get the value of both worlds, but the question is: what will finally win the approval of the "decision makers"? How do we make it cost effective without reducing quality?
Still struggling with this concept ... more to come.
As practitioners, we have to ask ourselves what our priorities are. Of course, we want to move into new markets and create niches for ourselves, and we often have to be creative to do that, but I find myself strategizing how to make it "cost effective" by international standards without compromising quality?
It's understandable that in Silicon Valley (where I live) people are willing to pay for value - they see and experience the difference, have lived here for many years and already tried low-cost options that didn't yield a great result and are ready for something better, but what about internationally where the cost is the driving decision maker (or breaker)?
I found when discussing options with contacts in India that it was all about "price" and not about "how effective is your training? how is it different? what is the value?"
In the US, we take courses around "value proposition" and probably because everyone does, it's an easier concept to relate to and understand. The "cultural barrier" in a sense is conveying the long term potential (in profitability and quality)to the "gatekeepers" who are in the position to choose a more effective solution for their employees.
I'm in the processing of strategizing ways to reduce the "human effort" - which always reduces the cost! - like offering more video and self-learning as opposed to live instruction, especially a blended approach to get the value of both worlds, but the question is: what will finally win the approval of the "decision makers"? How do we make it cost effective without reducing quality?
Still struggling with this concept ... more to come.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Comment from a reader on the Neutral Accent
In case some of you missed the comment to an earlier post, I'm reprinting it here for clarification. This is a reader's perspective on the "neutral accent" and sheds some light on the issue:
I'd like to give a little perspective to the use of the term "neutral accent" across BPOs in India. I joined the BPO industry in 1999 and was trained on American accent for 3months. We listened to American speakers and tried to embibe their pronunciation, intonation pattern and idioms/slang. After 3months, when we went on calls, the customers said that we had a weird accent and asked which part of America we were from. I remember a colleague of mine whose first language was Bengali interchanged the s/sh sound. So, he would roll the r like the Americans, however; would ask the customer "may i have the shocial security number?". Likewise, another colleage from another north eastern state used to interchange the oo/uh sound. So would ask "can i poot the call on hold"? However; all of us were well trained to roll the r, say caaffee instead of cawfee, aesk instead of ask. After 6 months, we were sent back to training and the objective was to get rid of the put on American accent and get the sounds rights. Thats when the term "neutral"accent came into being. It is an accent which does not have an influence of the first langauge and is globally understood. None of the native English speakers(Americans, Australians, English, Canadians) will say fud for food Or bijness for business or pleyur for pleasure but a person from the north eastern states of India will have a tendency of interchaning the long n short vowel sounds and zh/z Or s/sh. Likewise, ppl from down south have a tendency to interchange s/z eg.liztening instead of listening etc..Therefore; when we hire people for BPOs now, there is a list of sounds that we check a person on. Some sounds are categorized as fatal which means that the person will take a long time to overcome the FLI. When we train people in BPOs, we tell the agents now that if you say ask or aesk, the native English speaker will understand you. Therefore; the neutral accent comprises of widely accepted pronunciation which could be either American or British. The emphasis is on clear articulation of sounds. Similarly, the agents are taught the idioms and slang specific to the culture;however; the clear objective is comprehension and not usage. I still remember my first day on OJT 10yrs ago when i asked for the customer and the gatekeeper said that he is 6 feet in the hole. Guess what, my response was when will he back from there and the gatekeeper said that honey you'll have to go up there to meet him. I thought 6 feet in the hole meant he was in the basement and since there is poor connectivity in the basement so may be the person cant take the call. After the call, my trainer called me and explained that it meant the person is dead. Not many understand when the a native English speaker says "he kicked the bucket". The natural response is "hope he didn't hurt himself badly". These days the emphasis is on these nuances because it is not the accent which leads to a communication breakdown as much as lack of cultural understanding.
At the end of the day even the global customers understand and accept the fact that we cant speak like them and they are perfectly okay as long as they dont have a tough time understanding us and vice-versa.
Regards
Tina
I'd like to give a little perspective to the use of the term "neutral accent" across BPOs in India. I joined the BPO industry in 1999 and was trained on American accent for 3months. We listened to American speakers and tried to embibe their pronunciation, intonation pattern and idioms/slang. After 3months, when we went on calls, the customers said that we had a weird accent and asked which part of America we were from. I remember a colleague of mine whose first language was Bengali interchanged the s/sh sound. So, he would roll the r like the Americans, however; would ask the customer "may i have the shocial security number?". Likewise, another colleage from another north eastern state used to interchange the oo/uh sound. So would ask "can i poot the call on hold"? However; all of us were well trained to roll the r, say caaffee instead of cawfee, aesk instead of ask. After 6 months, we were sent back to training and the objective was to get rid of the put on American accent and get the sounds rights. Thats when the term "neutral"accent came into being. It is an accent which does not have an influence of the first langauge and is globally understood. None of the native English speakers(Americans, Australians, English, Canadians) will say fud for food Or bijness for business or pleyur for pleasure but a person from the north eastern states of India will have a tendency of interchaning the long n short vowel sounds and zh/z Or s/sh. Likewise, ppl from down south have a tendency to interchange s/z eg.liztening instead of listening etc..Therefore; when we hire people for BPOs now, there is a list of sounds that we check a person on. Some sounds are categorized as fatal which means that the person will take a long time to overcome the FLI. When we train people in BPOs, we tell the agents now that if you say ask or aesk, the native English speaker will understand you. Therefore; the neutral accent comprises of widely accepted pronunciation which could be either American or British. The emphasis is on clear articulation of sounds. Similarly, the agents are taught the idioms and slang specific to the culture;however; the clear objective is comprehension and not usage. I still remember my first day on OJT 10yrs ago when i asked for the customer and the gatekeeper said that he is 6 feet in the hole. Guess what, my response was when will he back from there and the gatekeeper said that honey you'll have to go up there to meet him. I thought 6 feet in the hole meant he was in the basement and since there is poor connectivity in the basement so may be the person cant take the call. After the call, my trainer called me and explained that it meant the person is dead. Not many understand when the a native English speaker says "he kicked the bucket". The natural response is "hope he didn't hurt himself badly". These days the emphasis is on these nuances because it is not the accent which leads to a communication breakdown as much as lack of cultural understanding.
At the end of the day even the global customers understand and accept the fact that we cant speak like them and they are perfectly okay as long as they dont have a tough time understanding us and vice-versa.
Regards
Tina
Friday, July 24, 2009
Can we "simulate" the perfect American Accent?
I find myself pondering whether it is realistic to expect people living in one country and offering phone support to people in another one to acquire the accent of the country where they offer phone support ... without ever visiting or living in the country? Is it even possible on a grand scale?
It's an interesting paradox because in a sense we're creating a win-win - people looking for jobs can find them in another country, and often they are willing to make extreme changes to their speech to qualify for the jobs, and those looking to reduce their labor costs can also find that, but can we "simulate" the perfect American Accent?
Even if someone watches American tv and in every other way immerses him or herself in American culture, will the result eventually be to transition to the target accent? What else is required?
I've known for some time that systematic correction from a speech professional works, but the underlying assumption is "communicative competence" - that is, we assume the person already speaks and understands English well. If we depart from this assumption, and instead add the potential "ambiguity" that the trainees may not completely understand us and even if fluent in English, may not fully understand "American" English in terms of implications, intent, or cultural context, then can we really expect this same type of correction to work? That is, to yield the result of someone living in another country speaking "American" English with an "American" accent?
Of course, you will hear people say, "I'm speaking American English every day on the job," but we all know this doesn't mean any awareness is there or that anyone is giving them feedback and certainly no correction is taking place (it would be kind of inappropriate!) This probably means although English is being spoken, the same mistakes are occurring over and over again (and getting reinforced), which doesn't support change.
Knowing this is one thing ... now, how to do something about it! As Sonja Koppensteiner commented earlier (very insightful), it's important to set expectations. People can learn to do their jobs better (by acquiring an accent in this case) without changing who they are as human beings. It's just part of the job! How to set those expectations?
Here are few thoughts:
make sure all the stakeholders realize the commitment level and are willing to do what it takes -it's not going to be easy or happen over night
make sure participants define focused ways to "practice" understanding that it's all about awareness, not doing mindless exercises or "homework" to get it over with
insure participants take an "active" rather than a "passive" role in the training - let them drive the topics and pace as much as possible
build in "checkpoints" along the way with all stakeholders - is it working?
to some extent, be flexible as a provider to let participants "learn the hard way" - that is, try things that are intuitive to them, but not likely to work, and then ask the hard questions in the next session to prevent wasted effort: "how did that work out for you?" - like memorizing the dictionary!
learn from the process ... as with all things :-) ,
It's moving along this week - in the analysis phase with 2 client companies in India, and it's been an interesting experience so far. Details to follow in subsequent blogging endeavors!
It's an interesting paradox because in a sense we're creating a win-win - people looking for jobs can find them in another country, and often they are willing to make extreme changes to their speech to qualify for the jobs, and those looking to reduce their labor costs can also find that, but can we "simulate" the perfect American Accent?
Even if someone watches American tv and in every other way immerses him or herself in American culture, will the result eventually be to transition to the target accent? What else is required?
I've known for some time that systematic correction from a speech professional works, but the underlying assumption is "communicative competence" - that is, we assume the person already speaks and understands English well. If we depart from this assumption, and instead add the potential "ambiguity" that the trainees may not completely understand us and even if fluent in English, may not fully understand "American" English in terms of implications, intent, or cultural context, then can we really expect this same type of correction to work? That is, to yield the result of someone living in another country speaking "American" English with an "American" accent?
Of course, you will hear people say, "I'm speaking American English every day on the job," but we all know this doesn't mean any awareness is there or that anyone is giving them feedback and certainly no correction is taking place (it would be kind of inappropriate!) This probably means although English is being spoken, the same mistakes are occurring over and over again (and getting reinforced), which doesn't support change.
Knowing this is one thing ... now, how to do something about it! As Sonja Koppensteiner commented earlier (very insightful), it's important to set expectations. People can learn to do their jobs better (by acquiring an accent in this case) without changing who they are as human beings. It's just part of the job! How to set those expectations?
Here are few thoughts:
It's moving along this week - in the analysis phase with 2 client companies in India, and it's been an interesting experience so far. Details to follow in subsequent blogging endeavors!
Monday, July 20, 2009
What exactly is a Neutral Accent?
The first topic I wrote about here has proved to be the most controversial and generated the most commentary, so I thought I'd revisit it and ask some questions to gain clarity.
First, though, I think it's important to mention that since there are so many accents, it makes sense that the collective "we" would seek a standard, as we do in any industry from computers to phones. We don't always agree, but establishing a standard can be useful and powerful, like standardizing on the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) as opposed to every country using a different English Alphabet.
So, here are few questions to ponder:
1. What defines a "neutral" accent? (How do we know it's "neutral"?)
2. Has anyone (any board or organization) set out parameters or standards for a "neutral" accent?
3. Does anyone know of a program that will train you in a "netural" accent - as opposed to an American one, a British one, or a regional one (such as dialect training)? If so, which program(s) do you know of?
4. Does anyone know how companies in India who wish to create a "neutral" accent go about doing it? Do they just hire a range of first language accented trainers and hope employees will benefit from hearing them all (randomly) or do they seek to train employees on each accent by defining the ones they are interested in and pursuing them specifically?
5. Even within a country, there are a multitude of accents, so how do we decide which British, Australian or American Accent is desired? Do we have to train on each of them? And then who decides which components constitute a "neutral" accent?
6.I've heard it said that a neutral accent is one "everyone" can understand easily - like the English newscasters study to speak broadly across a country; but can we apply this to world English?
Incidentally, one of the things a "neutral" accent reminds me of is the "Transatlantic" Accent of the 40's (in the sense that it was a "general" accent that those in media world were expected to emulate), and this is a discussion on how to define this accent: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t4244.htm This discussion caught my attention because they are asking some of the same questions we are asking today with regard to a "neutral" accent.
First, though, I think it's important to mention that since there are so many accents, it makes sense that the collective "we" would seek a standard, as we do in any industry from computers to phones. We don't always agree, but establishing a standard can be useful and powerful, like standardizing on the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) as opposed to every country using a different English Alphabet.
So, here are few questions to ponder:
1. What defines a "neutral" accent? (How do we know it's "neutral"?)
2. Has anyone (any board or organization) set out parameters or standards for a "neutral" accent?
3. Does anyone know of a program that will train you in a "netural" accent - as opposed to an American one, a British one, or a regional one (such as dialect training)? If so, which program(s) do you know of?
4. Does anyone know how companies in India who wish to create a "neutral" accent go about doing it? Do they just hire a range of first language accented trainers and hope employees will benefit from hearing them all (randomly) or do they seek to train employees on each accent by defining the ones they are interested in and pursuing them specifically?
5. Even within a country, there are a multitude of accents, so how do we decide which British, Australian or American Accent is desired? Do we have to train on each of them? And then who decides which components constitute a "neutral" accent?
6.I've heard it said that a neutral accent is one "everyone" can understand easily - like the English newscasters study to speak broadly across a country; but can we apply this to world English?
Incidentally, one of the things a "neutral" accent reminds me of is the "Transatlantic" Accent of the 40's (in the sense that it was a "general" accent that those in media world were expected to emulate), and this is a discussion on how to define this accent: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t4244.htm This discussion caught my attention because they are asking some of the same questions we are asking today with regard to a "neutral" accent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
