The Anglican Drone

[Occams Barber]

When a sermon at my church makes me sleepy, i make sure I am sitting behind a very large, wide person so I am not seen from the pulpit. Then I can fall into peaceful slumber without the preacher knowing!

The priest may not see you but you can be sure that God is watching.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Oh, I know...I saw your video, and know it's not the same. I was only stating is this what you mean by "drone" in general, and commenting on what I think of such things...

If you want an opinion on the style of speech in your video I'd say that it's effectiveness really depends on the audience. We are all moved by different things.
OP

 

[Paidiske]

When a sermon at my church makes me sleepy, i make sure I am sitting behind a very large, wide person so I am not seen from the pulpit. Then I can fall into peaceful slumber without the preacher knowing!

Sorry to break it to you, Oscarr, but I can generally tell.

This style is more than slow. It has a monotone, stretched vowels, an emphasis rhythm that needs to be learned (like newsreader speak) and, most significantly, a lot of downward inflection more common in men's speech than that of females. (contrast the Australian upward inflection at the end of a sentence suggesting hesitancy or a question- more common in female speech).

My point - possibly not obvious to someone who hasn't laboured at it for hours - is that the unnaturalness of speaking very slowly may well produce some of the other aspects you mention; particularly the monotony and stretched vowels. It's hard to speak very slowly and still maintain natural variation in vocal patterns, and I find mine tend to flatten. I'm not so sure about the emphasis rhythm.

There are definitely particular inflections and rhythms which have common patterns ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is a phrase which strikes me as having a common received pattern of inflection, for example). And possibly also particular patterns of emphasis to cue congregational responses. Beyond that I'm not sure, and it would be easier for me to comment if you could post an example or two?

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you want an opinion on the style of speech in your video I'd say that it's effectiveness really depends on the audience. We are all moved by different things.
OP

As long as people listen, preachers will preach any manner of doctrine, and in any style imaginable.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sorry to break it to you, Oscarr, but I can generally tell.



My point - possibly not obvious to someone who hasn't laboured at it for hours - is that the unnaturalness of speaking very slowly may well produce some of the other aspects you mention; particularly the monotony and stretched vowels. It's hard to speak very slowly and still maintain natural variation in vocal patterns, and I find mine tend to flatten. I'm not so sure about the emphasis rhythm.

There are definitely particular inflections and rhythms which have common patterns ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is a phrase which strikes me as having a common received pattern of inflection, for example). And possibly also particular patterns of emphasis to cue congregational responses. Beyond that I'm not sure, and it would be easier for me to comment if you could post an example or two?

It's almost impossible to convey an example of a speech pattern in a written medium. If you go back to the video in the OP ask yourself "Do I talk like that from the pulpit?". I suspect you don't - think style not words. The video is a little exaggerated for effect but it contains the essential elements.

It's quite probable that the style originally evolved in an echoey church environment along with the formulaic phrases and the standard inflection patterns you mentioned. It's easy to see this becoming a standard 'style' over time. Its also possible that this style became a norm which was taken beyond the original environment even though the underlying causes weren't there. Language does weird stuff like that. Once established the style becomes familiar and expected and not talking like that becomes non-normal. Tie this in with a more formal culture back then and you've just locked in a style.

In modern terms the echoey church plus formulaic phrases may push you towards a certain way of speaking but the sociocultural environment will not produce the same linguistic end product.

Sorry if I'm getting a bit confusing.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

No, I think I see what you mean. There is something, I suspect, about class and perceptions of class (and education) lurking in the example in the OP too. (I actually somehow missed the video and had to go back and look at it just now).

 

[Occams Barber]

No, I think I see what you mean. There is something, I suspect, about class and perceptions of class (and education) lurking in the example in the OP too. (I actually somehow missed the video and had to go back and look at it just now).

It's also interesting that a style which was once an indicator of priestly authenticity and authority is now the object of ridicule.
Language is one of the prime determinants of (apparent) social class and standing.
OB

 

[PloverWing]

The issue of speaking in a large space may well be significant. Most American Episcopal churches are small, no more than about 300 members (and often smaller than that). Our parish church isn't a very echo-ey space, so our priest is free to speak with the speed and rhythms that he uses in everyday speech. But it would be different speaking in one of those large Gothic churches.

When I was trying to think of examples of stylized cadences, what came to mind was Billy Graham, a famous American preacher. He didn't speak with that particular UK Drone, but he spoke more slowly, and with more pauses, than people usually use in everyday conversation. And, when I think about it, he was usually preaching to enormous audiences in sports stadiums, maybe 20,000 people at a time, and you have to account for acoustics in a context like that -- how long does the sound take to reach the back row.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sorry to break it to you, Oscarr, but I can generally tell.

 

[Paidiske]

Exactly, PloverWing. Except the church where I work now only seats about 200 and I still need to speak really slowly for people to hear me. My everyday speech would have a good number unable to understand what I was saying.

 

[Philip_B]

It is fair to say that Michael Curry's street speak and pulpit delivery are different. And as @Paidiske has rightly suggested that does go back to days before PA. I also note that Anglican Churches normally fill up from the back.

 

[Paidiske]

I also note that Anglican Churches normally fill up from the back.

So true.

 

[gordonhooker]

I can honestly say that I have heard an Anglican priest like that, and God willing I will never have the displeasure it in the future. He sounds a bit like Rowan Atkinson after Rowan has consumed a half bottle of Bundaberg Rum.

 

[gordonhooker]

We have a small church as well sits just over 100 with extra plastic chairs and even some who speak need to make use of the PA, I am fairly lucky as after 15 years in the RAAF and teaching technical courses in large auditoriums I learnt how to project my voice. I never need to use a PA system when LA or preaching.

 

[Occams Barber]

I also note that Anglican Churches normally fill up from the back.

A sure sign of Anglican generosity and self sacrifice by leaving the best seats for others.
OB

 

[Mary of Bethany]

The first thing I thought of when watching that video is the “Mawwiage” speech by the priest in The Princess Bride.

 

[Occams Barber]

The first thing I thought of when watching that video is the “Mawwiage” speech by the priest in The Princess Bride.

Thanks Mary (And now for some trivia)

Pronouncing 'R' as 'W', as in your 'mawwiage' example is, possibly, a now defunct, affectation taken up by some sections of the British upper crust at some time in the recent past. It quite likely flowed through to elements of the Anglican priesthood - particularly the social climbers. Technically it's a variety of 'rhotacism'. I vaguely associate it with Prince Albert (of Victoria and Albert fame) but I could be wong. I've also heard a suggestion that it owiginated in the Welsh-English dialect.

The best known exponent is, of course, Elmer Fudd, with his iconic;

"Wascawee wabbits!"
​

(for the real trivia nuts : pronouncing or not pronouncing' 'R' is one of the more obvious differences between many non-American varieties of English and Standard American English. The American accent is sometimes parodied by sticking a pronounced 'R' into as many places as possible.)
OB

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I don’t recognise these stereotypes.

I’m still struggling to understand how someone can drone and be sing-song at the same time.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don’t recognise these stereotypes.

I’m still struggling to understand how someone can drone and be sing-song at the same time.

Perhaps my description could have been better. Sing/song was my way of describing a sort of regular, repeated pattern of up and down (mainly down) inflections in the speech. Calling it the "Anglican Drone" was my way of describing the boring, monotonous tone of this style of reading/sermonising. It has been parodied several times in the past although I think it tends to be a British thing and may be dated.

The video in the OP might help.
OB

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I can’t think of any regional accents or OP in the British Isles that could be described as a drone.

You tend to hear this more in North American accents, when there is a sound between words. British dialects tend to be more clipped.

I didn’t see the Cenotaph service as I at my own church, but I will look it up on iplayer.