"Speaking Objections" for the most part are long winded objections that send a message to the witness as to what he or she should be answering, for instance, "Objection, how could my client possibly know what so and so was thinking?"

Most courts allow objections, and then one word defining the objection as in: "Objection, Hearsay."

Sometimes courts will instruct lawyers to cite the Evidence Code (in Fed Court or in those State courts which have evidence codes). There are actual "Pursuant to Section so and so" Then there is a record of the nature of the objection so if admissibility becomes an appellate issue there is no question what the nature of the objection was.

If a judge just wants the lawyers to say "Objection" and nothing else, then there will be multiple requests for and actual bench conferences where the objection is argued outside the hearing of the jury, but this hardly expedites trials, it is a waste of time. Also mere statement of "Objection" and a subsequent ruling of "sustained" or "overruled" would be insufficient to create a good record for appeal, and personally I would object to such a procedure if ordered to do so. This has never happened to me in 34 years, so I am imagining the court to which you refer either wants one word to describe the objection or citations to the Rules of Evidence as the basis for the objection.

More likely than not the judge just does not want speeches to accompany the objections.

As an aside, many judges have a habit of neither sustaining or overruling some objections. For instance if something calls for speculation, the judge will just tell the offending questioner, Move along, counselor." There is actually a case in Florida which holds the "move along" ruling is of no legal significance, and in a recent trial when the judge admonished my opponent to "move along," I had a bench conference and showed the judge the case, apologized to him and asked that he sustain the objection for the record, which he did.