Group items tagged

This post is about Korean language and the two main sections of speech styles in Korea. It will help you better understand the different speaking styles in Korean and when and how to use them. The two styles of speech, 존댓말 (Polite speech) and 반말 (Informal speech), are spoken based on hierarchy since Korean culture has strong Confucian influence due to the country's history. The hierarchy is mainly based on age and social status. For example, when speaking to a teacher in school, you would speak to them with polite speech because they are older than you and know more than you. Phrases and sentences can be said in different ways depending on the style of speech used, but will still have the same meaning.

Jennifer Sclafani, a linguist at Georgetown University, recently wrote a book set to publish this fall titled "Talking Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse, and Political Identity." Sclafani notes Trump has used language to "create a brand" as a politician. "President Trump creates a spectacle in the way that he speaks," she said. "So it creates a feeling of strength for the nation, or it creates a sense of determination, a sense that he can get the job done through his use of hyperbole and directness." The features of Trump's speech patterns include a casual tone, a simple vocabulary and grammar, frequent 2 word utterances, repetitions, hyperbole and sudden switches of topics, according to Sclafani. Trump also sets himself apart by the words he doesn't use. For example, he started his sentences with "well" less frequently than other Republican contenders during the 2016 GOP primary debates. Omitting the word "well" at the start of a sentence helped Trump come across as a straight talker who wouldn't try to escape a question asked by a moderator, Sclafani said.

Jennifer Sclafani, Georgetown University linguist, examines the idiolect of Trump. Everyone possesses an idiolect: an idiosyncratic form of language that is unique to an individual. Trump's idiolect seems particularly polarizing. Critics might decry Trump thusly: "He doesn't make any sense." "He uses a lot of small words." "His speeches are non-substantive." On the other hand, supporters see Trump as "authentic," "relatable," and "consistent." He's a "straight shooter" who "doesn't mince words." So how does one idiolect produce such polarizing evaluations? It has to do with the precarious connections between linguistic form and meaning. The relationship between the two, as the anthropologist Elinor Ochs describes, is non-exclusive, indirect, and constitutive. Put simply, there are multiple meanings associated with any given linguistic feature, and the connection between form and meaning is a two-way street Whichever meaning is activated by a specific pronunciation, or any other aspect of your idiolect, has everything to do with context: Where are you? Who is your audience? What is your purpose? What image are you trying to project? These are factors that candidates are always taking into account as they put forth their presidential selves on the campaign trail. Tailoring their speech to the context, like when a candidate takes on a drawl while campaigning in the South, has been grounds for being labeled "inconsistent" or "fake," as we've seen with Hillary Clinton, even though this type of linguistic accommodation is a perfectly natural feature of everyone's idiolect.

What our speech reveals about us

What's up with Trump's language? Kathleen Hall Jamieson says that Trump has captivated mass audiences because he does not sound like other presidents who carefully rehearse and perfect their speeches. Instead, Trump says whatever is on his mind. The format of Trump's speeches aren't so rigid either: he will switch to unrelated topics and unnecessarily repeat sentences he just said. In fact, Trump famously repeats words like "very, very" or "many, many". David Beaver points out that Trump speaks like a teleprompter, a business person rather than a politician.

Linguists' analysis of Trump's Inaugural Address as the POTUS confirms that he actually did the writing! The speech matches his usual style of debates, interviews, etc. His style, as described by Kayla N Jordan, is intuitive, rather than analytical. Trump goes with his heart rather than his head. His Address also shows he is authentic (which doesn't necessarily mean he is true), because he uses personal words like I and me. This article includes graphs comparing Trump to all(?) past presidents in different categories.

Linguist John McWhorter links Donald Trump's use of casual speech as one of the reasons for his popular appeal. Even Trump's penchant for Twitter is understandable: the 140-character limit creates a way of writing that, like texting, diverges as little as possible from talking. America's relationship to language has become more informal by the decade since the 1960s, just as it has to dress, sexual matters, culinary habits, dance and much else. Given this historical context, we have to realize that Trump's talking style isn't as exotically barbaric as it looks on the page - the oddness is that it winds up on the page at all. And second, we have to understand that his fans' not minding how he talks is symptomatic of how all of us relate to formality nowadays. Language has just come along with it.

The relationship between language and gender has long been of interest within sociolinguistics and related disciplines. Early 20th century studies in linguistic anthropology looked at differences between women's and men's speech across a range of languages, in many cases identifying distinct female and male language forms. Most of the studies showed males have a more dominant speaking style than women, and even as gender becomes more fluid than binary the same trends are still shown.

This article argues that there's an "accidental brilliance to Trump's style of speech." Trump's words aren't exactly music to our ears, yet we tend to remember them. Why? It is because Trump uses specific language that keeps us glued. Some examples given by this article are his simplicity and word placement.

Researchers at the University of Washington developed a play-based, intensive, English-language method and curriculum and implemented the research-based program in four public infant-education centers in Madrid, Spain. Based on years of UW's I-LABS (Institute of Learning and Brain Science) research on infant brain and language development, UW's pilot bilingual education method utilized the following brain-research principles: 1. social interaction 2. play 3. high quality and quantity of language from the teachers. 4. Use of "infant-directed speech", or "parentese": the speech style parents use to talk to their babies, which has simpler grammar, higher and exaggerated pitch, and drawn-out vowels. 5. Active child engagement. The country's extensive public education system enabled the researchers to enroll 280 infants and children from families of varying income levels. Babies aged 7 to 33.5 months were given one hour of English sessions a day, using the UW method, for 18 weeks, while a control group received the Madrid schools' standard bilingual program. Both groups of children were tested in Spanish and English at the start and end of the 18 weeks. Children who received the UW method showed rapid increases in English comprehension and production, and significantly outperformed the control group peers at all ages on all tests of English. By the end of the 18-week program, the children in the UW program produced an average of 74 English words or phrases per child, per hour; children in the control group produced 13 English words or phrases per child, per hour. This 3 minute video succinctly captures the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE5fBAS6gf4

A short article raising questions about why people mirror their texts and language styles to others. It discusses why certain people adjust speech/texts and who is more likely to make those changes.

This article talks about a study of the effect of language used during debates and its effect on the polls. It was written right before the last of the 2016 presidential debates. "Linguist style matching" is a trick that linguists have studied, and it focuses on how candidates state their points, not what their points are.

Researchers at the University of Washington and University of Connecticut examined thousands of 30-second snippets of verbal exchanges between parents and babies. They measured parents' use of a regular speaking voice versus an exaggerated, animated baby talk style, and whether speech occurred one-on-one between parent and child or in group settings. "What our analysis shows is that the prevalence of baby talk in one-on-one conversations with children is linked to better language development, both concurrent and future," said Patricia Kuhl, co-author and co-director of UW's Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences. The more parents exaggerated vowels -- for example "How are youuuuu?" -- and raised the pitch of their voices, the more the 1-year olds babbled, which is a forerunner of word production. Baby talk was most effective when a parent spoke with a child individually, without other adults or children around. "The fact that the infant's babbling itself plays a role in future language development shows how important the interchange between parent and child is," Kuhl said.

Insecurity has several linguistic calling cards, and learning to spot them may help you both assuage others and more skillfully present yourself to the world. People at the edges of a given group are more likely to use language that emphasizes their membership in the group. Central figures are less likely to assert their belonging. Also signs of insecurity: a focus on the pronoun "me", borrowing prestige by using a different conversational style, and hypercorrection.

Singular "they," the gender-neutral pronoun, has been named the Word of the Year by a crowd of over 200 linguists at the American Dialect Society's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. on Friday evening. In a landslide vote, the language experts chose singular they over "thanks, Obama," ammosexual, "on fleek," and other contenders for this annual award given to the most significant term or word in the past year. Singular they, which The Washington Post officially adopted in its Style guide in 2015, is already a common habit in American speech. An example: "Everyone wants their cat to succeed." Earlier, the so-called proper way to say it would have been, "Everyone wants his or her cat to succeed."But what gave this word new prominence was its usefulness as a way to refer to people who don't want to be called "he" or "she." "We know about singular they already - we use it everyday without thinking about it, so this is bringing it to the fore in a more conscious way, and also playing into emerging ideas about gender identity," said linguist Ben Zimmer, language columnist for the Wall Street Journal, who presided over the voting this Friday afternoon.

This article talks about how you are more likely to successfully negotiate or complete a task if you are more focused on the goal than on mirroring each other's language styles. This was determined by examining conversations where a task needed to be accomplished, and those who spoke similarly, mirroring each other's social cues, had a pleasant conversation but didn't get as much done. However, when in situations where it is important to cooperate and understand another's mental state, this language mirroring is more helpful.

This is a study done by Junko Ueno on the differences between the interaction styles of Japanese men and women. This study focuses on speech patterns in Japanese talk/variety shows, interruptions, and backchannels.

This article addresses the controversy behind swearing around kids. There was a linguist who used to be a massive swearer, but he noticed that his linguistic tendencies and language style changed once he had kids. He decided to do a study with college students regarding their responses to swearing in lectures (since swearing around kids would be considered unethical). He addressed two types of profanity in this study; swearing and slurs. He found that slurs generated a negative reaction to the people at whom the slurs were about (Black people, gay people, etc.), but cussing didn't have an impact.

This article explains the controversy behind swearing around kids. A professor from UC San Diego explored this topic due to his own self interest. As a lover of profanity, he seems to have seen himself change his language while being around his own kids. In a experiment conducted on college students, he came across profanity as slurs and cussing. Slurs created a negative reaction to those that the slurs were about that consisted of gender preferences and skin color, but swearing didn't seem to show.