Group items tagged

"For the past three years, Brendon Ayanbadejo, a backup linebacker and standout special-teams player for the [Baltimore] Ravens, has been advocating for same-sex marriage-writing about it, talking about it, appearing as one of the stars of a video campaign launched by backers of a measure to legalize it in Maryland. It's not his day job, but he's gotten enough attention for it that an anti-gay-marriage Maryland state legislator wrote to the owner of the Ravens and demanded that he shut Ayanbadejo up."

very clever advertising campaign by Toyota

A campaign has been started to stop the use of the word "retarded" to refer to people who has intellectual and developmental disabilities. Over the years it has become a derogatory word that children use in schools to assault others. The word also makes disabled people feel excluded from others. I thought this was a good step to potentially stop bullying.

This campaign, a part of Speak to The Future, aims to urge people to learn at least 1,000 new foreign words because of a decrease in multilingualism throughout the UK. These 1,000 words would allow for simple conversations and are believed to help improve social diversity and increase economic opportunities.

Despite the tradition of studying campaign effects, we know little about the rhetorical strategies of candidates. This study speculates about the types of appea...

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.

"A council in France has abolished the word 'Mademoiselle' from all official documents because it is 'condescending and sexist'. The Paris suburb of Fontenay-sous-Bois said the term - the French equivalent of 'miss' - discriminates against women by asking them to reveal if they are married. ... Julie Muret of campaign group Osez Le Feminisme, meaning Dare Feminism, said in September that the equivalent word for men of 'Damoiseau' - meaning squire - was abolished decades ago."

Hillary Clinton, no surprise, sounds the most feminine of the candidates on the campaign trail, commonly using phrases like "incredibly grateful" and "open our hearts." More surprising, the second-most feminine speaker is Donald Trump, who often talks about "my beautiful family" and "lasting relationships." But unlike Mrs.

Tim Kaine, Democratic VP nominee, uses Spanish during his speeches to appeal to Hispanic voters.

This article is about how Hillary Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, uses his bilingualism to bring diversity to the Clinton campaign. It is believed that Hillary partly chose Kaine because of his Spanish speaking skills to connect with a different demographic, the Hispanics. During his convention speech Kaine wiped out his Spanish and inspired the listeners to roar into cheers. He spoke about the many Hispanic values such as family, hard work and faith lock in his audience.

This story takes a look at other papers on JSTOR to outline how politicians can deploy metaphors, vocabulary, and rhetorical devices to frame the debate and sway voters and listeners. This is the first of a two part article. It describes, specifically, the similarities between political rhetoric and advertising techniques deployed by companies. In both instances, those using language are seeking to present a certain image of themselves.

With 2020 being an election year, several key states along the presidential campaign trail get thrown into the spotlight. Candidates, celebrities, and the media all have been criticized for pronouncing some states' names incorrectly. States such as Nevada, Florida, Missouri, and Colorado are some controversial states with debated pronunciations. As this article investigates, although states have pronunciation from its original language, it has evolved and people today believe they're in the right. Read the article to find out whether you're pronouncing state names correctly.

Fun article! And then there's "Hah-WHY-yuh"...LOL!

Both metaphor and grammar influence how people think about political candidates and elections. voters' attitudes can be influenced by a number of factors, including which information the media chooses to emphasize and how it is slanted. Framing, how a message is worded to encourage particular interpretations and inferences, can influence the perception of political candidates. Negative framing is often used to make opposing candidates seem weak, immoral and incompetent. It is persuasive because it captures attention and creates anxiety about future consequences. Grammar, though seemingly innocuous, also encodes meaning and is linked to mental experience and physical interactions with the world. Information framed with past progressive caused people to reflect more on the action details in a given time period than did information framed with simple past. Using grammatical aspect to frame campaign information, positive or negative, appears to be an effective tool for influencing how people perceive candidates' past actions. It may also be tweaked to invite inferences about what candidates will do in the future because it influences inferences about how events transpire.

Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking. But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. A whopping 70 percent of Trump's statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the politician Trump dubbed "crooked," Hillary Clinton: Just 26 percent of her statements were deemed false.) For decades, researchers have been wrestling with the nature of falsehood: How does it arise? How does it affect our brains? Can we choose to combat it? The answers aren't encouraging for those who worry about the national impact of a reign of untruth over the next four, or eight, years. Lies are exhausting to fight, pernicious in their effects and, perhaps worst of all, almost impossible to correct if their content resonates strongly enough with people's sense of themselves, which Trump's clearly do.

Analyses show that Trump uses his android phone to tweet, while his staff uses an iPhone to write campaigns, announcements, and other business tweets. Angrier and exaggerated words like "bad" and "weak" tended to come from Trump's android writing, and overall, the majority of negative sentiment in tweets were from Trump's android, not his staff's iPhone.

In Donald Trump's 2005 hot mic conversation with entertainment reporter Billy Bush, he confessed to kissing women and grabbing their genitals without their consent. I've previously noted how Trump, on the campaign trail, will often use the rhetorical strategy of reification (which comes from the Latin word for thing, res, and in this context means "to thingify") as a way to trivialize the humanity, dignity, needs or opinions of those with whom he disagrees. In his defense, Trump employed several rhetorical strategies: denial ("I didn't say that [I sexually assaulted women] at all"); bolstering, a strategy speakers use to associate themselves with something or someone that the audience views positively ("I respect women and women respect me"); differentiation, which speakers use to reframe what the audience already understands (It was just "locker room talk"); and transcendence, or arguing that the issue isn't really that big of a deal (We need to "get on to much more important things and much bigger things").