Group items tagged

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.

This article first begins by talking about how in times of polarization and partisan conflict people turn to tired slogans, buzzwords, and recycled thoughts. It argues, I think correctly, that when these "second-hand thoughts" take the place of our actual ones, much is lost. Thoughtful debate and discussion becomes a mud-slinging fest where each side launches their own rhetorical salvos and is met with opposing ones in return. Later, the article breaks down the purpose of language into two purposes. The referential function helps describe concrete objects--the article uses an apple as an example. Everyone understands that, literally, an apple is a fruit. The metalingual function helps to describe the meanings behind the metaphors, cultural connotations, and etymology that accompany a word. In this case, apple could hint at the original sin of Eve or the association with teachers and their pupils. It points out that when debate turns metalingual, people have different associations so, in effect, they argue using words that carry different meanings. Thus, the overuse of metalingual language can actually obscure the truth instead of uncovering it.

"Facebook, YouTube and even texting will be the salvation of many of the world's endangered languages, scientists believe. Of the 7,000 or so languages spoken on Earth today, about half are expected to be extinct by the century's end. ... Tuvan, an indigenous tongue spoken by nomadic peoples in Siberia and Mongolia, even has an iPhone app to teach the pronunciation of words to new students. 'It's what I like to call the flipside of globalisation' [said K David Harrison] ... 'Everything that people know about the planet, about plants, animals, about how to live sustainably, the polar ice caps, the different ecosystems that humans have survived in - all this knowledge is encoded in human cultures and languages, whereas only a tiny fraction of it is encoded in the scientific literature.'"

1. What do you say to embarrass a polar bear? 2. How might an underwater society write? 3. Can a creature without teeth say "tooth"? 4. How many verbs for "to pray" does an angel need? These are some of the questions students have pondered in "Invented Languages" at Stephen F.

Politics is downstream from persuasion, and law is downstream from language. No matter how often journalists and politicians dismiss Trump's words, the words matter. Article examines the power Trump's words have in galvanizing polar opposition, not merely reshaping Republican attitudes, but also empowering and radicalizing his critics.

The current political and social state is the most polarized its been in recent history. So, why does no one want to listen to those with opposing views? The answer is in the backfire effect. This effect is where a person strengthens their own points of view by denying the plausibility of the opposing view. Facts, opinions, nothing gets past the backfire effect. The only way to teach someone is if they want to learn.

The immigration debate often centers on who should be welcomed into our country. Some even argue that multiculturalism dilutes our national character - that the very the essence of the country is somehow vanishing. But far from undermining the American experiment, immigrants enhance our culture by introducing new ideas, cuisines and art. They also enrich the English language. As newcomers master a new language, they lend words from their native lexicon to the rest of us. While American English can be perceived as a threat to the survival of other cultures around the world, within our country it is a force that helps to bind us together, even as ideological polarization pulls the other way. Immigrants help us reinvigorate our multitudinous language.