Group items tagged

In this article, it talks about Trumps language compared to past political officials. In analyzing Trumps language, linguists from University of Pennsylvania saw that one of Trumps thirteen used used words were often one and two syllabled words, with the exception of Mexico being three syllabled. Linguists were analyzing Trumps way of answering questions, and saw that he diverts this answer is a much different way than other politicians. Most politician, when diverting their answer from the question would start with "well", "now", and "what". But, Trump would usually start with the word "I". In public speakings, politicians would used stories to put a personal connection on answering questions, but with Trump his stories often start out of nowhere.

What makes a politician, or a person, authentic? This article lists off the various definitions of authenticity, according to ancient meanings, famed psychologists like Freud and Rousseau, and political pundits. In the past, the politicians deemed authentic by the public were those that were the most likable, a very interesting standpoint. However, it now seems that a politician that cares about what's in his heart, like Trump, is now thought of as being authentic.

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.

"Positive evidence presented in a weak way can make listeners suspicious of a predicted outcome, a finding that can have serious implications for professional persuaders like marketers and politicians."

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.

SINGAPORE - Is the government's war on Singlish finally over? Our wacky, singsong creole may seem like the poor cousin to the island's four official languages, but years of state efforts to quash it have only made it flourish. Now even politicians and officials are using it.

Psychological research tries to solve the riddle of the fast talker. Beware the fast-talker, the person with the gift of the gab-the friendly salesman, the oily politician-running through the 'facts' faster than you can keep up. Rat-a-tat-tat. What does all that fast talking do to us?

Improvising can be tough on the spot, especially for politicians. Spontaneity is an illusion of meticulous design and one of the most effective rhetorical devices for creating spontaneity is metanoia- correcting or changing one's mind.

Courtesy Merriam-Webster: 10 U.S. Presidential (and other politicians') gaffes: even presidents commit word crimes. But are they? Some are blatant bloopers, e.g. "Sometimes you misunderestimated me." - George W. Bush, News Conference, 12 Jan. 2009, yet others, like Warren Harding's use of "normalcy" or Barack Obama's "enormity" have become acceptable. Welcome to language evolution.

Donald Trumps has revolutionized the use of social media by politicians.

Donald Trump is probably known as one of the most interesting presidents and speakers we know. His common short phrases of, "Believe me", "Not good", and "Build a wall" are some of his most known. This article explains how a linguistic professor studied Trump's speech for two years to try and understand what makes Trump so intriguing to listen to. It also goes on to explain how his speech compares to normal everyday Americans and commonly known politicians.

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.

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.

Typically, politicians do not openly express racist statements because it simply is not okay. However, Donald Trump's racism is found all over the media. But, to some, it seems okay because it is covered up with a "racial figleaf," which is "an additional utterance which provides just enough cover for an utterance that would otherwise be seen as clearly racist."

You only use 10 percent of your brain. Eating carrots improves your eyesight. Vitamin C cures the common cold. Crime in the United States is at an all-time high. None of those things are true. But the facts don't actually matter: People repeat them so often that you believe them. Welcome to the "illusory truth effect," a glitch in the human psyche that equates repetition with truth. Marketers and politicians are masters of manipulating this particular cognitive bias. "Repetition makes things seem more plausible," says Lynn Hasher, a psychologist at the University of Toronto whose research team first noticed the effect in the 1970s. "And the effect is likely more powerful when people are tired or distracted by other information."

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.

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.

Why does "left" mean liberal and "right" mean conservative? To answer this question, the article probes into how this political terminology originated from the physical location of politicians in the 1789 French National Assembly, which was the parliament France formed after the French Revolution.

This article talks about the decline in religious conversations happening within the US. The author, a strong religious practitioner and son of megachurch pastor describes his worries with the trends being shown. His main problem with the shift away from religious conversations was that he worried people were losing faith. He argues that organized religion, and specifically Christianity will slowly die without faith speech. He believes that the reason why faith speech is dying is because of its misuse by politicians, and the media to manipulate the public.