When Donald Trump goes off script, transcribing him can be a challenge. As someone covering him during this campaign, I can attest to this. When he’s speaking off the cuff, his rambling remarks can be full of digressions and hard-to-follow tangents. He often jumps to an entirely new thought before finishing his previous one.
Consider this Trump comment on the Iran nuclear deal during a campaign rally in South Carolina on July 21, 2015. Try to follow the train of thought here:
Look, having nuclear -- my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart -- you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world -- it’s true! -- but when you're a conservative Republican they try -- oh, do they do a number -- that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune -- you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged -- but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me -- it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right -- who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners -- now it used to be three, now it’s four -- but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years -- but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
Trump’s simple message -- "the Iran deal is bad for the United States" -- was interrupted by musings on his uncle’s education, his own education, the power of nuclear energy, prisoners, the intelligence of women, and the negotiating prowess of Iranians, seemingly without rhyme or reason. Slate even called on the public to help diagram it.
Others have noticed this as well. "His speeches are full of non sequiturs," says Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a Calvin College historian who has done a comparative study of Trump and Hillary Clinton’s speaking styles. It’s a completely different style from nearly any other politician you normally see on a big stage.
So I was curious if professional linguists and historians could help us figure out what makes Trump unique. Are there any precedents for this speaking style? Is it coherent? Is there a reason it appeals to certain people?
There were lots of disagreements on this front, but one thing stood out: Trump’s speeches aren’t meant to be read. Their seeming incoherence stems from the big difference between written and spoken language. Trump’s style of speaking has its roots in oral culture. He rallies people through impassioned, targeted conversation -- even if it doesn’t always follow a clear arc. But is it effective? That’s a much harder question.
Why Trump’s speeches are incomprehensible to some -- and make perfect sense to others
Only a few of Trump’s big speeches are scripted. At many of his rallies, by contrast, he speaks off the cuff. We get a lot of unscripted moments, with fractured, unfinished sentences, moving quickly from thought to thought.
To some (or many), this style is completely incoherent. But not everyone feels this way. Many people clearly walk away from Trump rallies having seemingly understood what he said.
Why is that? It’s the difference between reading Trump’s remarks and listening to them in real time. University of Pennsylvania linguist Mark Liberman has explained this in more detail:
This apparent incoherence has two main causes: false starts and parentheticals. Both are effectively signaled in speaking -- by prosody along with gesture, posture, and gaze -- and therefore largely factored out by listeners. But in textual form the cues are gone, and we lose the thread.
In other words, Trump’s digressions and rambles are much easier to follow in person thanks to subtle cues.
Trump’s style of speaking is conversational, and may even stem from his New York City upbringing. As George Lakoff, a linguist at UC Berkeley, told me, "[The] thing about being a New Yorker it is polite if you finish their sentences for them. It’s a natural part of conversation."
This may be why Trump’s sentences often seem, in transcript form, to trail off with no ending. "He knows his audience can finish his sentences for him," Lakoff says.
Watching Trump, it’s easy to see how this plays out. He makes vague implications with a raised eyebrow or a shrug, allowing his audience to reach their own conclusions. And that conversational style can be effective. It’s more intimate than a scripted speech. People walk away from Trump feeling as though he were casually talking to them, allowing them to finish his thoughts.
Yet to many linguists, Trump stands out for how often he deploys these conversational tics. "Trump's frequency of divergence is unusual," Liberman says. In other words, he goes off topic way more often than the average person in conversation.
Geoffrey Pullum, a linguist at University of Edinburgh, argues that there’s more going on than just a conversational, I’ll-let-you-fill-in-the-gaps-style. Trump’s unorganized sentences and short snippets might suggest something about how his mind works. "His speech suggests a man with scattered thoughts, a short span of attention, and a lack of intellectual discipline and analytical skills," Pullum says.
More sophisticated thinkers and speakers (including many past presidents), Pullum argues, are able to use "hypotaxis -- that is, embedding of clauses within clauses." Trump can’t seem to do that.
Pullum explains further: "When you say something like 'While Congress shows no interest in doing X, I feel that the American people believe it is essential,' the clause ’it is essential’ is inside the clause ’the American people believe it is essential’ which is inside the clause ’I feel that the American people believe it is essential,’ and so on. You get no such organized thoughts from Trump. It's bursts of noun phrases, self-interruptions, sudden departures from the theme, flashes of memory, odd side remarks. ... It's the disordered language of a person with a concentration problem."
Trump’s speeches can be appealing because he uses a lot of salesmen’s tricks
Lakoff, for his part, has an explanation for why Trump’s style of speaking is so appealing to many. Many of Trump’s most famous catchphrases are actually versions of time-tested speech mechanisms that salesmen use. They’re powerful because they help shape our unconscious.
Take, for example, Trump’s frequent use of "Many people are saying..." or "Believe me" -- often right after saying something that is baseless or untrue. This tends to sound more trustworthy to listeners than just outright stating the baseless claim, since Trump implies that he has direct experience with what he’s talking about. At a base level, Lakoff argues, people are more inclined to believe something that seems to have been shared.
Or when Trump keeps calling Clinton "crooked," or keeps referring to terrorists as "radical Muslims," he’s strengthening the association through repetition. He also calls his supporters "folks," to show he is one of them (though many politicians employ this trick). Trump doesn’t repeat phrases and adjectives because he is stalling for time, Liberman says; for the most part, he’s providing emphasis and strengthening the association.
These are normal techniques, particularly in conversational speech. "Is he reading cognitive science? No. He has 50 years of experience as a salesman who doesn’t care who he is selling to," Lakoff says. On this account, Trump uses similar methods in his QVC-style pitch of steaks and vodka as when he talks about his plan to stop ISIS.
"He has been doing this for a very long time as a salesman -- that’s what he is best at," Lakoff says.
People understand Trump on an emotional level
To some extent, Trump's style has been successful -- Trump beat out a highly competitive field of lifelong Republicans to become the party’s nominee. He's confident enough to address large crowds conversationally and ad-lib on stage.
That said, his rise can’t be attributed purely to his speaking style. It certainly has a lot to do with what he is actually saying. "If the content were different, I think it would come across as rambling and flabby and ineffective," Liberman says.
In other words, when Trump’s audience finishes his sentences for him, the blanks are filled with sentiments that resonate: fears of joblessness, worries about the United States losing its status as a major world power, concerns about foreign terrorist organizations. Trump validates their insecurities and justifies their anger. He connects on an emotional level, Du Mez says.
"For listeners who identify with Trump, there is little they need to do but claim what they’re entitled to," she says. "No need for sacrifice, for compromise, for complexity. He taps into fear and insecurity, but then enables his audience to express that fear through anger. And anger gives the illusion of empowerment."
In style alone, however, this "emotional" appeal may not be enough to portray a strong leader. As much as the American people look for authenticity and spontaneity in a president, which Trump seems to have mastered, they are also known to value discipline in their leaders.
"Leadership is hard; it needs discipline, concentration, and an ability to ignore what's irrelevant or needless or personal or silly," Pullum says. "There is no sign of it from Trump. This man talks honestly enough that you can see what he's like: He's an undisciplined narcissist who craves power but doesn't have the intellectual capacity to exercise it wisely."
#2
The New Class is running scared (because they know that on a level playing field most of them would be manual laborers). IMO, there is no limit to what they'll be willing to do to keep power --- we are moving into the territory where InfoWars is sane and insightful.
#3
Here is what Plumpudding (Pullum) says about Americans:
“American bigots, whenever you have any criticism of America, like to say: if you don’t like it, you can leave. So I want to say, if you don’t like Standard English the way it is, talk sump’in else. Don’t mess with our language. If you don’t like it, sod off. Talk French.”
#5
Why Trump’s speeches are incomprehensible to some -- and make perfect sense to others
The crowds he draws at political rallies seem to have little trouble understanding him. Because he is often unscripted he seems authentic and down to earth. People are tired of mealy-mouthed politicians lying to you, whoring for votes and then when elected screwing up the country beyond belief.
#6
DJT's drifting off into stream-of-consciousness musings can be quite distracting and makes it appear that, at least in debate context, he is dodging the question.
Life would be better for him if he could find a way to express his first-hand knowledge of the zeitgeist without constantly referencing his properties. He comes across as bragging, something we learn early in life is (mostly) undesirable in association.
#7
Lackoff's expertise is in the way language is used to evoke indirectly. He's right about trump.
VRWC is also right - outside of NY/NJ Trump comes across as defensive and boastful at the same time. And while that worked to shout down primary opponents, it gives pause to people who wonder of he's really got the discipline to be given the nuclear codes - especially because he doesn't deem able to admit even to himself when he is wrong or lacks knowledge.
Or when Trump keeps calling Clinton "crooked," or keeps referring to terrorists as "radical Muslims," he’s strengthening the association through repetition.
No -- he's stating the bald truth.
The clown who wrote this doesn't even inhabit the same world as the rest of us.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/27/2016 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
And I appreciate a guy who can make a speech without a teleprompter. I appreciate someone who can go off on tangents like Trump does and then when he's done with the tangent, finish speaking about the original train of thought. They don't think that's intellect? Maybe they're just not smart enough to follow it.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/27/2016 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Trump's "oh by the way" reminds me of Monty Python's "And now to something completely different".
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/27/2016 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#15
It may be an affected style,
It may be a behavioral trait of his role,
It may be organic from decades of celebration.
[Daily Caller] Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said the entire country suffers from implicit bias during the first presidential debate with GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.
During the debate on policing, the right policy measures to implement in order to reduce crime and how to improve race relations in the country, Clinton said the entire country -- not just the police -- suffers from implicit racial bias.
"Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police," Clinton said, in response to the question: "Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?"
"I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other, and therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, why am I feeling this way?" she added.
#3
And sexism, don't forget sexism, Hillary. Because, if you were a man nobody would care about your well known "anti-zionism", Benghazi, emails, or Clinton foundation, or a person with known history of psychotic rage incidents having control of the nuclear suitcase.
#4
In psychopathology, projection is an especially commonly used defense mechanism in people with certain personality disorders: 'Patients with paranoid personalities, for example, use projection as a primary defense because it allows them to disavow unpleasant feelings and attribute them to others'.
Hillary is 8 more years of personality disorder and harangue, hectoring and lecturing.
#6
I'm definitely biased against rioters. I'm definitely biased against jihadis. Their racial or cultural attributes happen to be predictable. If that makes me a racist, so be it.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/27/2016 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'm biased against lairs and greedy, power hungry fools.
#8
"I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other, and therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, why am I feeling this way?" Deplorable...just deplorable.
#12
If the whole country suffers from implicit racial bias in her opinion, then she herself must suffer from that pernicious ailment.
If she did not, why would she suspect all others of it?
That she does suffer from this explains many of her attitudes. She favors teachers unions over the black children they fail to educate. She favors lawless antisocial criminals against the black people they terrorize. She favors the government as father to black children over real fathers.
Now we know why.
[DAWN] MEDICAL humanitarians are those who selflessly toil in trying humanitarian situations to provide much-needed medical aid to affected populations. Although humanitarian emergencies are growing complex, with the interplay of interconnected political, geographical and economic factors, the purpose of medical humanitarianism has stayed noble and impartial -- to save lives, tend to injuries and ensure uninterrupted healthcare.
From Florence Nightingale’s medical mission in the Crimean War to today’s myriad humanitarian emergencies, medical humanitarians have commanded respect and admiration. That is why those engaged in providing medical care in conflict settings are afforded special protection by international humanitarian law. Often, conflicts are put on pause to allow medical humanitarians to evacuate the injured and dead.
[American Thinker] Ever wonder why there are so many Muslims and Muslim countries in the world? Over the millennia many countries were conquered, but didn't remain Persian or Greek or Roman as the case may be. You see, the countries conquered in the name of Islam, became and remained Islamic. For example Pakistan, part of India, and Malaysia both were Hindu; Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and N. Africa were Christian; Afghanistan was Buddhist. They are all Islamic now.
This transformation was not by chance but by design. All these countries were conquered by force then shorn of their wealth and many of their women. Then the Muslim conquerors introduced Sharia and continued fighting the local inhabitants. The inhabitants were either forced to convert or accorded Dhimmi status. As time went on all cultures submitted and eventually became Islamic.
h/t Instapundit
Few lines from my book have generated more rage and ridicule than this one. It’s all over the lefty blogosphere.
...But since I have room here to explain, I will.
One of the more under-appreciated motives of the Nazi extermination campaign against the Jews was how it was driven by paranoia. Nazi anti-Semitism wasn’t merely bigoted, it was conspiratorial. The Nazis and affiliated intellectuals firmly believed that the Jew was behind the scenes, pulling strings, manipulating events, rigging the system -- even the language -- in profound and pernicious ways. Carl Schmitt -- quite popular on the left today -- was tasked with the job of purging the Jewish spirit from the law. Other similar projects were launched across the political, economic and intellectual landscape.
...Politically, the Nazis insisted that "the Jews" had attacked Germany first. Every bad circumstance or inconvenient fact could be laid at the feet of the Jews. Hitler even proclaimed that the conscience itself was a Jewish invention designed to keep the oppressed Aryans and others down.While still a Nazi collaborator, Paul de Man-- the revered postmodern theorist who eventually taught at Yale and Cornell--wrote of the Jews, "Their cerebralness, their capacity to assimilate doctrines while maintaining a cold detachment from them," is one of "the specific characteristics of the Jewish mind." I could go on, but you probably get it.
...Now look at today’s culture. In academia you have the proliferation of "Whiteness Studies," simply the most absurd discipline dedicated to purging the "white mind" from society. Most run by white professors
...These attitudes ultimately stem from the view that the white man, like the Jew, represents every facet of what is wrong and oppressive to humanity. As Susan Sontag proclaimed in 1967, "The white race is the cancer of human history." Could explain why these baboons like Muzzies so much?
I figure the snowflakes and manbuns do not have the ability to physically kick the tear gas, if you will. There are some, but for the most part they get together and cry or scream, making their theatre on campuses and capitals.
[FrontPageMagazine] There were concerns that Lester Holt would be this debate's Candy Crowley. He was a good deal worse.
Every question was shaped to frame a left-wing agenda. Holt hurled numerous attacks at Trump. He only passingly offered Hillary a chance to address her emails when Trump had already brought it up.
The debate was structurally biased and Holt biased it. He repeatedly argued with Trump about the facts. Despite the ban on fact-checking, Holt attempted to debate Trump on the Iraq War and on the birth certificate. It was a disgraceful and a biased performance. It is a reminder that the structure of the debates must be changed to prevent mainstream media from dominating it.
#2
It was like watching a tag team. Only with both allowed the ni the ring at a he same time..
As a commenter somewhere mentioned. You have to wonder if Holt was afraid that the f he didn't argue with Trump he might become despondent and shoot himself in the back of the head twice someday..
#3
The Trump campaign should have anticipated the line of questioning and prepared - they didn't. Then again Trump blamed his poor performance on his microphone. Lester you cunning basterd were those wire snips we saw sticking out of your pocket?
#4
I got a brief glimpse of 'Odd Job' (Diazepam Man) rushing in with Bill Clinton at the Hofstra parking facility. HRC soon emerged from the same vehicle, walking alone with security detail at a distance.
When they departed Hafstra, 'Odd Job' rushed out ahead of the Clinton's and disappeared inside the vehicle.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When Donald Trump goes off script, transcribing him can be a challenge. As someone covering him during this campaign, I can attest to this. When he’s speaking off the cuff, his rambling remarks can be full of digressions and hard-to-follow tangents. He often jumps to an entirely new thought before finishing his previous one.
