183
184

Donald Trump’s strange speaking style, as explained by linguists (vox.com)

ReasonableApe が 投稿

全 88 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]NorwegianWood28 41ポイント42ポイント  (5子コメント)

He always gives his opponents adjectives. Crooked Hillary. Goofy Elizabeth Warren. Lyin' Ted. He ever refers to them without the adjective. Very interesting choice. I wonder if it's effective in the listeners associating those qualities with the people in question

[–]energirl 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

I felt immediately when watching his opening in the debate that he was trying to recall the name "Crooked Hillary" in his supporters minds without actually saying it and coming off as combatant in the eyes of independents. He first refered to Hillary as "Secretary Clinton," and then asked if that was the name she would prefer because he didn't want to hurt her feelings. As if he didn't actually know her appropriate title!

[–]pron98 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think this is intentional childish talk to evoke a sense of truthful authenticity associated with children, that lets us overlook their naiveté and oversimplification. We feel children "tell it like it is", even when they really don't.

[–]wQP5qtqHqHYXZ6Vha9BE 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've heard "Crooked Hillary" everywhere. The other 2 are new on me.

[–]Gopher_Broke 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lyin' Ted was definitely around everywhere during the primaries (and by everywhere I mostly mean internet forums).

[–]P-01S 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I assume it's little more than Pavlovian association; if you hear the name, you'll think of the adjective.

I assume it does create a quality-person association, but I'm curious if it works on people who are neutral or who support Hillary.

[–]k10_ftw 73ポイント74ポイント  (2子コメント)

As explained by LAKOFF and LIBERMAN. Lots of people talk about Trump's speaking style, these are the views of legit linguists. No president will ever be as fun for linguists as Bush :(

[–]ExplainsSocialEnigma 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

/u/ReasonableApe

You meant to reply to this comment with that comment

[–]paolog 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean Bush Jr, right? Or did I misunderestimate you? ;)

[–]CatsAreTasty 23ポイント24ポイント  (24子コメント)

I wonder how a high functioning Asperger individual would perceive Trump's speeches. I seem to remember something similar was done with Reagan's speeches, though the participants didn't have Aspergers.

Edit: Okay, I remembered the source, it was from The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, where neurologist Oliver Sacks talks about patients in a ward cracking up as they watched Reagan speak. There were a number of follow-up studies involving aphasic patients that confirmed Sacks' observations.

[–]jesuisledoughboy 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have aspergers, and studied linguistics at university, and have a hard time following his speech. For me, his inability to complete a thought comes off as either very unintelligent, or very deceptive. Or potentially it could be both.

[–]Vyrmayn_Gothryn 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have aspergers too, and that was my impression as well. It's hard to tell if he's being deliberately deceptive, if he is too scatterbrained to finish a thought, or he just isn't as intelligent as he tries to let on. I'd guess that he might not be too intelligent, because he likes insulting people and bragging so much, maybe he's compensating or something.

[–]despaxes 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then how is it similar?

[–]CatsAreTasty 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I left it vague enough hoping someone would remember the study. It's been more than twenty years. However, I remembered, and edited my post. It was from Oliver Sacks The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, and subsequent studies of patients with aphasia.

[–]xxxboner420 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have aspergers and most people can't tell, so I guess that means I'm high functioning. The only time I ever watched a Trump speech, I perceived it as boring and then went and did something else

[–]P-01S 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol, that's probably the most unbiased way of both experiencing and explaining it.

If I didn't know anything about him, I'd probably have the same reaction to a Trump speech.

[–]ArcboundChampion 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I really need to read more than I have of Oliver Sacks. Musicophilia was fantastic.

[–]Vyrmayn_Gothryn 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

I have high functioning Autism (Aspergers), and although I've never listened to one of his speeches, because I don't have any interest in the election, I did read the snippet in the OP article, and it was complete nonsense to me. It felt like he was deliberately trying to bullshit, and ended up saying nothing that meant anything. After reading that, as well as watching the video about his lies, I really can't see how anyone would want him as a president. He literally only says things to appeal to the largest amount of people.

Edit: I should probably also say that text is always much more comprehensible to me than spoken word. I usually have to ask people to repeat things 2-3 times a minute, regardless of how intently I'm listening, which is very frusterating...

[–]SoInsightful 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

The article explains that his ramblings must be watched in order to be understood, due to important body language and facial expressions, so that text transcript will completely bewilder the best of us.

[–]Vyrmayn_Gothryn 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was curious, so I watched the speech that the transcript was from. To be fair, I could understand a good portion of the speech, except he never did reach the point he was always trying to make, and switched topics before he did reach it. That's probably why he is such a "peoples person", because he is ambiguous and lets the listener guess at his intentions. I disagree with a lot of what he said, but listening to him speak did make me feel like I should be supporting him, however I know enough to not do that. Funny how much influence someones voice can have over your thoughts about them, I guess that's why there are such things as those famous cult leaders who get their followers to commit mass suicide. I'm rambling tho, sorry. The part that the text was in, even while watching the speech made no sense whatsoever to me. It felt like he was deliberately trying to say nothing, so as to not box himself into a corner. He also seems to love insulting people.

Edit: Oh, and body language is something I don't normally understand very well. The only exception is in TV and movies, but I imagine that is because the body language is made painfully obvious, so even someone as oblivious as I could understand it. In person I never pick up on facial expressions, but I think that's from social anxiety or something, because when I feel no pressure (like, when I'm not conversing with the person I'm observing, like TV, pictures, etc), I can understand facial expressions perfectly fine.

Oh yeah, and I can see how people would want him as a president if all they did was watch his speeches and didn't try to analyze them. He makes his listeners feel good about themselves and empowered, like he would actually make a change that "america needs", while offering nothing of real substance to back that up. So for most Americans who aren't very informed, I can see how he would appeal.

[–]P-01S 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

TV and movies

TV and movie language (not just body language) can be its own self-perpetuating beast... Because conveying the idea of something is generally more important in film and TV than depicting the actual thing. For point of comparison, most sound effects on TV are faked. That includes sports. Sometimes the faked sounds are genuine but are balanced and mixed into the audio to be actually audible. Sometimes the faked sounds are ridiculous to anyone who knows the real thing, but they have been used for so long that audiences expect the fake sound. Banging coconuts together for horse sounds is one example. The "p-shoo" sound of silenced guns is another.

The same thing happens with language.

[–]JSubatoi41 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

They don't use Aspergers anymore, now it is just a type of Autism. Also, many autistic people are affected by some traits more strongly than others, making "high functioning" and "low functioning" misleading terms.

But I know what you meant, so I'll say that i, persobally, find his speech more difficult to understand out loud than in writing. They are both very confusing but when it's in writing I can at least look back and try to figure out what or who he he is referring to when he says "they."

[–]CatsAreTasty 13ポイント14ポイント  (8子コメント)

They don't use Aspergers anymore, Aspergers anymore, now it is just a type of Autism.

I thought this change is still controversial.

persobally, find his speech more difficult to understand out loud than in writing.

Do you have autism?

[–]JSubatoi41 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

Some people don't like it, but that is how the DSM now defines it. And I think it is what you meant, also, but I may be wrong?

Yes. That is why I answered the question.

[–]CatsAreTasty 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes. That is why I answered the question.

Interesting, are there any other notable politicians whose speech cause similar issues?

[–]JSubatoi41 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not that I can think of. Politician speech is usually very organized and logical. But then, I don't watch many politicians.

[–]P-01S 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Autistic person here.

It's controversial mostly to people previously diagnosed with Asperger's and their families. "Autism" has a lot of stigma through association with (clinically) low intelligence. "Asperger's" generally covered autistic people with normal or high intelligence, but the actual diagnostic criteria left some very intelligent people with the "autism" diagnose and such.

The two big "pro" reasons are 1. Because of a lack of medical evidence to call them two separate things and 2. Because in many places, particularly school systems, "autism" was counted as a disability but Asperger's was not.

As an aside, "high functioning" is often used to mean "normal or better intelligence" with respect to autism, but the technical definition for "functional" is about how well a person can navigate life not about intelligence. Some "high functioning" individuals, such as myself, are not actually functional in society without support. Likewise, being "low functioning" doesn't actually mean someone can't be independent.

[–]imperialismus 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

A lot of people on the spectrum seem to take offense at the terms low and high functioning. I've even seen some say they're totally meaningless terms. But you need a vocabulary to talk about the distinction between those who can lead an independent adult life, and those who need a lot of help to navigate adult life. If not "low functioning", what then? It's not a difference you can just ignore. It's not in anyone's best interest to ignore it either, because you want to identify who needs help so that you can provide them with that help.

Unlike a former medical term like "retard", "low functioning" has not become a common pejorative. So I don't understand the issue.

Maybe it's a thing where those who speak loudest are those who need the least help. Many actual low functioning individuals can barely even communicate, so they are a minority on the internet.

[–]P-01S 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

distinction between those who can lead an independent adult life, and those who need a lot of help to navigate adult life.

The issue isn't that definition. The issue is that "high/low functioning" is used to distinguish between people with autism who aren't and who are intellectually disabled.

It is unkind to "low functioning" autistic people, because it assumes that they can't be independent due to their intelligence (not true). It isn't fair to "high functioning" autistic people, because it gives the mistaken impression that they need less support because they are more intelligent. The truth is that even true geniuses can be low functioning in terms of life skills.

It is used as a euphemism for "mentally challenged vs smart" rather than referring to actual ability to function.

Now, high/low functioning in terms of ability to function is also contentious at times. Some autistic people resent the idea that autism is a disability. Some autistic people think that autism is a disability, and that having a mental disability is fine and should not be stigmatized. I fall into the latter group, because autistic people clearly need support. The level of support differs vastly depending on the individual, but society as it is now doesn't account for the special needs of autistic people.

Now then, "autistic person" vs "person with autism" is another can of worms... I think "person with autism" is the safer choice, though I use "autistic person" because hey, better to claim it than let it become an insult.

[–]imperialismus 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Now then, "autistic person" vs "person with autism" is another can of worms... I think "person with autism" is the safer choice, though I use "autistic person" because hey, better to claim it than let it become an insult.

This issue crops up in mental health circles a lot. I "am" bipolar vs I "have" bipolar... Who the fuck cares. You are saying the same thing to my ears. It's like contrasting "I am blue-eyed and tall" vs "I have blue eyes and a tall body." Nobody would confuse that for a statement about what is a person's essence vs describing one of many attributes that makes up a person.

[–]P-01S 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't disagree personally. But. It does matter to some people.

[–]P-01S 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Speaking as someone with high functioning autism spectrum disorder (Asperger's was removed between DSM IV and DSM V): It sounds vacuous. Although that's true of most political speeches. So I guess it sounds openly vacuous.

Well, disclaimer: I avoid listening to him. I have read quotes. My opinion of the man would have way too much influence on my perception of how he sounds, anyway.

How to explain it... I don't think the substance of what he says matters. Rather, it's only meant to create rapport and an emotional connection. It is meaningless to me. Colorless green ideas, and all that. So no, I don't understand what he is trying to say. The quote about the uncle and nuclear something and... That one completely lost me.

I should note that I don't make a habit of watching any politicians speak, because it tends to annoy me. I can infer emotional appeals, I think, but I'm not very receptive to them, so speeches tend to feel very... empty. Watching "good speakers" work a crowd is... interesting to me. It's can be a stream of non sequiturs, logical fallacies, and self-congratulating platitudes interspersed with truthy facts... and people actually buy it! Or it could be serious discourse. It doesn't seem to matter much to the average person.

So in all of this, clearly there is another level of communication going on. I think Trump is just an extremely high example of emotion/reasoning ratio. Rather than examining Trump's grammar, I'd be curious to see an analysis of his "emotional language", so to speak. How does he use intonation, body language, etc? How much does the semantic content of his speeches matter? How often does he envoke what emotions? Focusing on his grammar seems like it's missing the point.

[–]ReasonableApe[S] 29ポイント30ポイント  (35子コメント)

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.

[–]BreadstickNinja 39ポイント40ポイント  (6子コメント)

So Trump's speech doesn't show recursion. Take that, Chomsky.

[–]timfriese 38ポイント39ポイント  (4子コメント)

Trump also only has black and white as color words and his counting system consists of one and many...

[–]toot_toot_man 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

I hear Trump failed the Kiki-Bouba test.

[–]mszegedy 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Didn't he use the word red at some point? Berlin and Kay, you have done some great work

[–]sv0f 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Funniest two-comment sequence I've seen on this subreddit.

[–]PatrickMaloney1 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

This made me laugh out loud

[–]zg33 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'll have to look for it later but there is a language log post by the same author that suggest that Trump talks that way mostly during rallies. I believe it mentioned or had a link to a video where he was on a talk show and he was talking just as you would expect any normal person to talk. That video was filmed fairly long ago and I don't know that Trump has spoken similarly recently, but I think it at least suggests that part of the way he talks is calculated.

[–]mszegedy 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or, at least, part of a special register.

[–]ideletedmylastacct 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've never understood why people think Trump is incoherent until now. I've always felt like his speeches are like having a conversation: many tangents, a good deal of bouncing back between them and the main topic, and often times not ending with the main topic, which, in a two person conversation, would lead to a new topic. He doesn't speak to people, he talks to them. I guess other people just don't hear that.

[–]GeoGoddess 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

He doesn't speak to people, he talks to them. I guess other people just don't hear that.

To me, he always seems to be talking AT people, with his intention being to make his own views known in a one-sided deal. This is opposed to others who talk WITH people, with the intention being to learn about others' views in an even exchange. I'm not just referencing his activities since he decided to enter politics; I've been observing him his entire public career.

[–]RicketyPick 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

There was a piece last year about how Trump shows some extraordinary ability to accurately return to topics he was previously talking about after making digressions, whereas most people would follow the digression train and never return to the original topic.

[–]5user5 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would love to see that because that doesn't sound like Trump at all. He often never returns to the subject.

[–]pron98 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find Sarah Palin's speeches even more muddled and incomprehensible than Trump's, but hers have a rapppy musical quality that is weirdly enjoyable -- it's like you're supposed to feel the beat rather than understand the lyrics -- while his are salesman-like, drawing you into a vortex of confusion and submission. You only enjoy them if turn your submission into identification with the salesman, in a sort of Stockholm syndrome way.

[–]ReasonableApe[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

True, linguists even coined a world for it. ‘Bushisms’ from a linguistic view

[–]ahauben 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Word instead of world nice bushism