Inauguration Day Entrance
(January 20, 2017)
(With a “Power to the People” Salute)
All-too-familiar hand gestures
Introduction: Synopsis of Trump’s speaking style and
impact from
Vox.com by a number of linguistic experts.
Geoffrey Pullum, a linguist at
the University of Edinburgh, argues
that there’s more going on than just a conversational with Trump. His unorganized
sentences and short snippets might suggest something about how his mind works,
saying: “His speech suggests a man with scattered thoughts, a short span of
attention, and a lack of intellectual discipline and analytical skills. For
example, more sophisticated thinkers and speakers (including many past
presidents) are able to use “hypotaxis” — that is, embedding of clauses within
clauses. Trump can’t seem to do that.”
Pullum further explains: “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. His is bursts of noun phrases, self-interruptions, sudden departures
from the theme, flashes of memory, and odd side remarks. That is disordered
language of a person with a concentration problem.”
From George Lakoff, a linguist
at UC Berkeley: “The thing about being a New Yorker is 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 because knows his audience can finish his sentences for him.”
Lakoff goes on to say another
explanation for why Trump’s style of speaking is so appealing to many – that is
his most famous-catchphrases are actually versions of time-tested speech
mechanisms that salespeople use. They’re powerful because they help shape our
unconscious.
Lakoff further says: “Trump’s
frequent use of “Many people are saying…” or “Believe me” — he often uses 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, people are more inclined to believe something that seems to have
been shared. And, when Trump kept calling Clinton “crooked Hillary” or
referring to terrorists as “radical Muslims,” he strengthened the association
through repetition.”
Mark Liberman a University of
Pennsylvania linguist says:
“Trump 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 and for
the most part, he’s providing emphasis and strengthening the association.”
Summary:
Liberman concludes: “Trump’s style has proven to be successful. He beat
out a highly competitive field of lifelong Republicans and a seasoned
politician like Hillary Clinton. 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.”
Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a Calvin College
historian concludes this way: 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.” For listeners who identify with Trump, there is little they
need to do but claim what they’re entitled to. 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.”
Pullum concludes: “That
doesn’t mean it will translate to effective leadership, however. 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.
Leadership is hard: It needs discipline, concentration, and an ability to
ignore what's irrelevant or needless or personal or silly. 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.”
Related articles on this topic also from
these sources: Washington
Post, Slate,
NY
Times and NPR.
My summary for what it’s worth: No matter what the pundits, pollsters, politicians, or
linguists say, it’s comes down to the people (as voters) and what they say or believe
when they cast their vote. That’s all that matters in the end.
Fact — he won with the only vote that counts: The Electoral College vote.
Yes, he lost the popular vote, but by all indicators he is still popular with
those who voted for him (popular vote numbers aside).
There
are so many factors that possibly impacted for the way people voted for him: Like
raw hatred and name-calling of those he ran against. His clever and shrewd showmanship. He seems like he's in the center of a new TV show. He is an excellent,
but not always right, pitchman, even as Marco Rubio once called him: “A
con-artist” or like former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said “I know a con-man one
when I see one.”
Trump
is polished in that regard and he has been decades even with a crappy legal record
(e.g., Trump University fraud case) or his many huge business failures. He
keeps at it.
Now he has the biggest stage and show with the biggest audience and biggest
payday: The world stage with billions watching him. He loves it; he thrives on
it; and he needs it like food, water, and air. All that and a steady string
of tweets to stay connected with “common folk” who love him and one of which he
is not and never has been.
But,
as I’ve said before based a sum of it all it is clearer to me that is really “The
Art of the Con.” Perhaps a good title for the many books to be written about
him and surely there will be many. Why is he in this situation? Simple I
believe: To promote and keep is name and marketing value anywhere possible in
the spotlight.
History
I believe will prove me and those like me correct – I only hope it won’t be too
late and that we never repeat this shameful act again.
No comments:
Post a Comment