Comments on: Exhaling

By: Andrew Shields

Andrew Shields — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:25:42 +0000

Geoffrey Pullum posted a Language Log post yesterday countering Mark Liberman’s line on Palin:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=841

Pullum neatly uses Liberman’s own reading of Palin’s speaking “style” to connect a linguistic analysis with a political critique that is not partisan but simply criticizes politicians who do not speak well as in some way unqualified for office.

It’s funny that I remember the “We need a verb” thing that Pullum refers to, but I always remembered it as being George HW Bush who needed verbs!

By: jd

jd — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:09:26 +0000

I have read some blogger — sorry, forget who — argue that Palin’s speech is modeled on that of the one realm where she has had unqualified success: the beauty pageant. That would support your thesis about charisma, I think.

By: Andrew Shields

Andrew Shields — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:27:37 +0000

You got me thinking some more, Joseph, which I really needed to do, because I have felt in the past two weeks or so that I have been giving Palin too much credit. The Lang Log posts on her speech made me listen to her in a different way, and I became aware of how cannily she can put register to use for rhetorical effect (in moving from formal to informal, and vice versa).

But of course she is also using language in an incredibly evasive way, and not only when she is ungrammatical and obviously evasive. I wonder how much that evasiveness is part of the “charisma” of her presence that many journalists have described her as having, a way of toadying up to people she thinks she might be able to get something from.

By: jd

jd — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:31:44 +0000

Andrew, I tried to imply without stating that I’m not criticizing Palin for merely being ungrammatical & wordy. I know the Language Long political line, which is straight descriptive linguistics & I have some sympathy for it (having rejected Orwell’s formulation of the problem long ago); however — and it is an important however — language can & is used to cover ignorance & hatred, or to camouflage ignorance. In Palin’s case, as I suggested, the motormouth syndrome is the product of self-deception as much as the attempt to deceive others. Ultimately, though, I reject the scientism of the Language Long party line — politics cannot be entirely separated from the use of language. What I would grant, though, is that there is a balancing if not entirely symmetrical misuse of language characteristic of the left. I think Barack Obama mostly manages to match his words and sentences to his thoughts & I find it very refreshing.

By: Andrew Shields

Andrew Shields — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:30:14 +0000

There have been a lot of posts on Language Log about Palin’s use of language — many of which defend her linguistically (while calling for criticisms of her politics).

I’m not saying she’s a great speaker, but if I were asked a question in public that I HAD to answer, that I did not know the answer to, and that I was not allowed to admit I did not know the answer to (for example, “What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?”), I would probably lapse into syntactical and grammatical nonsense as well …

By: Edward Mycue

Edward Mycue — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:10:45 +0000

Obama feels authentic while the others sadly do not.
He is not tedious. As our President (de jure first, then de facto) he will govern as First Citizen. He has been legally chosen: no doubt this time about
that. He brings inspiration, tradition, context.
Eward Mycue