A new Trump speaking style?
« previous post | next post »
Like some others, I have an (empirically unsupported) impression that features of Donald Trump's speaking style have changed recently. I first noticed this in listening to his 8/8/2024 press conference in Mar-a-lago — which seems rather different from e.g. his 7/21/2015 rally speech in Sun City., or the many other samples in "Past posts on Donald Trump's rhetoric", 1/5/2024.
At some point before long, I'll provide some numbers to support or undermine this impression. Meanwhile, the comments section is open for your reactions.
Here's a short sample from the 8/8/2024 press conference:
Most dangerous period of time I've ever seen for our country.
With that being said uh
we have somebody that
hasn't received one vote for
president and she's running
and that's fine with me.
But we were given
Joe Biden
and now we're given
somebody else
and I think frankly I'd rather be running against the somebody else.
But that was their choice, they decided to do that because uh
Kamala's record is horrible.
She's a radical left
person at a level that nobody's seen.
She picked a radical left
uh
man
that is uh-
he's got things done that he's-
he has positions that are just not- it's not even possible to believe
that they exist.
uh
he's going for things that
that nobody's ever
even heard of.
Heavy into the transgender world, heavy into lots of different worlds
having to do with safety
he doesn't want to have
borders he doesn't want to have walls he doesn't want to have any form of safety for our country.
He doesn't mind people coming in from prisons and
neither does she, I guess, because she's not-
she couldn't care less she's the border czar.
By the way, she was the border czar
a hundred percent
and all of a sudden for the last few weeks she's not the border czar any more,
like nobody ever said it.
And I just hope that the uh
media becomes
more diligent, more honest,
frankly, because if they're not going to be honest it's going to be much tougher to bring our
country back.
We have a very very sick country right now.
From "Past posts on Donald Trump's rhetoric", 1/5/2024:
[O]ver the past 8 years, many LLOG posts have analyzed several aspects of his rhetorical style, both the text and the delivery, which are strikingly different from other contemporary American politicians and public figures. Specifically, these posts have described his
- Repetition
- Informality
- Fluency
- Melody
This has nothing to do with the political and cultural orientation of his speeches — the same techniques could in principle be applied to the promotion of internationalism rather than nationalism, for example. No doubt the content is a large part of the reason for his appeal, but the rhetorical affinity with professional wrestling is probably the rest of it, as discussed in "The art of the promo", 10/31/2020.
The recent recordings certainly continue to be repetitive, but they seem less fluent to me.
A strange side note — YouTube's automated transcription for the 8/8/2024 press conference renders "border czar" as "Bazar":
Stephen Goranson said,
August 10, 2024 @ 1:50 pm
My tentative guess:
Trump, by using Kablama, wished to associate with Obama,
despite being "born in Kenya" confuses his non-black Harris try.
AntC said,
August 10, 2024 @ 9:49 pm
Kablama
Fun fact: Kamala is already older now than was Obama when he left office.
Biden when he started office was already older (78) than the previously oldest incumbent (Ronald Reagan, 77) — that is at at the end of Reagan's term.
Trump if he takes office in 2025 will be older (nearer 79) than was Biden.
For one comparison, Mitch McConnell born same year as Biden; Nancy Pelosi two years before; Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren relatively spritely mid-seventies; Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in office aged 87.
For another comparison, only two British PMs have reached 80 while still serving: Churchill (in his 80th year); Gladstone (84).
With the possible exception of Gladstone, I think it's painfully obvious these people are no longer cognitively competent for such intellectually demanding roles. I would say that for myl to analyse their speech patterns is a cruel indignity; but if Trump insists on standing and can't be ruled out on grounds of mental <something>, I suppose he's 'fair game'.
(I'm considerably younger than any of the abovementioned. I don't consider myself suitable for any such role.)
AntC said,
August 10, 2024 @ 10:07 pm
don't consider myself suitable
Errk: proof as if it was needed. I should exclude Obama, Kamala from "the abovementioned". As to myl … he's perfectly understandably reticent on the topic in publicly available sources. I suspect I'm 'somewhat' rather than "considerably" younger.
Seth said,
August 11, 2024 @ 1:50 am
I don't know about "changed", but one thing I've noticed over the years, I think there's an obvious difference between what might be called "high-energy" Trump, and "low-energy" Trump. When he's in the latter state, he sometimes seems to be having some sort of articulation problems, almost to the point of slurring his speech. This often sets off speculation about incipient dementia, but I'm not going to attempt armchair neurology. All I'll say is that I do hear clear differences at various times. And his ageing won't help.
Jerry Packard said,
August 11, 2024 @ 7:12 am
From the evidence I’ve seen, I’d say Trump appears to be manifesting the early signs of what has been termed Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA), which is technically NOT a form of aphasia per se (aphasia defined as language deficit following brain insult), but rather a form of dementia that is characterized by a gradual loss in language functioning while other cognitive domains such as memory and personality are mostly preserved.
bks said,
August 11, 2024 @ 7:15 am
AntC, if Walz serves 8 years as VP, and then 8 years as POTUS, he would leave office younger than Trump is now.
Mark P said,
August 11, 2024 @ 9:11 am
@Jerry Packard — I’m not sure you can say Trump’s memory is mostly preserved. It’s hard to tell whether he believes his constant lies or understands that he is lying. For example, when he told his story of being in a helicopter with Willie Brown that experienced an emergency landing he was apparently confusing it with an earlier helicopter flight in a different place with different people. As of the last report I have seen, he is insisting that his original story is correct. Does he believe that, or not? If you have been around someone with cognitive and memory deficits, you will be familiar with confabulation. My wife insists that certain events that did not happen happened a certain way, and she cannot be convinced otherwise. Is Trump displaying the same type of behavior? I’m not sure we can tell at this point, but it is consistent with what I have seen in my wife.
jin defang said,
August 11, 2024 @ 1:06 pm
interesting analysis of Trump's speech, but in the interests of bipartisan fairness how about doing the same for Kamala Harris….and/or Joe Biden?
John Swindle said,
August 11, 2024 @ 3:09 pm
Donald Trump has experienced survived two traumatic events, first being shot and injured by a would-be assassin, then falling out of the spotlight and trailing in the polls. If his speech has changed, I wonder whether post-traumatic stress might be a factor.
John Swindle said,
August 11, 2024 @ 3:09 pm
For "experienced survived" please read "experienced."
Viseguy said,
August 11, 2024 @ 8:13 pm
I'll look forward to seeing whether the numbers support or undermine the initial impression. And speaking of bipartisan fairness, it would be interesting to know whether Kamala Harris's speaking style now is materially different from what it was during her short-lived presidential campaign four years ago.
Tom said,
August 11, 2024 @ 11:07 pm
I don't understand people who want to engage in armchair diagnoses. It happens on both sides. Hillary supposedly had Parkinsons in 2016 and Putin was dying of cancer in 2022. Both obviously ridiculous in hindsight. Even for trained diagnosticians, making a medical diagnosis of someone you haven't examined properly is completely inappropriate. Trump is an old man with an extremely taxing schedule. He is no doubt not what he was in 2015, but beyond that, speculation is worthless.
Barbara Phillips Long said,
August 12, 2024 @ 12:34 am
After listening to the Sun City, South Carolina, speech linked to above, I am wondering if Trump is having some trouble with his breathing. The press conference seems to have more audible breaths than the South Carolina speech (which does have audible breaths although I think not every breath is audible). Trump isn’t a smoker and as far as I know he has no history of asthma, but I still came away with the impression that he was having more trouble breathing during the press conference. Unfortunately, I don’t know if there is any way to check for that. Is he speaking more slowly overall?
It was also my impression Trump is doing a lot less name-dropping these days. In addition, he seems to be listing fewer numbers during the press conference, which I might not have noticed had not Maureen Dowd written about his preoccupation with ratings and quantification recently in the NY Times. (Sorry, but I can’t provide a link.) it seems to me his focus has narrowed, so perhaps his working vocabulary may be smaller for his public appearances.
Barbara Phillips Long said,
August 12, 2024 @ 12:54 am
@Tom —
Trump’s schedule may be “taxing,” but it is currently not nearly as demanding as it was four years ago. Here’s an article that includes a discussion of the differences:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/08/trump-off-campaign-trail-as-harris-walz-vance-barnstorm.html
AG said,
August 12, 2024 @ 5:10 am
I must point out that pleas for "bipartisan fairnes" in this matter are either naive or disingenuous. Trump's public speaking style is so self-evidently, uniquely, bizarre, mendacious, and obsessive in its concerns that anyone analyzing it should not be forced to put up with demands to treat others' speech the same way. The fact that this mind-bogglingly bizarre public speaker's abilities are mutating or degenerating in some way is a valid area of inquiry completely outside of the realm of politics per se (although of course every human activity is political in some much broader sense).
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
August 12, 2024 @ 8:00 am
Calls for "bipartisan fairness" aren't "naïve or disingenuous"; they're just pointing out a trend in the sorts of targets at which Prof. Liberman tends to point weapons of linguistic analysis. Yes, there are aging Democratic politicians out there whose speech might make for interesting linguistic consideration, but this isn't "Language Log: Fair & Balanced News"; this is: "Language Log: Whatever the Bloggers Happen to Be Thinking about Today".
And if the bloggers want to pick politically opportunistic targets while protecting their own oxen from being gored, who are we to object? Until Penn hires a right-wing linguistics professor who joins LL, your proposal for analysis of transcripts of Kamala Harris's speech will die in committee.
Philip Taylor said,
August 12, 2024 @ 8:06 am
Whilst I tend to agree with AG’s perspective, it is perhaps worth remembering that a not-insignificant fraction of the population of the United States believe that Trump is, if not the Second Coming incarnate, then at the very least the Saviour of the Nation, and it is not totally impossible that some who hold this view also read (and perhaps contribute to) Language Log …
[And why even some BBC announcers continue to refer to him as "President Trump" almost four years after he lost office is completely beyond me].
KeithB said,
August 12, 2024 @ 8:16 am
Philip Taylor:
Calling Trump "President" is just a standard honorific. They should do the same for Obama. Often people are addressed as "Ambassador" years after they leave the post.
Philip Taylor said,
August 12, 2024 @ 8:33 am
I would have thought that "ex-President Trump" would be more correct (at least, unless/until the unthinkable happens) and this phrase is certainly attested within the BBC …
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
August 12, 2024 @ 8:52 am
Re reference to former Presidents — what was the observed protocol with, say, Grover Cleveland during his second-non-consecutive-term campaign?
Peter CS said,
August 12, 2024 @ 8:54 am
BBC News Style Guide: At first reference it's former US President Donald Trump, in later references President Trump or Mr Trump or the former US president, in headlines Trump.
Seth said,
August 12, 2024 @ 2:02 pm
@ Benjamin E. Orsatti There have been many LL posts about Joe Biden's speech, and not for primarily partisan purposes. His stutter, and examining the allegations of cognitive decline, provide ample material. Yes, these do have political implications of course. But they are fair topics of discussion. If anything, some posts about Trump are the balance.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something about Harris in the near future, as some quirk of her speaking style gets more news coverage.
J.W. Brewer said,
August 12, 2024 @ 2:09 pm
To Benjamin O.'s question, a brief dip into the google books corpus reveals instances from the time of the 1892 campaign variously using "President Cleveland," "Ex-President Cleveland," and "Mr. Cleveland." We think of it as having been a more formal age but I don't think the use of "Mr." would have been thought implicitly disrespectful by the standards of the day. More recent generations have seen a rise of credentialism at the same time as a rise of (sometimes forced!) informality.
It is not hard to find polite references to Jimmy Carter as "President Carter" in current news stories, almost 44 years after he left office. British/NZ usage may well be otherwise, not least because their prime ministers have not taken on the quasi-monarchical trappings of the U.S. presidency what with them still having at least nominally an actual monarch.
Philip Taylor said,
August 12, 2024 @ 2:28 pm
"Nominally", Sir ? You do realise, I hope, that treason is still punishable by death !
BZ said,
August 12, 2024 @ 2:59 pm
It sounds more normal than previous speeches. It definitely sounds like Trump, but he's not doing that thing where he never says "uh", repeating what was stated instead, and never backtracking to correct himself after obviously misspeaking. Like I said, more like a normal person would speak.
J.W. Brewer said,
August 12, 2024 @ 3:39 pm
@Philip Taylor: By "nominally" I simply meant that these days you have a "monarch" who does not actually "arch," but upon reflection perhaps this is just the Etymological Fallacy. Or perhaps viewing the Etymological Fallacy as a fallacy itself presupposes a nominalist understanding of the phenomena under discussion? In any event, few and far between these days are Britons who hold to the bracingly contrary view of the late Evelyn Waugh.*
*Viz. (in the context of the general election of 1959), "Great Britain is not a democracy. All authority emanates from the Crown. Judges, Anglican bishops, soldiers, sailors, ambassadors, the Poet Laureate, the postman and especially Ministers exist by the royal will. In the last three hundred years, particularly in the last hundred, the Crown has adopted what seems to me a very hazardous process of choosing advisers; popular election. Many great evils have resulted, but the expectation of a change of method in my lifetime is pure fantasy."
Dr. Emilio Lizardo said,
August 12, 2024 @ 4:05 pm
Wow, AG. Those are some heavy-duty Trump Derangement Syndrome symptoms. Have you considered scheduling an appointment with your primary care provider? Left untreated, such volcanic anger toward someone you've probably never even met can produce some pretty scary results. Even worse than Trump being re-elected president.
Mr. Orsatti, kudos for such a well-written post. As for analyzing the Honorable VP's unique rhetorical style, I'd be happy to settle for someone who can provide a basic analysis of her hyena impressions.
Philip Taylor said,
August 12, 2024 @ 4:43 pm
"few and far between these days are Britons who hold to the bracingly contrary view of the late Evelyn Waugh" — I think, Sir, that while we may be few, we do still exist …
AG said,
August 13, 2024 @ 4:05 am
I present Dr. Emilio Lizardo's comment as an example of what is currently being called "gaslighting". A slightly purple but fact-based description of Trump's speaking style as compared to most people's is said to constitute a diagnosable syndrome of some sort, and I am supposed to be deranged to say such things. As Trump himself might say, very nasty!
When I refer to Trump as unusually "mendacious", for example, I can easily back it up with incontrovertible data. "The Post reported 30,573 false or misleading claims in four years,[1] an average of more than 20.9 per day." I challenge you to find another human being on earth who has put up numbers like that on the record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Public_opinion
Philip Taylor said,
August 13, 2024 @ 5:32 am
Until now, I have never known what "gaslighting" means in contexts such as this, but motivated by your comment, AG, I sought to find out. All I can say is "what a appalling choice of metaphor" — how many people can possibly be expected to know the plot of an obscure 1938 play ?
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
August 13, 2024 @ 7:40 am
(1) Philip — "Gaslight": Obscure 1938 play, made somewhat less obscure with the 1944 Ingrid Bergman, Angela Lansbury film. Now used ad hominem by American political types to taint an opposing argument. (cf. antonym: "Trump Derangement Syndrome").
(2) If you look up "gaslight" on Wikipedia, there's a link that's just too impossible to resist: "Not to be confused with Fart lighting." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_lighting).
(3) AD & Lizardo: The intelligent among us have already carried your argument through to the end of its logical conclusion so that now you don't have to (spoiler alert: you still haven't convinced one another). Can we get back to talking about language now?
Philip Taylor said,
August 13, 2024 @ 8:19 am
(Fart lighting) — Good Lord, I assumed from the leading cap. that "Fart" was a German word for some sort of high-tech lighting; I now see how mistaken I was.
Seonachan said,
August 13, 2024 @ 8:39 am
I might be a minority of one, but I first heard of Gaslight via an episode of Car 54, Where Are You? that referenced the film.
J.W. Brewer said,
August 13, 2024 @ 10:56 am
I look forward to myl's promised follow-up post with quantitative/empirical data that will tend to either confirm or disconfirm various anecdotal impressions. In the meantime, I am impressed to read that the same anecdotal impressions that one commenter finds to likely be symptoms of a specific sort of aphasia are interpreted by another commenter as just sounding more like a normal person. Now, I suppose that if you had devoted considerable time and mental effort/energy to adopting a speaking style unlike that of a normal person because you found that artificially-adopted style particularly effective for some purpose, speaking more like a normal person could be plausible evidence of your cognitive decline. But still.
Philip Taylor said,
August 13, 2024 @ 11:06 am
"speaking more like a normal person could be plausible evidence of your cognitive decline" — ROTFL.
JPL said,
August 13, 2024 @ 6:13 pm
You should include in your analyses Trump's recent interview with Elon Musk, and in particular his articulation, beyond the rhetorical style. News reports (e.g., Drudge Report) seem to be saying that he was slurring his speech. But I listened to some examples, and it seemed that what he was doing is having articulatory problems involving his tongue. E.g., what should be coronal or apical and alveolar articulations with central airflow becoming palatal with lateral airflow, wrt e.g. sibilants, perhaps extending to other fricatives. Not like a drunk person, but a problem with the control or agility of his tongue. (He has displayed this problem before ("United Shtatsh"), but not in such an extended manner.) Even though at this point it seems to be episodic, why would a person experience such articulatory "glitches"?
~flow said,
August 14, 2024 @ 1:23 am
I view people who comment on this thread calling for more balanced, bipartisan view as either trolling, naive or deliberately disingenuous.
Donald J. Trump is not just someone who happens to be running to become President of the United States of America once more. Donald J. Trump is a malignant narcissist, a person with highly destructive motives, an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon on 34 counts who managed to get impeached twice when in office. Trump was the only public speaker at the Jan 6th insurrection, an event he now fondly remembers and proudly compares to the "I have a Dream" speech of Dr Martin Luther King. Donald J. Trump, senior, is a brutal fascist who does not care for anything in the world but for Donald J. Trump, senior. He was ready to see his own vice-president get dragged out of the Capitol to be hanged in public in front of Congress by an angry mob in Washington, DC, while watching the event on TV from the White House. If JD Vance happened to be right once in his lifetime, his moment of truth was when he compared Trump to Hitler, which is appropriate in a political way and in terms of psychological pathology.
The proposal that "OK now we've talked about Trump's speech patterns, now we should be talking about Kamala Harris's speech pattern and Hillary Clinton, too" is a classical example of whataboutism. It is entirely inappropriate in the context of the current discussion and should not be left uncommented. Imagine you go see the doctor together with your partner and the doctor discusses some difficult treatment that your partner should undergo, then the nurse comes in to suggest that—just to be fair, right?—you should undergo the same treatment. It's just *fair*, right? No, it is not. Ms Harris is a politician. Mr Trump is a criminal.
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell skillfully comments on false bipartisanship in this 24-minute long rant that mainstream media have earned because of their stupid insistence that "a candidate is a candidate" even if that candidate wants to destroy your country, and against all the evidence they should've learned from from at the very least 2016 onwards.
~flow said,
August 14, 2024 @ 1:26 am
forgot to paste the link to the Lawrence O'Donnell commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-oTJ49nls&t=435s
Tom said,
August 17, 2024 @ 4:02 am
@JPL
One commentator I saw said that there is an audio issue with the Twitter platform that caused what sounded like an articulation issue in Trump's speaking. Supposedly,.this sometimes happens with other Twitter videos as well. I don't know about that, but it is an example of a reason that people should avoid armchair diagnoses.