Posted on 09/10/2015 7:43:20 AM PDT by LS
So, thinking about the constant charge of "narcissism" that is applied to Trump, and trying to explain how that in fact works with his high level of support, I actually did some digging.
This is NOT a scholarly study. But here was my methodology. I read minute by minute quotations of Trump's Mobile speech, but did not watch the video of the speech. In New Hampshire, I watched about the first 16 minutes of his speech and recorded every use (and I mean, EVERY use, including repetitions interrupted by applause) of the following terms:
Category 1: I/me
Category 2: us/we/our
This includes the times Trump would say "I was watching this news report," or "I was speaking with soldiers backstage."
In Mobile, the numbers almost even, 9 category one, 8 category 2, but several of the category 2 involved the Oreos story where he wouldn't eat Oreos. ALL of the category one uses of "us" or "we" or "our" were when he was talking policy: "WE will make this country great," "WE will have the best military" "OUR military will be so tough . . ." Almost all of his category one comments had to do with a personal reference to his campaign ("I am rated the highest in this poll") etc.
The New Hampshire speech---the first 16 minutes that that I watched: 52 "we/our/us" to 70 "I/me". Again, overwhelmingly the "I/me" comments were "I was watching" or "I can tell you were watching that." Or, "I gotta say . . ." Many other of the "I/me" were past things he said, about Iraq, oil. But again, when it came to the CURRENT or future policy comments he made, they were overwhelmingly how "we" are going to do x, y, z. How we need to achieve this.
I think when communications scholars really get into Trump's speeches, they are going to find a very different dynamic than they expected. His "braggadocio" most often relates to what he has accomplished in the past. But his use of the inclusive "we/us/our" usually relates to what the nation and the people will achieve in the future. And that is why I think he relates far differently than what some of the experts think---because they are not "hearing" the way ordinary people hear.
Of course context is important. Which is why I qualified things the way I did, unless a "shallow thinking idiot" didn't read the qualifiers.
But the moment you contextualize anything you bring in value judgments that people can challenge, such as "Why did you exclude the time Trump talked about Oreos?" So if you're going to do any kind of quantitative study, you have to count everything. It does work out . . . for us shallow thinking idiots.
Why the insulting tone?!
who pissed in your cornflakes?
Interesting.
Thanks for your time and effort.
“who pissed in your cornflakes?”
Who pissed in yours?
“Well, in fact, that is exactly how word analysis is done in any communications department I’m aware of. “
Then you are uneducated and did nothing but put out a liberals style hit piece. Journalist is about as low as any profession for actual knowledge.
“Why the insulting tone?! “
Because it is an insulting article. Tit for tat. If you don’t like the insulting responses then don’t post insulting threads. Grow up.
Um, communications is journalism? See, I’m more uneducated that you thought. At my university, they are separate departments.
Ok.
And your tagline shows you have great taste in musical artists.
B. There is nothing insulting about an analysis of speech patterns. Just whom do you suggest was being insulted?
C. If there was somehow any even implied insult to you, where & what do you refer to?
D. There was nothing posted, either by LS or anyone else, that had anything to do with my maturity. Why not try to respond to criticism in a relevant manner?
I much prefer a speaker who says ‘I’ when referring to himself than one, like Scott Walker, who uses the ‘royal we’.
Indeed. Got to see Hendrix twice. Amazing.
You..now settle down or its off to your room
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.