• Health Literacy Lab & Library

Trump’s language deficit

Trump’s language deficit


Speaking vs Writing – the two things that linguists and anthropologists point to as hallmarks of our exceptional human capacities for symbolic thought and communication. 
Our abilities to speak and write are our greatest “social technologies” – these two humans capacities allow us to manage the demands of ever more sophisticated lives.  Some evolutionary biologists argue that we developed such a precise and rich language system because we, more than other species, had something to talk about. Sure, other animals, communicate.  Bees can communicate the direction of more honey; and birds can chirp to find a mate; and prairie dogs can contaminate the pack with fear of an oncoming predator. 

But humans – well we do all of it so much better. 

And sometimes, in the heat of the moment, we dis someone in an email or text…then OOPS.  We stop and think, YIKES there it is right there on the screen!  I sent that.  It’s there and not going away.  Stupid me.  So glad I didn’t put that in an email or a love letter!

This is to say,  for most of us, most of the time, we are sensitive to the basic differences between saying something and putting it down on a page.

Speech – through the air or airwaves – here/ heard and then gone – somewhat ephemeral.
If something stupid or hurtful comes out of my mouth I can do a repair, “What I meant to say was…..”   Our tone can soften, or we can change pitch and pace and voila, our sloppy stutter becomes  a self deprecating. “Good, Chris,  try putting the other foot in your mouth now.” Or, a softened apology, “I only say this because I love you and I want you to be happy.”

And while some of us are far better than others at using speech to negotiate our lives, we all get the job done.

Writing on the page or screen – preserved/ there to be read and re-read – permanent. Irrefutable.   Written words come back to haunt us more than our spoken ones do.  The very act of writing implies we’ve had to think about what to write.  And that very thinking process serves as a filter for the thoughts, feelings and the language that will best help us communicate our intent.

And then there is TRUMP SPEAK
On display almost everyday is a native speaker of English who seems not to grasp this basic distinction between ephemeral speech and written language.  

Or perhaps my diagnosis of a language deficit is completely off. 
As a speaker on the election trail and since, you might condemn Trump’s speeches as disjointed – delivered somewhat like a standup comedian without any of the self effacing grace of one.  

But he does understand public speaking and the power of simple name calling and repetition – “crooked Hillary,” “it will be fantastic”, “stupid” and  “loser”.

So if it’s not a fundamental language awareness deficit – what is it?
Is our SMS infused society made speaking and writing/text essentially equivalent for many people?
Is the written form going to become more monologue – stream of consciousness writing – an accepted form of logoria?

Will Trump come to abandon his twitter account and move to Instagram?

Leaves of Glass: Daguerrotype to IPhone X

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln made by Nicholas H. Shepherd 1846

Author of today’s blog post:  
 Emily V., Hunter College














This daguerrotype is the first photograph of the future President Abraham Lincoln, taken in 1846. In this early form of photography, images were produced on a silver coated plate. The images were very fragile and had to be protected with a glass covering. As the process of taking photographs evolved, inventors used, alternately, glass plates and tin plates, being able to produce images on less fragile and less expensive surfaces.  Taking a photo continuously became more accessible and affordable. George Eastman with his company, Kodak, created a camera that required a roll of film – a much more user friendly and portable device, in the year 1888.


 Photo from https://www.kodak.com/Kodak/US/en/corp/aboutus/heritage/photography/default.htm

By 1900, Kodak came out with a camera aiming to make photography even more affordable, at $1 for the price of a Brownie camera, and $.15 per roll of film.



The first digital camera was introduced in 1991. You can see how large it is – it is NOT what springs to mind when asked today about taking digital photos.




So when I came across a commercial for a new photo service, I thought I had stepped back in time; please take a look at this:
The future of photographic display
Fractures are different from traditional pictures and frames. Instead of printing on paper, we print directly on glass. Instead of separating the picture, frame, and mount, a Fracture combines all three into a beautiful, lasting, final product.
For the full website, please see : https://fractureme.com/learn-more
In brief, this service is offering to print your photos onto glass, then ship them to you with a hole in the back and a screw so you can hang it up. 
Interesting, huh?  And what also is of particular interest is the verbiage I am copying here, also on the same webpage:

Do more with your pictures

Taking pictures is great. Printing pictures can be time consuming, overwhelming, and not all that fun. Fracture was founded around a simple idea: there should be a better way to print and display your photos.


What does this mean?  I thought taking pictures on glass was something we were trying to get away from?  I thought printing photos on paper was faster and better?
And in juxtaposition, I also want to point out the latest in user-friendly photography: the iPhone X.



“These are the coolest features of the new iPhone X”

With a completely glassed front and back, this iPhone has upgraded camera capabilities allowing one to take improved selfies and more professional portraits with depth, shading and nuance. And the price: around $1,000.

Has technology really come full circle?  Or is this all the consolidated effort of marketing teams?

Would you pay to have your photos printed on glass and shipped to you? Is this a return to fragility or something else?

Rocket Man-Count war mongering terms in Trump UN speech

OK Class….

Shall we take bets…
How many times in today’s “speech” to the UN will President Trump will use the term “Rocket Man”.

Or, if not the endearing “RM”  let’s see how many cold war, fear mongering, rhetoric-escalating terms he deploys to take nuclear threat discourse to the next level. 

There will be “extra credit” on this impromptu assignment. ✅

Hurricane Harvey and the Storms to Come

Blog Post Written by Emily V., 
Hunter College, New York
















Star Tribune, Steve Sack, December 3, 2015
I recently read Elizabeth Kolbert’s Commentary in the New Yorker entitled, Hurricane Harvey and the Storms to Come – about climate change. The comments of President Trump and of various regional representatives  are something I want to closely examine here.
After the damage of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, there was much agitation in the press and in scientific circles.  In obeisance to this agitation, action was taken by the subsequent presidential administration that was an attempt to both diminish this country’s impact on the global weather system, and also to prepare for what may be the new norm, i.e. monster storms.

However, in the current administration, President Trump has made clear his understanding of climate change; he has said it is an “expensive hoax”, and with an indirect speech act, he announced in June that “the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.”
















Image from “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, appeared in Business Insider June 2, 2017
Scientists are still extolling the detrimental nature of warmer oceans and their influence on these storms. And accordingly, the financial costs are also extremely high.
In The New Yorker article, President Trump is quoted as saying during his visit to assess the damage from Harvey that he wanted “a recovery effort ‘better than ever before’”. What do you think about his declaration here; is this a speech act?
As the storm was still in progress, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly told Congress he was “planning to eliminate his department’s special envoy for climate change”.  Is this also a speech act, and what else does this tell you about his position, and his connection to the President’s agenda?

Finally, in examining the tweet of Long Island Republican Representative Peter King, when asked about financial support for Texas, he tweeted “I’ll vote 4 Harvey aid”. What do you think about the platform and the informality of this message, and is this a speech act as well? There are members of my family who are, as I type this on Saturday, September 16, attending a fundraiser for Mr. King in Nassau County. Would you think this tweet about aid for Hurricane Harvey might be something used as a fundraising tool? (I plan to ask them if this was mentioned.)

And late breaking news: this was just tweeted from the Wall Street Journal under an hour ago:



Trump administration won’t pull out of Paris accord, offers to re-engage in climate deal, EU official says
We have been reading about cognitive dissonance.  What clear examples do you see of that above?


Reference: 
Hurricane Harvey and the Storms to Come: In the lead to the historic flood, Texas Republicans abetted Trum’s climate-change delusions.   Elizabeth Kolbert, New Yorker, Sept. 11 2017


















Phones you “look through” – Iphone X

It’s here.  It’s called the future of the phone. 


New swipe interface
All glass – front and back.
Goodbye Touch ID – hello Face ID ( bathing your face in invisible infrared light) 
But what struck with the following statement about IT.

“This is not a phone you look at.  This is a phone you look through.” 

Now what could that mean? 

Hurricane Weather Reporting is Dangerous to Public Safety

Please someone tell me!

What is the point of weathermen, weatherwomen, yelling into their mics, plena voce, struggling to stand upright while palm trees disintegrate around them, drenched and unrecognizable through TV cameras about to short circuit, “reporting” on a hurricane? 
 (In the case above,  CNN’s Bill Weir “It feels like my face is being power washed.
 Time was, it used to be only the weather channel that hosted and bosted such bizarre behavior. But of late (Harvey and Irma the most recent) the 24/7 network news cycle now features this strange Cinéma vérité as well – a bizzare cross between Planet Earth and Doomsday Prophesy.
Don’t the networks get the dangerous contradiction they’re promoting.  They have to.  It’s so obvious.  For at least 4 days before Irma, Florida residents are warned non-stop to “evacuate”, “leave now”, “don’t go outdoors for any reason”, “first responders will not come to rescue you”.
But here we have intrepid, cum daredevils, (forgive the lame pun here) casting all good sense to the wind. And not too subtley contradicting everything public safety management experts are saying.
Why? 




 Photo above appeared in NYT story 9/10/17
Has language failed us totally?
Is it simply not “real” enough to see hurricane devastation from the vantage point of non-human mounted camera?

Has our emersion in reality TV raised the bar so high that we’re no longer engaged enough nor satisfied enough until the weatherman is torn limb from limb as we gaze snacking at our viewing devices –  our own private Roman Collosseums? 

The Hidden Jargon in Sessions’ DACA Announcement

Written by  Kristian Bjorkman 
   with  Christina Zarcadoolas

 I recently read an NPR article titled, “The Dangers of Hidden Jargon inCommunicating Science” by Tania Lombrozo.  In the article, Lombrozo points out how the chance for miscommunication is high when people within the scientific community attempt to relay specific information to lay people.  This happens when an everyday word that also exists within a given discipline has a specific definition that is not commonly used within the lay community.  When scientists use their definition and the lay person interprets it as the colloquial definition, the word becomes what Lombrozo calls “hidden jargon.”  For example, in everyday language the concept of causality is used to refer to a type of moral or fault judgement (so-and-so causedsomething), whereas the scientist scientist uses the term to  describe causal relationships, as in an experiment.  
We certainly may use jargon in casual, everyday communication, but we can’t get away with it for long. Friends interrupt us to ask what we mean or to challenge what we’re saying.  But experts – now that’s another story.   And so, when we’re receiving crucial information from our political leaders and law makers language that is filled with hidden jargon, is dangerous and must be called out.  Attorney General Jeff Sessions’  announcement announcement to end the DACA program was peppered throughout with hidden jargon.
                  
A close listen reveals that a majority of the Session’s speech was comprised of jargon-laden, context free bits of non-information.  Aside from Session’s word choice creating a specific narrative laced with nebulous yet ubiquitous threats and containing a near jingoistic theme, we can see that there are words whose definitions can vary wildly based on the current political landscape. 
                  
Take for example the word “duty.”  Sessions states that his duty, “is to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the constitutional order is upheld.”  At first glance, this language seems appropriate coming from the Attorney General.  Yet we have to ask ourselves where exactly does his duty to the law begin and end.  Sessions wants to bring back the use of mandatory minimums – mandatory prison sentence for specific crimes – for minor, non-violent drug offenders.  Mandatory minimums have proven to be both ineffective and racist, and yet Sessions believes he has a duty to resume this draconian practice.
                              
Duty can be defined as a moral or legal obligation.  One can have a duty to any number of things, such as one’s parents, children, neighborhood, friends, peers, religious congregation, God, oneself, etc.  Quite often we see duty used as a tool to shame people who aren’t being enough of what we want them to be.  In the case of Session’s speech, duty to one’s country is being used as the solution to the invasive presence of “aliens” within our borders.  All we have to do to discharge our ”duty” is believe wholeheartedly in the ability of the administration to govern our lives properly, without question.  Yet to the lay person, evoking the word duty can have a profound manipulative effect if we believe that the speaker is indeed using our definition of the word.  Duty is far too complex a concept to ever be used without specific context.  What defines how we carry out our duty?  Does the manner in which we fulfill our duty change based on what our obligation is, or to whom or what we owe said obligation?  These are the types of questions we need to be concerned with when confronting words that cover such a wide array of meanings.  Commentators have pointed out that Sessions could barely contain his delight at handing down this decision.  They refer to his smirk and lilting accent.  I say let’s look closer at the hidden jargon that served as the scaffolding for the natavist narratives he was pushing down the throats of the American people.

                  

©2021. Health Literacy Lab. All Rights Reserved.