PalinSpeak: Why does she talk that way?

....” But Palin, doing this even when speaking to the whole nation, is no further outside of her head than we are when talking about what’s going on at work over a beer. The issues, American people, you name it, are “there” — in other words, not in her head 24/7. She hasn’t given them much thought before; they are not her. They’re that, over there.

 

Sarah is a Disgrace

By John McWhorter

Why does Sarah Palin talk the way she does? Just what is this sort of thing below?

We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?

Just forty years ago people would be shocked to read something like this as a public statement from someone even pretending, as Palin pretty much had to have been by the time of this quote, that they were going to be serving in a Presidential Administration.

It’s not quite Bushspeak, which, with the likes of “I know what it’s like to put food on my family,” was replete with flagrantly misplaced words with a frequency that made for guesses, not completely in jest, that he might suffer from a mild form of Wernicke’s aphasia, interfering with matching word shapes to meanings. (Bush the father wasn’t much better in this regard—there just wasn’t an internet to make collecting the slips and spreading them around so easy.)

Rather, Palin is given to meandering phraseology of a kind suggesting someone more commenting on impressions as they enter and leave her head rather than constructing insights about them. Or at least, insights that go beyond the bare-bones essentials of human cognition — an entity (i.e. something) and a predicate (i.e. something about it).

.

.

.

What truly distinguishes Palin’s speech is its utter subjectivity: that is, she speaks very much from the inside of her head, as someone watching the issues from a considerable distance. The there fetish, for instance — Palin frequently displaces statements with an appended “there,” as in “We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there...” But where? Why the distancing gesture? At another time, she referred to Condoleezza Rice trying to “forge that peace.” That peace? You mean that peace way over there — as opposed to the peace that you as Vice-President would have been responsible for forging? She’s far, far away from that peace.

All of us use there and that in this way in casual speech — it’s a way of placing topics as separate from us on a kind of abstract “desktop” that the conversation encompasses. “The people in accounting down there think they can just ....” But Palin, doing this even when speaking to the whole nation, is no further outside of her head than we are when talking about what’s going on at work over a beer. The issues, American people, you name it, are “there” — in other words, not in her head 24/7. She hasn’t given them much thought before; they are not her. They’re that, over there.

This reminds me of toddlers who speak from inside their own experience in a related way: they will come up to you and comment about something said by a neighbor you’ve never met, or recount to you the plot of an episode of a TV show they have no way of knowing you’ve ever heard of. Palin strings her words together as if she were doing it for herself — meanings float by, and she translates them into syntax in whatever way works, regardless of how other people making public statements do it.

You see this in one of my favorites, her take on Hillary Clinton’s complaint about sexism in media coverage:

When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress this country.

For one thing, the that again. And then “that” use of perceived: properly it would be “perceived criticism,” wouldn’t it, rather than a “perceived whine”? All whines worthy of note, we assume, are perceived -- whines unperceived don’t make the news and thus do not require specification as such. There are two explanations for how Palin used perceived here.

She may have meant that she perceived the whine despite its being perhaps disguised in some way, in which case she just plopped in the perceived part when it occurred to her, which was apparently after it would have been logically placed, earlier in the utterance, such as in place of hear in “When I hear a statement ...” It’s almost deft — she thought of perception, and plugged it in before whine by rendering it into an adjective as perceived. In any case, though, this is someone watching thoughts go by at a certain distance and gluing them together willy-nilly — for the first time.

Or, she may have meant “perceived criticism,” but thought of the perception early, and instead of waiting, just stuck it in early. It’s a kind of linguistic silly string — and in that, hardly unknown among ordinary people just talking. But it’s a searching kind of expression, preliminary, unauthoritative. To a strangely extreme degree for someone making public utterances with confidence.

Then if you read the quote straight it sounds like she means women shouldn’t progress. But what happened is that she thought first of the complaint, and then tacked on a reference to women progressing; in her own head she thinks of it as something good, but she perceived no need to make that clear to those listening. She in there, in her head.

"And Alaska -- we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources,” Palin will tell us, where the fact that it is not, in blackboard sense, a sentence at all is only the beginning. She means that the arrangement in Alaska is collective, but when it occurs to her she’s about to say Alaskans such that “collective Alaskans” would make no sense. So, if it can’t be an adjective, heck, just make it an adverb — “it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources.”

Palinspeak is a flashlight panning over thoughts, rather than thoughts given light via considered expression. It bears mentioning that short sentences and a casual tone can still convey information and planned thought.

Read More

Comments

[Syrin from Wasilla]

Wow... The 'there' fetish...Does that not say it all?

Palin frequently displaces statements with an appended “there,” as in “We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there...”

 But where, Sarah? Where?

[Snowy]

But it's all about Sarah, isn't it.

[ken]

just another direct reaction/defense of good lord obama's constant use of ''i'' and ''me'' where palin see's herself as part of the whole and asks for their help and consent,obama seems to think he's king and will do what he know you'll like,even if you've told him you don't like it.... 

[Syrin from Wasilla]

Ken,

 I like your avatar!!

..where palin see's herself as part of the whole and asks for their help and consent?

OMG-- Would you please be intellectually honest! Sarah Palin is nothing but an impediment to a reasonable and moral society... 

[Syrin from Wasilla]

I'm sorry I failed to mention that Sarah does not ask or consider. The article speaks to the fact that Sarah Palin cannot communicate these deep held beliefs of people. She's playing on them and playing you..

 

The issues, American people, you name it, are “there” — in other words, not in her head 24/7. She hasn’t given them much thought before; they are not her. They’re that, over there.

[ken]

my avatar is a picture of a baby squirell that climbed up my leg when i walked outside a couple of weeks ago,he is now with the aspca and will be returned to the wild when he's full grown,and he had the double benefit of chasing off endeesea,being the beer nut that he is:)

when obama was getting started he used alot of ''us'' and ''we'' now its all ''i'' and ''me''.. there is some uncertainty to palins way of talking but she keeps getting better over time, on the other hand obama's headed in the other direction.........

 

[sjohnson]

"Palinspeak is a flashlight panning over thoughts, rather than thoughts given light via considered expression."  I believe that is the best description of Palin's   verbal thoughts that I have ever heard.  Terrific article, Syrin.  Does the whole family speak this way?  I have always thought that the half-term gov had a significant learning disability that prevented her from stringing coherent sentences together.  However, maybe she is just stupid.

[sjohnson]

I will take Obama's intellect and "I" and "me" over Palin's empty head and her spreading of hate and discontent any day.  Blaming and mindless viciousness have become a recreational activity for her.  

[sjohnson]

She's getting better over time?  Where is the evidence of that?  Every speech is basically the same.  She uses the same talking points and same tired jokes.

I too like your avatar. How kind of you to rescue the baby squirrel and send him to rehab!  It is unfortunate that more people don't value our wildlife and realize how it enriches our lives.  What a boring world it would be without the wilderness areas and plethora of God's creatures.

[ManxMamma]

Excellent post.

[Anne NC]

It may be, Ken, that you're wishing that she had become better over time but there's no sign of it in her speeches.

[ken]

thats just it,obama is a talking head,his handlers won't even let him speak now without a teleprompter,he got elected to state office and hardly ever showed up,he got elected to u.s. senate and voted present on 90% of the votes,they claim he was editor of the harvard review but he was the president which is much like being miss congeniality,he never had anything published,his records at any college he said he went to are locked,and nobody remembers him,when you went to ask people about clinton everybody remembered the rhodes scholar that he was,but obama is like a ghost,nobody but his socialist buddy's remember even seeing him,obama is a talking head with no substance,

[ken]

look at her first speeches for mccain and watch her now,look at obamas first speeches and watch them now,he's going insane if you ask me.

[Snowy]

Obama has achieved health care reform in the U.S. which no Republican had even attempted. What is Palin's "thoughts" on health care in the U.S.? Does she think it's necessary? If so, what does she think should be done?

Let me see now. Ken's response will be a diatribe against socialists, fascists, Marxists, communists, but will it contain an answer to the above? No.

And BTW, do you think that baby squirrel was attracted to a nut, ken?

[ken]

the republicans had a plan on the table since before reagan,they blocked it everytime,the only thing they would settle for is a government takeover,which is what socialists want with everything,they want uncle sam to cloth them feed them and house them,much like a herd of sheep.

palin wants a private industry response,which is part of the american ethics,not another government takeover,which is the old feudel system,forward thinking,not going back to the dark ages,where a all powerfull lord or baron controlled everything.

that squirrel knew where it could go for help,on three sides i have liberals,and he came to the house where he could get honest help..

[Snowy]

Heh, heh, heh. As predicted, another diatribe against those pesky socialists.

[sjohnson]

Well Ken, looking at your response to me and several others, it is quite apparent that nothing anyone could say or prove will change your mind.  I think that if someone brought a cargo ship of evidence disproving your beliefs, you would still discount it.  Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree.  I think your cute squirrel avatar is a perfect symbol for you.

[Anne NC]

The remarks about the teleprompter that are repeatedly used by President Obama's detractors don't hold water when you consider that EVERY President has used them and Palin used them during the campaign (although now she has her speech written out on paper or index cards).  However, to think he cannot speak extemporaneously is to forget how he schooled the Republicans when they invited him to speak to them back in February.  He spoke for over an hour, answered questions which were not pre-screened (unlike Palin) and was able to expand on policy with facts and figures without notes or assistance.  Do you think Palin could do that?  I'd bet the house against her ability to do so.  She has not shown any signs of depth although I will say that her speech at the convention was done extremely well.  We all know that these politicians for the most part have their speeches written for them but it has been said by those WH staff that President Obama has a great deal of input into his speeches.  Palin's lack any substance whatsoever. 

 

To say the Republicans had a plan in place before Reagan is B.S.  Why did they not speak about it, let alone try to pass it while they held control during Bush's term?  Because they do not care about the American people unless we're speaking of the wealthy.  You can deny it all you like but they have proven this time and again in their efforts to defeat anything which gives aid to those who need it.  There was no government takeover of healthcare as you put it.  The government does not employ physicians or own the hospitals.  That myth is dead. 

[Snowy]

(although now she has her speech written out on paper or index cards).

Or hand. ;o)

[ken]

you ignore the fact that the republicans have been trying to make healthcare better for over 30 years,so all i heard was blah,blah,blah......socialist utopia..............you've got it in your head that the government is the answer to everything,and anything short of that is not good enough,i hope you enjoy your peonship life.........some people prefer to be free no matter how much you tell them slavery is good...

[ken]

you like that do you,i think it just became my mascot,it will chase off all the acorns and other assorted nuts.

[ken]

are you talking about that farce of a healthcare summit,when obama talked for a hour,the dems talked for a hour and the rep. spoke for a half hour,yea,thats the idea of fairness i see coming from the white house and the democratic party,he had notes right in front of him ,he had at least two people leaning in and prompting him, he would be lost without all the help he gets.

the republicans had a plan...thats a fact.....what do you think that sheaf of papers was in their hands in the last two sotu,what do you think that was placed in front of every republican in that sham of a healthcare summit,the only thing that wasn't in the republican plan was a government takeover,which is the only thing the dems. and the president would accept

[sjohnson]

Ummm, no Ken, I believe that was at the Republican retreat.

[Snowy]

So, let me get this clear, ken, Government can't trusted to deal with health care, but they can be trusted with national security? And how come the military, government workers, and members of Congress get to enjoy "socialistic" health care, but it isn't suitable for anyone else? 

[ken]

snowy,you really need to go get a copy of the united states constitution and read it,we do not and have never wanted a bloated federal government,it is one of the hall marks of our nation,there is a provision for national defense and a law making tripod,roads,and a post office,and nothing else,and nothing else.the rest is just creeping socialism and should be done away with,when congress finally gets that idea,and they will,then we will get back on the path that was set out for this country.you saying its already screwed up,so lets screw it up all together,is illogical and immoral..all things not directly related to the rights and obligations set out in the constitution are illegal and need to be viewed that way.