What Speech Patterns Say About the Presidential Candidates | The Compost Bin | Forums

All related under the category of Computerized LinguisticTextAnalysisComputerizedLinguistic Textual Analysis.

Login required on Wall Street Journal

http://www.wsj.com/a.....1459514959

Synopsis (quoted below)

http://www.democrati.....1016150491

What Speech Patterns Say About the Presidential Candidates
By Jo Craven McGinty

Since August, the presidential candidates have uttered more than 300,000 words in 20 televised debates. And as their statements have spilled out, language experts have pulled them apart, categorized the words and counted them up. The goal is to gain insight into the candidates’ personalities by quantifying their verbal tics. In other words, these experts have taken reading between the lines to a new level.

(snip)

James W. Pennebaker's - a social psychologist at the University of Texas and a pioneer in the field of computerized textual analysis - findings reveal that one presidential candidate leads the others in optimism. Two speak with such authority that doubt doesn’t appear to exist in their minds. And another uses words that simultaneously signal insecurity and clout. To conduct his research, Mr. Pennebaker funnels text into a computer program he designed that categorizes the information based on a dictionary of 6,400 words, word stems and emoticons. Measuring the frequencies of different kinds of words—negative emotions or words associated with risk, for example—helps him excavate the emotional and cognitive qualities that are buried in the heap of text.

The most optimistic candidate? That’s Hillary Clinton. The most self-certain among the contenders? Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. And the seemingly contradictory ball of confidence and insecurity? Donald Trump.

(snip)

The sheer number of Republicans running for president may have reduced the opportunity to speak during the debates, but Mr. Cruz made the most of it. With an average of 2,700 words per debate, Mr. Cruz talked less than any of the leading candidates, but he was the most analytical of the group, and he used more big words—qualities correlated to intelligence. Mr. Pennebaker defines words of six or more letters as big, and about 20% of Mr. Cruz’s words fit that description. Mrs. Clinton used big words about 18% of the time, Mr. Sanders about 19% of the time, and Mr. Trump about 14% of the time. Mr. Cruz was also the most self-certain of the candidates and the most power-conscious of the group, meaning he tended to include references to the status of people, for example, by using their formal titles.

(snip)

On the debate stage, Mr. Trump was the exact opposite. He was the least analytical of the candidates. He was the most confident of his own status. And his use of first-person singular pronouns, which he used more than anyone, suggested he was the least secure. Interestingly, this verbal habit also was responsible for conveying his air of authenticity. While the other candidates displayed analytical skills, Mr. Trump used storytelling to talk about issues.

(snip)

Like Mr. Cruz, Mrs. Clinton was analytical in approach, but her words indicated more cognitive processing, rather than self-certainty, a signal that a topic at hand is complex. Her language was more optimistic than the others, and based on the resemblance of her words to those used by previous presidents in their inaugural addresses, she was the most presidential.

Mr. Sanders uttered an average 5,500 words per debate, a close second to Mrs. Clinton. His words, like hers, tended to be analytical, and he was surpassed only by Mr. Cruz in self-certainty. Although Mr. Sanders is a socialist whose chief concern is the well-being of the working masses, his language revealed few personal connections. “He knows what he thinks, and he knows what he thinks is right,” said Kayla Jordan, a doctoral student who works with Mr. Pennebaker. “He and Ted Cruz are similar on that measure.”

...