Pennebaker has also used his counting technique to analyze the speeches of the 2008 presidential candidates (the link: http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com). He posits that the way each candidate uses language can tell us something about how he thinks (and from there we can analyze the difference between the way each approaches problems). Here's a choice excerpt:
"Whereas McCain tends to be more categorical in his thinking, Obama is more fluid or contextual in the ways he approaches problems. Categorical thinking involves the use of concrete nouns and their associated articles (a, an, the) and suggests that the person is approaching a problem by breaking it down into its component parts and attempting to put it in meaningful categories. Fluid or contextual thinking involves a higher rate of verbs and associated parts of speech (such as gerunds and adverbs)."
--Amy
3 comments:
this has nothing to do with your post, but i think you would enjoy what we're doing these days in my writing seminar. I just read an article called "Referential Ambiguity in the Calculus of Brazilian Racial Identity" by Marvin Harris. While I've got a few problems with the method, the author is trying to tackle a wide range of semanto-cognitive (is that a word? it is now!) [OMGZ harnessing language as i see fit omgz] issues which I think you'd find interesting.
OMGZ, awesome! (By the way, I love you for responding so quickly.) There's a similar deal with the Hopi language and the understanding of physics. The question is whether the discoveries of modern physics can be better expressed in Hopi than in English, since Hopi can have verbs without subjects. Some argue that we read into nature these fictional acting entities because our verbs have to have substantives in front of them. I'm not sure what to think about it either, but it's definitely an interesting idea.
--Amy
Reading this and Serko's comments make me want to be in college already. Fast forward, junior year!
Doesn't this make you wonder what your textual analysis would say about you? I don't think I'd be ready for that kind of scrutiny, but it's still really interesting.
Post a Comment