psychology 120 homework

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233864202

Framing Political Messages with Grammar and Metaphor

Article  in  American Scientist · November 2012

DOI: 10.1511/2012.99.478

CITATIONS

23 READS

540

1 author:

Teenie Matlock

University of California, Merced

82 PUBLICATIONS   1,689 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Teenie Matlock on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A reprint from

American Scientist the magazine of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society

This reprint is provided for personal and noncommercial use. For any other use, please send a request to Permissions, American Scientist, P.O. Box 13975, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, U.S.A., or by electronic mail to [email protected]. ©Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society and other rightsholders

478 American Scientist, Volume 100 © 2012 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction with permission only. Contact [email protected].

Millions of dollars are spent on campaign ads and other politi- cal messages in an election year, but surprisingly little is known about how language affects voter attitude and in- fluences election outcomes. This article discusses two seemingly subtle but powerful ways that language influ- ences how people think about political candidates and elections. One is gram- mar. The other is metaphor.

In an election year, voters are inun- dated with political messages from various sources, including television ads, campaign websites, blogs and so- cial network forums, such as Facebook. Some of these messages focus on can- didates’ positions on various issues, including the economy, same-sex mar- riage, education and war. Some focus on candidates’ personal characteristics. Is the candidate warm and accessible, or cold and distant? An autocrat or a team player? Family oriented? Not family oriented? Some messages focus on candidates’ past actions, and oth- ers focus on their apparent abilities to tackle problems ranging from immigra- tion to unemployment. Some messages are factual and objective, and others are exaggerated and sensationalized.

Political scientists, such as James Druckman of Northwestern University and Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University, study how political mes- sages affect voting. Their work tells us

that voters’ attitudes can be influenced by a number of factors, including which information the media chooses to em- phasize and how it is slanted. Fram- ing, how a message is worded to en- courage particular interpretations and inferences, can influence the percep- tion of political candidates. Negative framing is often used to make opposing candidates seem weak, immoral and incompetent. It is persuasive because it captures attention and creates anxi- ety about future consequences. When negative information becomes exces- sive, however, it can backfire and lead to deleterious outcomes, including low voter turnout. Negative framing can be effective even when subtle or indirect. For instance, people tend to align more closely with their parties when opposi- tion is emphasized, and people may not want to vote for incumbent candidates when there are frequent reports about how bad times are.

It is no surprise that language in political messages affect people’s at- titudes about political candidates and more generally, elections. Just about anybody would form a low opinion of a politician who is described as a co- caine addict with a track record of ac- cepting bribes, cheating coworkers and evading taxes by illegal means. What’s interesting is how language has this influence, especially when it comes to framing effects. Particlarly interesting is how the more subtle dimensions of language, including grammar and metaphor, can modify attitudes about political candidates.

Framing with Grammar Grammar is something we learned in elementary school. We learned that sentences have a subject, a verb and, in some cases, an object. We learned

about irregular verbs, such as “went” and “flew.” We learned about parts of speech, including nouns, verbs and ad- jectives. We learned about active ver- sus passive sentences. We learned that tense signals when events happened in time: past, present or future. And more. What we did not learn is that grammar has meaning, and that it is linked to mental experience and physical interac- tions with the world. Although gram- mar is poorly understood and uninter- esting to folks other than linguists and grammar teachers, it plays a critical role in our everyday reasoning.

Grammatical aspect occurs in English and many other languages. Its main purpose in a language is to express how events unfold in time. Grammatical as- pect works with tense, modality and other systems in a language to provide the reader or listener with information about whether an event has started, whether it has finished, whether it has continued over a significant period of time and more. In English, a person can describe past events in a variety of ways. For instance, you see your friend Maria cycling one evening across cam- pus, and the next morning you report, “Maria was riding her bike last night” or “Maria rode her bike last night.” Both statements are perfectly acceptable English, and express the same event. However, there is a slight difference in how the action is construed. With the former, which uses the past progres- sive grammatical form (was verb+ing), the event is conceptualized as ongoing. With the latter, which uses the simple past grammatical form (verb+ed), the event is conceptualized as an en- tire, completed event. This distinction is common across languages, even though it is realized in different ways. For instance, Russian has a more com-

Framing Political Messages with Grammar and Metaphor

How something is said may be as important as what is said

Teenie Matlock

Teenie Matlock is McClatchy Chair in Communi- cations and associate professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Merced. She has published over 50 articles that span linguistics, cognitive science and computer science, and is a standing member of the National Science Founda- tion’s Language and Communication Study Sec- tion. She is the recipient of Sigma Xi’s 2011 Young Investigator Award.

2012 November–December 479www.americanscientist.org © 2012 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction with permission only. Contact [email protected].

plex, nuanced aspectual system than English does.

A few years ago, I began explor- ing the idea of grammatical framing. In an article with Caitlin Fausey, “Can Grammar Win Elections?” published in Political Psychology, we explored the consequences of tweaking grammati- cal information in political messages. We discovered that altering nothing more than grammatical aspect in a mes- sage about a political candidate could affect impressions of that candidate’s past actions, and ultimately influence attitudes about whether he would be re-elected. Participants in our study read a passage about a fictitious politi- cian named Mark Johnson. Mark was a Senator who was seeking reelection. The passage described Mark’s educa- tional background, and reported some things he did while he was in office, including an affair with an assistant and hush money from a prominent constituent. Some participants read a sentence about actions framed with

past progressive (was verb+ing): “Last year, Mark was having an affair with his assistant and was taking money from a prominent constituent.” Others read a sentence about actions framed with simple past (verb+ed): “Last year, Mark had an affair with his assistant and took money from a prominent con- stituent.” Everything else was the same. After the participants read the passage about Mark Johnson, they answered questions. In analyzing their responses, we discovered differences. Those who read the phrases “having an affair” and “accepting hush money” were quite confident that the Senator would not be reelected. In contrast, people who read the phrases “had an affair,” and “ac- cepted hush money” were less confi- dent. What’s more, when queried about how much hush money they thought could be involved, those who read about “accepting hush money” gave reliably higher dollar estimates than people who read that Mark “accepted hush money.” From these results, we

concluded that information framed with past progressive caused people to reflect more on the action details in a given time period than did information framed with simple past.

This effect of grammatical aspect is consistent with other research done in my lab, including a study with student collaborators on how people describe car accidents. In this study, to appear in Studies in Language, participants watched six videos of vehicle collisions on a computer screen. For example, in one video, a police car pursues a truck that swerves off the road and crashes into an overpass, and in another, a car sideswipes a van, which then smashes into a truck. After each video, one group of participants was presented with the prompt “Tell what was happening,” and another was presented with the prompt “Tell what happened.” Partici- pants’ descriptions were recorded and analyzed. Those who read the past pro- gressive prompt included proportion- ally more motion verbs in their descrip-

Figure 1. Campaigners undoubtedly have used language to frame political messages for as long as there have been campaigns. And for a similar length of time, recipients have not necessarily been well equipped to decode them. As an example, the earliest known visual use of a race as a metaphor for a political contest dates to 1769 from Town and Country Magazine. The riderless horse depicted is that of English radical John Wilkes. Wilkes had been re-elected to Parliament by his Middlesex constituents in February 1769 but was expelled by that body in March because of a parody he and Thomas Potter had written of Alexander Pope’s An Essay on Man. The House of Lords deemed An Essay on Woman to be pornographic and blasphemous and labeled him an outlaw. The caption reads, “All Coursers the first Heat with Vigor Run; But Tis with Whip & Spur the Race is won.” (Image courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress.)

480 American Scientist, Volume 100 © 2012 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction with permission only. Contact [email protected].

tions, such as “drive,” as in “There’s a guy driving a truck,” and “come,” as in “Another car came,” than did partici- pants who read the simple past prompt. These same individuals also mentioned more reckless driving phrases, such as “cut off,” as in “He tried to cut off the car next to him,” and “swerve,” as in “She was swerving.” The results sug- gest that tweaking grammatical aspect in an open-ended question or prompt can lead to differences in thinking and talking about events.

Using grammatical aspect to frame campaign information, positive or negative, appears to be an effective tool for influencing how people per- ceive candidates’ past actions. It may also be tweaked to invite inferences about what candidates will do in the future because it influences inferences about how events transpire.

Framing with Metaphor In elementary school, we also learned about metaphor. Through reading lit- erature, we learned that metaphor is used to create a special effect or feel- ing. William Shakespeare was the master of this. In his Sonnet 50, “How Heavy Do I Journey on the Way,” for instance, Shakespeare metaphorically depicts the process of grieving from the loss of a dear friend as a journey that moves him from one emotional state to another: “My grief lies on- ward and my joy behind.” The journey is portrayed as heavy and effortful: “The beast that bears me, tired with my woe, plods dully on, to bear that weight in me.”

Metaphor is not restricted to litera- ture. It pervades everyday conversa- tion, blogs, text messages and many other forms of everyday language, in- cluding political ads. Linguist George Lakoff and philosopher Mark Johnson (no relation to the fictional political candidate Mark Johnson mentioned in the study above!) have argued that metaphor is much more than a liter- ary device. They claim that metaphor is in fact a basic mechanism that en-

Figure 2. Anyone who has made it through grade school has been exposed to grammar. We were drilled on the parts of sentences, such as subjects, verbs and (sometimes) objects, and the categories of words, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives and so on. We learned past versus present versus future tenses. Many of us were even taught to diagram sentences. What we were not taught, however, was that grammar encodes meaning. The author’s research has shown that the simple choice between using the simple past tense versus past progressive, for example, affects how listeners or readers interpret the action described. Political messaging routinely employs such tactics (whether intentional or inadvertent) to sway voters. There were once many methods of sentence diagramming, but the method of mapping grammatical relations in a sentence used today was created in the late 19th century by Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg. Reed-Kellogg diagrams display parts of speech and their structure along a main, horizontal line, with vertical lines separating subject and predicate. In the sentence above, “What we did not learn” is a cleft transformation: It changes the order of parts of speech in a sentence for the sake of emphasis. “We did not learn that grammar has meaning...” would be more direct, but the transformation emphasizes the negated verb, “did not learn,” and the “that” clauses that serve as subject complements.

Figure 3. People have an innate tendency to describe events with action words, even though no actual motion may be involved. Hence the metaphor of a race for a political campaign is a natural—and one that Presi- dent Obama used shortly after Usain Bolt won three gold medals at the London Olym- pics, noting that they would “have to run through the tape.”Ch

ri s

Tr ot

m an

/ P

C N

/ C

or bi

s

2012 November–December 481www.americanscientist.org © 2012 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction with permission only. Contact [email protected].

ables people to understand one kind of thing, particularly something abstract, in terms of another thing that is more familiar and based on direct experi- ence. For example, through our expe- riences with physical actions—walk- ing across rooms, driving cars, riding bikes, reaching out to grab objects and watching others do the same hundreds of times each day—we are able to make sense of expressions like “Bob stepped into a bad situation,” “The instructor will walk us through the speech,” and “Have you reached a conclusion yet?” In each of these examples, motion verbs describe a state change but no actual physical movement takes place.

Motion metaphors run rampant in campaign-speak. Some are innocuous and merely describe candidates’ reflec- tions on the current state of affairs. Right after the 2012 Olympics, for instance, Barack Obama shared his thoughts on the campaign ahead: “This is not go- ing to be a race like Usain Bolt, where we’re like 40 yards ahead and we can just kind of start jogging 10 feet before the finish line,” referring to the Jamaican sprinter who won three gold medals at the games in London. “We’re going to have to run through the tape.” Here Obama used phrases such as “race,” “jogging” and “run through the tape” to describe his campaign as a footrace,

and he suggested that he would need to power across the finish line to win on election day. Around that same time, Paul Ryan, who had just been cho- sen as Mitt Romney’s running mate, commented, “We’re going to win this campaign. We’ve got the wind behind us. I’m really excited about this race.” Ryan’s comment was consistent with a race metaphor, but his use of “got the wind behind us” suggested that victory would be relatively easy. In many other forums, both Democratic and Repub- lican candidates routinely talk about campaigns as races in this way.

Democratic campaign messages are emphasizing the idea of forward mo-

Figure 4. Pugilism has also been a common metaphor used in political campaigns. Candidates may “spar” over the issues or “trade punches” in debates. Here Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle engage in a prize fight over the Second Bank of the United States. The Bank War, as it is known, ended in a technical knockout for Jackson, who vetoed the bank’s recharter in 1832, ending its exclusive control over the U.S. funds and currency.

American Antiquarian Society

482 American Scientist, Volume 100 © 2012 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction with permission only. Contact [email protected].

tion in this year’s election. One Obama commercial titled “Forward” implies forward movement, first downward and then upward. To emphasize up- ward movement and to recruit other metaphorical elements, namely about improvement (“Things are looking up,” “blue skies”), a long list of Obama’s ac- complishments, including, “4.2 million jobs saved” and “$100 billion invested in science and research” scroll upward. The ad ends with Obama stating that “America is on the way up.” Interest- ingly, Obama’s forward messages are consistent with the phrase “stay the course,” which was used by Republican Ronald Regan when campaigning for president in the 1982 mid-term elections, and later by George H. W. Bush in 1992.

Republicans seem to be using a variety of motion metaphors. Mitt Romney’s website implores donors to help him “turn America around,” suggesting that Amer- ica needs to return to a different place, where it was before. This metaphorical framing is strength- ened with campaign phrases like “It’s time for America’s comeback team.” The Republicans frame their message in this way to imply that the country has been going in the wrong direction under Presi- dent Obama’s leadership and that change is needed. (Note that in the 1992 election, challenger Bill Clinton appealed to change us- ing literal language: “Change vs. more of the same.”) And in a re- cent Republican Party ad, Paul Ryan promises to “put the nation back on a path to renewed pros- perity for all,” suggesting that the country has been derailed and needs to be put back on track.

Using motion metaphors to frame messages in political campaigns is well motivated. It is in line with a large body of findings in cognitive science on how humans are wired to mentally simu- late motion in all sorts of conditions, including even when nothing is actual- ly moving. In 2004, I published results from an experiment on the interpreta- tion of fictive motion sentences, non- literal statements that include motion verbs but describe no actual motion. I discovered that people simulate a fleet- ing sense of motion when they inter-

pret sentences such as “The road goes through the desert,” “The trail runs through the wood” and “A fence fol- lows the property line.” In a 2005 study with collaborators Lera Boroditsky and Michael Ramscar, I found that inter- preting fictive motion sentences that varied by direction, such as “The road goes all the way to New York,” and “The road comes all the way from New York,” caused people to reason about time differently in a seemingly unrelat- ed task. The results of these studies and others I have done provide evidence

that people simulate motion even when motion is metaphorical. The results are in line with find- ings from neuroscience. When people view static images depict- ing humans in motion (for ex- ample, a man throwing a discus), motion perception areas in the brain are activated. When they view static images of humans moving along paths (for exam- ple, a man walking down steps), they mentally “fast- forward” to a position slightly farther along the path. And when people ob- serve a human extending a hand to grasp an object, it activates the same brain areas that would be activated if they were doing the action themselves.

Taking Framing to the Next Level Grammatical aspect works as a framing device because it involves mental simulation of actions. In some cases it enhances simula- tion, and in others it diminishes simulation. A message like “was having an affair” should be worse for a candidate than a message like “had an affair” because it implies more immoral actions, and sug-

Figure 5. Direction of motion also features prominently in political messages. At left, an Obama commercial is titled “Forward,” which em- phasizes progress and upward motion. A Romney website video uses the phrase “turn America around,” suggesting that the country has been going in the wrong direction. Similar motion metaphors have been used in campaigns by Presidents Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and Clinton.

Figure 6. Games also feature prominently in political com- mentary. In this Upper Deck World of Politics card, John McCain appears to be attempting to tag out Barack Obama at the home plate. (Image courtesy of Upper Deck.)

2012 November–December 483www.americanscientist.org © 2012 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Reproduction with permission only. Contact [email protected].

gests that those actions may continue in the future. Metaphorical framing is effec- tive for the same reason. People simulate movement and state change with figu- rative expressions, such as “America is on the way up” all the time. Campaign messages about forward movement into the future, turning things around or getting back on track are readily un- derstood because they are grounded in people’s everyday understanding about how motion canonically works: along a path toward a destination.

What next? There are many ways that grammar can influence informa- tion in the popular media. Grammati- cal information, such as which person is used—for instance, first person, second person or third person—may have important implications for how people think about or align themselves with political candidates, and so might modal auxiliaries, for instance, “Yes, we can” versus “Yes, we will.” And there are many more uses of metaphor in po- litical races, including phrases that refer to battles (“Romney draws battle lines in GOP acceptance speech”), unclean- liness (“dirty campaign tactics”), and space (“Romney is distancing himself from Ryan’s Medicare cuts”).

The semantics of grammar and metaphor and their power in framing political issues is understudied. Differ- ences in grammatical aspect or other grammatical forms may create wildly different inferences about when some- body will do something and in what way. And differences in metaphor can be used to magnify or enhance peo- ple’s attitudes about political candi- dates. We use grammar and metaphor all the time, but we have only begun to scratch the surface of how they shape our everyday thoughts and actions.

Bibliography Ansolabehere, S, and S. Iyengar. 1997. Going

Negative: How Political Advertising Divdes and Shrinks the American Electorate. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Barsalou, L. W. 2008. Grounded cognition. An- nual Review of Psychology 59:617–645.

Bizer, G. Y., and R. E. Petty. 2005. How we conceptualize our attitudes matters: The effects of valence framing on the resistance of political attitudes. Political Psychology 26:553–568.

Boroditsky, L. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial meta- phors. Cognition 75:1–28.

Chong, D., and J. N. Druckman. 2007. Fram- ing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10:103–126.

Clark, H. H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Cognitive Development and the

Acquisition of Language, ed. T. Moore, pp. 27- 63. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Druckman, J., and M. Parkin. 2005. The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. The Journal of Politics 67:1030–1049.

Fausey, C. M., and T. Matlock, T. 2011. Can grammar win elections? Political Psychology 32:563–574.

Feldman, J. 2008. From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Freyd, J. J. 1983. The mental representation of movement when static stimuli are viewed. Perception & Psychophysics 33:575–581.

Gallese, V., and G. Lakoff. 2005. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22:455–479.

Garramone, G. 1984. Voter response to nega- tive political ads. Journalism Quarterly 61:250–259.

Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figura- tive Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Klammer, T. P., M. R. Schulz and A. Della Vol- pe. 2000. Analyzing English Grammar, third ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kourtzi, Z., and N. Kanwisher. 2000. Activa- tion in human MT/MST by static images with implied motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12(1):48–55.

Lakoff, G. 1996. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. 2008. The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-century American Poli- tics with an 18th-Century Brain. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., and E. Wehling. The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. New York, NY: Free Press.

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cogni- tive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lau, R. R. 1982. Negativity in political percep- tion. Political Behavior 4:353–377.

Lau, R. R., and D. P. Redlawsk. 2006. How Vot- ers Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. New York, NY: Cam- bridge University Press.

Matlock, T. 2011. The conceptual motivation of aspect. In Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon, eds. K. Panther and G. Radden, pp. 133–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Matlock, T. 2004. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition 32:1389–1400.

Matlock, T., M. Ramscar and L. Boroditsky. 2005. The experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science 29:655–664.

Matlock, T., D. Sparks, J. L Matthews, J. Hunter and S. Huette. 2012. Smashing new results on aspectual framing: How people describe car accidents. Studies in Language 36:700-721.

Narayanan, S. 1999. Moving right along: A computational model of metaphoric rea- soning about events. Proceedings of the Six- teenth National Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, pp. 121-128.

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

For relevant Web links, consult this issue of American Scientist Online:

http://www.americanscientist.org/ issues/id.99/past.aspx

View publication statsView publication stats