I hope people take what I am about to say very seriously; I am not spouting off. I am speaking as an expert. Trump's linguistic ability has deteriorated over time. The fact that he is in what we could call "linguistic" decline is objective and measurable.
This isn't about subjective impressions. It is about systematically observable linguistic and pragmatic changes in the same man's language output, as compared to 8 years ago. Further, these systematic changes are empirically associated with the presence of age-related cognitive decline in the broader population of elderly adults, as has been systematically measured over decades of cognitive scientific research.
I want to be clear: language and communication is always affected by age. But, in what we call "typical" aging, the effect is much "softer." It's around the edges. Biden's communication has changed over time, such that his delivery (not content) is slightly less polished. His stutter is somewhat exacerbated.
What is important to note, here, is that there are no systematic linguistic changes in Biden's speech. Someone could say Biden seems "old," or "off-his-game," or endlessly point to what we know are stuttering-related word-replacements (He's always done it, a la calling Barack Obama "Barack America" in 2008, etc). No one could measure a change in Biden's language. We only have subjective impressions related to the fact that Biden is "old."
We can measure systematic changes in Trump's language. Systematic changes that, again, we know from empirical research, are associated with various dementias in the general population. Notably, and this is just an impression, such that I can't "measure" it off the top of my head: I believe Trump's linguistic issues, as well as other issues involving executive function + pragmatics, are exacerbated in the evening.
Overall, what Trump is going through, linguistically, is what we would call atypical linguistic aging, such that he is exhibiting features of clinically diagnosable language impairment. Given Trump did not always have this clinically diagnosable language impairment, it is a fair bet to say the change in Trump's language is very possibly* related to a disease or disorder related to atypical aging, such as a type of dementia.
What is important to note, here, is that there are no systematic linguistic changes in Biden's speech. Someone could say Biden seems "old," or "off-his-game," or endlessly point to what we know are stuttering-related word-replacements (He's always done it, a la calling Barack Obama "Barack America" in 2008, etc). No one could measure a change in Biden's language. We only have subjective impressions related to the fact that Biden is "old."
We can measure systematic changes in Trump's language. Systematic changes that, again, we know from empirical research, are associated with various dementias in the general population. Notably, and this is just an impression, such that I can't "measure" it off the top of my head: I believe Trump's linguistic issues, as well as other issues involving executive function + pragmatics, are exacerbated in the evening.
Overall, what Trump is going through, linguistically, is what we would call atypical linguistic aging, such that he is exhibiting features of clinically diagnosable language impairment. Given Trump did not always have this clinically diagnosable language impairment, it is a fair bet to say the change in Trump's language is very possibly* related to a disease or disorder related to atypical aging, such as a type of dementia.
Now in this Orwellian universe in which we live, Trump's systematically degraded language is masked by the fact that Trump has always been a likely DSM-verifiable clinical narcissist, meaning he lacks fluid theory-of-mind, tells wild lies, & twists every event into Trump-as-Hero (Sobbing Sir Stories) or Trump-as-Victim (The Lying Press is Against Me, etc).
Just one of the clearest cases of clinical narcissism we've ever seen on the public stage.
Then, we add to this that the GOP in general sounds nuts on climate change and other topics all the time, so we often just tune the nonsense out. Then, on top of that, we add the fact that almost the entire GOP is becoming more untethered from reality every day (Democrats control the weather; etc).
In the face of all this, as well as the scandalous treatment of Joe Biden's age, it can be hard to see some simple truths about Trump's linguistic decline; simple truths that if we could see them, would point us to a clearer, more clinical diagnosis.
Just one of the clearest cases of clinical narcissism we've ever seen on the public stage.
Then, we add to this that the GOP in general sounds nuts on climate change and other topics all the time, so we often just tune the nonsense out. Then, on top of that, we add the fact that almost the entire GOP is becoming more untethered from reality every day (Democrats control the weather; etc).
In the face of all this, as well as the scandalous treatment of Joe Biden's age, it can be hard to see some simple truths about Trump's linguistic decline; simple truths that if we could see them, would point us to a clearer, more clinical diagnosis.
So, let me tell you, in an empirical way, what I see in Trump's language. First, I will point you to a tweet I sent 10 days ago, where I said, "Pay attention to his syntax."
https://x.com/magi_jay/status/1843280387700920585
Now, what do you see, here, in this new sample of Trump's speech? What I see is what, 10 days ago, I said was occurring: a break-down in complex syntax.
Again, please take this seriously, and consider it empirically:
I identified what I believed to be a linguistic change in Trump's syntax. These changes, which, again, are "atypical" in linguistic aging, are observable within speech events, by which I mean that we can see the same atypical syntactic patterns repeated within a single, isolated instance of speech, such as the global warming answer.
Basically: if we think about someone speaking "in paragraphs," there are multiple instances of atypical syntax within the same paragraph. That's a pattern. A localized pattern, tied to a single event, but a pattern all the same.
We can now see, from the tweet I sent 10 days ago, to these tweets I'm writing now, that the pattern is not in fact localized to a single speech event, but rather re-occurs across speech events; across time.
This is not a "one-off," attributable perhaps to a bad night, but, rather, it is a pattern. Systematic atypicalities in syntax are empirically measurable within Trump's isolated speech acts; these atypicalities are also observable across different events, such that Trump is exhibiting the same patterns of abnormal language both locally and globally. It's systematic.
Again, please take this seriously, and consider it empirically:
I identified what I believed to be a linguistic change in Trump's syntax. These changes, which, again, are "atypical" in linguistic aging, are observable within speech events, by which I mean that we can see the same atypical syntactic patterns repeated within a single, isolated instance of speech, such as the global warming answer.
Basically: if we think about someone speaking "in paragraphs," there are multiple instances of atypical syntax within the same paragraph. That's a pattern. A localized pattern, tied to a single event, but a pattern all the same.
We can now see, from the tweet I sent 10 days ago, to these tweets I'm writing now, that the pattern is not in fact localized to a single speech event, but rather re-occurs across speech events; across time.
This is not a "one-off," attributable perhaps to a bad night, but, rather, it is a pattern. Systematic atypicalities in syntax are empirically measurable within Trump's isolated speech acts; these atypicalities are also observable across different events, such that Trump is exhibiting the same patterns of abnormal language both locally and globally. It's systematic.
Let me say, for a moment, what I mean by "complex syntax." I refer, largely, here, to "embedding," to the infinite recombinatorial system of language. We embed phrases within phrases. Clauses within clauses. The length of a sentence has no bounds because we can infinitely embed.
We build and build and build in language. We don't just make lists; we embed structures within structures. Here are some various examples of how we embed language within language through complex syntax:
"I live. I live with my husband. I live with my husband in a house in Pittsburgh. I live with my husband in a house we're renting in Pittsburgh. I live with my husband in a house we're renting in a neighborhood of Pittsburgh where all of our neighbors are terribly kind yet there are still some sketchy areas. I live in a house that my husband and I are renting in Pittsburgh that has the most beautiful patio that both our children and our cats love to play on."
"I live. I live with my husband. I live with my husband in a house in Pittsburgh. I live with my husband in a house we're renting in Pittsburgh. I live with my husband in a house we're renting in a neighborhood of Pittsburgh where all of our neighbors are terribly kind yet there are still some sketchy areas. I live in a house that my husband and I are renting in Pittsburgh that has the most beautiful patio that both our children and our cats love to play on."
Trump no longer possesses the level of syntactic--embedding--capacity I exhibited. I'm not saying the content was exhilarating. I'm saying there was grammatical complexity. I was able to *embed* information to modify other information. Trump does not appear to be able to do this
If Trump were to tell this same story (bear with me), he would halt before any "embedding" other than what comes after "but" or "because." To perform this kind of embedding is an ability that no longer exists. So he speaks in lists.
If Trump were to tell this same story (bear with me), he would halt before any "embedding" other than what comes after "but" or "because." To perform this kind of embedding is an ability that no longer exists. So he speaks in lists.
One of the greatest pains of aging, particularly atypical aging, as in dementia, is that we lose linguistic & cognitive abilities in what often looks like a "reverse-order" than we gained them.
Executive function is one of the most refined "higher-order" human cognitive abilities we have. Because it is so "higher-order," it comes later in childhood development. It regulates our emotions, attention, behavior, etc.
Executive function is one of the first things to be damaged in atypical aging. It is why dementias like Alzheimer's are frequently associated with periods of emotional deregulation.
A crude differentiation, for the purposes of illustration: Imagine the complexity of syntax as existing as a higher-order function underneath executive function.
Executive function is one of the most refined "higher-order" human cognitive abilities we have. Because it is so "higher-order," it comes later in childhood development. It regulates our emotions, attention, behavior, etc.
Executive function is one of the first things to be damaged in atypical aging. It is why dementias like Alzheimer's are frequently associated with periods of emotional deregulation.
A crude differentiation, for the purposes of illustration: Imagine the complexity of syntax as existing as a higher-order function underneath executive function.
If you have known a child, you can imagine it. They speak in single words. Mostly nouns. Objects that are visually identifiable in the world. Then two words. Then three words. Then they might be on their path to embedding to multiple words. But they still can be jerks b/c they have no executive function. Not adult-like regulation & so on.
Atypical aging is itself a complex process, so, again, I am being crudely "general," here. But, in general, we lose abilities in reverse order. Executive function goes first; then, after this, syntax,
Trump's executive function, as a clinical narcissist, has always been negligible. It is certainly, in my opinion, much diminished than its previous narcissistic state, though this is not something I can measure.
I can measure Trump's syntax. I can see his inability to perform it. At every point, when he wants to embed a phrase or clause, he is unable to perform the task. And so he speaks in lists.
I asked you to imagine a child; imagine a child telling a story. A young child of ~3 to 4 years will tell a story without embedding much, but, rather, with "And then he did X; And then he did Y; He did Y because of Z. Z was like A."
This is how Trump currently speaks. In lists.
Atypical aging is itself a complex process, so, again, I am being crudely "general," here. But, in general, we lose abilities in reverse order. Executive function goes first; then, after this, syntax,
Trump's executive function, as a clinical narcissist, has always been negligible. It is certainly, in my opinion, much diminished than its previous narcissistic state, though this is not something I can measure.
I can measure Trump's syntax. I can see his inability to perform it. At every point, when he wants to embed a phrase or clause, he is unable to perform the task. And so he speaks in lists.
I asked you to imagine a child; imagine a child telling a story. A young child of ~3 to 4 years will tell a story without embedding much, but, rather, with "And then he did X; And then he did Y; He did Y because of Z. Z was like A."
This is how Trump currently speaks. In lists.
If I were to rewrite my rather mundane elaborations on my life, without the ability to perform many complex syntactic acts, I would sound something like this:
"I live with my husband. In Pittsburgh. We're living in Pittsburgh. We're renting it. Renting the house. Most of our neighbors are kind. There are some sketchy areas. We have this beautiful patio. The kids love to play on it."
I am not trying to make fun of dementia-related linguistic decline, here. I am trying to demonstrate the pattern of what is going on. Trump is unable to perform many complex syntactic tasks. Trump used to be able to do this. His speech exhibits signs of "reverse-aging" in that he constructs thoughts in a list. The thoughts themselves are quite random, & that could be related to "decline" as well, but randomness is not so measurable.
The absence of embedding with words like "that," which," "although," "however," etc. is measurable.
Trump uses "and," "but," "because." That's it. These also happen to be the first forms of "complexity" children arrive upon after they begin combining 3-4 words in a sentence.
"I live with my husband. In Pittsburgh. We're living in Pittsburgh. We're renting it. Renting the house. Most of our neighbors are kind. There are some sketchy areas. We have this beautiful patio. The kids love to play on it."
I am not trying to make fun of dementia-related linguistic decline, here. I am trying to demonstrate the pattern of what is going on. Trump is unable to perform many complex syntactic tasks. Trump used to be able to do this. His speech exhibits signs of "reverse-aging" in that he constructs thoughts in a list. The thoughts themselves are quite random, & that could be related to "decline" as well, but randomness is not so measurable.
The absence of embedding with words like "that," which," "although," "however," etc. is measurable.
Trump uses "and," "but," "because." That's it. These also happen to be the first forms of "complexity" children arrive upon after they begin combining 3-4 words in a sentence.
There are other aspects of Trump's language, in addition to near-inability to perform a complex syntactic task, that would signal concern to a clinician. The first is this pronominal error. What does "it" refer to? Such errors occur in speech. We suspect "atypicality" when such errors are left uncorrected or unresolved.
It seems like such a small thing, the use of this very small word "it." But it is a big thing when we are analyzing language. The ability to use "it" with appropriate reference means you are able to capture a possibly complex reference--"you have referred to climate change as a hoax"--into a single pronoun "it," without your audience becoming confused.
Trump is capturing no reference. His pronominal usage is "unmoored" from actual reference.
"It" refers to nothing. It is not a response using a pronoun to encapsulate the entirety of a complex utterance. Nor does Trump ever re-refer to the identity of "it" within his answer. Grammatical breakdowns of this kind seem so small; but are really quite "big."
It seems like such a small thing, the use of this very small word "it." But it is a big thing when we are analyzing language. The ability to use "it" with appropriate reference means you are able to capture a possibly complex reference--"you have referred to climate change as a hoax"--into a single pronoun "it," without your audience becoming confused.
Trump is capturing no reference. His pronominal usage is "unmoored" from actual reference.
"It" refers to nothing. It is not a response using a pronoun to encapsulate the entirety of a complex utterance. Nor does Trump ever re-refer to the identity of "it" within his answer. Grammatical breakdowns of this kind seem so small; but are really quite "big."
A few other things that I would note about this. Trump speaks almost entirely in present tense. My expertise, in my past life, was childhood language development, including specific language impairment, as well as other issues that could impede childhood language development.
In English, a significant marker of language impairment--specific or not--is absence of grammatical marking in tense. In English, grammatical marking is quite simple, linguistically: you basically add "-ed" to a verb to make it "past," with some exceptions.
Trump makes a grammatical tense error in the first sentence of his response, such that he confuses the present tense (build) for past tense (built). This is a tense error regarding an irregular verb (i.e. one not taking "-ed" as an ending). Trump does use "build" correctly in one instance later on.
He does not use anything else in the past tense.
This is again, without mockery, speech patterns that are more akin to a child's speech, as we would see in "reverse-aging," than to an adult's speech.
You add this to the near-inability to embed grammatical information, anaphor confusion, & narrative ability that is reduced to "and, but, because:" You likely have a system-wide language disability, the exact cause of which is unknown, but is, by logic, likely related to atypical aging, such as dementia.
In English, a significant marker of language impairment--specific or not--is absence of grammatical marking in tense. In English, grammatical marking is quite simple, linguistically: you basically add "-ed" to a verb to make it "past," with some exceptions.
Trump makes a grammatical tense error in the first sentence of his response, such that he confuses the present tense (build) for past tense (built). This is a tense error regarding an irregular verb (i.e. one not taking "-ed" as an ending). Trump does use "build" correctly in one instance later on.
He does not use anything else in the past tense.
This is again, without mockery, speech patterns that are more akin to a child's speech, as we would see in "reverse-aging," than to an adult's speech.
You add this to the near-inability to embed grammatical information, anaphor confusion, & narrative ability that is reduced to "and, but, because:" You likely have a system-wide language disability, the exact cause of which is unknown, but is, by logic, likely related to atypical aging, such as dementia.
For those of you who "know" me, online, I believe, or I hope, you know I am a sincere and not typically flashy person. I'm not trying to break the internet with some brilliant thread on Trump's possible age-related cognitive issues, as they are exhibited in his language.
I am tweeting about this because I believe it is extraordinarily serious.
Trump is not in what we have euphemistically phrased as "cognitive decline" which, to me insinuates a "process" of change, perhaps slow "erosions" over time. This is not what we see. Rather, we are seeing the entire loss of the complexity of language. A "knock-out hit" on the cognitive situation.
An entire cognitive ability just taken out in a flash. Just like children develop abilities. . . in a flash. I hate Trump and have no feeling for him. But this condition in general is a tragic one; all of the complexity of the human brain, being damaged piece-by-piece, with the same alacrity with which it arose.
I am tweeting about this because I believe it is extraordinarily serious.
Trump is not in what we have euphemistically phrased as "cognitive decline" which, to me insinuates a "process" of change, perhaps slow "erosions" over time. This is not what we see. Rather, we are seeing the entire loss of the complexity of language. A "knock-out hit" on the cognitive situation.
An entire cognitive ability just taken out in a flash. Just like children develop abilities. . . in a flash. I hate Trump and have no feeling for him. But this condition in general is a tragic one; all of the complexity of the human brain, being damaged piece-by-piece, with the same alacrity with which it arose.
I am frankly pained by this. My followers who know me will perhaps understand. I find myself to be "unprofessional." I don't like to venture outside of the confounds of what I can say is true. When I do venture outside of that realm, I want to be ethical. I don't know that I am succeeding.
I also am pained by the process of aging; my own dear father is 80 years old and is in "typical aging," while also in chemotherapy, which sometimes, but not consistently, produces signs of "atypical" aging. My father denigrates his age constantly and I wish I could shake him from it. I have also had trauma in the domain of aging, such [Trigger note: Suicide] that my beloved grandfather committed suicide at the age of 88, while in physical, not cognitive, decline, and my beloved grandmother, who went to hospital after my grandpa's suicide, & subsequently refused all meds & food, thus starving herself to death, as an elderly woman, with me by her side.
When I spoke of Biden and age, I was mad as a liberal. I was also mad as a speech-language researcher, over misrepresentations, or people speaking without expertise. This began to occur in 2020, the early months of which we did spend denigrating the elderly in a profound way. I was with my parents & felt how they felt degraded by the "discourse."
In addition to that, I have also tried to be an ethical researcher. I do not talk about speech-language-pathology on here often b/c it is hard for me to find a way to do so that feels responsible. Dialogue on here is typically irresponsible. I like to be research-based, etc.
I also am pained by the process of aging; my own dear father is 80 years old and is in "typical aging," while also in chemotherapy, which sometimes, but not consistently, produces signs of "atypical" aging. My father denigrates his age constantly and I wish I could shake him from it. I have also had trauma in the domain of aging, such [Trigger note: Suicide] that my beloved grandfather committed suicide at the age of 88, while in physical, not cognitive, decline, and my beloved grandmother, who went to hospital after my grandpa's suicide, & subsequently refused all meds & food, thus starving herself to death, as an elderly woman, with me by her side.
When I spoke of Biden and age, I was mad as a liberal. I was also mad as a speech-language researcher, over misrepresentations, or people speaking without expertise. This began to occur in 2020, the early months of which we did spend denigrating the elderly in a profound way. I was with my parents & felt how they felt degraded by the "discourse."
In addition to that, I have also tried to be an ethical researcher. I do not talk about speech-language-pathology on here often b/c it is hard for me to find a way to do so that feels responsible. Dialogue on here is typically irresponsible. I like to be research-based, etc.
So this said--and I believe many of my friends who I've built relationships with on here will trust this--I like to be careful. I like to be truthful. When I speculate, I like to be clear that I am speculating. I'm not trying to be flashy. To "uncover" anything.
All of this said: Trump's language has degraded in systematic and measurable ways that are almost universally associated with atypical aging--dementia--in the general population. American citizens deserve to know this.
I do not expect other people with speech-language-pathology or other developmental training to speak out about this. To speak about the disability of another person, outside the context of *helping* that person, is a grave act. If I were in the profession, employed as a professor or a researcher or a clinician, I would face a serious ethical quandary.
To diagnose a person one does not know with disability is not a thing that is done. Because such "diagnosis" will always extend beyond the individual target and affect others. There are many people who suffer from similar types of age-related dementia who are good people and do not deserve our mass denigration; nor do they deserve arm-chair diagnoses of politicians.
I dropped out of Vanderbilt, University, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, in Hearing and Speech Sciences, for a myriad of reasons I could describe. If this excellent University, with its excellent clinics in Speech-Language-Pathology, were still associated with me, I believe my ethical obligation would be different. My first obligation would be to the clinics & the patients they serve, as well as the volunteers recruited for clinical research.
I am not in that position now. I have training, but I do not have a PhD. I have not been working in this field for a long time. I do not feel, as many others probably do feel, a betrayal of patients and institutions when I speak out. Even if it meant not speaking to the American people, if I were professionally employed in such a position, my first duty would be to my clinical populations.
I am not bound by such duties now, so I speak out. I still do so with hesitancy, because, again, both human-aging and human-language-disability are topic I try to treat with the utmost caution.
To diagnose a person one does not know with disability is not a thing that is done. Because such "diagnosis" will always extend beyond the individual target and affect others. There are many people who suffer from similar types of age-related dementia who are good people and do not deserve our mass denigration; nor do they deserve arm-chair diagnoses of politicians.
I dropped out of Vanderbilt, University, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, in Hearing and Speech Sciences, for a myriad of reasons I could describe. If this excellent University, with its excellent clinics in Speech-Language-Pathology, were still associated with me, I believe my ethical obligation would be different. My first obligation would be to the clinics & the patients they serve, as well as the volunteers recruited for clinical research.
I am not in that position now. I have training, but I do not have a PhD. I have not been working in this field for a long time. I do not feel, as many others probably do feel, a betrayal of patients and institutions when I speak out. Even if it meant not speaking to the American people, if I were professionally employed in such a position, my first duty would be to my clinical populations.
I am not bound by such duties now, so I speak out. I still do so with hesitancy, because, again, both human-aging and human-language-disability are topic I try to treat with the utmost caution.
I don't like doing this. Not out of concern for Trump, again, but out of a more general concern of how we treat these issues. I'm always struck, w/ my own past, by how poorly some cultures treat elders. I do not want any elderly American to feel pathologized. I hate it; for them.
At the same time, I am an American citizen. I am a woman. I have LGBTQ friends & friends of color. Trump, in all of his reflexive authoritarianism, is still able to command an army of BrownShirts on the ground. He could be Commander of Chief of the military, once again. Yet, this time, he will be diminished, even in his own, per my regard, rather weak leadership abilities.
If Trump has lost executive function tantamount to what we see in dementia--a loss of regulation of emotions and attention--he should not be in charge of nuclear weapons. He should not be in charge of the military.
If Trump has lost executive function tantamount to what we see in dementia--a loss of regulation of emotions and attention--he should not be in charge of nuclear weapons. He should not be in charge of the military.
Worse, is the combination, we are now seeing, a combination not well-articulated I believe. Trump is his own danger. We should not minimize that. We can also recognize that, in tandem with Trump's own danger, exists another dynamic: Trump is an increasingly mentally-absent Trojan horse.
The white Christian Nationalists, those who were somewhat signaled by a Ted Cruz type, would not have the same grip on the public that Trump has. Trump appeals to the broader white populace, who do not necessarily love a Ted Cruz type. Trump can flick his fingers--with what I believe is increasingly poor executive function--& signal among citizens, that they should attack the Capitol. Trump has this kind of popular power.
The white Christian nationalists don't have the same type of political power. The power to move such a large group of citizens towards such an act. But now they have their Trojan horse. A man that can move "the populace" in a way they cannot. A man who is so diminished that, once the populace is moved, they, the fascists, can take over.
The white Christian Nationalists, those who were somewhat signaled by a Ted Cruz type, would not have the same grip on the public that Trump has. Trump appeals to the broader white populace, who do not necessarily love a Ted Cruz type. Trump can flick his fingers--with what I believe is increasingly poor executive function--& signal among citizens, that they should attack the Capitol. Trump has this kind of popular power.
The white Christian nationalists don't have the same type of political power. The power to move such a large group of citizens towards such an act. But now they have their Trojan horse. A man that can move "the populace" in a way they cannot. A man who is so diminished that, once the populace is moved, they, the fascists, can take over.
So I'm not asking for popularity in these posts. I actually hate this process. It feels undignified to me, a person who wants to treat such things with privacy and respect and the proper process. At the same time people who can speak out should speak out. So I am doing so.
I have to attend to other affairs now, but I would like to ask journalists or other respectable people who follow me to take what I have said seriously. I am taking care of my children on a sick day & trying to notify you of something very, very serious.
I am not trying to do anything else. Journalists (@nytimes; @CNN; @washingtonpost): please contact linguists, speech-language pathologists, & developmentalists who are willing to speak to you. Ask them about what I have said. About the reduction in Trump's syntax.
@nytimes @CNN @washingtonpost I believe that if you follow the leads I have given you, about linguistic & other cognitive features, you will have an important story to write about a presidential candidate.
I want to say, "I know this will be hard," but then I am painfully reminded of what was done to Joe Biden, an elderly man, typically aging, who stuttered. You didn't find that "take-down" hard. So I suppose, what I want to say, is this: I'm giving you an actual empirical path of measurable evidence, connected to research. I am handing this to you on a platter. I am telling you who to talk to and what to analyze. I am cognizant, perhaps more so than journalists, of the pain & ethics of the matter.
Look at Trump's syntax.
He uses "and," "but," & sometimes "because." Does he use any other item from this grammatical class?
Does he embed anything within his syntax? Does he use "that" or "which?"
Does he front adverbial phrases or use adverbial phrases much at all?
Does he use pronouns correctly?
He uses "and," "but," & sometimes "because." Does he use any other item from this grammatical class?
Does he embed anything within his syntax? Does he use "that" or "which?"
Does he front adverbial phrases or use adverbial phrases much at all?
Does he use pronouns correctly?
As I said 10 days ago: Look at his syntax. If you want something measurable, you will find it in the syntax. Any kind of clausal or phrasal embedding is impossible. Any kind of hierarchical elaboration on a thought has to be said, by Trump, in a list. Like a child telling a story
Again, I say all of this seriously; It should be taken seriously.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
