All the President's Pronouns 总统使用的那些代词Faye Flam 费伊·弗拉姆，下面我们就来说一说关于人称代词连读?我们一起去了解并探讨一下这个问题吧!
人称代词连读
All the President's Pronouns 总统使用的那些代词
Faye Flam 费伊·弗拉姆
By some scientific measures， Donald Trump's presidency is not an aberration but part of a long-running trend. In his use of language， Trump is off the charts in his absence of analytical statements， as well as his expressions of confidence. Both of those tendencies are correlated with success in politics.
A trend toward less analysis and more confidence has been going on for a century， according to researchers who are using a technique created a few years ago by psychologist James Pennebaker at the University of Texas. He created a program that analyzes large bodies of text and counts the different kinds of connector words — pronouns， prepositions， articles and auxiliary verbs （like “is，” “have，” “does”）. He and colleagues found they could draw inferences from the way people used those words — about whether they were likely to succeed in school， and whether they were of higher or lower status than those they were addressing.
People with a lot of confidence assume higher status in their expressions — mainly in their use of pronouns. Confident people favor “we” and “you” while the meeker tend to use “I.” We're more likely to follow someone who says “We should go this way” than one who says “I think this might be a good way to go，” Pennebaker says.
We are， he said， suckers for people who sound confident. And we are also suckers， he said， for simple， storytelling language over analytic language. People want to hear about policy， but we gravitate toward simple solutions， preferably with slogans.
Psychologists and linguists became intrigued with Trump's elocution from the time he started to rise to prominence in the 2016 primary debates. Trump's lack of analytical language was striking; he never used if-then statements， said Pennebaker.
Lack of analytical language doesn't necessarily signal low intelligence， said Pennebaker. Listeners and readers relate to simple language， and good writers and orators give people what they like. In almost every presidential election since 1980 （when debate transcripts were first available）， the candidate with less analytical speech and writing won， with the exception of Bill Clinton， who was more analytical than his rivals.
Barack Obama was often criticized for using the word “I” too often， Pennebaker said， though he used it less than his predecessors and less than Mr. Trump. Pundits critical of Obama assumed the use of the first person revealed a self-centered attitude， but that isn't necessarily the case. A statement like “I feel there might be a problem with our relationship” shows an understanding that there are other perspectives and that we're each privy to only our own.
But the program showed that Obama was a relatively light user of “I，” and a much heavier user of the confidence-projecting “you” and “we.”
When the researchers looked back into the long history of presidential writings， press conferences， debates and speeches， the result， published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences， showed steady decrease in analytical language starting in the era of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Obama is no exception to the trend. His language was very low in analytic content. He used simplicity to inspire people to think we can make headway against complex problems like race relations and access to health care. Trump takes the trend a step further， and employs a different style， with phrases that stick in the mind — from “Lock her up” to “Build the wall.”
It probably reflects changes in technology， with radio and then television and then social media reshaping the way candidates speak to the public， as well as shifting the kinds of people most likely to win elections. The good news： It may not be possible to get any less analytic or more confident than Trump.
以一些科学的标准来衡量，唐纳德·特朗普总统的当政并不是一种偏差，而是一个长期趋势的一部分。从特朗普对语言的使用来看，分析性表述的缺失和对自信的表达都远超一般水平。这两种倾向都与政治上的成功有关。
研究人员利用得克萨斯大学心理学家詹姆斯·彭尼贝克几年前创造的技术发现，分析减少和自信增强的趋势已经持续了一个世纪。彭尼贝克创造了一个程序对大量文本进行分析并对不同种类的连接词进行计数，这些连接词包括代词、介词、冠词和助动词（例如，“is”、“have”和“does”）。彭尼贝克及其同事发现，他们可以从人们使用这些连接词的方式做出推断，比如关于这些人是否有可能在学业上取得成功以及他们的社会地位比谈话对象要高还是低。
充满自信的人在其语言表达（主要是对代词的使用）上采取较高姿态。自信的人喜欢用“我们”和“你们”，而不自信的人喜欢用“我”。彭尼贝克说，我们更有可能追随说“我们应该走这边”的人，而不是说“我想也许走这边不错”的人。
他说，我们会迷上说话自信的人，也会迷上简单的、像讲故事一样的语言，而不是分析性语言。人们想听到政策，但我们往往会被简单——最好还配有标语——的解决方案吸引。
自从特朗普在2016年的初选辩论中开始崭露头角，心理学家和语言学家就对其演说艺术产生了兴趣。彭尼贝克说，特朗普的演说明显缺乏分析性语言，他从不使用“如果……就”这样的表述。
彭尼贝克说，缺乏分析性语言并不一定意味着智商低。听众和读者喜欢简单的语言，好的作家和演说家投其所好。在1980年（辩论文字稿首次公开发布的年份）以来的几乎所有总统选举中都是演讲和写作中分析性语言较少的候选人最终胜出，比尔·克林顿是唯一的例外，他使用的分析性语言多于对手。
彭尼贝克说，贝拉克·奥巴马经常被批评过多地使用代词“我”，尽管他使用这个词的频率并不及其前任和特朗普。批评奥巴马的专家认为使用第一人称暴露出以自我为中心的态度，但情况未必如此。“我觉得，我们的关系可能出了问题”，这样的表述代表了一种理解，即还有其他的看法，而我们只知道自己的。
但分析程序显示，奥巴马较少使用“我”，而更多地使用展现自信的“你们”和“我们”。
当研究人员回溯总统的文章、新闻发布会、辩论和演讲的漫长历史时，他们发现，从特迪·罗斯福和伍德罗·威尔逊时代开始，分析性语言就开始稳步减少了。这项研究发表在美国《国家科学院学报》上。
在这种趋势中，奥巴马也不例外。他语言中的分析性内容很少。他使用简练语言激发人们认为，我们能在解决种族关系和获取医保等复杂问题上取得进展。特朗普进一步推动了这种趋势，而且是以不同风格，他使用了令人印象深刻的词组，例如，“把她关起来”和“建起隔离墙”。
它也许反映了技术的变化，从收音机到电视再到社交媒体，技术重塑了总统候选人对公众演讲的方式，也改变了最有可能赢得大选的候选人类型。好消息是：也许没有谁能比特朗普更缺乏分析性，也没有谁比他更自信了。（刘白云译自彭博新闻社网站2月22日文章）
,
