特朗普語言學如何改變世界
There is great anger, Donald Trump said early in his campaign for the Republican nomination.
存在極大的憤怒——唐納德.特朗普(Donald Trump)在競選共和黨總統候選人提名初期曾說過。
Believe me, there is great anger.
相信我，存在極大的憤怒。
And it is that anger that Mr Trump went on to surf into the White House.
特朗普正是藉助這種憤怒問鼎白宮。
Anger played a large part in the other great political shake-up of the year, the EU referendum in the UK.
在今年另一場重大政治劇變——英國退歐公投中，憤怒也發揮了重要作用。
When it comes to rhetoric, 2016 has been a year in which the wind changed: away from optimism and towards aggression; away from argument and towards assertion.
在修辭方面，2016年是風向轉變的一年：語氣不再樂觀、而轉爲攻擊；不再說理、而是直接下結論。
What we have seen is a change not just in politics — away from an essentially technocratic and centrist establishment — but in the language of politics.
這些變化不只體現在政治上（政治重心離開本質上爲技術官僚和中間派的建制派），還體現在政治語言上。
Mark Thompson, the former BBC director-general and now chief executive of the New York Times, quoted Mr Trump’s line on anger in Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong With The Language of Politics?, which was published in the summer.
英國廣播公司(BBC)前總裁、現擔任《紐約時報》(New York Times)首席執行官的馬克.湯普森(Mark Thompson)在其於今年夏天出版的《無須多言：政治語言出了什麼問題？》(Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong With The Language of Politics?)一書中，引用了特朗普關於憤怒的原話。
He argues that the prevailing currents of the day — fuelled and amplified by social media — are towards emotive, maximalist language, preaching to the converted, and the production of heat rather than light.
他認爲，在社交媒體的推動和放大下，如今的主流方向是情緒化、極端化的語言，向皈依者佈道，是爲了煽動、而不是啓迪。
He was right.
他說的沒錯。
Both Clinton partisans and UK Remainers struggled to find a slogan as emotive or as forceful as Take Back Control or Make America Great Again.
希拉里陣營和英國留歐派都難以找到像拿回控制權(Take Back Control)或讓美國再次偉大起來(Make America Great Again)那樣感召人心或強有力的口號——
Compare the flaccid, verbless Better Together and Stronger In.
對比一下這兩個軟綿綿的口號：在一起更好(Better Together)和留歐更強(Stronger In)。
Both winning slogans were imperative in mood: a call to action rather than floating expressions of a vague status quo.
兩個獲勝方的口號在情緒上都更有緊迫感：號召採取行動、而不是縹緲地表達一種模糊的現狀。
The status quo was not where the action was this year.
今年，現狀不是行動的目標。
Boris Johnson, speaking for the Leave campaign, identified the fatal weakness of the Remainers’ case in rhetorical terms: You know the most depressing thing about the campaign to ‘Bremain.’
退歐派的代表鮑里斯.約翰遜(Boris Johnson)指出了留歐派在措辭上的致命弱點：你知道‘留歐’(Bremain)運動最令人鬱悶的一點是什麼。
It is that there is not a shred of idealism . . . No one will say, you know what, I love the idea of a federal Europe.
就是沒有一絲理想主義……你知道嗎，沒人會說，我很喜歡聯邦歐洲這個想法。
Idealism: strong emotively loaded words, calls to action, calls for change, fine-sounding abstractions.
理想主義：承載着強烈情感的詞語，對採取行動的呼籲，對改變的呼籲，聽上去很美好的抽象概念。
These are what made the running in 2016.
這些是2016年的主流。
Detailed concrete arguments about economic forecasts, tariff barriers, immigration statistics or constitutional law were mounted but they made no discernible impact on any but the already-converted.
對於經濟預測、關稅壁壘、移民數據或者憲法的詳細確鑿論據擺了很多，但這些論據除了對本已相信的人，對其他任何人都沒有產生絲毫影響。
We have seen a precipitous shift in the balance of Aristotle’s triad of persuasive appeals, ethos, pathos and logos.
我們看到，亞里士多德的修辭學三要素——人品訴求(ethos)、情感訴求(pathos)和理性訴求(logos)——之間的平衡已經出現急劇變化。
Logos — argument from evidence and settled or consistent premises — has been in a bear market.
理性訴求——依據證據和確定（或一貫）前提的論證——目前正處於熊市。
As Michael Gove said during the Brexit campaign that the people in this country have had enough of experts.
正如邁克爾.戈夫(Michael Gove)在退歐運動時所說，這個國家的人們已經受夠了專家了。
To be fair to him, what he said was a little more subtle and specific — he recently told the BBC he was talking about a sub-class of economists and pollsters — but that sound bite is what is remembered because it caught a truth.
平心而論，他實際說的要稍微更委婉和具體一點——他最近向BBC稱，他說的是經濟學家和民調專家這個子集——但人們之所以記住了他被摘出來的這句話，是因爲這句話說出了真相。
Instead we’ve had ethos appeals that depend on outsider authenticity and commonsense ideas of fairness or pride.
相反，我們看到的是對人品訴求這一要素的利用——依賴於局外人的可靠性和有關公平或驕傲的常識看法。
And we’ve seen the most effective oratory channelling pathos, or the feelings of the crowd — anger or frustration above all.
我們還看到了對情感訴求的最有效利用——訴諸受衆的感受，尤其是他們的憤怒或沮喪。
That’s not unique to the winning sides, incidentally: the Bernie Sanders insurgency in the race for the Democratic nomination used exactly that emotive, impatient, outsiderish language.
意外的是，這並非勝利方所獨有的技巧：伯尼.桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)在民主黨總統提名角逐中異軍突起，利用的正是那種感召人心、急切和局外人式的語言。
And — had Sanders not been what to many American voters looks a hair away from being a communist — it might have gone further.
若不是很多美國人認爲桑德斯幾乎就是個共產黨人的話，這種語言方式可能會讓他走得更遠。
The Cameron and Obama years saw leaders seeking to position themselves as conciliators and centrists.
在卡梅倫(Cameron)和奧巴馬時代，領導人力圖把自己定位成調解人和中間派。
Their basic audience-shaping strategies were, as in Barack Obama’s classic red-state-blue-state speech, to do with trying to forge a collective we.
正如巴拉克.奧巴馬(Barack Obama)那場經典的紅州/藍州演講那樣，他們影響受衆的基本策略是試圖打造一個共同的我們。
Remember Red Tories and Green Tories; remember President Obama declaring that there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America?
還記得紅色保守黨(Red Tories)和綠色保守黨(Green Tories)，還有奧巴馬總統說的沒有一個自由的美國和一個保守的美國、只有美利堅合衆國嗎？
On both sides of the Atlantic this year we saw an aggressive repudiation of that.
今年，我們在大西洋兩岸都看到了對這種定位的強烈否定。
The new audience-shaping is about defining an us and a them.
影響受衆的新方法是界定我們和他們。
Us is the freeborn Brit or the forgotten men and women of America.
我們是生而自由的英國人或者美國被遺忘的人們。
Them is, according to circumstance, unelected European elites, out-of-touch liberals, Muslims, career politicians, Mexicans, Jews, corrupt bankers, pollsters, unelected members of the judiciary, beta cucks, Remoaners and libtards.
根據各自情況，他們則是未經選舉產生的歐洲精英、高高在上的自由主義者、穆斯林、職業政客、墨西哥人、猶太人、腐敗的銀行家、民調專家、未經選舉產生的司法部門成員、beta cuck（辱罵語，原意指伴侶有不忠行爲的男人）、怨言多多的支持留歐者(Remoaner)和自由主義智障(libtard)。
As for the language, the pendulum has swung back towards the plain style.
至於語言本身，平實的風格再度流行。
Much has been made of Mr Trump’s word salad approach to the language: his anacoluthons (broken sentences), his malapropisms, his halting monosyllables and his empty intensifiers.
關於特朗普的詞彙雜拌的語言風格，人們已經說了很多了：他的破格句（有語病的句子）、文字誤用、支支吾吾的單音節詞及空洞的強調詞。
But it’s worth noticing: they didn’t hurt him at the ballot box.
但是值得注意的是：這些並未有損他的得票率。
Nor, in his day, did George W Bush’s apparent inarticulacy.
當年小布什(George W Bush)明顯的口齒笨拙也沒有影響他的選情。
The American public, you could say, are in the position of the Daily Mail’s proprietor in the 1960s, Esmond Harmsworth, who reflected that having tried a short, fat editor without much success he’d now try a tall, thin one.
你可以說，美國公衆正處在上世紀60年代《每日郵報》(Daily Mail)的所有者埃斯蒙德.哈姆斯沃思(Esmond Harmsworth)的位置上：他曾說，試過了矮胖的主編、不大成功之後，他現在會試一個又高又瘦的主編。
Americans tried a leader who spoke well; now they’re having a bash with one who doesn’t.
美國人試過了能言會道的領導人；如今他們要試試笨嘴拙舌的了。
Mr Trump’s oratory may not have been sophisticated but it was effective.
特朗普的演講術或許不復雜，但很有效。
He repeated emotive, simple words in an almost grammar-free structure.
他以幾乎不含語法的結構，重複感情充沛的簡單詞彙。
That can work; symmetrically, after all, Mr Obama’s rhetorical ease didn’t do him much good once he was in office.
這可能奏效：畢竟，與之形成對比的是，在奧巴馬上臺後他流暢的措辭並沒有多大幫助。
The rapier can be thrilling but the sledgehammer does a job too.
刺劍或許令人膽寒，但大錘也可以取人性命。
Listening to a Trump speech an audience would not follow much of an argument but they’d come away with words like great, tremendous, wonderful and winning ringing in their ears.
聽特朗普的演講，觀衆可能聽不出多少邏輯性，但他們回家時耳邊會縈繞着偉大的巨大的極好的和勝利之類的詞語。
When Mr Trump spoke at a rally he used a pounding symploce (repetition both at the beginning and the end of his sentences, with a different, emotive abstract noun in the middle): We will make America strong again.
當特朗普在競選集會上發言時，他利用具有衝擊力的首尾詞語反覆（symploce，每句話都有相同的開頭詞和結尾詞，中間有一個不同的感召性抽象名詞）：我們將讓美國再次強大起來。
We will make America proud again.
我們將讓美國再次驕傲起來。
We will make America safe again.
我們將讓美國再次安全起來。
And we will make America great again.
我們將讓美國再次偉大起來。
Arguably, it was the sophistication of Mr Obama that paved the way for Mr Trump, whose oratorical clumsiness sounded to many like straight talking.
可以說，奧巴馬的能言善辯爲特朗普鋪平了道路，後者的笨嘴拙舌在很多人聽來更像是直言不諱。
As long as we’ve had oratory, we’ve had a mistrust of the smooth talker.
自從我們有了演講術以來，我們一直不信任巧舌如簧者。
Rhetoric has always contained (and, ironically, co-opted) its shadow-self: the mistrust of rhetoric.
修辭學一直包含（並諷刺地吸納了）它的陰暗面：對修辭的不信任。
And this year anti-rhetoric rhetoric took the lead.
今年，反修辭式措辭佔據上風。
But as we watch him leave the stage, Mr Obama — in fact, both Obamas — deserves a tip of the hat.
但當我們目送他離場時，我們應該向奧巴馬——事實上是奧巴馬伕婦——致敬。
Where Hillary Clinton managed to summon plausible emotion only in defeat — This is painful, she said, voice cracking in her concession speech, and it will be for a long time —
希拉里.克林頓(Hillary Clinton)在敗選時才成功喚起一些模糊的情緒：這很痛苦，她在敗選演說中聲音顫抖着說，這感覺還會持續很長時間。
the high points of the Democratic campaign, oratorically, came from the outgoing president and his wife.
在演說方面，民主黨陣營的最佳表現來自即將離任的奧巴馬及其妻子。
Look at his barnstorming reprisal of his Fired up — ready to go! story in New Hampshire shortly before the polls opened.
只需看看他在大選投票開始前不久在新罕布什爾的那場充滿激情的演講，他講述了自己曾經的的競選口號燃起來，準備出發！是怎麼來的。
Or consider Michelle Obama’s emotive speech in response to the leak of Mr Trump’s boasting of his history of sexual assault:
或者想一想米歇爾.奧巴馬(Michelle Obama)在迴應特朗普吹噓性騷擾史一事曝光後的動情演講：
The shameful comments about our bodies.
對我們身體的可恥評論。
The disrespect of our ambitions and intellect.
對我們的抱負和才智的不尊重。
The belief that you can do anything you want to a woman.
認爲你可以對女性爲所欲爲的態度。
It is cruel. It’s frightening.
這是殘忍的，可怕的。
And the truth is, it hurts.
事實是，這很傷人。
It hurts.
真的很傷人。
Those expressions of pain and determination felt authentic.
這些關於痛苦和決心的表達讓人感覺很真實。
But they were — in terms of connecting with a wider electorate — too little too late.
但就獲取更廣泛選民的共鳴而言，此類演說太少、也太遲。
As Mrs Obama and Mrs Clinton both said: When they go low, you go high.
正如奧巴馬和希拉里都曾說過的那樣：他們沒有下限，我們不能沒有節操(When they go low, you go high)。
That’s a noble principle: but rhetoric is an instrumental art.
這是一條高尚的原則，但是修辭是一門實用技術。
You do what works; and this year going high did not.
你要怎麼有用怎麼來；而高標準在今年沒起到作用。
