M: I think it reflects the generalization that I made that if you do not really have any
 substantive issues, you then begin to make sort of accidental distinctions. The leading
 candidates are pretty heavy into adjectives and not much [into] substance.

G: You are a student of political language?

M: Accidentally so, yes.

G: And of American poetry in its many forms. Is there any successful, dynamic imagery in
 the political speech we are hearing now that compares with some of the great speech-
 makers in American politics?

M: I do not think anyone could recall a figure of speech [or] a real image that has come out of
 this campaign so far. The language has been pretty ordinary. Supposedly, poets abhor the
 adjective. Well, you ought not to write it in poetry, but other linguists say the same thing.
 I really studied Mondale more than others. You will find him sometimes using two or
 three adjectives for one noun, and once you get to that you forget what the noun is and
 you begin to think about the adjectives. I think it is probably dangerous to elect a
 president on the basis of his adjectives. [laughter] There should be something a little
 heavier than that, at least a verb once in a while or a good solid noun.

G: I heard you once cite a particular image -- that of a bird in a gilded cage, which is a figure
 of speech used by...

M: It was Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey left some images. Stevenson [Adlai Stevenson, Jr.,
 elected governor of Illinois, 1948; Democratic presidential candidate, 1952 and 1956;
 chiefU.S. delegate to the UN, 1961-1965] left some images, but his were really not
 metaphors. It was more the language itself-- the balanced sentence, the alliteration, and
 allegories. He was really not into poetic images or metaphor, but it was good language.
 There is nothing like that in this campaign. Humphrey was talking about Eisenhower at
 one time, and he said [that Eisenhower] was a bird in a gilded cage. The Republicans
 keep him in the living room singing sweet songs to everyone who passes by while back in
 the kitchen the blackbirds are eating up the pumpkin pie. They were not necessarily
 original images (they had been around a long time), but at least they were original
 applications [of those images] and [they were] memorable. I think people remember
 things like that. You can get away with pretty radical positions in American politics if you
 present them in such a way that people do not really remember who said it or do not
 identify it with you. [On the other hand], you can say pretty ordinary things with the right
 kind of language and have some response, but there is not much of that in this campaign.

G: This fall we are observing the unhappy twentieth anniversary of the assassination of John
 F. Kennedy. He was a master of the language, and he [used] a form of speech called a
 chiasmas where statements are crossed. [For instance, he said], let us never negotiate out
 of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate; ask not what your country can do for you, but

 2