<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Campaign Grammar]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Teenie Matlock <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.15923,y.2012,no.6,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx" target="_self">unpacks</a> the &quot;subtle but powerful ways that language influences how people think about political candidates and elections.&quot; The importance of grammar:</p> <blockquote> <p>A few years ago, I began exploring the idea of grammatical framing.  In an article with Caitlin Fausey, &quot;Can Grammar Win Elections?&quot;  published in <em>Political Psychology,</em> we explored the consequences  of tweaking grammatical information in political messages. We  discovered that altering nothing more than grammatical aspect in a  message about a political candidate could affect impressions of that  candidate’s past actions, and ultimately influence attitudes about  whether he would be re-elected. </p> <p>Participants in our study read a passage  about a fictitious politician named Mark Johnson.</p> </blockquote>]]></html></oembed>