When you say their names, your tongue stubs its toe:
Bush. Gore.
They’re short, sharp names, names that come in a rush and leave in a hurry.
The nomenclature of the men who have put a hammerlock on the two major parties’ presidential nominations promises an unprecedented race come fall: For the first time in history, the surnames and commonly used first names of the contenders for the highest office in the land are one-syllable words.
So what, you say?
If that’s what you say, then you haven’t been listening.
As linguists and psychologists have discovered, the sound of a word, including its number of syllables, is an important determinant in our emotional response to that word. Consequently, political candidates, like actors and authors, must be acutely aware of the impact of their names on audiences.
With a few notable exceptions, the rule is simple:
Short words sell.
Long words repel.
And you thought it was a coincidence that William Jefferson Clinton answers to a folksy “Bill”? That Albert Arnold Gore Jr. goes by the palsy “Al”?
Two-syllable candidates Bill Bradley and John McCain, you’ll note, are no longer in the running.
“There’s a truism I’ve heard that in a political campaign, the person with the shortest name wins,” said John Bargh, a psychology professor at New York University who specializes in linguistics. He is intrigued, he said, by the fact that with Bush and Gore, “We have a tie.”
Moreover, if some pundits’ picks are correct and the running mates end up being Elizabeth Dole and Gov. Angus King of Maine, then the tickets would constitute double-barreled monosyllables: Bush-Dole vs. Gore-King. The plot thickens.
Nobody, of course, would claim that name length is the sole determining factor in an election. Nor have short-named candidates prevailed throughout history — witness Bob Dole’s loss to Clinton last time around. But linguists argue that, all else being equal, voters regard shorter names more favorably.
There are several reasons for that, Bargh said. Most of those reasons are historical and not especially flattering to a nation that prides itself on being inclusive.
“As a country, we tend to distrust foreign names. There’s something more `American’ about shorter names. A president stands for our country, and there might be a feeling of not wanting that person to be a foreigner.”
Americans also may favor short names because longer names sometimes sound stuffy and self-important, like the fancy names bestowed on British aristocrats — the very type that we fought a war to free ourselves from, said language historian Tim Austin, who is British.
Beyond that, however, Bargh said research has revealed that short words “are processed more quickly by our brains and cause a more positive reaction.” That may be because, by and large, shorter words have a more extensive history in our language than do longer ones. “The longer a word has been around in our culture, the more positive our response to it.”
Russell Fazio, a psychology professor at Indiana University, pioneered research into the connection between short words and positive emotional reactions.
There is a “long history” of research demonstrating that word length matters, Fazio said.
“We know quite a bit about the emotional resonance of words, about the representations that people build in their minds about a particular word,” he said.
Most of his research is done with the names of things rather than proper names, but he agreed that people often base their idea of a person on that person’s name. A former colleague, Fazio said, had the same first and last names as that of an Olympic athlete Fazio admired.
“For about two years, I had that association in my mind when I dealt with him.”
Austin, an English professor at Loyola University in Chicago, said the significance of the winning candidates’ names had not escaped him.
“I kept wondering how long it would take for someone to realize that if you switched the letters of their first names, you would have `Gush’ and `Bore,’ which seems apt.”
The English language is derived from Germanic and Latinate roots, Austin said. Shorter words generally come from the German, while longer ones trace their origins to the Latin.
“Short words are how we identify things — `bus,’ `tree,’ `gate.’ Longer words are associated with the erudite, the complex, the elaborate,” he said.
The words “Bush” and “Gore,” in addition to standing for real things, represent “the simplest syllable type — consonant, vowel, consonant,” Austin said. “The names are very straightforward.”
Both candidates’ surnames begin with plosive consonants, which means the air is cut off by the lips or the tongue when the consonant is pronounced, creating a powerful sound — the sound, perhaps, of a natural leader. With non-plosive consonants, such as “L” or “F,” the air is not cut off.
The way words sound is significant even when words are being read, he added. “When you read, you sub-articulate. Your muscles, at a very low level, go through the same motions you’d go through if you were going to pronounce it.”
Once we’re made aware that we favor short names, can’t we just tell ourselves to cut it out?
Not necessarily, Bargh said. “Our research shows that a lot of things people assume are free will aren’t free will. We are who we are. It’s not the subliminal stuff that’s scary — it’s our refusal to accept the fact that we are influenced by things we can’t control.”
Through experiments with large groups, psychologists have determined that people generally are more favorably inclined toward names that begin with letters that are spoken in the front of the mouth, rather than in the back of the mouth, Bargh said. “That seems to be true across all cultures and languages.”
If it’s true that short words fall more melodiously on American ears, then how come the Bush-Gore matchup is the first presidential race in our history to pit one one-syllabled guy (first and last names) against another?
It turns out that we’ve come very close a couple of times.
In the 1844 election, James K. Polk bested Henry Clay. In the 1852 contest, Franklin Pierce came out on top of Winfield Scott. (The Pierce-Scott matchup almost included a one-two monosyllabic punch of surnames: Pierce’s running mate was William King; Scott’s was William Alexander Graham. Graham sounds like one syllable but is actually two.)
Perhaps, after a few tentative forays in that direction, history was simply waiting to spring its surfeit of single-syllable monikers on our electoral process.
So, discounting all other factors — on the ballot, both Bush and Gore sport single-syllable first and last names — who has the phonetic edge in the fall?
With a chuckle, Bargh said, “Well, all I can say is, `Bush’ is pronounced at the front of the mouth, while `Gore’ comes from the back. That maybe gives Bush a little edge. Maybe a centimeter.”
The names Bush and Gore are remarkably similar: Both start with a “plosive’ consonant, which gives the name a clipped, sharp, authoritative sound, and end with a softer, non-plosive consonant.
Other one-syllable surname presidential races: 1844, James K. Polk vs. Henry Clay; 1852, Franklin Pierce vs. Winfield Scott.
7 presidents had surnames with one syllable: Polk, Pierce, Grant, Hayes, Taft, Ford, Bush.
22 had two syllables: John Adams, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton.
11 had three syllables: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Buchanan, Benjamin Harrison, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy.
1 had four syllables: Eisenhower