Is Trump's Vocabulary Poor? Vocabulary Richness Across Texts of Different Lenghts

The analysis of US political language is usually based on the written form (e.g. presidential addresses) or posts broadcasted on various social networks. Oral production, however, which is even more frequent, can better reveal the style and mode of thinking of the speaker. This study covers this mode of linguistic communication by considering 19 candidates from the presidential elections between 1960 to 2024. Our main research objectives are to disclose the main trends hidden in those presidential debates. Do we observe a clear simplification of the US political language over time? Does Trump have poor language compared to the other candidates? Do unusual stylistic features occur only with a single, specific president? Moreover, can we detect a pattern explaining the success or failure of some nominees? Over time, this study demonstrates a significant reduction in political language complexity, a decrease of the mean sentence length, and a noteworthy decline of complex terms. Moreover, the emotional tone increases over the decades, while logical and rational thinking tends to lessen.

We describe two types of models for vocabulary difficulty prediction: a high-accuracy black-box model, which achieved the top shared task result in the open track, and an explainable model, which outperforms a fine-tuned encoder baseline. As the black-box model, we fine-tuned an LLM using a soft-target loss function for effective application to the rating task, achieving r > 0.91. The explainable model provides insights into what impacts the difficulty of each item while maintaining a strong correlation (r > 0.77). We further analyze the results, demonstrating that the difficulty of items in the British Council's Knowledge-based Vocabulary Lists (KVL) is often affected by spelling difficulty or the construction of the test items, in addition to the genuine production difficulty of the words. We make our code available online at https://github.com/ynklab/vocabulary-difficulty .

Can a statistically significant, large-effect-size finding in computational social science be entirely an artifact of the measurement instrument? We present a case where the answer appears to be yes. Analyzing 85 interviews across four public intellectuals (2016--2026), we find a robust negative-affect/emphatic-certainty lexical co-occurrence pattern under keyword-based scoring ($r = 0.72$--$0.93$, $p < 0.01$ for all four speakers). Replacing keyword counting with LLM-based zero-shot semantic classification on the complete diarized corpus (32,625 sentences) dramatically reduces this correlation: Dalio's $r = 0.851$ drops to $r = 0.206$, with two speakers showing negative $r(\text{neg}, \text{emphatic})$ and one showing null. In contrast, the LLM reveals a strong negative-hedging coupling across speakers -- Rogoff's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.875$ ($p = 0.001$) and Zeihan's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.722$ ($p = 0.008$) -- consistent with the conventional expectation that pessimistic discourse attracts hedging, not certainty. Sentence-level error analysis traces this discrepancy to three structural failure modes in keyword lexicons -- syntactic blindness, polysemy blindness, and categorical absence -- illustrated through cases where keyword counting inverts semantic meaning (e.g., ''never absolutely totally confident'' scored as high-certainty). We argue that keyword lexicons measure a universal lexical co-occurrence tendency -- negative discourse naturally attracts emphatic vocabulary -- that is orthogonal to, and can systematically invert, rhetorical stance. Treating keyword counts as measurements of epistemic certainty is a category error: a finding that appears to be about a speaker's psychology may be entirely about the counting of words.