Language Log

A "dangling modifier" can follow the intended understood subject in a sentence and yet still dangle. That is (let me rephrase, since the traditional "dangling" metaphor isn't very helpful): a subjectless non-finite clause in a phrase functioning as an adjunct may be hard to associate with a suitable target of predication even though the intended one is a subject noun phrase occurring earlier in the same sentence. Here is an example, from a short piece about comedian Russell Brand and singer Katy Perry that appeared in the UK newspaper Metro:

Russell Brand says Katy Perry's God-fearing parents loved his 'old school Englishness' after showering them with chocolates.

In my judgment (your mileage may differ), the clause showering them with chocolates occasions a brief moment of involuntary surprise and puzzlement. One does a very brief double-take and then searches back for the right noun phrase to be understood as the one who does the showering.

The judgment is subtle. Some will say that they don't see any unacceptability at all, and that's fine for them; but I'm not interested in the reactions of those who managed to see instantly what the right interpretation was. I'm interested in the structural properties that trigger the slight flicker of syntactic disquiet for those that experience it.

It's been a while since we posted on differences between the sexes, so here's a Zippy on the subject:

Yes, I know, this isn't really about language, but Language Log stumbled into sex differences a few years ago, mostly thanks to Leonard Sax and Louann Brizendine (via David Brooks).

Thanks to reader DS, following up on this morning's post on the Philadelphia Newspapers' bankruptcy case ("The indubitable equivalent of such claims"), I now know which commas were at stake, and why.  The critical commas were these, in 1129(b)(2)(A)(ii) of Chapter 11, subchapter II, of U.S. Code Title 11:

(ii) for the sale, subject to section 363 (k) of this title, of any property that is subject to the liens securing such claims, …

As to why and how the commas allegedly matter, DS drew my attention to dueling footnotes in the briefs.

William Safire's On Language column used to feature regular reports from the Squad Squad, readers who wrote to him with examples of redundant language. His column from 11/5/1989, for example, cites the  Isis construction, the phrase ad hoc task force ("as if all task forces were not by their nature ad hoc"), references to the Negev desert ("Negev means 'desert' (as well as 'south') in Hebrew"), a menu listing for cold Gazpacho ("all Gazpacho is cold"), and Safire's own use of the idiom shrug our shoulders ("only shoulders are for shrugging; you cannot shrug your eyebrows, even though you can lift them").

Bill is gone, but a little Squad Squad lives on in all of us, it seems.  We notice usage that strikes us as redundant, and we feel the urge to share our insights.  Few of us get as intense about it as the Pilotless Drone Man did — but maybe, somewhere in the amygdala of every Squad Squad member, there's a little Drone Man fighting to emerge.

Discussing our local newspapers' bankruptcy case, Steve Tawa explained today ("Newspaper Bankruptcy Ruling Could Hinge on 'Or,' Or a Comma", KYW Newsradio 1060, 12/15/2009) that:

Lawyers argued over complex bankruptcy code phrases like "indubitable equivalent."  They also vetted the word "or" in the language, and a certain comma's placement in the statute.

Josh Rosenberg was puzzled — which "or", which comma, and why? The rest of the article doesn't say.

So Josh wrote and asked me. It's a linguistic question, right? But I have no clue — I'm in Landsdowne VA for a conference. Not that I would have been in court anyhow.

Questions about disclosure of possible conflicts of interest don't arise very often in our field. I take that as that as a testament to the economic insignificance of our results. There are plenty of people who have a financial interest in linguistic research, but they rarely have a stake in having it come out one way rather than another, the way a pharmaceutical company does if it can show that drug X is more effective than drug Y. You don’t have to worry about ethical conflicts when the author can be presumed to have an unequivocal interest in doing the science right. They only become important when the author might conceivably have an interest in doing the science wrong.

But these questions can arise when a linguist is engaged to testify as an expert witness in a legal proceding and decides to revisit the issue later in a scholarly talk or publication. In fact it was a disagreement about just such a situation that provided the impetus for a symposium at last January's LSA meeting on "Ethical Issues in Forensic Linguistic Consulting."

In doing the final work on the (first, not final, edition) of the Cheslatta Carrier dictionary, I came across a word that I have encountered only in this dialect that I just had to mention. Not only have I not encountered it in other dialects of Carrier, I'm not aware of any other language that has such a term.

The word is natsultook'ah [natsʌltuk'ah], a compound of "tears" and "tracks". It describes the portion of the face extending from the medial corner of the eye along the nose to the end of the nose. It's the route along which tears flow if not so copious that they spill out of the eye at other points. It doesn't refer only to the track left by tears, but to that portion of the face, even if no tears or traces thereof are present.

A while back there was a to-do at the Miss USA Pageant when one of the judges, someone named Perez Hilton (at first I thought they meant Paris Hilton, but he seems to be distinct) asked candidate Carrie Prejean:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

and she responded:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

Unlike Arnold, I was happy to see Chris's "Scooping Language Log" post.  In the first place, it's a compliment that he thinks LL is some sort of standard to measure himself against, if only in temporal terms. And in the second place, it's a Good Thing for All of Us to have more people competing to note, link, and comment on language-related topics.  So scoop away, say I.

The Lousy Linguist posted recently (December 8) on how he "scooped" Language Log on two occasions and patted himself on the back for this accomplishment. I understand that Chris was just joshing, but still I was taken aback. Language Log isn't a news service, and we don't propose to get the "stories" out before our "competition"; I object to anything that encourages this way of looking at things. (Even when I worked on a newspaper, I objected to the adolescent competitiveness of scooping — "Nyah, nyah, we got there first".)

In reference to my post "Literary Alzheimer's", Mark Seidenberg points out that the NYT might have chosen an earlier example of the same sort of investigation as one of the "Most Interesting Ideas" of 2005: Peter Garrard, Lisa M. Maloney, John R. Hodges and Karalyn Patterson, "The effects of very early Alzheimer's disease on the characteristics of writing by a renowned author", Brain 128(2):250-260, 2005. (This work was of course cited and discussed by Lancashire and Hirst.)

Over on my blog, I've been coming down hard on Ned Halley's Dictionary of Modern English Grammar, a dreadful volume purporting to be a guide to "grammar, syntax and style for the 21st century" (postings here, here, and here). When I find myself engaging with such a book, I usually try to read something more satisfying along with it. This time it was Jack Lynch's recently published The Lexicographer's Dilemma: The Evolution of "Proper" English, from Shakespeare to South Park, which I recommend enthusiastically.

Bill Poser's book The Carrier Language: A Brief Introduction has just come out. The press release is here, and it was reprinted in the Prince George Citizen, under a strong candidate for the worst pun ever used in a newspaper headline, "Endangered speech(ies)".

Unfortunately, it's not yet known to amazon, nor is it yet listed on its publisher's order form.

For some of Bill's scholarly publications on Carrier, see "Noun Classification in Carrier", Anthropological Linguistics 27(2) 2005; "The Solid Phase of Water in Carrier", 2004; "Dating Velar Palatalization in Carrier", 2004; and his three Carrier dictionaries (Lheidli T'enneh Hubughunek, Nak'albun/Dzinghubun Whut'enne Bughuni, Saik'uz Whut'en Hubughunek) available from the Yinka Dene Language Institute.

On a more general topic, there's Lyle Campbell and William Poser, "Language Classification: History and Method", 2008, which you can buy from amazon, though it'll cost you about fifty cups of Starbucks coffee.