Gardening on the path
« previous post | next post »
The most recent xkcd:
Mouseover title: "Arboretum Owner Denied Standing in Garden Path Suit on Grounds Grounds Appealing Appealing"
What the Berkeley Neural Parser thinks:
(S (PP (IN After) (NP (NN bird) (VBZ strikes))) (NP (NP (NN judge)) (SBAR (WHNP (WP who)) (S (VP (VBD ordered) (NP (NNP olive) (NNP garden) (NNP path) (NN sentence)) (PP (IN in) (NP (NP (NN case)) (PP (IN of) (NP (NP (JJ green) (NNS walkways)) (VP (VP (VP (VBN vacated) (VP (VBN overturned))) (CC but) (VP (NNS rights))) (CC and) (VP (VBZ lands) (ADVP (RB safely)))))))))))) (. .))
What Bard thinks:
Me: Please rephrase: "After bird strikes judge who ordered olive garden path sentence in case of green walkways vacated overturned but rights and lands safely."
Bard: Sure, here is the rephrased sentence:
A bird struck a judge who had ordered a sentence of walking the Olive Garden path in a case where green walkways had been vacated. The sentence was overturned, but the judge recovered and landed safely.
The original sentence is a garden path sentence, which means that it is grammatically correct but difficult to parse. The first part of the sentence, "After bird strikes judge," leads the reader to expect that the bird will strike the judge and cause harm. However, the second part of the sentence, "who ordered olive garden path sentence," reveals that the bird actually struck the judge's ruling, not the judge himself.
The rephrased sentence breaks up the garden path by making it clear that the bird struck the judge's ruling, not the judge himself. It also clarifies the meaning of the sentence by adding the phrase "in a case where green walkways had been vacated." This phrase explains why the judge had ordered the sentence of walking the Olive Garden path.
I hope this is helpful!
What Bing Chat thinks:
Me: Please rephrase: "After bird strikes judge who ordered olive garden path sentence in case of green walkways vacated overturned but rights and lands safely."
Bing: The sentence you provided is an example of a garden-path sentence. It is grammatically correct but it is structured in such a way that the reader’s most likely interpretation will be incorrect. The reader is lured into a parse that turns out to be a dead end or yields a clearly unintended meaning12
Would you like me to explain more about garden-path sentences?
Me: What is the correct interpretation of that sentence?
Bing: The sentence you provided is an example of a garden-path sentence. It is structured in such a way that the reader’s most likely interpretation will be incorrect. The sentence is not meant to have a correct interpretation.
Would you like me to provide another example?
Me: No thanks. Please explain the sentence "The horse raced past the barn fell."
Bing: “The horse raced past the barn fell” is another example of a garden-path sentence. It is structured in such a way that the reader’s most likely interpretation will be incorrect. The sentence is not meant to have a correct interpretation.
Would you like me to provide more examples?
FWIW, the un-garden-pathed sentence (I think) is supposed to be
After bird strikes (on their aircraft),
the judge who vacated the olive-garden-path sentence in the the green-walkways case
overturned (or their aircraft did)
but rights (i.e. turned right-side up)
and lands safely.
Y said,
June 23, 2023 @ 5:09 pm
I don't think tense mixing (overturned-rights-lands) is OK in headline English.
Tim May said,
June 23, 2023 @ 6:07 pm
It's not tense mixing because "overturned" is a passive; "After bird strikes, judge [is] overturned, but rights and lands safely".
lespritdescalier said,
June 23, 2023 @ 10:52 pm
Hah, that Bard explanation is an A+ example of 'plausible AI nonsense.' I had trouble parsing the sentence originally but I'm pretty sure there's no possible grammatical interpretation where "the bird struck the judge's ruling, not the judge himself." What would that even mean…?
unekdoud said,
June 24, 2023 @ 3:32 am
I came to the same parse after about 2 minutes. But I admire Bing's unorthodox stance on garden paths.
Do they get the mouseover title right?
John Swindle said,
June 24, 2023 @ 6:11 am
Notice that Bard's explanation of the sentence is inconsistent with the rephrasing it provides.
Tim Martin said,
June 24, 2023 @ 9:19 am
I don't often read Language Log (anymore), but when I do, it's to have them explain to me what the heck Randall Monroe is trying to say XD
Scott P. said,
June 24, 2023 @ 7:32 pm
You can strike down a ruling, but not strike it. I too, wondered if "Bird" was a personal name, not a noun.
Joshua K. said,
June 25, 2023 @ 4:37 pm
@Tim Martin: I recommend explainxkcd.com instead. That site has explanations of all the xkcd strips, including the ones that don't have to do with linguistic issues.
Benjamin Orsatti said,
June 26, 2023 @ 8:33 am
Scott P. is right, but newspaper-types always have trouble with legal-speak.
Strictly speaking, you can't "strike" a "ruling" — you can move for reconsideration or you can appeal the ruling, or a higher court can "overRULE" a ruling. You can, however, "strike" a judgment (i.e. from the docket), which is a _type_ of "ruling," so to speak, as is an "order," "decision," and so on. Ordinarily, though, you'd "strike" a pleading or an averment which may be a "scandalous or impertinent matter," which is how we get the characteristically concise, laconic, and certainly not redundant legal-speak: "Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a Motion to Strike".
Chris said,
June 26, 2023 @ 4:13 pm
The parse given seems correct, but what's frustrating is that a simple comma after "strikes" would have clarified the meaning to a massive degree. Which, I suppose, could be part of the point.
I think I'd like to have seen this done with a sentence where a comma would be ungrammatical.
Rodger C said,
June 28, 2023 @ 9:50 am
It occurs to me belatedly that "but rights and lands safely" may be self-referential.