A matter of scope
« previous post | next post »
Gene Buckley wrote a little while back about the wording of of the proposed amendment in California's Proposition 8:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Gene pointed out that there are two possible scopings for only in this sentence: over marriage between a man and a woman ("wide" scope) — 'the only thing (specifically, institution) that is valid or recognized in California is marriage between a man and a woman' — or just over marriage ("narrow scope") — 'the only marriage that is valid or recognized in California is marriage between a man and a woman'. The intended scoping is the narrow one, and everyone recognizes that (because the wide-scope reading is ridiculous in the real world), but Gene had to go through a very brief process of rejecting the wide-scope reading, which is the one he entertained first.
And he notes that in other cases the wide-scope reading is almost surely the intended one.
Gene offered this example from a comment on a web page
Only marriage between a man and a woman provides children with everything they need to grow up to be healthy, productive adults.
The intended reading was almost surely 'the only thing (specifically, institution) that provides children with everything they need to grow up to be healthy, productive adults is marriage between a man and a woman' (wide scope), not 'the only marriage that provides children with everything they need to grow up to be healthy, productive adults is marriage between a man and a woman' (narrow scope).
Even more clearly:
Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.
is to be interpreted as 'the only people who are eligible to vote are U.S. citizens' (wide scope), not as 'the only citizens who are eligible to vote are U.S. citizens' (narrow scope).
Now, on to the elections. (Oh, yes, I've absentee voted.)
[Update and correction 11/4/08: David Beaver writes to say that this is not a matter of scope, but of FOCUS (only is focus-sensitive), a position argued for in David I. Beaver and Brady Z. Clark, Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning, a book that came out this September. David is now mulling over how to condense a 328-page technical book for a general audience here on Language Log.]
[Further update 11/4/08: Aaron Dinkin discerns yet another construal for the proposed amendment: 'The only relationship between a man and a woman that is valid or recognized in California is marriage (not, e.g., dating or friendship).' That would support the idea that focus is at work here: it's characteristic of focus-sensitive items like only that they can be associated with a number of possible elements. "Kim only watched the game" can convey that Kim did nothing but watch the game, that Kim did nothing concerning the game but watch it (did not participate in it, for instance), or that Kim watched nothing but the game (not the commercials, for instance). Yes, stress is relevant.]