Today’s Bizarro/Wayno collaboration takes us into the world of modifier attachment:
(If you’re puzzled by the odd symbols in the cartoon — Dan Piraro says there are 2 in this strip — see this Page.)
Background: there’s a Page on this blog on modifier attachment (Low Attachment (LA) vs. High Attachment (HA), in particular), in VPs and NPs, where I note
there is a gigantic psycholinguistics literature on attachment. This is just a listing of some postings on Language Log and AZBlog on the subject.
In this case, news anchor 1 says the president gave a speech on drugs, which hearers will almost surely take to have LA: a speech on drugs ‘a speech about drugs’, with on drugs as a modifier within the NP a speech on drugs. Other things being equal, LA is the default attachment.
But news anchor 2’s comment indicates that the story is actually about the president’s giving a speech while on drugs (that is, while he was on drugs), with on drugs as a modifier within a V-headed constituent, the VP or the whole clause. That’s HA.
And on the HA understanding, on drugs is a SPAR (a subjectless predicative adjunct requiring a referent for the missing subject), a SPAR that picks up its referent according to the default Subject Rule — from the subject of the clause (the president). In other words, it’s a non-dangling modifier. (See the Page on this blog on dangling modifiers.)
March 15, 2018 at 6:14 am |
My initial take was different: That the president gave a speech about drug, probably in opposition to substance abuse, and then, to relax, he engaged in abusive alcohol consumption. The cartoon then would not have any special language play, but simply would reflect societal hypocrisy in decrying drug abuse while remaining silent on alcohol abuse, even though the social costs of alcohol abuse exceed those of all other drugs. (At least, that was true; I’m not sure if it’s still true during the opioid crisis.)
Our current president claims not to use drugs or drink alcohol other than for communion, although there are pictures that appear to show him drinking or holding an alcoholic beverage.
March 15, 2018 at 6:15 am |
To be clear, I think both readings on the cartoon are plausible. Presumably the cartoonist only meant one of them, but I don’t know which one.
March 15, 2018 at 8:04 am |
I’ve e-mailed the two cartoonists about their intentions.
March 15, 2018 at 8:34 am |
From Wayno:
March 15, 2018 at 5:47 pm |
Good job picking up on the intended meaning, Arnold. I would have completely missed it, but for you.
The joke’s set-up was perfect, but it needed a punch line that was not susceptible to this kind of ambiguity. I’m having trouble thinking of one that’s funny, though.
March 15, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Well, I’m sort of tuned to notice LA vs. HA.