February 14, 2004

Decoding Anaphors

Posted by Brian

Context can be so crucial in figuring out what a sentence means, even in subconscious processing. When I first scanned this I thought Ed Gillespie shouldn’t be so candid in front of reporters.

In prepared remarks, Gillespie attacked Kerry and other Democrats, saying they are readying “the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics.” (From CNN)

I bet our Republican readers did not read it that way!

Posted on February 14, 2004 06:43 PM UTC
Comments

The referent of “they” isn’t clear. But the statement is likely true regardless who “they” are.

Posted by Curtiss Leung · February 15, 2004 12:37 AM

The referent of “they” isn’t clear. But the statement is likely true regardless of who “they” are.

Posted by Curtiss Leung · February 15, 2004 12:38 AM

I’m not sure I get it. Are we worried about interpreting the quote to mean that Gillespie’s team is readying a dirty campaign? I think that’d be a very odd way to read that sentence… if I wanted to achieve that ambiguity, I’d have written: “…attacked Kerry and other Democrats, saying they were readying…”

Of course, it’s still not very ambiguous, because “Gillespie” is singular here, and therefore an extremely odd antecedant for “they”.

Or am I just missing the point?

Posted by Jonathan Ichikawa · February 15, 2004 01:03 AM

Gillespie could be speaking in the plural, referring to himself and his fellow mud-slingers….err, campaingers.

Posted by Michael · February 15, 2004 03:44 AM

Johnny — I don’t see how using the subjunctive voice would make the sentence read as if Gillespie’s statement applied to the GOP rather than the Democrats — if anything it would make it more clear that he was talking about the Democrats.

Posted by Jeremy Osner · February 15, 2004 04:13 AM

Hooboy! If all that the American Left can do is analyze grammatical structures for hidden meanings, then the Republicans will surely win this one, hands down.

Give it up, and try to speak like “dumbed-down” average Americans. Because - in the long run - it is the average, working-class Americans that will validate the theories of all you tenured academics in your ivory towers.

And wouldn’t that be as it should be? So, give up the analysis of ambiguity, and trust the direct sign and symbol.

Working classes all over the world have always done so. Perhaps you should learn to ask why….

Posted by Finnpundit · February 15, 2004 06:40 AM

We Americans prefer presidents who aren’t smarter than we are. Isn’t that normal?

Posted by bad Jim · February 15, 2004 08:55 AM

Republican readers? Plural?

I thought I was the only one.

Posted by Thomas · February 15, 2004 05:21 PM
Followups

→ Dirty Campaigning.
Excerpt: Via Brian Weatherson, I see Ed Gillespie is anticipating the slinging of mud in 2004:In prepared remarks, Gillespie attacked Kerry and other Democrats, saying they are readying "the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics."The ironies here ar...
Read more at Matthew Yglesias

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.