I was listening to Terry Gross interview Gabriel Sherman, the author of a book on the history of Fox News founder Roger Ailes. Sherman was talking about TVN, a precursor to Fox News that ran for a time in the 1970s. Its producers wanted to provide a counterweight to the liberal media, and consulted extensively with conservative groups as they tried to hammer out how they would run the program. Summing up, Sherman said,
They were basically saying, “How do we package the news that is going to appeal to a conservative audience?” (13:34)
If it’s news that already appeals to a conservative audience, I thought. why is how to package it such a big question? In the context of the story, of course, the actual meaning was “How do we package (any) news in such a way that it will appeal to a conservative audience?”
I remembered the title of an article I’d seen advertised on the cover of a Reader’s Digest one time:
How to raise drug-free kids
Step one, I had thought at the time: Acquire some kids who are drug-free. Step two: Raise them. Like the sentence from Gabriel Sherman, this sentence was ambiguous between two readings:
- How to VERB NOUN with PROPERTY X
- (Intended meaning) Let y be a NOUN; how to VERB y such that y comes to have PROPERTY X
- (Stupid meaning) Let y be a NOUN with PROPERTY X; how to VERB y
But standing in the checkout line, looking at a Reader’s Digest cover, I had been in an ornery mood, looking for an obtuse reading of the title. The intended meaning was one that the grammar licensed, even though I was overlooking it for my own amusement. Listening to the interview with Gabriel Sherman, I was just interested in hearing about this Roger Ailes guy, but the goofy reading was still the one that jumped out at me. In fact, now that I think about it, I don’t think the quotation was ambiguous after all. The only available reading is the unintended one, and the intended, resultative meaning is delivered only by sheer force of context, in the same way that I’d know that We had a talk about our son with drugs actually meant “We had a talk with our son about drugs.” So my question is: Why are both readings available with the Reader’s Digest title, but not with the Gabriel Sherman quotation?
Here are the syntactic and semantic differences between the two quotations that I notice:
- finite (do we package) vs. infinitive (to raise)
- relative clause (that is…) vs. adjective phrase (drug-free)
- creation nature of verb: package (no) vs. raise (yes)
- definite noun (the news) vs. generic (kids)
Flipping these conditions one by one in the Sherman quotation, I judge that the resultative reading becomes available when package is swapped for a verb whose meaning involves creating something. Red font indicates that the resultative meaning is unavailable; green font that it is available:
- (original) How do we package the news that is going to appeal to a conservative audience?
- (finite > infinitive) How to package the news that is going to appeal to a conservative audience
- (relative clause > adjective phrase) How do we package the conservative-appealing news?
- (ordinary verb > verb of creation) How do we create the news that is going to appeal to a conservative audience?
- (definite noun > indefinite noun) How do we package news that is going to appeal to a conservative audience?
How about when we do the same thing to the Reader’s Digest title? When does the resultative reading here become unavailable? As expected, it looks like replacing the creation-verb raise with a non-creation verb (talk to) bars the resultative meaning. Furthermore, changing the indefinite drug-free kids to the definite the drug-free kids also makes the goofy reading the only one available.
- (original) How to raise drug-free kids
- (infinitive > finite) How do we raise drug-free kids?
- (adjective phrase > relative clause) How to raise kids who will stay off drugs
- (verb of creation > ordinary verb) How to talk to drug-free kids
- (indefinite > definite) How to raise the drug-free kids
To sum up, you need a verb of creation and an indefinite direct object in order to be sure of having a resultative reading in sentences like these. Sometimes you can get the resultative reading even with a definite object (as in How do we create the news that…), but it doesn’t always work (as in how to raise the drug-free kids). I still don’t know why the definiteness of the direct object makes a difference, at least in these two examples, but that’s as far as I’m pushing the issue tonight.
Ten years ago today, I published my first blog post, on my brother Glen’s blog, where I continued to post for several months. In June of 2004, I had the opportunity to be a guest on The Volokh Conspiracy, and used the platform to announce my own blog, on the Blogger platform. A year or so later, I moved the blog to WordPress, where it has been ever since. (And the old Blogger web address has been taken over by a spam blog, which remains there to this day, with a final, spammy post from November 21, 2007 up top.) Thanks to all the readers over the years, and especially to those that have been reading the whole time, or close to it: The Ridger, Ellen K, Ran Ari-Gur, Ingeborg Norden, Ben Zimmer, Gordon Hemsley, and Glen are those that come most immediately to mind, as I post my 806th post today.