Communication is fraught with small problems. When the spoken word is in use, there may be times when the sound is ambiguous - bridle / bridal, ways / weighs - usually it's the human context that tells us which concept we are meant to be interpreting. But the written word, too, can have its own ambiguities, often caused by flaws in punctuation or syntax.
I came across an instance of this on the BBC website today. The words are reputedly those of a British politician - you'll be able to guess what the topic is:
". . . the broader interests of the international community were served by Libya renouncing a nuclear weapons programme and sponsoring terrorism."
You have to read this carefully twice. The problem lies in careless wording. Our brains don't easily recognise the word sequence "Libya renouncing . . . sponsoring terrorism". It is clearly what the speaker / writer (rather thoughtlessly) intended us to do - but what an awful sequence "renouncing sponsoring" is.
No wonder it seems to us at first reading that the writer believes that the interests of the international community are served by "Libya . . . sponsoring terrorism".*
* PS I suppose the offending phrase may be not so much a politician's solecism as a BBC misprint for "the sponsorship of terrorism".
Oops, sorry. Let me reword that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment