The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
Ask-A-Linguist Message Details
|Subject:||Question regarding semantics of resolution for college policy debate|
|Question:||I am a policy debater at the University of Michigan. For the entire year we debate about a single resolution and have to propose policies that fall under the scope of the resolution. Part of the debate is figuring out the best way to interpret words in the resolution, and a prerequisite to that is an understanding of the semantics of the language used in the resolution. This year's national resolution is: ''Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce restrictions on and/or substantially increase financial incentives for energy production in the United States of one or more of the following: coal, crude oil, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, wind power.'' My question regards the prepositional phrase ''in the United States.'' Does this phrase modify the verbs (''reduce... and/or... increase,'' meaning that the action must take place in the United States), the direct objects (''restrictions... and/or... financial incentives,'' meaning that the restrictions/incentives must be lifted/provided in the United States), or the other prepositional phrase (''for energy production,'' meaning that the energy production must occur in the United States)?|
|Reply:||How a prepositional phrase fits into a complicated surrounding grammatical structure is a standard, well-known source of ambiguity in English, and it is usually very difficult to argue that one interpretation is definitely "right" and any alternative definitely "wrong". That said, in many cases one can certainly characterize one interpretation as more natural than some or all alternatives, perhaps because for the alternative interpretations there would be a more plausible place to put the prepositional phrase. In those terms, I would certainly see your last interpretation (the energy production must occur in the USA) as the most natural one. It is the only interpretation which creates a motive for placing "in the US" right next to "energy production", which otherwise would be an unexpected place to find an adverbial element inserted. Geoffrey Sampson|
|Reply From:||Geoffrey Richard Sampson click here to access email|