Striking Nude Model: ‘It’s a tough job’

Under “Latest News” on CNN.com one morning, I read the above headline and thought Wow! I can’t believe CNN would include their opinion of someone’s beauty in a headline, that’s unusual. Then directly below this headline I noticed that on the the list of “most popular videos” was the same piece, titled this: “Nude models on strike.” Oops. I think I interpreted the meaning of “striking” as “beautiful” partly because the word was describing a model. Had the headline been “Striking Garbage Men: ‘It’s a tough job’” I think I may have been less likely to make this mistake.

Also a likely contributor, I rarely (if ever) though of the word “striking” when trying to describe someone’s appearance until a few months ago, when we did an exercise in Rochelle’s creative writing course one day where the class listed as many possible ways to say pretty/beautiful, and someone put ’striking’ on the list. I know it became a highly activated word in my mind for sometime afterward, because I caught myself using it rather frequently thereafter.

DNA tests fuel urgency

Today I misparsed one of the front page headlines in the USA Today.

“DNA tests fuel urgency to free the innocent”

I parsed this as: Subject (DNA) Verb (tests) Object (fuel urgency) Adjunct (to free the innocent), meaning that DNA was testing the urgency of fuel in order to free innocent people. It wasn’t until I parsed the whole thing that I realized this didn’t make much sense.

The correct parsing is: Subject (DNA tests) Verb (fuel) Object (urgency to free the innocent).

tests is a verb much more often than fuel is, and I reinterpreted the plural marker as the 3rd person singular agreement. The headline makes much more sense with the second parsing, but I still want to go with the first, but this is a genuine case of standing ambiguity.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet