The selection of Senator Joe Biden to be Barack Obama’s running mate has revived the debate over a statement Biden made to The New York Observer in early 2007.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden was quoted as saying. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Now, we’re not going to deal with the question of whether his use of words like “articulate” and “clean” was racist or otherwise loaded, or whether he was slighting other “mainstream” African-Americans like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm or even Jackie Robinson. Instead, we’re going to focus on the comma that could have helped make his point clearer.
“Seldom has the distinction between a restrictive and a nonrestrictive clause been more important,” wrote Dean Mills, who happens to be the dean of the University of Missouri School of Journalism. “Without the comma, which is how every version I’ve seen is punctuated, it sounds as if Biden is saying that all other African-American candidates were not articulate, bright, etc.”
“But if you listen to the clips,” he continued, “Biden pauses significantly between ‘African-American’ and ‘who.’ So he could have meant (and almost certainly did): ‘I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.’”
Dean Dean Mills and I have had frequent run-ins over the serial comma, which he fervently believes in and I don’t. But this time, I’m on his side.
Biden was probably using African-American not as a noun, but, as Mills suggests, as an adjective, as in “the first mainstream African-American candidate” (though that, too, is open to interpretation). If the comma was spoken by Biden, but not included by his transcribers, the phrase “articulate and bright and clean” was a restrictive clause, meaning it applied only to Obama, and not to the body of African-Americans who came before him. That doesn’t mean he thought the other people were not “articulate and bright and clean”; it means he wasn’t speaking about them at all. (An even clearer way would have been “you got the first mainstream African-American candidate, and he is articulate and bright and clean.” But that would be changing the quotation, a definite no-no.) Without the comma, it was a nonrestrictive clause, meaning that it applied to every other African-American, and that he thought Obama was the first “articulate and bright and clean” African-American. That’s less likely.
It might be of little comfort to Biden to know about that comma now, given the kerfuffle that ensued over the actual words, but it could have saved him — and readers — a little bit of trouble.





Back in 2007, the linguist Mark Liberman analyzed the timing of Biden's speech and concluded, "[T]he Observer didn't choose poorly, they chose dishonestly. At least, the quote as they printed it, though it reproduced Biden's words in the order in which he said them (ignoring some false starts whose removal was normal and expected), was objectively dishonest as a representation of his meaning. [...] Senator Biden's word sequence corresponds to two different sentences with very different meanings, and the Observer misquoted him by omitting the comma."
Posted by Blake Stacey on Mon 25 Aug 2008 at 02:27 PM
My understanding is that Biden said he had been accurately quoted. Do you accept that that is true, Merrill? When looking back, if he was not sensitive enough to his language to see on his own the points you are making about the "spoken" comma, what makes you think he intended a comma in the first place?
Careless attachment of relative clauses is a mark of language insensitivity. Another is employment of the TOEFL, as at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. If professors of political science, including international relations, and of economics, and of geography, had a common professional organization with a strong analytical unit, partially to help focus on language issues, they might get somewhere in dealing with language insensitivity, which also infects lawyers in Delaware.
In the era of the corpus revolution in Linguistics, with the COBUILD English Grammar and the Longman Language Activator, we still have the SAT in America. It is no surprise then that politicians easily fall into linguistic traps. A sure sign of a babe in the woods in politics is a lack of alertness to ambiguity.
If a politician leaves it up to reporters to insert spoken commas in such cases as here he is asking for trouble. If Biden had jumped on the case immediately after the initial media reports and said--"Wait a minute, I spoke a comma there," then maybe we should have given him the benefit of the doubt.
In a case of this type, I doubt that water boarding is yet allowed. So we could just have taken his word for it. Also, when it later came to explaining exactly what he had meant, Biden showed reluctance, as if he were not sure himself.
At Sir Peter Stothard's TLS blog (on Supermac), appended to John Barry's thoughts, I noted in detail what needs to be done in the Washington zone to educate the youth so that they will be linguistically competent. Within ten years, I'm sure a lot will have changed.
Posted by Clayton Burns on Mon 25 Aug 2008 at 09:05 PM
Sir Peter Stothard TLS August 22, 2008:
See Georgia as a Supermac sees it
Posted by Clayton Burns on Mon 25 Aug 2008 at 09:44 PM
This is the evidence, if it remains unchallenged, that proves Biden did not have a grip on his "spoken comma:"
Biden Unwraps ’08 Bid With an Oops!
Posted by Clayton Burns on Mon 25 Aug 2008 at 11:02 PM