The power of images / Images of Power

Grammer Police

Adverbial placement in the oath flub

January 20, 2009 @ 2:03 pm · Filed by Benjamin Zimmer under Errors, Language and politics, Speech-acts

Chief Justice John Roberts' administration of the presidential oath to Barack Obama was far from smooth. Early reports differ in saying who stumbled: NBC andABC say the flub was Roberts', while the AP says it was Obama's. I think both men were a bit nervous, and the error that emerged from their momentary disfluency came down to a problem of adverbial placement.

The Constitution gives the oath as:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Here is the transcript as given by NBC and ABC:

ROBERTS:  Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?
OBAMA:  I am.
ROBERTS:  I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA:  I, Barack…
ROBERTS:  … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA:  I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS:  … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA:  … that I will execute…
ROBERTS:  … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA:  … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS:  … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA:  … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS:  … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA:  … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS:  So help you God?
OBAMA:  So help me God.
ROBERTS:  Congratulations, Mr. President.

In the embedded clause of the oath, the adverb faithfully is properly positioned after the auxiliary will (1). If you miss the adverb as it is placed in the official wording, you have two more chances for inserting it in a coherent fashion: placingfaithfully after the verb execute (2) or placing it at the end of the clause (3):

that I will 1 execute 2 the office of President of the United States 3

Roberts does indeed miss his opportunity to put faithfully in position 1, perhaps thrown by Obama repeating the opening phrase of the oath earlier than he expected. In Roberts' first attempt, faithfully ends up in clause-final position 3. Obama seems to realize that the placement is wrong, but repeats the first part of the clause all the way through to the verb: that I will execute. There's no possibility of getting faithfully back to position 1 at this point, but Roberts gets as close as he can by placing it in position 2, immediately after the verb, in his second attempt. Obama ignores the self-repair, however, and ends up repeating the misplaced version that Roberts originally supplied, with faithfully in clause-final position 3.

From the perspective of speech act theory and performativity, we could go on to consider whether felicity conditions failed for this particular speech act, since the wording was not actually the official one. But the question is moot: the oath is not actually performative, since Barack Obama became president immediately after 12 noon (before Roberts had even started to administer the oath), as several network commentators observed. And Jan Crawford Greenberg of ABC provides a historical precedent:

It's worth pointing out that Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had been President himself, also flubbed the oath when he was swearing in Herbert Hoover in 1929. When Taft administered the oath, he said, "preserve, maintain and defend the Constitution," instead of "preserve, PROTECT, and defend." So where Roberts flipped a couple of words, Taft substituted an entirely new one.

There was one other minor slip-up on Roberts' part: in his first run-through of the embedded clause, he got a preposition wrong, saying "I will execute the office of president to the United States," rather than of. A less noticeable speech error, but nonetheless the type of thing that happens when one speaks from memory without written prompts, as Roberts apparently did.

[Update, 9:30 pm: Obama was just asked about the oath flub on ABC in a brief backstage interview at the Neighborhood Ball.

Robin Roberts: During the taking the oath of office, Chief Justice Roberts inadvertently switched some words up. You were trying to help him out there a little bit, it seemed, with your look.

Pres. Obama: Oh, listen, I think we're, uh, we're up there, we've got a lot of stuff on our minds, and he actually I think helped me out on a couple of, uh, stanzas there. So overall I think it went relatively smoothly and I'm very grateful to him.

We've all had a first day

From today's New York Times

Reporting for Duty | 9:33 a.m. President Obama reported to work at 8:35 a.m. on Wednesday, walking into the Oval Office for the first time as the nation’s chief executive.

He read the note left behind by George W. Bush, which was sitting in a folder on top of the desk, with a note marked “44.” Mr. Obama was in the office alone for a brief time, aides said, starting his day after a late night celebrating and dancing at inaugural balls across Washington.

So the new White House is officially opened for business, but it feels more like a start-up than the seat of government.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs is not holding a briefing on Wednesday, aides said, deciding to delay his first official briefing until Thursday. Why? Most members of his staff have been waiting outside to be allowed onto the White House grounds.

Mr. Obama, who is on his way to a prayer service at the National Cathedral, has a series of meetings coming up with this economic advisers and the Joint Chiefs. He also will preside over the Cabinet swearing-in ceremony for seven members of his Cabinet who were confirmed on Tuesday by the Senate.

The Improbable Journey

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Finally!

Yes He Can

Tens of thousands of words have been written on what the Obama Presidency might mean and tens of thousands more will be written in the next one hundred days. However, I don't believe that any will be more powerful, more succinct and more prescient than Andrew Sullivan's article in Sunday's Time of London. Sullivan's cover story in The Atlantic, over fourteen months ago, laid out the predicate for the Obama campaign. This article is the predicate for the Obama Presidency. This today's must read.  A brief quote:

The baby-boomer generation, reared and suckled on post-Vietnam divides, staged their battles like bitter spouses after years of a failed marriage who never really planned on divorce. Now, with this first post-boomer politician, the children who witnessed their parents’ endless fighting have taken over. And it’s the children who seem like adults.

Finally a worthwhile question at a Senate Hearing

Voices of Hope

As we prepare for Obama's Inauguration, as viewed through the lens of our nations current problems, the hope that he represents can best be represented by both Lincoln and Martin Luther King.  Both of them, in their time, personified the hope we need now.

Last Sunday, when asked about his own Inaugural Address, Obama spoke almost in awe of Lincoln's second Inaugural, one of the greatest speeches in our nations history.  On Monday we also celebrate Martin Luther King, whose "I Have A Dream" speech paved the way for the history that will unfold on Tuesday.

Two new books capture the essence of both Lincoln and King and emphasise the power of their rhetoric.  Ronald White's A. Lincoln: A Biography and Eric Sundquist's King's Dream both vividly capture watershed moments in our nations history.

My conversation with Ronald White:

My conversation with Eric Sundquist:

A legacy of grass roots politics

The grass roots efforts of the Obama campaign did not spring anew. In fact, the chant "Yes We Can," ("Si Se Puede"), the efforts at voter outreach and so many other movement techniques were born of the efforts of Cesar Chevez and the United Farm Workers.  In fact, the UFW was the era's leading incubator of young activist talent, creating alumni who would play crucial roles in progressive campaigns.  All of this is laid out in a new book by Randy Shaw entitled Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW, and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century.

My Conversation with Randy Shaw:

Middle East change we can believe in

Roger Cohen has a must read op-ed in today's New York Times. He proposes change we can really believe in for Obama's Middle East policy.  Money quote:

It seems that among liberal democracies, it is only in the U.S .Congress that a defense against terror that results in the slaying of hundreds of Palestinian children is not cause for agonized soul-searching. In my view, such Israeli “defense” has crossed the line.

A World of Trouble

As we watch the Obama Inauguration set against the international backdrop of the war in Gaza, it's important to remember that every administration since Eisenhower has been tested by events in the Middle East.  The 1956 seizure of the Suez Canal, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1987 Intifada, the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, the First Gulf War, the second Intifada and finally the invasion of Iraq, have all taken their toll on this country and its leaders.  Patrick Tyler, who has reported from both the Middle East and Washington for the New York Times and The Washington Post provides a panoramic history of this period in his new book A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East--from the Cold War to the War on Terror. It's a history we ignore at our own peril.

My conversation with Patrick Tyler:

Is Caroline being discriminated against?

Sarah Palin is questioning whether Caroline Kennedy is getting better treatment from the press in her bid for a Senate seat from New York. Palin told conservative radio host John Ziegler, "It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be."

It's not an issue of class, but of intelligence. Whether Caroline should be appointed to the Senate or not, she is a graduate of Harvard and Columbia Law and is an educated and accomplished woman.

Lisa Belkin, in her New York Times Magazine story last week, makes the case that it is Caroline who, as a mother going back into the workplace, that is being discriminated against.

My Conversation with Lisa Belkin:

The future of Newspapers

We've all heard the horror stories about the state of the dead tree newspaper business.  Even the New York Times is vulnerable.  A must read from Michael Hirschorn in the Atlantic.

The thinking goes that the existing brands—The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal—will be the ones making that transition, challenged but still dominant as sources of original reporting.  But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if TheNew York Times goes out of business—like, this May?

Senators in glass houses

Al Giordano explains exactly why Panetta is a great choice and why Feinstein is throwing stones from a glass house.  Money quote:

And if Feinstein et al really do try to head it off at the pass and deny Panetta's nomination, all the new president has to do is gather up some of the documents about illegal activities at the CIA - Drugs, anyone? Attempted coups? Illegal domestic surveillance? - in recent years that will be newly available to him on January 20, leak those documents to the press, cause a storm of controversy (and some Pulitzer Prizes to boot), have the new Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair, Senator Kerry, call for public hearings (reminiscent of his Iran-Contra and BCCI investigations), and, voila, place Feinstein and friends - and those who are behind them in this - in checkmate.

Paging Steve Jobs

The hot new product from Apple.  
Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

An inspired choice

I think the choice of Panetta at the CIA is brilliant. Obama needs someone their to watch his back.  (If only JFK had made such a choice.)   The fact that Feinstein and Rockefeller are skeptical only serves to reaffirm the brilliance of the choice. They both have blood on their hands for their lack of oversight of the Bush policies. Scott Horton in Harper's is spot on. Money quote:

I think the choices are not merely good, but inspired, and I see the friction with Feinstein and Rockefeller as a plus rather than a minus. The selection of Admiral Blair, a tough retired Naval intelligence professional, quite appropriately puts the key coordinating position for the intelligence community in the hands of a non-political figure who commands uniform respect among its rank-and-file. On the other hand, Panetta has no experience in the intelligence community—he would be a fresh face. He has gathered broad respect for his managerial competence and for his ability as a legislator. He acquitted himself ably as chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton, even in rough sailing.

What really went wrong

The best must read on our current financial crisis. The always insightful Michael Lewis of Liar's Poker fame, outdoes his Portfolio piece and goes one step further in his New York Times Op Ed.

The most stressful day of the year. You ought to have a tantrum.

London's Daily Mail reports that the end of the holidays, cold weather and economic gloom will make today one of the most stressful days of the year for returning to work. But experts have come up with an unlikely remedy - throwing a tantrum. Releasing tension through shouting and screaming is a really beneficial way to expel the negative energies caused by stress,' said body language expert Judi James.

Experts say throwing a tantrum can help people deal with stress 'When stress threatens to overwhelm you, try a short sustained burst of shouting, or alternatively, go somewhere quiet, close your eyes and take a few deep breaths to help calm you down.'

The advice comes as a survey reveals that people are most likely to be irritated by colleagues eating noisily (28 per cent), sniffing (26 per cent), talking too loudly on the phone (21 per cent) and even singing (5 per cent). Researchers found only one in ten prefer to sit quietly to combat tension, while more than a third admitted to having tantrums.

Our blind loyalty to Israel

Glen Greenwald makes the point that Democratic AND Republican leaders are in sync with each other but hopelessly out of sync with voters on Israel. Money quote:

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?  More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

My conversation with Mearsheimer & Walt regarding their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy