For those of us who like to troll the waters of ambiguous language, one of the most rewarding angles (in a manner of speaking) is to read descriptions on product packaging. While those who do the layout for packaging are generally more intentional about their use of ambiguity, this skill isn’t a job requirement for those who write copy for the ingredient list.
So let’s check out my bag of Corn Puffs from Nature’s Path Certified Organic. I’m celiac (DH) so I always check to make sure there’s no gluten in the products I buy. I’m looking for things like wheat, wheat flour, barley, malt.
Here’s the long list of ingredients in a package of Corn Puffs: Organic whole corn. “Great!” I think. Then I notice the line underneath. “This product is produced in a plant that contains wheat.”
How the heck can you get a corn puff from a plant that contains wheat? Immediately, I imagine stalks of corn somehow grafted onto wheat, like a GMO—a frankenfood—a genetic freak. Then I take another look at the word “plant.” Oh, they’re talking about the place where they make and package the corn puffs.
At least that’s what I hope, because I ate a bowl of them this morning for breakfast. They’re bland as dirt but at least I’m not breaking out in rash.
This is yet another illustration of why the notion of literalism is incoherent. Meaning is necessarily unstable because the context (on which their meaning depends) is something that doesn’t inhere in the words.