What have they got against eyes?

Consider the following notices, seen on various domestic products:

• Avoid contact with eyes
• Keep away from eyes
• Avoid getting into eyes
• Keep out of eyes
• Avoid eye area
• Always avoid the eyes

Now, what have they got against eyes? And who are they to tell me to keep away from them? As if that’s even possible! I mean, almost every single person I meet has got at least two of the bloody things!

Of course, I haven’t really  misunderstood these messages. I am interested by the fact that these messages are immediately understandable in the sense that they were intended, i.e. “keep this product away from your eyes” despite the fact that, out of context, they have a quite different meaning. Compare: Keep away from strangers. Avoid contact with aliens. Syntactically (that is, in terms of the structure of the sentence), these are the same as the messages on the domestic products. It is only context that allows us to get the intended meaning. But what is the context? The context is the mere fact that the message appears printed on a bottle. Is that not interesting? After all, if I were getting my eyes tested and I shouted “Keep away from eyes!” to the optician as I came into the room, he would interpret this as some sort of bad joke about the dangers of his profession. When he reads the very same words on a bottle of shampoo, he gets a different meaning. With only very minimal contextual information (e.g. the fact that this is some sort of domestic product), we can understand the intended meaning of an utterance immediately.

Now let’s analyse the following instruction, which I found on a cleaning spray:

• If product gets into eyes, rinse thoroughly with water

Linguistically speaking, we can say that the verb ‘to rinse’ is a transitive verb, which means that it requires a direct object: you have to rinse something; you can’t just “rinse”. (*“He went into the kitchen and rinsed” is ungrammatical; “He went into the kitchen and rinsed the plates” is grammatical, since we have specified “the plates” as the direct object of the verb.) In the imperative “rinse thoroughly with water”, there is no direct object, but the sentence is still grammatical because there is an implicit direct object. But what is it? There are several possibilities:

• If product gets into eyes, rinse [yourself] thoroughly with water
• If product gets into eyes, rinse [the product] thoroughly with water
• If product gets into eyes, rinse [your eyes] thoroughly with water

How do we know that the third one is the correct interpretation? We could postulate that it is because the most recently mentioned noun is “eyes” - but what about this example (also real):

• Avoid contact with eyes. If contact occurs, rinse thoroughly with clean water

The most recent noun here is “contact”, so the interpretation should be:

• Avoid contact with eyes. If contact occurs, rinse [the contact] thoroughly with clean water

Clearly this isn’t right. The correct interpretation depends on an implicit prepositional complement of “contact”:

• Avoid contact with eyes. If contact [of the product with these eyes] occurs, rinse [the aforesaid eyes] thoroughly with clean water

So we are capable of filling in omitted direct objects and prepositional complements across sentences. Great.

But consider the following instructions I found on a bottle of suntan lotion:

• Twist to open... Turn over and squeeze.

There is no preceding noun that we can refer to for the context! So, what do I twist? My nose? And then I turn over (OK, so I have to be lying down), and then I squeeze... what do I squeeze? My nose again? In fact, technically, the correct omitted direct objects are different:

• Twist [the cap] to open [the bottle]... Turn [the bottle] over and squeeze [the bottle]

Thus, our ability to work out the intended direct object does not depend on seeing the correct answer in the preceding sentence or clause – we can fill in the correct answer without even thinking about it, whether it is stated explicitly or not. And it’s not just direct objects – consider the following:

• Specially formulated > [This product is] specially formulated (omitted subject and verb)
• Subtle, fresh fragrance > [This product has a] subtle, fresh fragrance
• Leaves teeth sparkling clean > [This product] leaves teeth sparkling clean (omitted subject)
• If swallowed, seek medical advice immediately and show this container  > If [this product is] swallowed, seek medical advice immediately and show this container [to the doctor] (omitted indirect object)

The last example is quite interesting because it has a ditransitive verb, ‘to show’, which requires both a direct and an indirect object. When we show something, we don’t just show it, we show it to something or someone. Any omission of the indirect object (the thing/person you’re showing it to) implies that the indirect object can be worked out from the context. In this example, however, the preceding words do not tell us the answer:

• If [this product is] swallowed, seek medical advice immediately and show this container [to the medical advice? To the product?]

Compare:

• If [this product is] swallowed, find Dr. Finnigan immediately and show this container [to her]

Thus, the omitted complement may be either a noun that is previously mentioned or it may be something not mentioned at all.

Most of these ‘misinterpretations’ come from assigning the wrong object to the verb. In almost all cases, it is possible to assume that the object is the same as the subject, i.e. that the verb is reflexive: for example, “Keep [yourself] away from eyes” has misinterpreted the verb as reflexive. In other contexts, such an interpretation is valid.

I wondered whether other languages may be different, but the translations that I found on the various domestic products were usually very similar to the English in that they demanded that complements be determined from the context. One exception was where the Spanish translation of “avoid contact with eyes” was far more explicit:

• Evite que el producto entre en los ojos (literally: avoid that the product enters into the eyes)

Here are some more to ponder:

• "Do not swallow" (Right, so I’m not allowed to eat?)
• "Do not inhale" (Or breathe?!)
• "Keep away from children"
• "Keep out of the reach of children" (Well, children can be a handful at times, but it’s probably a bit extreme to avoid them completely isn’t it?)
• "Keep away from sources of ignition"
• "Do not pierce or burn"

This last one is amusing because “burn” can indeed be an intransitive verb, so “Do not burn” could legitimately mean “Do not be in a state of burning” or it could have an implicit object “Do not burn [yourself/this product]”.

• "Do not dispose of down the toilet"
• "Do not iron"
• "Do not dry clean"
• "Avoid contact with fabrics"
• "Reseal carefully after use to prevent drying out"
• "Keep upright" (So Sainsbury’s is on a campaign against people who slouch, is it?)
• "Place two heaped teaspoons into a mug. Fill with hot but not boiling water and stir well" (OK, I don’t know what a “heaped teaspoon” is, but I can put two teaspoons in a mug, sure.)

Having taken the advice of these products, I’m now going to give up swallowing, breathing, ironing, piercing and burning; I’m going to steer well clear of all children, eyes, sources of ignition and fabrics; and I shall remain upright at all times.