A computational linguist reads the menu

Dan Jurafsky of Stanford explains how menu prose aligns with prices, and ensures that you’ll never look at ‘chef’s choice’ the same way again.

|
Ann Hermes
Plates of grass-fed beef are served to guests at the dining hall on J Bar L Ranch in the Centennial Valley, near Lakeview, Montana.

I’m going to take another pass at Dan Jurafsky’s buffet. Last week I was distracted by the Stanford linguist’s history of ketchup in his recent book, “The Language of Food.” The book’s subtitle, though, “A Linguist Reads the Menu,” was what first caught my eye. Professor Jurafsky and his colleagues have brought the power of computational linguistics to bear on restaurant menus.

“Every time you read a description of a dish on a menu,” Jurafsky writes, “you are looking at all sorts of latent linguistic clues, clues about how we think about wealth and social class, how our society views our food, even clues about all sorts of things that restaurant marketers might not want us to know.”

The first lesson is “less is more.” At the pinnacles of gastronomy, Jurafsky reports, you don’t even get a menu; the chef makes all the decisions. That’s the case at “San Francisco’s most expensive restaurant,” not otherwise identified: The staff will gladly e-mail diners after the fact with a list of the dishes they have consumed, and presumably enjoyed. But as far as consumer choice goes, you had more of it in the old days of the “chicken or beef?” query from the flight attendant as she trundled her trolley down the aisle at 35,000 feet.

Once you actually get a menu, higher numbers of options correlate with lower prices overall. Jurafsky cites the work of linguist Robin Lakoff in pointing out that inexpensive restaurants have, on average, twice as many dishes as expensive restaurants. And the more expensive a restaurant is, the likelier it is for an individual dish to involve a “chef’s choice” or a “chef’s selection.” Down-market, though, phrases like “your way” or “your choice” are more common. It would seem that Louie at the grill does not feel his creative impulses crimped if you ask for your eggs fried, with broken yolks.

But the minimalist menus of high-end restaurants can go maximalist with the prose. When there are just a few things on the menu, diners get to read a lot about them, sometimes down to the name of the farm the ingredients came from, and in the case of meat and poultry, the critters’ diet. Jurafsky reminds “Portlandia” fans of the episode in which two obsessive locavores pondering options in a restaurant impulsively drop their menus and go visit the farm where their prospective dinner was raised.

And it’s not just more words per menu item; it’s more syllables. Middle-market establishments offer “side dishes,” or “sides.” But high-end restaurants serve “accompaniments,” Jurafsky notes; and exotic foreign words abound. 

Jurafsky describes a study he and his colleagues did, using customized computer software, on the prices listed for 650,000 dishes in a data set of 6,500 menus. Controlling for factors such as type of food (steakhouses have different costs from pasta restaurants) and restaurant location, the researchers found that “every increase of one letter in the average length of words describing a dish is associated with an increase of 18 cents in the price of that dish!”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A computational linguist reads the menu
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Verbal-Energy/2015/0212/A-computational-linguist-reads-the-menu
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe