In Dan Piraro's cartoon, two birds are enjoying each other's company, and one asks another if they "can talk". This image is funny because the bird could be asking a multitude of questions:
- Do you and I have time to talk right now; there's something on my mind.
- Are we physically able to speak?
- Does our opinion matter?
This is due to lexical ambiguity: Ambiguity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The word that is ambiguous in this question is "can".
The first interpretation is often found in personal interactions in which one person would like to confide in, or spend time with another person.
The second interpretation questions the state of being that the speaker is taking part in. This one is is very ironic since the bird "speaks" in order to ask if he can speak. Since the bird is already talking, the obvious answer to this one would be, "well, duh you can speak!". It has a similar effect to someone asking if they can breath. This one, in my opinion, is the funniest aspect to the cartoon.
The third interpretation follows a social line of thought. It can be a commentary of the birds, though obviously able to speak, (and who may have been "speaking" this whole time to humans) can not be understood by them, and are therefore being ignored. The birds might then begin to question their importance in the societal chain due to this impudence.
With all the different ways people can be interpreted after saying just one sentence, I can begin to understand why we have so many misunderstandings! However, I believe tone is the key factor in making yourself understood clearly.
