Again with the pronouns. And again with the quick review:
Pronoun: a word
that stands in for a noun or noun phrase. We’ve focused on proper pronouns such as he,
she, it, we, and they as well as possessive pronouns such as his,
her, its, our, or their.
Antecedent: the
word that the pronoun replaces. Tamara
could be the antecedent to she, for
instance, or the magicians’ could be
the antecedent to their.
We’ve discussed how important it is to ensure that it’sclear which noun is the antecedent to each pronoun you use. There are few
things as confusing to a reader as not knowing which of your female cast
members you’re referring to when you say she.
One of the most common causes of confusion in regards to
pronouns and antecedents is an old, oft-ignored rule: a possessive noun cannot function as an antecedent. Here’s an
example of this rule being broken:
Violet’s eyes
were always downcast because she was so afraid of confrontation.
In that example, she is
the pronoun, and it is clear that the she
being spoken of is Violet. The only problem is that the word Violet never appeared in the sentence—the
word Violet’s did. Why does that
matter? Well, because pronouns take the place of nouns, and Violet’s isn’t actually a noun. It’s an
adjective describing eyes, the actual
noun and subject of the sentence. So technically, the pronoun she is referring back to a noun that
doesn’t exist. It’s a problem called a possessive
antecedent.
Now, I called this a “problem,” but the fact of the matter
is that this is extremely common in both written and spoken English. Everyone
does this at some point or another, sometimes very frequently. The reason this
error is so common is that it isn’t confusing—look back at that example
sentence again. When you read it, were you ever confused about who she referred to? No. You knew that she meant “Violet.”
So while that sentence is technically grammatically
incorrect, it’s not that big of a problem. If I were your editor, I would make
you fix this sort of error, but many editors probably wouldn’t care about it.
You can fix these if you want to go the extra mile.
However. There are two situations where the possessive antecedent should always be fixed. The first is when there is another possible
antecedent in the sentence with it:
Gregorii plunged
the knife into Pavel’s leg, making him
grunt.
This is similar to the problem we discussed in part one of
this pronoun series—if there are two subjects in one sentence to whom the pronoun
could refer, your readers can’t be
positive which subject you meant. In the example above, it’s pretty clear that
Pavel is the one grunting; but grammatically speaking, the only noun in the
sentence is Gregorii. Try to avoid
this situation. Here is a revised version:
Gregorii plunged
the knife into Pavel’s leg and twisted it viciously. Pavel merely grunted.
The second situation is when the possessive you're referring back to is describing a noun that could also be described by the pronoun. For instance:
Terrel's son was happy and well-adjusted because he was such a great dad.
Who is he? Is Terrel's son happy because Terrel is a great dad? Because this sentence actually says that Terrel's son is happy because he is a great father to his own, unmentioned son (Terrel's grandson).
The sentence is so vague that it could imply either of these situations. Writers should be more precise than that. |
If you wanted to convey that Terrel was the great dad, then you need to rephrase the sentence to something like this:
Terrel was a great dad, so his son was happy and well-adjusted.
For more information on pronouns and the confusion they can
cause, check out Part One and Part Two of this series.
No comments:
Post a Comment