Jump to content
Urch Forums

Antecedents


Recommended Posts

Erin or 800Bob,

 

Finding an antecedent can sometimes be confusing. 800Bob wrote something helpful and then he gave OG examples, he wrote:

 

It is an oversimplification to state the rule as: "A pronoun will refer to the nearest eligible noun." More important than proximity is salience. The rule should be stated more realistically as: "A pronoun will refer to a nearby eligible prominent noun." Most prominent nouns, such as the antecedents in the above examples, are subjects.

 

My question for Erin 800Bob or whoever is knowledgeable enough: Does who or which preceded by a comma refer to the nearest eligible noun? I know this contradicts 800Bob's instructions, but the reason I ask is that question #51 in OG 10th Ed. states:

 

While Jackie Robinson was a Brooklyn Dodger, his courage in the face of physical threats and verbal attacks was not unlike Rosa Parks, who refused to move to the back of a bus...

 

In this sentence OG doesn't regard 'who' as ambigous, despite the subject from the preceding clause being Jackie Robinson.

 

Or take this made up example: The book and guitar, which was bought last night, were antiques. Is 'which' ambiguous here or does it refer to guitar?

 

800 Bob while you're online I thought I would repost this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the correct rule however I have comment on your made up example. Is the sentence "The book and guitar, which was bought last night, were antiques" correct? Shouldn't the sentence be "The book and the guitar that was bought last night, were antiques". I might be wrong but just wondering.

 

Also "While Jackie Robinson was a Brooklyn Dodger, his courage in the face of physical threats and verbal attacks was not unlike Rosa Parks, who refused to move to the back of a bus..." in this sentence, I think "who" clearly refer to Rosa Parks, noway it can refer to Jackie Robinson. Again please correct me if I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your first question, "Shouldn't the sentence be "The book and the guitar that was bought last night..." It depends on what the writer's intention is. If the fact that it was bought last night is not essential to the sentence i.e. a non-restrictive clause, then 'which' can be used, if however that information is essential to the sentence because it is pertinent because there are other guitars then 'that' would be more appropriate.

 

I think 'who' clearly refers to Rosa Parks as well, but 800Bob said that most of the time a pronoun refers to the subject of the preceding clause, the subject of the preceding clause is 'his', which refers to Jackie Robinson, so I guess that's my point... when does it refer to the subject of the preceding clause and when does it not. Also, is there a different rule for the pronouns 'which', 'who' and 'that' preceded by comma for the first two (which and who). Do the three always refer to the nearest available noun preceding them? Antecedents are tricky, and unless there is some methodology to determining the antecedent, whether it be -- the antecedent must be clear -- or something else, I and a lot of others will continue to struggle with them. What makes the subject so confusing is in OG they sometimes state that the pronound refers to something clearly despite their being other "available" nouns and sometimes they state that the problem with the sentence is ambiguity. I think a lot of readers would benefit to the answer to this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Or take this made up example: The book and guitar, which was bought last night, were antiques. Is 'which' ambiguous here or does it refer to guitar?
This is actually a very good example to use for antecedents. If we were to parse sentences only mathematically, i.e., according to strict rules, your sentence could be defended; however, in the real world, your sentence would likely be considered ambiguous, if only because the attentive listener would assume a high probability that the speaker had erred in her or his utterance. In other words, your sentence is correct, but since most (or all?) people do not follow the rules, it would be assumed to be ambiguous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
This is actually a very good example to use for antecedents. If we were to parse sentences only mathematically, i.e., according to strict rules, your sentence could be defended; however, in the real world, your sentence would likely be considered ambiguous, if only because the attentive listener would assume a high probability that the speaker had erred in her or his utterance. In other words, your sentence is correct, but since most (or all?) people do not follow the rules, it would be assumed to be ambiguous.

 

Erin, for GMAT purposes what would be correct? Excluding the following exceptions: when the preceding noun is an object of an infinitive, gerund or other verb form. I think it's important to have rules and their exceptions. I do agree with you Erin that it is important to identify the emphasis as you put in the link on the bottom of this post, but when in doubt...

 

Erin or 800Bob, I read recently that appositives should also agree with the immediately preceding noun, is this correct for the GMAT if the preceding noun is not within a prepositional phrase (if that makes a difference) or when the nearest available noun is an object to a gerund or infinitive or any other verb form?

 

Erin examples:

  • Eating raw vegetables, which I rarely do, is often recommended but rarely practiced. (closest noun is the object of the gerund)
  • Her need to outdo everybody, which I found quite annoying, led both to her outward success and to her characteristic sense of failure. (closest noun is the object of the infinitive)

Also, for all of these rules I am only referring to pronouns that are immediately after a comma. I cannot find a OG question that violets the aforementioned rules when the pronoun is immediately after a comma.

 

Thanks for all the help.

 

Here's another link that is helpful on this subject: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15414&page=2

 

Regarding your post Erin referenced in the link above -- thank you. I think that it would be great to explain what makes something have "weight" and what does not. For example, in the post found in the your (Erin) link, examples of what does not have weight were: prepositional phrases (the cars in the lot that are dirty), possesive nouns (a friend of Joe's), and objects of infinitives and gerunds (see above).

 

I want to keep the dialogue going so that readers can be as well prepared in finding antecedents or referents as possible. Anyone looking up the subject 'Antecedent' can refer to this link.

 

Thank you both for your help on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or take this made up example: The book and guitar, which was bought last night, were antiques. Is 'which' ambiguous here or does it refer to guitar?
This sentence is really more of a grammar conundrum than a GMAT question, and such contrived constructions do not appear on the GMAT. (I seem to recall seeing one or two on very old (1980s?) tests, though.)

 

There are other contrived constructions that exist to highlight an inadequacy of English grammar. One I was curious about some years ago was:

  • She gave it to me, who am her student. (relative clause used to modify an object with the relative pronoun of the relative clause as the subject of a be-verb)

Another I've seen while browsing the alt.usage.english newsgroup:

  • Everybody was blowing his/her/their nose(s). (How to make pronouns agree with a pronoun that is grammatically singular, but connotes plural?)

If I had to render a judgment on your sentence, I'd have to say it needs to be rewritten simply because of the human element involved in parsing the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From OG

97. Iguanas have been an important food source in Latin America since prehistoric times, and they are still prized as game animals by the campesinos....

The pronoun “they” refers to “iguanas,” not to the nearest plural noun “times.”

103. Students in the metropolitan school district are so lacking in math skills that it will be difficult to absorb them into a city economy.... à The pronoun “them” refers to “students,” not to the nearest plural noun “skills.”

113. 1,000SC>Analysts blamed May’s sluggish retail sales on unexciting merchandise as well as the weather, which was colder and wetter than usual in some regions, slowing sales of barbecue grills and lawn furniture. à The pronoun “which” refers to “weather”, not to the subject of the preceding clause “Analysts.”

114. 1,000SC> As the price of gasoline rises, making an attractive substitution of alcohol distilled from cereal grain the prices of bread and livestock feed are sure to increase. The clause ‘making an attractive…’ refers to “price” not “gasoline rises”. If ‘which’ was added the sentence would have referred to “gasoline rises”.

153. A recording system was so secretly installed and operated in the Kennedy Oval Office that even Theodore C. Sorensen, the White House counsel, did not know it existed. à The pronoun “it” refers to “system,” not to the nearest singular noun “Office.”

159. While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for homeowners... à The pronoun “they” refers to “values,” not to the nearest eligible noun “investors.”

251. The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than when.... à The pronoun “its” refers to “gyrfalcon,” not to the nearest singular noun “extinction.”

289. 1,000SC> Executives and federal officials say that the use of crack and cocaine is growing rapidly among workers, significantly compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, which already are a cost to business of more than $100 billion a year.

(B) significantly compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, which already cost business (B is correct)

© significantly compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, already with business costs of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all these follows the rules given by 800Bob

 

Relative pronoun (that, who, which) agree with the immediately preceding noun.

 

Subject and object pronouns (it, they, them) agree with the subject of the preceding clause or sentence

though i am not sure how B is the correct answer in the last question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bob/Erin/gschmilinsky,

 

Just wanna know pronouns like it, they etc must always agree with subject of previous clause or sentence or can it also agree with the object ?

Ex John eats too many sweets because he like them very much.(offcourse not the best example but it just came on mind)

 

He -> John

them->sweets (object)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bob/Erin/gschmilinsky,

 

Just wanna know pronouns like it, they etc must always agree with subject of previous clause or sentence or can it also agree with the object ?

Ex John eats too many sweets because he like them very much.(offcourse not the best example but it just came on mind)

 

He -> John

them->sweets (object)

 

Clearly Bob and Erin are the experts, but I thought I would take a stab at your example. First, notice that in the example you gave you have "he like them," so them is the object of the verb like, and he is a subject pronoun. Secondly, I think Erin and Bob would say that you look first to subject to see if it makes logical sense, then to the object. The plural them does not agree with the singular John. He, however does agree with John, therefore he refers to John. Them agrees with the object sweets.

 

Bottom line, yes object/subject pronouns such as it, they, him, her, them, etc. can agree with the subject or the object of the clause, in the example you gave; however it's clear that them is the object of the verb like and refers to sweets.

 

though i am not sure how B is the correct answer in the last question

 

In B, which refers to alcohol abuse i.e. alocohol abuse cost business...

 

In C I believe, already with business costs of refers to the effects i.e. the effects already with business costs of . The original sentence: A) 'significantly compounding the effects of drug and alchohol abuse, which already are a cost to business of," meant for alcohol abuse to be the what costs business.

 

Erin, I would love to hear your thoughts since this example seems to be similar (in my opinion) to my contrived example. My guess is Bob or Erin have another reason that eliminates C that I am not thinking of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

gschmilinsky/bob/Erin ,

 

Can you please add to this thread abt, with what these pronouns can be used like

 

who - people, not with things

whose - both with people and things

which - with things

that - with things

 

please add to this list...it will be really helpful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Regarding participial phrases and clauses -- which GMAC seems to test often:

 

I went back through every underline participial phrase or clause in OG10 and many referred to the nearest noun. Good examples in OG10 are: 179 explanations D&E, 191, explanation D, 212 explanation A, 222 explanation A. There is, of course, exceptions to participials attaching to the nearest nouns, but the exceptions seem to be less frequent as they are with relative pronouns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gschmilinsky,

u said tht participial phrase or clause attaches to nearest noun but why in this 120@OG 10 , OG explnation for choice E goes as " establishing and using modify Athens, thus

producing an absurd statement "

 

The Parthenon was a church from 1204 until 1456, when Athens was taken by General Mohammed the

Conqueror, the Turkish sultan, who established a mosque in the building and used the Acropolis as a

fortress.

(A) who established a mosque in the building and used the Acropolis as

(B) who, establishing a mosque in the building, used the Acropolis like

© who, when he had established a mosque in the building, used the Acropolis like

(D) who had established a mosque in the building, using the Acropolis to be

(E) establishing a mosque in the building and using the Acropolis as

 

establishing in E should refer to 'the turkish sultan' ??

 

pls clarify or this is an exception to the rule which u have told us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gschmilinsky,

u said tht participial phrase or clause attaches to nearest noun but why in this 120@OG 10 , OG explnation for choice E goes as " establishing and using modify Athens, thus producing an absurd statement "

 

establishing in E should refer to 'the turkish sultan' ?

 

pls clarify or this is an exception to the rule which u have told us.

dileepsh, the explanations in the back of OG10 for participials phrases usually but not always state the phrase refers to a nearby noun, for example in OG10 problems: 222, 212, 226, 179, 185, 191, 146, 121 all have the nearby noun as the referent. Some examples showing otherwise include: 120 (which I don't understand) and 210 (which I do understand).

 

The example that you gave OG10 #120 is one of the aforementioned exceptions that I don't understand myself. I'm not sure how GMAC came up with Athens as the antecedent for that question. If anyone could explain the logic behind that antecedent I would be greatful.

 

On an ancillary note Problem 39 in OG10 is another exception, but one that I understand. In 39 the correct choice C according to the explanation refers to "shields". Here's the full sentence with the correct answer inserted:

 

For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears.

 

As explained by OG, the phrase "protecting warriors..." refers to shields, but in my opinion that makes sense because the noun phrase "essential items of military equipment" is preceded by the word "were", so essentially "shields" is equated to "essential items of military equipment"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey thats a too good Observation .gschmilinsky

Here ,I have few doubts .Iam sure u can clarify it to a extend ..

 

1.When is "That" in a sentence treated as a Subordinating conjuction and the Sentence as Subordinate clause.I have never seen anywhere this being tested .Yet,I like to be equiped. ;-)

 

2.Is participle phrase =noun phrase.

 

3.Rather Than conjuction is used to join noun phrase or verb or conjuction.

 

4.I like to clarify my understanding on : "Instead of" is a preposition -a noun should precede it or can start a sentence .

 

5.Not/But correlative .In the below stated smt,which is prefered..

was not produced by X but was produced by Y

or

was not produced by X ,but produced by Y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...