PSAT Glitch

[Dave Wilton]

It is correct in my book. There is no grammatical rule that requires a
pronoun's antecedent be stated in the same sentence. (Such a rule would
eliminate most of the reason for having pronouns.) The antecedent is not
"Toni Morrison's," rather it is indeed "Toni Morrison," only that antecedent
is either implied or presumably stated in an earlier sentence.

It helps to isolate the problem by eliminating the parts of the sentence
that are not relevant to the question at hand. Recast the sentence as:

"Toni Morrison's genius enables her to write well."

Taken as a single sentence I suppose a pedant could claim the "her" is
ambiguous, possibly referring to any female writer, but it presumably
wouldn't be ambiguous when included within a paragraph. And even in
isolation, the antecedent of "her" is easily deduced from the
context--genius is not a transferrable property. Otherwise, it is a
perfectly acceptable English sentence.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society
> [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf
> Of Baker, John
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:22 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: PSAT Glitch
>
>
>         In today's Washington Post, there is an article about
> a purported error in the PSAT (which I believe is the
> Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test).  Educational Testing
> Service came under fire for scoring the following sentence as
> free of grammatical errors:  "Toni Morrison's genius enables
> her to create novels that arise from and express the
> injustice African Americans have endured."
>
>         The question is not whether "injustice" should be
> "injustices"; the Post made the word plural in its account,
> apparently inadvertently.  Rather, the question is whether
> "her" is used correctly when its antecedent is the adjective
> "Toni Morrison's."  A Maryland high school journalism teacher
> named Kevin Keegan argues that this is incorrect.  The
> Washington Post article is online at
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51947-2003May13.html
>
>         Keegan's rule (for which there apparently is support
> in some but not all grammar manuals) strikes me as difficult
> to defend.  I can see no way to recast the sentence without
> worsening it.  "Toni Morrison's genius enables Toni Morrison
> . . ." is awkward, while "Toni Morrison's genius enables the
> writer . . ." is ambiguous because "the writer" may not be
> Toni Morrison.  Toni Morrison could be, for ought that
> sentence tells us, a literary agent or a prior writer like
> Shakespeare.
>
>         Keegan's view is not supported by the online
> dictionaries I have at hand.  The OED says a pronoun is used
> "when that which is referred to is known from context or
> usage, has been already mentioned or indicated, or, being
> unknown, is the subject or object of inquiry."
> Merriam-Webster says a pronoun's "referents are named or
> understood in the context."  American Heritage says a pronoun
> "designates persons or things asked for, previously
> specified, or understood from the context."
>
>         Any thoughts?
>
>
> John M. Baker
>