PSAT Glitch (fwd)

[Peter Richardson]

Perhaps one last contribution on this now well-worn subject, from a
colleague here:

Would that this were the major pronoun-antecedent problem I face in my
students' writing!  But it is one that has always interested and bothered
me.  I tend to accept the "context" guideline, with some restrictions and
reservations.  It can't just be the "well, everyone knows what he means"
kind of context, for that line of argument leads ultimately to the
disappearance of much correct and good usage.  But "Toni Morrison's" IS a
noun according to our grammar even though it has modifying properties; so I
reluctantly accept this usage as correct by the context rule.  However, I
do want to call attention to the ambiguity here.  "Genius," the noun
closest to the pronoun, strives to usurp the role of antecedent, as all
nouns so placed do.  Therefore, one might understandably speculate about
just who Toni Morrison's genius is, and how closely she and Toni consult on
Toni's novels:

"Toni Morrison's genius enables her to create novels that arise from and
express the injustice African Americans have endured."

I don't accept the accompanying analysis that essentially argues there's no
clearer way to express the idea.  His argument about the ambiguity of "the
writer" applies just as well to "genius."  Do what all good writers do:
Just write around it.  This information doesn't have to appear in a single
sentence.  However, the point is not whether the writer might have done
better, but whether the sentence as written on the PSAT should be
considered correct.  It should not have appeared on the PSAT.  But it did,
and it should be scored as correct.  The high school sophomore who is ready
to ponder the ambiguities of a possessive case noun serving as an
antecedent does not exist.  But if she does, I hope she comes to Linfield.