Cool malapropism/eggcorn

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Dennis Preston wrote:

> This "which" clause will not dangle or float if one substitutes
> "determine" for "do." Isn't it possible that the spaker's short-term
> memory lost track of the fact that that verb (or some other) was not
> already uttered in the preceding? ("...whether or not WE HAVE
> DETERMINED if there's been a...")

yes.  the problem is really with the antecedent of "what the
investigation will do", not with the larger non-restrictive relative
beginning with "which".

> I'm not denying that unattached "which" clauses are out there, but we
> need to be careful in identifying the "real" ones and the processing
> lapses.

i've been meaning to post to the Language Log about a collection of
phenomena that are routinely castigated in usage manuals as involving
"vague pronoun reference".  among them are final non-restrictive
relative clauses that are intended to refer to the situation denoted
by a preceding VP or clause, as in

(1) Some managers focus only on short-term profit, which can lower
the quality of the product or service. (Cazort, Under the Grammar
Hammer (1997), p. 23 -- an example given to illustrate violation of
his Rule 15)

i've been calling these "summative" non-restrictives.  there are also
summative participials:

(2) ... I am severely claustrophobic.  When I go to a theater, I sit
on the aisle.  I am petrified of tunnels, making most train travel as
well as many drives difficult.
   (Allen Shawn, quoted by Janet Malcolm in a revew of Shawn’s
memoir, NYRB 2/15/07, p. 4)

then there are summative demonstratives:

(3) I  am petrified of tunnels.  That/This makes most train travel as
well as many drives difficult.

and indefinite uses of "they":

(4) They are tearing up the street outside my house.

examples like (1), (3), and (4) have been labeled as unacceptable in
one handbook or another, as having vague pronoun reference (MWDEU
disputes this for (4)), and examples like (2) have been labeled as
unacceptable because of a dangling modifier.  i've always been
puzzled by this advice, especially when i look at the alternatives
offered.  for (1), Cazort offers

(1') ..., a practice that can lower...

similar fixes for (2) and (3) (i'll leave (4) for another day, and
stick to the summatives):

(2')  ... I am petrified of tunnels, a fact that makes...

(3')  I am petrified of tunnels.  That/This fact makes...

now, these revisions are in no way less vague than the originals.  in
(1)-(3) you have to find a discourse referent for a pronoun, or for
the missing subject in (2) (a sort of "zero pronoun"); and in (1')-
(3') you have to find a discourse referent for a non-pronominal NP of
very general meaning.  "a practice", "a fact", and "that/this fact"
are just as anaphoric as their counterparts in (1)-(3).  and in all
cases the discourse referent is a situation.

so why are (1)-(3) treated as special, and unacceptably vague?  it's
taken me a long time to come up with a plausible account, but i now
think i've got it.  (1)-(3) involve definite pronouns, or their zero
counterpart, and there is a suppressed premise in the handbooks that
not only are these elements anaphoric, but that they are, literally,
*replacements for repeated NPs*.  the handbooks define pronouns this
way, after all -- even though that definition doesn't withstand a
moment's critical consideration.

in any case, this bit of dogma from traditional grammar leads people
to insist that pronouns (well, definite pronouns, including
relativizer "which" and demonstratives standing on their own) must
have *NP antecedents* -- while NPs otherwise don't have to.  since
there is no suitable such NP in (1)-(3) (or (4), for that matter),
examples like these are labeled ungrammatical, to be replaced by the
wordier (but no clearer) (1')-(3').  this is a tremendous shame;
there's nothing wrong with (1)-(3).

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org