no fun with pronouns

Thu Dec 9 14:07:16 UTC 2010

As a some-time composition instructor, even with a fuller context, I
would have marked this example as a problem.

Barbara

Barbara Need
Ithaca

On 8 Dec 2010, at 1:02 PM, Ronald Butters wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Ronald Butters <ronbutters at AOL.COM>
> Subject:      no fun with pronouns
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Even if we take the quote out of context, as Barbara and Larry do,
> we =
> have nothing more than a case of forward reference (I called it
> DEIXIS, =
> but some would prefer to call it ANAPHORA , aka CATAPHORA), examples
> of =
> which abound in textbooks (as Larry and Barbara acknowledge). It is
> a =
> commonplace observation that forward reference is somewhat more =
> difficult to process than backward reference, and the fact that
> Barbara =
> briefly felt a bit of confusion is not surprising, nor does it seem =
> likely that the degree of her confusion could have been very
> significant =
> (a number of people have written to me offline to say that they had
> no =
> trouble whatever interpreting the sentence).
>
>      Again, however (contrary to Robin=92s assertion that Victor
> gave =
> =93quite enough=94 context), even the small degree of
> =93confusion=94 =
> available in the quote stems almost entirely from the fact that
> Victor =
> quoted the sentence out of context. In the context of the preceding =
> sentences=97see below--it is clear that there is NO FORWARD ANAPHORA =
> WHATSOEVER to cause Barbara any =93shock.=94
>
>     I suppose it is fair to say (even if it is a commonplace of =
> Freshman English 101) that any sentence containing a sequence of
> several =
> pronouns and pronoun-like noun usages begins to offer the
> opportunity =
> for reader confusion about what referents are intended, especially
> when =
> the referring noun is a number of words away from the antecedent. =
> However, in the case of Victor=92s sentences, the (full) context =
> constricts the opportunity for inferring that =93the man=94 refers
> to =
> anyone other than the antecedent that =93his=94 and =93him=94 refer
> to =
> (note that it is =93the man=94 and not =93a man,=94 the latter of
> which, =
> as a more likely introducer of =93new=94 material, would offer some =
> opportunity for inferring that =93man=94 was someone other than =
> Assange).
>
> By the way, the link that VS provided in his original posting did
> not =
> actually connect to the story that he was quoting. The CORRECT link is
>
> =
> <http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arre=
> sted-1669117.story>.
>
> =20
>
> (VS=92s tiny url takes you to a different story: =
> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
> >).=
>
>
> =20
>
> The larger context is as follows:
>
> =20
>
> WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE ARRESTED
>
> MSNBC Politics, Monday, December 6, 2010, 6:34pm (PST)
>
> LONDON - British police arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange =
> Tuesday on a European warrant issued by Sweden, London's
> Metropolitan =
> Police said.
>
> Swedish prosecutors issued the arrest order for the 39-year-old =
> Australian who is wanted in Sweden on suspicion of committing sexual =
> crimes, which he denies.
>
> His lawyer had earlier arranged to deliver him to British police for =
> questioning in a sex-crimes investigation of the man who has angered =
> Washington by spilling thousands of government secrets on the
> Internet.
>
> -------------
>
> On December 8, 2010 3:48:00 AM EST, Barbara Need wrote:
>
> Except that I did so interpret it. That is, when I got to the noun
>
> phrase "the man who..." I had a brief shock--I wasn't sure who it
>
> referred to. I was able to figure it out, but the confusion was
> present.
>
> =20
>
> On 7 Dec 2010, at 2:30 PM, Ronald Butters wrote:
>
> =20
>
> Right. But we don't interpret sentences--especially when they
>
> contain deictics--either in speech or in writing, "in strict
>
> grammatical terms," but in terms of discourse and pragmatics. There
>
> is no way that anyone would be unable to interpret VS's example
>
> exactly the way the speaker intended. This is not always the case,
>
> or course, especially when there is no clarifying context: "Tom gave
>
> Victor his lamb chop" is ambiguous. But there does not appear to be
>
> anything vague or ambiguous about the pronoun reference in the
>
> sentences that VS posted.
>
> =20
>
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Robin Hamilton wrote:
>
> But the context (or lack of it, and I think Victor gave quite enough
>
> relevant material) is exactly the point.  We *infer from the
>
> context that "his", "him", and "the man" refer to the same person,
> but =
> in strict
>
> grammatical terms, there is no reason why this should necessarily
>
> be so.
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> On December 7, 2010 1:43:33 PM Laurence Horn wrote:
>
> =20
>
> one aspect of the pronominal usage that's potentially noteworthy is
>
> the use of "his" and "him" in that syntactic position with respect to
>
> their apparent antecedent, "the man who..."  Depending on the actual
>
> syntactic frame, this is often impossible ("His mother talked to him
>
> about the WikiLeaks founder") or difficult (in "His teammates resent
>
> him more than the great Yankee shortstop realizes" is a bit tricky to
>
> get backwards co-reference with all 3 nominals referring to Derek
>
> Jeter).  I do find the passage below hard to follow with the intended
>
> co-reference, although if Assange had just been mentioned in the
>
> preceding sentence, it's not impossible.
>
> =20
>
> [in response to Ron Butters:]
>
> Where is the "pronominal confusion"? There are only two pronouns,
>
> both of which refer to some person who was mentioned in context that
>
> Victor does not give. Even "the man who has angered Washington" is
>
> clearly a deictic reference to the same person. There is nothing
>
> remarkable or noteworthy whatever about the sentence (except that we
>
> are not given the immediately preceding context).
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> =20
>
> ------Original Message------
>
> From: Victor Steinbok
>
> Sender: ADS-L
>
> To: ADS-L
>
> Subject: [ADS-L] fun with pronouns
>
> Sent: Dec 7, 2010 6:00 AM
>
> =20
>
> MSNBC's article on Asange's arrest contains the following sentence:
>
> =20
>
>> http://goo.gl/g1ajN
>
> His lawyer had earlier arranged to deliver him to British police for =
> questioning in a sex-crimes investigation of the man who has angered =
> Washington by spilling thousands of government secrets on the
> Internet.
>
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>
>> At 12/8/2010 03:48 AM, Barbara Need wrote:
>>> Except that I did so interpret it. That is, when I got to the noun
>>> phrase "the man who..." I had a brief shock--I wasn't sure who it
>>> referred to. I was able to figure it out, but the confusion was =
> present.
>> =20
>> I too had a brief hiccup..  Even though I already knew who "the man
>> who [had] angered Washington" was -- namely Assange, the same person
>> who was just arrested.
>> =20
>> Joel
>> =20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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