One surefire thing in English grammar is that people who don’t fully understand the grammar of antecedents will always end up with faulty sentence constructions. An antecedent, we will recall, is simply the noun, noun phrase, or noun clause that the pronoun refers to in a sentence, and it’s very important to make sure that the pronoun that refers to this antecedent agrees with it in person (whether first, second, or third person), in case (whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive), and in number (whether singular or plural). When this isn’t achieved in all respects, what results is, of course, what’s known in English grammar as a subject-verb disagreement error.
In an essay I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in June last year, “The Grammar of Antecedents in English,” I discussed the basic guideposts for identifying antecedents in sentences, for making the correct pronoun choices for them, and for making sure that the form of the operative verb agrees with both the pronoun and its antecedent. I think Forum members and guests will similarly find those guideposts helpful in constructing grammar-perfect sentences, so I have decided to post that essay in this week’s edition of the Forum. (January 29, 2011)
The grammar of antecedents in English
Do you have a clear idea of what an antecedent in English grammar is?
Recall now that an antecedent is the noun, noun phrase, or noun clause that a pronoun refers to in a sentence. It’s normally found in a sentence before a pronoun, but it can sometimes also come after that pronoun. In any case, the grammar rule is that any pronoun that refers to this antecedent must agree with it in person (whether first, second, or third person), case (whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive), and number (whether singular or plural). For example, the noun “Roberto” is the antecedent of the pronoun “he” in this sentence: “Roberto finally found the book he had been looking for.”
An antecedent need not be a noun; it can also be a noun phrase, as in this sentence: “The basic computer course that Ana wants to take is currently offered by the school, but it costs twice her budget for it.” Here, the antecedent is the entire noun phrase “the basic computer course that Ana wants to take,” and the pronoun “it” refers to that antecedent.
And an antecedent can also be a noun clause, as in this sentence: “What transpired during his long meeting with his boss disturbed Armando, and it gave him bad dreams for several nights.” Here, the noun clause “what transpired during his long meeting with his boss” is the antecedent of “it” in that sentence. In the noun clause, the noun “Armando” is the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which modifies the nouns “long meeting” and “boss.”
When the antecedent is in plural form or is a compound—meaning two or more nouns—the pronoun that refers to that antecedent must also be in plural form, as in this sentence: “His manager and his wife are demanding quality time from Steve, and they both won’t accept compromises.” Here, “his manager and his wife” is a compound antecedent, so the pronoun referring to it is the plural-form “they.” Note that the noun “Steve” is itself the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which is used twice in the noun phrase.
Now test your understanding of antecedents by answering the test question below in a practice test for the SAT Reasoning Test, the standardized college admissions test in the United States. The item was sent to me recently by a member of Jose Carillo’s English Forum, who asked for an explanation of the correct answer and the grammar behind that answer.
“__________ the orchestra for six concerts, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was scheduled.”
(A) After conducting
(B) After his conducting
(C) While conducting
(D) Although he had conducted
(E) After he had conducted
Which answer is correct?
Here’s my analysis of the answer choices:
It couldn’t be B because the pronoun “his” in the subordinate phrase “after his conducting the orchestra for six concerts” doesn’t have a proper antecedent noun or pronoun that, logically, should denote a musical conductor. “Beethoven’s” couldn’t be that antecedent because it’s in the possessive case, and neither could it be “Ninth Symphony,” being an inanimate object.
Neither could A and C be correct because both don’t have an antecedent noun doing the action; for the same reason as in B above, “Beethoven’s” and “Ninth Symphony” couldn’t be that antecedent noun. D couldn’t be correct either, for its subordinating conjunction, “although,” makes the statement illogical.
The only answer that’s both grammatically and logically correct is E. With E as subordinate phrase to the main clause, the nominative pronoun “he” is properly supplied as doer of the action of conducting the orchestra, and the past participle “had conducted” is the correct tense for the repeated action in the indefinite past. With E, the sentence works properly because both the main clause and the subordinate phrase are properly constructed, then logically linked by the subordinating conjunction “after.” (June 19, 2010)
-------------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 19, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment