Fun with Pronouns

[BWFoster78]

DISCLAIMER: What follows is a discussion of grammar rules. Please be advised that reading can cause extreme drowsiness. Please do not read while operating heavy machinery.

Steerpike (hope you don't mind me setting you up as the other side of this discussion) and I have a fundamental disagreement on pronoun use. Lately, I've been trying to see if I like his viewpoint better than mine, but I'm not sure.

Here's the issue:

I think that you should consider the following clearly defined grammar rule regarding pronoun/antecedent usage -

A pronoun should have only one antecedent. That antecedent should be clear and unmistakable.

Example: Grab the soda and the hammer and put it in the refrigerator.

In this sentence, "it" can refer to either the soda or the hammer. Therefore, by rule, the above sentence is wrong.

Steerpike (I'm giving his side of the argument from memory, so I hope I got it right) says that it's okay to use the pronoun if the antecedent is contextually clear.

Hence, in the above example, Steerpike would presumably say that, since it doesn't make any sense to put a hammer in the refrigerator, the sentence is fine.

So, which is better, my way or Steerpike's?

I think that my way helps avoid the possibility of confusion. For the above sentence, what if I had used "screwdriver" instead of "hammer?" You may think that it's silly to put a screwdriver in the fridge, but what if I meant a mixed alcoholic drink instead of a tool when using the word?

On the other hand, if you eliminate every possible source of pronoun confusion, your writing is going to get clunky indeed. Take this for example:

John walked over to Bob. Bob shook his hand.

Does Bob shake his own hand or John's? Grammatically speaking, we have no way of knowing. Contextually, it makes no sense for Bob to shake his own hand.

John walked over to Bob. Bob shook John's hand.

IMO, this is much clunkier. I'd rather only use each name once in the two sentences combined.

Anyway, what say you?

[Steerpike]

I do think so long as the sentence if contextually clear, if it fine. I don't think the first example you posted is a good one though; if I came across that one I'd probably recommend changing it. I do think that sentence is awkward, even if you could figure out the context by knowing what goes in a refrigerator.

If I remember correctly (and I may be mistaken), the issue was whether the pronoun "it" had to refer to the noun immediately preceding it. I think it can refer to another noun (the subject of the sentence, for example) even if it is not immediately preceding it, so long as it is clear.

My view is in line with what the Chicago Manual of Style Q&A says on the topic:

A. “Always”? Of course not. Your author has in mind a sentence where it does not refer to the subject and we sense an awkward ambiguity: The money in the pool of blood reddened as it spread. But it’s just as easy to write a perfectly clear sentence where it does not refer to the subject—or for that matter to the nearest noun: Did you see the eclipse last night when it peaked? Both you and your author would do well to stop searching for a rule to govern all your sentences and simply rephrase if it isn’t crystal clear what it refers to.

So that's my thought on it. I do know there are people who adhere to the idea that "it" should always refer to the noun immediately preceding it. But if the sentence reads well and the pronoun is clear based on context, I'm good with it

[BWFoster78]

Steerpike,

But I like rules...

According to the rule I quoted, it's not okay to use a pronoun if there's any possibility of it referring to more than one antecedent, whether or not it's the subject or the nearest one. The rule has the advantage or covering every situation, which I like.

However, it's a bit stifling.

I just wanted to get some other thoughts. I know that most people on here aren't quite trying to develop their own Absolute Rules for Writing like I am.

Take this sentence for example:

The wood floor groaned as a heavy load hit it.

Is it a possibility that "load" is an antecedent for "it" or does "load" being in the phrase "as a heavy load" insulate it somehow?

I'm pronoun confused at the moment.

[danr62]

If your goal is to write clearly and concisely, I think being clear trumps being concise. So, if you can effectively get the idea across with less words or clunkyness, go for it. If you need the extra words to make it clearer, do that.

[BWFoster78]

If your goal is to write clearly and concisely, I think being clear trumps being concise. So, if you can effectively get the idea across with less words or clunkyness, go for it. If you need the extra words to make it clearer, do that.

To an extent. I've seen people go way too far with this concept, though, and it's not pretty.

[Ireth]

Take this sentence for example:

The wood floor groaned as a heavy load hit it.

Is it a possibility that "load" is an antecedent for "it" or does "load" being in the phrase "as a heavy load" insulate it somehow?

I'm pronoun confused at the moment.

In this case, "floor" would be the antecedent for "it". Since the load is the thing doing the hitting rather than being hit, it's impossible for "load" to be the antecedent.

[Penpilot]

I'm in agreement with Steerpike, but sometimes it's hard to determine if it's clear or not. I find that sometimes I'll flip-flop between proper nouns and pronouns during editing because sometimes it seems clear and others it doesn't.

The first example with the soda and hammer was confusing. The example with the floor was clear to me.

On a side note, I think the ability to tell when something will be confusing or not is a skill to be developed. This just doesn't apply to pronouns, but pronouns are included in that skill set.

I mentioned this before but I'll say it again. Context and flow of the text plays a part in if there's confusion or not. For example if you have a scene with a man and woman, and they're the only two people in that scene, I think you're a little more free to throw around He and She around without confusion. I'd still be careful about it but if I was flip flopping on a decision on it, I'd err on the side of the pronoun in this instance.

[JCFarnham]

To me the fact that the rule works for one of the sentences you provide but not the first example says something profound about the nature of absolute rules. The english language is notoriously difficult to talk about in terms of absolutes. If you looked around you'd probably find a language or two that had pretty damn well immutable grammar rules, but English? Not so much.

I do think your quest to make everything clear and neat is a respectable one though. Just now that if any particular rule makes the writing clunky then I'm not going to follow it.

I found an example of transgender pronoun use today that could have worked but was made unnecessarily clunky. The trick her is stick to one set of excepted neutral pronouns (Zhir, Ze, etc.) rather than refering to an individual with "their" as that short story did. Admittedly I think that the author failed grammatically rather than stylistically in that instance, but never the less it's a decent enough example of how trying to clarify can become awkward in a narrative if you don't watch out.

So yeah, I'm in Steerpike-crowd I think.

[Steerpike]

So yeah, I'm in Steerpike-crowd I think.

*tents fingers*

Excellent...

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Clarity trumps conciseness (what good is being concise if the reader doesn't know what you mean?), but there's almost always a way to rewrite something to be both clear and more concise than whatever you've got now.

As nice as it is to have clear, simple rules that explain everything, language is not that easy, and a lot of time, writing good prose requires judgment calls. Not everyone will always agree; but I can say that when I read a professional author like GRRM, I don't find myself stopping to question his wording very often. Very rarely I'll have to reread something once or twice because I'm not entirely certain about what's being referred to, but it might happen once or twice for every 100k words in the novel.

As a writer, you always know what you meant "it" to refer to, and it can be hard to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't know that, and gets confused. In THE QUEEN OF MAGES I've had a few instances where my wife completely misunderstood the meaning of a paragraph (there was one place where she thought character A died, but in fact it was character B who died -- and on rereading it, I realized that it was phrased ambiguously).