Here’s to Them Who Have Gone Before! Using Antecedents

Before you think I’m starting the New Year with a toast to the soldiers of many an ancient war, let’s reflect for a minute on our antecedents. Grammatical antecedents, that is.

You know: the identifying name or noun to which a pronoun refers. John petted his dog. Whose dog? John’s, but fortunately you don’t have to say John petted John’s dog, because the proximity and word order tells you that his is a reference to John. Simple and straightforward. No confusion possible.

Will All the Hes Stand Up?

However, a little problem of clarity can develop if several people of the same gender are involved. What if you say John grinned at Robert and petted his dog? It might be clear in real life, because we see John and Robert and Fido before our eyes. But on the printed page, his could refer to either male mentioned in the sentence. Typically, the reference will be to the name that immediately precedes the pronoun—Robert. However, John being the subject of the sentence, it isn’t unlikely that everything refers back to him. So, which is it?

Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps its context in the novel will resolve that for the reader; if John has a dog in the scene and Robert does not, question answered on the pragmatic level—although not grammatically. And grammar matters. The reader can only picture the scene through the words you use to describe it, so the more accurate your grammar, the clearer it will be to Gentle R. Try this:

• John grinned at Robert and petted his friend’s dog.

It was Robert’s dog after all!

He Sows More Chaos

When the array of persons and pronouns stretches out over an entire paragraph, the probability of confusion is even higher. Consider this example (names changed to protect the innocent):

• George left the apartment and headed toward the king’s apartments with the intention of   talking to his chamberlain about the young performer. Then he remembered that that official was no doubt with the king in Hattusha. Well, someone would know where the lad holed up; Sam, the head of the royal musicians, could tell him. He would also need a harpist, anyway.

Let’s see. We have eight masculine names or nouns here, several of which refer to the same person (chamberlain/official, young singer/lad, Sam/head). But look at all the masculine pronouns, even though some effort has already been made to limit the number! Whose is his chamberlain? Presumably the king’s since only kings have chamberlains. Who remembered? Who would Sam tell the singer’s whereabouts to? Who needed the harpist? You see the problem.

Let’s perform a little clarifying surgery.

• George left the apartment and headed toward the king’s apartments with the intention of talking to the royal chamberlain about the young performer. Then he remembered that that  official was no doubt with the king in Hattusha. Well, someone would know where the lad holed up; Sam, the head of the royal musicians, would have an idea.George would also   need a harpist, anyway.

That’s clearer, and some of the constant repetition of names or nouns that would also have clarified the antecedents has also been avoided. Only one he is left, and since George is the agent in the first sentence, he may also reasonably be expected to be that of the second. Not perfect, perhaps, but definitely clearer.

Go Forth and Identify Him

Now that you’re thinking about the pitfalls of unclear antecedents, give that manuscript a read-through with just such a problem in mind. If you’re like me, you’ll find some—and that means you can fix them. Your readers will thank you. (Oh, wait … fix what? Pitfalls? Antecedents? Readers?)