Notifications
Clear all

Possessive as antecedent to another possessive

9 Posts
3 Users
0 Reactions
2 Views
Posts: 551
Topic starter
(@robert)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Much wrangling had been done over the grammar of possessive being antecedent to pronoun (Winston Churchill's history shows him to have been a good writer).
 
What about possessive serving as antecedent to another possessive? Is that good grammar?
 
Winston Churchill's history demonstrates his literary genius.
Indeed its reputation as a judge of literary worth is a publisher's most valuable asset. (Kidder, 'Good Prose')
Janet's vanity is her worst personal fault.

 

8 Replies
Posts: 0
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

Sally's dog ate her homework.
Richard's mother gave him lunch.

According to many, it's all good grammar. Linguists refer to this issue as possessive antecedent proscription (PAP). I pretty much reject PAP as a proscriptivist construct similar in nature to the split-inifinitive prohibition.

Even if you buy in to PAP, proscriptivists couldn't ever reject the use of a possessive pronoun with a possessive antecedent. So "Sally's dog ate her homework." has always been good, even to the proscriptivists. They don't claim that the sentence declares the dog to be female and an academic whiz. But "Richard's mother gave him lunch." could provoke a tornado of red ink.

Here is an excellent treatment by Erin Brenner. It also has excellent references for further reading.
Copyediting Tip of the Week: Macbeth's mind

Reply
Posts: 551
Topic starter
(@robert)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Regarding your comment 'So "Sally's dog ate her homework." has always been good, even to the proscriptivists.'
 
Is that because of the matching types: possessive-possessive ?
 
I am afraid matching types won't satisfy the more insistent of proscriptivists: Their point is first and foremost based on 'Sally's dog' being a noun phrase from within which only 'dog' (and not 'Sally') can make any claims to the outside world. Accordingly then, a possessive, being thus buried deep inside, can not serve to illuminate anything outside of that noun phrase, much less with concerns over what word type.
 
I am only trying to speak to the proscriptivist point though.
Reply
Posts: 0
Guest
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago

The position you describe, while possible and consistent within itself, does not reflect the majority of writing in support of PAP. I have not seen a description (proscription) that failed to allow the possessive pronoun to refer back to a prior possessive.

This is the way Geoffrey Nunberg paraphrases PAP:

The assumption behind the rule is that a pronoun has to be of the same part of speech as its antecedent. Since possessives are adjectives, the reasoning goes, they can't be followed by pronouns, even if the resulting sentence is perfectly clear.

The Bloody Crossroads of Grammar and Politics

Arnold Zwicky writes (correctly), citing numerous examples:

6. ... Violations of the PAP are frequent, even in the work of careful practiced writers (including the authors of manuals that insist on the PAP), and they go unnoticed.
....
6.1 Barron's test preparation manual (Ehrenhaft (1998)) ... It cares about the PAP so much ... But once Barron's gets into extended analysis of particular essays ...
...
6.2. Lunsford & Connors (1999:216), in their excellent handbook, ... refer to a “convention” for “maintaining clear pronoun references” ... But back on p. 29, when they're giving advice,
...
6.3 Menand (2003) criticizes CMS15 for failing to mention the PAP. But Menand is jam-packed with violations ...

Toni Morrison's genius puts her in the grammar/usage spotlight

I don't think that PAP deserves any more writing except such writing as points out how destitute of merit and ill-begotten PAP is.

Reply
Posts: 551
Topic starter
(@robert)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Wow slow up. I agree enough, even too much, already about PAP. And yes maybe even 'destitute of merit.' But 'ill-begotten' seems a little too harsh. I think that its root is very fundamental and instinctive and reflexive of human thought, and thus very valid at that base level. Only in practice that it becomes sort of, well, impractical, and a drawback.
That explains why the most ardent subscribers to it will not follow strictly: I will do something a little shy of perfection here, but there are more worthy purposes to think about.
Reply
Page 1 / 2