Spring 2001 * English 110J * Tanaka 

E/M QUESTIONS FROM GROUP DISCUSSION

Chapter 4 PRONOUNS 

 

1. SET1/18: <Majorie's mother gave her a bracelet to wear when she attended the party.> If the pronoun refers to the noun immediately to the left of the pronoun, why isn't the antecedent <MOTHER> instead <MARJORIE>? 

IF <MOTHER> WERE THE ANTECEDENT OF <HER> THEN IT

WOULD BE <HERSELF>. 

THE SECOND <SHE> IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX. THE DEPENDENT  CLAUSE <TO WEAR WHEN SHE ATTENDED THE PARTY> HAS AS ITS

SUBJECT, <MARJORIE>. 

BUT IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, THE REFERENT OF <SHE> IS

AMBIGUOUS. IT COULD REFER TO EITHER MARJ OR HER MOM. 

Majorie's mother gave her a bracelet when she attended the party. 

 

 

2. SET1/24: Citizens have equal rights but not all of them exercise equal rights. The book says ALL and THEM refer to CITIZENS. How? 

GOOD QUESTION. IN LINGUISTICS, ALL OF IS A DETERMINER. THEM IS THE ONLY PRONOUN. BUT MTG CALLS BOTH PRONOUNS. THIS DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE. 

 

3. SET4/5: <Picture THESE/THOSE standing in your living room.>

Or <Picture THIS/THAT standing ...> Why can we use a plural pronoun? 

THESE/THOSE AND THIS/THAT ARE CALLED DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS IN MTG SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN HOW BOTH SETS WOULD BE OK. 

BUT IN LINGUISTICS, THEY ARE ALL DETERMINERS. THE CONSTRUCTIONS ARE THE FOLLOWING: 

Picture THAT X standing in the corner --> Pitcure that plant standing in the corner. 

Pictture THOSE Xs standing in the corner --> Picture those plants standing .... 

 

4. SET6/3: <Our wishes THEMSELVES are to blame.> The book says this is a REFLEXIVE PRONOUN but can't we delete it? So how can it be a reflexive?

THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION. THE BOOK IS TOTALLY WRONG. 

 

5. SET5/4: <WHOM were you talking WITH?> This sentence ends with a preposition in earlier editions. 

In the most recent edition, Erlich has 'corrected' the sentence as follows: 

<WHOM were you talking WITH when I happened to walk by?> 

Does this revision answer any questions you may have had about the earlier version? 

Is this revision now consistent with what the book says in Chapter 2 about nouns as objects of prepositions? (See our answers to Chapter 2.) 

EHRLICH'S CORRECTION JUST UINDERSCORES THE POINT WE MADE IN CHAPTER TWO, AND THAT IS <TALK WITH> IS A VERB+PARTICLE OR PHRASAL VERB CONSTRUCTION. <WITH> IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PROPOSITION, SO IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO LEAVE IT WITH <TALKING WITH>. THE ADDITION OF THE ADVERBIAL CLAUSE (WHEN I HAPPENED TO WALK BY) DOESN'T CHANGE THAT RELATIONSHIP BUT DISGUISES IT. 

 

6. SET12/4: Why is BOARD referred to as IT instead of THEY? 

EM LOOKS AT THE BOARD AS A SINGLE ENTITY RATHER THAN A COLLECTION OF PERSONS. THIS IS OK. IF YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE BOARD AS A COLLECTION, YOU WOULD USE <THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD or THE BOARD MEMBERS>. 

 

7. SET19/9: <Last year's election found us, my wife and ME, ill prepared to vote.> Why is the pronoun ME instead of I? 

THE OBJECTIVE CASE <ME> IS USED BECAUSE <MY WIFE AND ME>  STANDS IN APPOSITION TO THE PRONOUN <US>, WHICH IS THE  DIRECT OBJECT OF <FOUND>. 

 

We will discuss RELATIVE PRONOUNS and the use of WHO,WHOM, THAT WHIICH in the next chapter on ADJECTIVES. 

WE WILL ALSO DISCUSS POSSESSIVE AND DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS IN OUR NEXT CHAPTER WHEN WE DISCUSS ADJECTIVES. WE WILL GIVE REASONS TO PUT THEM IN A NEW CLASS CALLED DETERMINERS. 

NOTE THAT NEITHER GS NOR EM CONSIDER "PRONOUNS" LIKE THE FOLLOWING AS SPECIAL CASES. THEY WOULD BE 'INDEFINITE.' 

IT is too bad that he came early.  

IT is raining.