How does context help us understand language?

[BicycleTree]

All I can say to that is, frambaztadimble.

 

[ArielGenesis]

a language forum ?

 

[honestrosewater]

The pronoun references the most recently used noun that fits it.

Do you have a reference? I also wonder how that rule would handle this:

Mary and Martha took her children to the park.

The most recently used noun is "the 86th floor." "of the Empire State Building" is only an adjective phrase. It's essentially part of the other noun ("the 86th floor"), so it can't be referenced on its own. "The 86th floor of the Empire State Building" is a single noun.

Hm, it seems some define adjective phrases as any phrase that modifies a noun, while others define them as phrases whose heads are adjectives- a functional vs. formal thing. I use the latter. There are probably slightly different ways of parsing sentences, but here's how I would parse just the phrases (NP = noun phrase, VP = verb phrase, etc.):

[NP A person] [VP takes] [NP the elevator [PP to [NP the 86th floor [PP of [NP the Empire State Building]]]]]...

So the head of the most recent NP is elevator. You can see the others are not needed:

A person takes the elevator.

I don't see why to the 86th floor and of the Empire State Building would be treated differently. They are both prepositional phrases to me. Edit: But you may not distinguish prepositional phrases?

 

[honestrosewater]

a language forum ?

That would be great! When I start seriously studying language, I'm going to try to stir up enough interest to warrant a linguistics forum. Is there enough interest already??

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'linguistics'?

 

[honestrosewater]

What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'linguistics'?

The study of language. It's a very broad field. ;)

 

[BicycleTree]

Adjective phrases and adverbial phrases are types of prepositional phrases that act as adjectives or adverbs.

"Mary and Martha took her children to the park" is truly a reference error. There is a preference for "Martha" but it is not clear whose children they are. There is also, however, a set of implicit rules for determining which reference is intended, which is the reason the vast majority of literate people--i.e. respected authors--make certain kinds of so-called "reference errors" continually yet nevertheless understand one another easily and unambiguously. I believe the reason some grammar textbooks deny this set of rules is for simplicity.

To demonstrate this, I searched for Charles Dickens on Google, and the first work of his I clicked on the first site that came up was A Christmas Carol. The first thing I read under that heading is his introduction:

I have endeavoured in this Ghostly little book,
to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not
put my readers out of humour with themselves,
with each other, with the season, or with me.
May it haunt their houses pleasantly, and no
one wish to lay it.

Their faithful Friend and Servant, C. D. December, 1843.

The sentence "May 'it' haunt their houses pleasantly, and no one wish to lay 'it'" contains two so-called "reference errors." However, there is no ambiguity and nobody would claim Charles Dickens is a poor writer.


One of these implicit rules is that nouns in adverbial phrases count for the most recent noun, and nouns in adjective phrases--mere attendants to and parts of other nouns--do not count. A reference to a noun in an adjective phrase can be forced through context, generally with some degree of awkwardness, but when no context forcing is present, the default is to ignore the adjective phrase for the purpose of reference but not ignore the adverb phrase.

For example, from the same story (do a search to find the place):
"But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round"
The "it" refers to "Christmas time," even though "Christmas time" is inside an adverb phrase.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I took the following example of a reference error from this web site:

http://www.webster.edu/acadaffairs/asp/wc/grammar.html

I hate my brother. This is a problem.

The site prefers: "I hate my brother. My hatred is a problem."

I have two complaints.

1. No matter how poor the grammar, there is no ambiguity in it. When she says "This is a problem" only the most obtuse would be confused about what she means.

2. No one ever talks or writes like what the site prefers. You don't need to be Charles Dickens to write better than that.

If the grammar in my puzzle is incorrect, it is none the less common usage. And it is far more ambiguous than BicycleTree gives it credit for. The unwritten 'it' could very well mean the 86th floor or it could mean the Empire State Building, or even the elevator. That ambiguity is at the very heart of the puzzle. You can't put your elbow in your ear, but I can. My elbow is flexible and your ear is not too high.

 

[BicycleTree]

My case is, your problem statement is grammatically correct (in spite of what some grammarians say about reference errors), and not ambiguous for reasons I said. If you can find an example of a sentence by a respected and fairly conventional author where you have
1. verb
2. object
3. adverb phrase for the verb
4. noun in the adverb phrase
5. adjective phrase containing a noun and modifying the noun in the adverb phrase
6. pronoun immediately following that is intended to modify either the object or the noun in the adjective phrase instead of the noun in the adverb phrase
7. yet what the pronoun modifies is not forced (one example of forcing would be "he" or "she" which is forced to modify a masculine or feminine noun; basically it's forced if assuming the modified object is other than the intended one causes the sentence to make no sense)

then I'll grant your point. But I don't believe such a sentence exists. Intuitively, in such a situation, the pronoun would always modify the noun in the adverb phrase.

 

[ArielGenesis]

about the linguistic, do the same rule apply for other language.

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, I see BT's point, but I still don't buy the rule that a pronoun must refer to the most recently used noun that fits it. You can read almost anything by anyone and see the rule broken again and again. It just isn't worth following, IMO. In fact, the rule is stated in jimmy's link:
"A PRONOUN must always have an ANTECEDENT; it must refer back to the most recently used noun."
She breaks the rule even while stating it! antecedent is the most recently used noun, but it clearly refers to pronoun.
And given poetic license, I don't think looking to fiction writers as a model of grammatical correctness is a good idea either. But here's a sentence that I made up:

Bob takes a gift to his dog in the hospital and unwraps it.

Does that work?

 

[honestrosewater]

about the linguistic, do the same rule apply for other language.

Sure, some languages have similar rules and some don't. But linguists study more than just grammar. I haven't built up a collection of linguistics links yet, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics look like a decent overview.

 

[BicycleTree]

"A PRONOUN must always have an ANTECEDENT; it must refer back to the most recently used noun."

In this sentence, there is another rule in use. Because of the semicolon, the second part of sentence is a restatement or clarification of the first part of the sentence, and is therefore expected to follow similar structure. So the "it" subject of the second part of the sentence can be expected to correspond to the "pronoun" subject of the first part of the sentence. The rules for determining what pronouns should refer to what nouns are complex, but they exist. For example, if the sentence were constructed this way:
"A PRONOUN must always have an ANTECEDENT; if it is referred back to, the reference must be by the following pronoun."
Then it would break the rule of semicolon similar-structure, and plainly the revised sentence is awkward and more difficult to read because of this (you expect, reading it, that "it" will mean "pronoun," and it doesn't).

"Bob takes a gift to his dog in the hospital and unwraps it" is an example of the forcing I mentioned. The sentence makes no sense unless you interpret the "it" to refer to the gift. However, I can tell you I had to do a double take when reading the sentence; the only natural intepretation until you get to the forcing is to expect that any pronoun coming will refer to "dog," and it's a surprise (and awkward) when you come to the forcing and have to re-evaluate the sentence.

 

[honestrosewater]

Wow, it's amazing we ever manage to understand each other. This is getting more interesting, but I don't think I know enough to continue. Just one more thing- it seems a pronoun doesn't always need to have an antecedent:

It is amazing that we manage to understand each other.

Okay, just one more thing:

When I put the book on the shelf, it falls.

on the shelf is (functionally) an adverb phrase? So you're saying it should refer to shelf? I would normally take that sentence to be ambiguous. Heh, now I'm having too much fun- you must agree the following is ambiguous?

When I put the book on the shelf on the wall, it falls.