Pronoun confusion and the possessive.

[tomlitilia]

Consider a sentence like this:
"Christine took Ana's hand and placed it on her chest."
Do you consider it in risk of pronoun confusion? My take is that it's formally isn't, because "Ana's" is possessive and therefore an adjective, and "her" must be the subject "Christine" in this case. But do you think it would be clear for all (most) readers?

Edit: object. Not subject

 

[KindofHere]

................

 

[NotWise]

"Christine took Ana's hand and placed it on her chest."

It isn't clear to me whether Christine is placing Ana's hand on Ana's chest or on her own.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think you are right. The more probable antecedent of "her" is "Christine", not "Ana", because "Ana" does not appear in the sentence. The possessive "Ana's" appears in the sentence. There is a possibility that some people could be confused, but it's not a confusion worth clearing up. This is a perfectly legitimate way to write this. I would not recommend changing it.

Plus, there are ways of clarifying on whose chest the hand is being placed, by the way you write sentences before or after this one.

 

[KeithD]

I'd take it as a need to rewrite to make it clear. The 'common understanding" is that the pronoun connects with the closest antecedent formal noun if there's a chance it could relate to more than one--in this case Ana. But it just is unclear here without more context and the lack of clarity muddles the read. Unfortunately, the "easy" fixes often create stilted or awkward phrasing.

 

[ElectricBlue]

There's ambiguity, yes.

I don't expect all readers to apply rigorous grammatical rules, and context should make it clear. A sentence in isolation has no context, so in this case what comes before or after is important - and should clarify whose chest Ana's hand goes on.

I've read grammatically correct sentences that are tortuous and convoluted, and take more reading to understand what's being said. A simpler construction often does the job far better. Or two sentences (with context and clarity) .

 

[tomlitilia]

I'd take it as a need to rewrite to make it clear. The 'common understanding" is that the pronoun connects with the closest antecedent formal noun if there's a chance it could relate to more than one--in this case Ana. But it just is unclear here without more context and the lack of clarity muddles the read. Unfortunately, the "easy" fixes often create stilted or awkward phrasing.

But there is no Ana, only Ana's, which isn't a noun. It's an adjective. So formally it would be clear "her" is Christine. No?
But either way, if a sentence forces readers to think about grammar, it probably needs a rewrite.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Consider a sentence like this:
"Christine took Ana's hand and placed it on her chest."
Do you consider it in risk of pronoun confusion? My take is that it's formally isn't, because "Ana's" is possessive and therefore an adjective, and "her" must be the subject "Christine" in this case. But do you think it would be clear for all (most) readers?

Edit: object. Not subject

Without further context, it's ambiguous. The fact that "Ana's" is used as an adjective doesn't exclude her from being the referent of the pronoun; there are plenty of examples in English literature where pronouns are used in that way. For instance, a couple from Dickens' "A Christmas Carol":

It was the voice of Scrooge’s nephew, who came upon him so quickly that this was the first intimation he had of his approach.

...

The owner of one scant young nose, gnawed and mumbled by the hungry cold as bones are gnawed by dogs, stooped down at Scrooge’s keyhole to regale him with a Christmas carol...

In these examples "him" and "he" refer to Scrooge, whereas "his" refers to the nephew.

One more from Doyle's "A Study In Scarlet":

Finally, he sniffed the dead man’s lips, and then glanced at the soles of his patent leather boots.

Here, "he" is Sherlock Holmes but "his" refers to the dead man.

One option for clarifying the sentence is to change the verb. If you've established that the two of them are facing one another, then you could write:

"Christine took Ana's hand and pulled it to her chest."

In some cases prepositions like "up", "down", or "back" will help.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Not to be snide, but who are we writing for, the average reader or the Dean of the English department? Regardless of rules and grammatical conventions, anything which might be misunderstood should probably be rewritten. This is one such.

 

[KeithD]

But there is no Ana, only Ana's, which isn't a noun. It's an adjective. So formally it would be clear "her" is Christine. No?
But either way, if a sentence forces readers to think about grammar, it probably needs a rewrite.

"Ana's" is a possessive noun in this construction. And, no, it's not clear in your example that the antecedent is "Christine." It could be either one of them without more context.

 

[SimonDoom]

To those who believe the sentence is ambiguous, I ask: how would you change it? As written, the sentence is a good one. There's a potential ambiguity, but it can be resolved if placed in the context of other sentences around it that give further context to why Christine wants a hand on her chest.

Not all ambiguity must be cured.

 

[ElectricBlue]

To those who believe the sentence is ambiguous, I ask: how would you change it? As written, the sentence is a good one. There's a potential ambiguity, but it can be resolved if placed in the context of other sentences around it that give further context to why Christine wants a hand on her chest.

Not all ambiguity must be cured.

Exactly. Context solves most "problems." Deconstructing a single sentence is about as meaningful as talking about apples when you don't know if you're in Grandma's kitchen or the Garden of Eden.

 

[KeithD]

To those who believe the sentence is ambiguous, I ask: how would you change it? As written, the sentence is a good one. There's a potential ambiguity, but it can be resolved if placed in the context of other sentences around it that give further context to why Christine wants a hand on her chest.

Not all ambiguity must be cured.

I noted that being clear wouldn't be easy. There's no guarantee that clarity is going to be succinct. I would make the sentence longer. I'd probably add some action that made it quite clear who was doing what to who else.

And, yes, if I came upon this in a professional edit, I'd ask the author to make it clear (and, as I think it usually would require adding material, it's the author who would have to do it).

On this issue, writing GM and lesbian has more problems in antecedent clarification than writing hetero does, where the he and she work more often than he and he or she and she do.

 

[lovecraft68]

To me its pretty clear in the sense of why would Christine put Ana's hand on Ana's chest? Not saying that's not a possibility, but seems to be a slim one.

There is this person called the reader and sometimes this reader-an admittedly lazy sort in this generation-may actually have to use something called thought and common sense to know what's going on whether than having them spoon fed to them.

Like many people I envision what I'm reading as I read so in my mind I see this woman taking her friend's hand and putting it on her chest, her as in her own. I had no problem seeing it that way.

Reader comprehension or lack thereof shouldn't be that much of a concern or you'll find yourself doing more questioning than writing.

Just my take.

 

[MistressLyda]

I'd consider something along the lines of:
"Christine took Ana's hand and pulled it towards her, placing it on her chest."

To me its pretty clear in the sense of why would Christine put Ana's hand on Ana's chest? Not saying that's not a possibility, but seems to be a slim one.

"Feel your heart, it is racing/calm/strong/whatever"
Not a uncommon trick to ground people in their own body, and one I use rather regularly.

And without knowing anything about the rest of the story, placing your own hand on your own chest is often used to introduce yourself to someone, if you do not speak the same language. Fits mostly in a sci-fi story and similar.

Person 1 places their hand on their own chest: "I am Blub, emperor of Blab, I come in peace"
Person 2 looks confused.
Person 1 repeats their own introduction, and then takes the other persons hand and places it on the other persons chest "and you are?".

 

[jaF0]

This thread is what happens when folks commence to more thinkin' than doin'.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'd consider something along the lines of:
"Christine took Ana's hand and pulled it towards her, placing it on her chest."




"Feel your heart, it is racing/calm/strong/whatever"
Not a uncommon trick to ground people in their own body, and one I use rather regularly.

And without knowing anything about the rest of the story, placing your own hand on your own chest is often used to introduce yourself to someone, if you do not speak the same language. Fits mostly in a sci-fi story and similar.

Person 1 places their hand on their own chest: "I am Blub, emperor of Blab, I come in peace"
Person 2 looks confused.
Person 1 repeats their own introduction, and then takes the other persons hand and places it on the other persons chest "and you are?".

Very true, but we're only seeing the example in this case. If the words you described were there then that itself clarifies the sentence. Sometimes the previous or following sentence puts the one in question in context, which again leads to the reader actually needing to read and pay attention.

 

[delicious_man]

Clarity of meaning is one of the most essential components to good writing and that is why I think this is a good topic to discuss - so thanks to the OP for starting the debate. In any case, I do enjoy discussing grammatical nuances even if it is all rather academical.

From my perspective, I can only see 'her' as referring to Christine. I'm in the same camp as tomlitilia and lovecraft68. However, I've been interested to hear how others perceive ambiguity and the reasons put forward for this from other posters (eg. KeithD & Bramblethorn) are sound.

...if a sentence forces readers to think about grammar, it probably needs a rewrite.

Most definitely. However, in this case I think the sentence is fine. It just needs context and it will read perfectly ok. I agree with electricblue66 on this:

I've read grammatically correct sentences that are tortuous and convoluted, and take more reading to understand what's being said. A simpler construction often does the job far better.

Personally, I would probably solve any potential ambiguity through dialogue. Thus:

'Here,' said Christine. 'Touch me.' She took Ana's hand and placed it on her chest.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I prefer to avoid ambiguity, so I usually include a very short description of the location of the hand, rather than a pronoun, such as: ...placed it on the younger woman's chest, or ...placed it on her friend's chest. Or, if you mean the opposite: "Christine took Ana's hand and placed it on her own chest."

Of course, if you just mean Christine copped a feel, say so.

 

[KeithD]

I prefer to avoid ambiguity, so I usually include a very short description of the location of the hand, rather than a pronoun, such as: ...placed it on the younger woman's chest, or ...placed it on her friend's chest. Or, if you mean the opposite: "Christine took Ana's hand and placed it on her own chest."

If this came to me in an edit, I'd probably suggest to the author doing what Box does here to be quite clear and not interrupt the reader's flow.