What are the rules for what “they” refers to when there are two plural nouns in a sentence? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraAre there nouns that are always plural — have no plural counterpart?Can adjectives always be used as nouns when they denote a plural and are preceded by the definite article?Ending sentence with two nouns?“They are…” vs. “these are” when answering the question “What are these…?”When do you use the plural form for nouns that are generally considered uncountable?possible ambiguity of 'he' when two nouns are in useHow should I understand the pronoun “they” in this sentence?Strange collective nouns: are they common?What kind of nouns are 'aircraft', 'cutlery'?
What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?
How to translate "red flag" into Spanish?
Mistake in years of experience in resume?
A strange hotel
How to not starve gigantic beasts
"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
Did the Roman Empire have penal colonies?
What is it called when you ride around on your front wheel?
Bayes factor vs P value
Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring
C++ diamond problem - How to call base method only once
What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?
I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?
What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?
Why must Chinese maps be obfuscated?
Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?
My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?
Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson binomial distribution?
My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer
Is it possible to cast 2x Final Payment while sacrificing just one creature?
How long after the last departure shall the airport stay open for an emergency return?
Tikz positioning above circle exact alignment
Is there metaphorical meaning of "aus der Haft entlassen"?
What are the rules for what “they” refers to when there are two plural nouns in a sentence?
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar ManaraAre there nouns that are always plural — have no plural counterpart?Can adjectives always be used as nouns when they denote a plural and are preceded by the definite article?Ending sentence with two nouns?“They are…” vs. “these are” when answering the question “What are these…?”When do you use the plural form for nouns that are generally considered uncountable?possible ambiguity of 'he' when two nouns are in useHow should I understand the pronoun “they” in this sentence?Strange collective nouns: are they common?What kind of nouns are 'aircraft', 'cutlery'?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Some examples:
- The Wilsons are angry at the Smiths for the way they parked their car.
- The Wilsons haven't hated this Smiths this much since they moved.
- The South hasn't hated the North this much since they lost the Civil War.
- The red team likes the blue team because they feed their pets.
- The red team likes the blue team because they found out the blue team gives to their charity.
In the first sentence, it's clear to me that "they" and "their" refer to the Smiths. Is that based on a grammar rule, or just meaning? It would be nonsensical to be mad at someone for the way you park your own car, so the meaning does give it away.
The second sentence seems less clear for some reason. Did the Smiths move or the Wilsons move?
Is the third sentence wrong usage? If you know that the South lost the Civil War, the meaning is clear. But should grammar rely on historical knowledge?
The fourth sentence seems clear. The blue team feeds the blue team's pets? Is that right?
Why does that work differently in the fifth sentence? I guess the "they found out the blue team" eliminates "they" meaning the blue team so it must mean the red team? What about "their" does it refer to the blue team's charity or the red team's charity?
nouns pronouns
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
|
show 1 more comment
Some examples:
- The Wilsons are angry at the Smiths for the way they parked their car.
- The Wilsons haven't hated this Smiths this much since they moved.
- The South hasn't hated the North this much since they lost the Civil War.
- The red team likes the blue team because they feed their pets.
- The red team likes the blue team because they found out the blue team gives to their charity.
In the first sentence, it's clear to me that "they" and "their" refer to the Smiths. Is that based on a grammar rule, or just meaning? It would be nonsensical to be mad at someone for the way you park your own car, so the meaning does give it away.
The second sentence seems less clear for some reason. Did the Smiths move or the Wilsons move?
Is the third sentence wrong usage? If you know that the South lost the Civil War, the meaning is clear. But should grammar rely on historical knowledge?
The fourth sentence seems clear. The blue team feeds the blue team's pets? Is that right?
Why does that work differently in the fifth sentence? I guess the "they found out the blue team" eliminates "they" meaning the blue team so it must mean the red team? What about "their" does it refer to the blue team's charity or the red team's charity?
nouns pronouns
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
4
There are no rules for such interpretations. The sentences are semantically ambiguous and could have several meanings, following the usual rules for coreference. What happens, instead of having inflexible grammatical rules, is that everybody -- speaker and addressee -- makes assumptions (sometimes incorrectly) about what the other(s) know, believe, and expect about the situation and the reasons for the sentence being uttered in the first place. Plus, in person, one has the ability to point to or glance toward any participants that may be present. It's called "pragmatics".
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 20:44
1
You say that the meaning of the third sentence is clear. It wasn't clear to me, because (not being American) I didn't know what civil war was being referred to, nor who won or lost it. So, obviously no: the grammar should not rely on historical knowledge!
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 20:59
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
Mar 26 at 20:59
@Davo Context may override rules where the meaning is obvious to the reader, bujt I would say that items 2 & 3 are ambiguous, whereas the rest are fairly obvious.
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 21:02
1
The "usual rules" are designed for prototype situations, where there is one noun phrase that is referentially identical to another NP in the same sentence (or in the same discourse). The second NP becomes a pronoun in speech, and is to be interpreted as such by the addressee. There are lots of variations on this. But if there are several possible antecedents for pronouns, there is no rule for which one the addressee should choose. The speaker would normally avoid such sentences, unless they could make clear the referent by stressing it or glancing or pointing at it.
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
Some examples:
- The Wilsons are angry at the Smiths for the way they parked their car.
- The Wilsons haven't hated this Smiths this much since they moved.
- The South hasn't hated the North this much since they lost the Civil War.
- The red team likes the blue team because they feed their pets.
- The red team likes the blue team because they found out the blue team gives to their charity.
In the first sentence, it's clear to me that "they" and "their" refer to the Smiths. Is that based on a grammar rule, or just meaning? It would be nonsensical to be mad at someone for the way you park your own car, so the meaning does give it away.
The second sentence seems less clear for some reason. Did the Smiths move or the Wilsons move?
Is the third sentence wrong usage? If you know that the South lost the Civil War, the meaning is clear. But should grammar rely on historical knowledge?
The fourth sentence seems clear. The blue team feeds the blue team's pets? Is that right?
Why does that work differently in the fifth sentence? I guess the "they found out the blue team" eliminates "they" meaning the blue team so it must mean the red team? What about "their" does it refer to the blue team's charity or the red team's charity?
nouns pronouns
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
Some examples:
- The Wilsons are angry at the Smiths for the way they parked their car.
- The Wilsons haven't hated this Smiths this much since they moved.
- The South hasn't hated the North this much since they lost the Civil War.
- The red team likes the blue team because they feed their pets.
- The red team likes the blue team because they found out the blue team gives to their charity.
In the first sentence, it's clear to me that "they" and "their" refer to the Smiths. Is that based on a grammar rule, or just meaning? It would be nonsensical to be mad at someone for the way you park your own car, so the meaning does give it away.
The second sentence seems less clear for some reason. Did the Smiths move or the Wilsons move?
Is the third sentence wrong usage? If you know that the South lost the Civil War, the meaning is clear. But should grammar rely on historical knowledge?
The fourth sentence seems clear. The blue team feeds the blue team's pets? Is that right?
Why does that work differently in the fifth sentence? I guess the "they found out the blue team" eliminates "they" meaning the blue team so it must mean the red team? What about "their" does it refer to the blue team's charity or the red team's charity?
nouns pronouns
nouns pronouns
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
asked Mar 26 at 20:29
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
1062
4
There are no rules for such interpretations. The sentences are semantically ambiguous and could have several meanings, following the usual rules for coreference. What happens, instead of having inflexible grammatical rules, is that everybody -- speaker and addressee -- makes assumptions (sometimes incorrectly) about what the other(s) know, believe, and expect about the situation and the reasons for the sentence being uttered in the first place. Plus, in person, one has the ability to point to or glance toward any participants that may be present. It's called "pragmatics".
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 20:44
1
You say that the meaning of the third sentence is clear. It wasn't clear to me, because (not being American) I didn't know what civil war was being referred to, nor who won or lost it. So, obviously no: the grammar should not rely on historical knowledge!
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 20:59
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
Mar 26 at 20:59
@Davo Context may override rules where the meaning is obvious to the reader, bujt I would say that items 2 & 3 are ambiguous, whereas the rest are fairly obvious.
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 21:02
1
The "usual rules" are designed for prototype situations, where there is one noun phrase that is referentially identical to another NP in the same sentence (or in the same discourse). The second NP becomes a pronoun in speech, and is to be interpreted as such by the addressee. There are lots of variations on this. But if there are several possible antecedents for pronouns, there is no rule for which one the addressee should choose. The speaker would normally avoid such sentences, unless they could make clear the referent by stressing it or glancing or pointing at it.
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
4
There are no rules for such interpretations. The sentences are semantically ambiguous and could have several meanings, following the usual rules for coreference. What happens, instead of having inflexible grammatical rules, is that everybody -- speaker and addressee -- makes assumptions (sometimes incorrectly) about what the other(s) know, believe, and expect about the situation and the reasons for the sentence being uttered in the first place. Plus, in person, one has the ability to point to or glance toward any participants that may be present. It's called "pragmatics".
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 20:44
1
You say that the meaning of the third sentence is clear. It wasn't clear to me, because (not being American) I didn't know what civil war was being referred to, nor who won or lost it. So, obviously no: the grammar should not rely on historical knowledge!
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 20:59
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
Mar 26 at 20:59
@Davo Context may override rules where the meaning is obvious to the reader, bujt I would say that items 2 & 3 are ambiguous, whereas the rest are fairly obvious.
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 21:02
1
The "usual rules" are designed for prototype situations, where there is one noun phrase that is referentially identical to another NP in the same sentence (or in the same discourse). The second NP becomes a pronoun in speech, and is to be interpreted as such by the addressee. There are lots of variations on this. But if there are several possible antecedents for pronouns, there is no rule for which one the addressee should choose. The speaker would normally avoid such sentences, unless they could make clear the referent by stressing it or glancing or pointing at it.
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 22:44
4
4
There are no rules for such interpretations. The sentences are semantically ambiguous and could have several meanings, following the usual rules for coreference. What happens, instead of having inflexible grammatical rules, is that everybody -- speaker and addressee -- makes assumptions (sometimes incorrectly) about what the other(s) know, believe, and expect about the situation and the reasons for the sentence being uttered in the first place. Plus, in person, one has the ability to point to or glance toward any participants that may be present. It's called "pragmatics".
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 20:44
There are no rules for such interpretations. The sentences are semantically ambiguous and could have several meanings, following the usual rules for coreference. What happens, instead of having inflexible grammatical rules, is that everybody -- speaker and addressee -- makes assumptions (sometimes incorrectly) about what the other(s) know, believe, and expect about the situation and the reasons for the sentence being uttered in the first place. Plus, in person, one has the ability to point to or glance toward any participants that may be present. It's called "pragmatics".
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 20:44
1
1
You say that the meaning of the third sentence is clear. It wasn't clear to me, because (not being American) I didn't know what civil war was being referred to, nor who won or lost it. So, obviously no: the grammar should not rely on historical knowledge!
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 20:59
You say that the meaning of the third sentence is clear. It wasn't clear to me, because (not being American) I didn't know what civil war was being referred to, nor who won or lost it. So, obviously no: the grammar should not rely on historical knowledge!
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 20:59
1
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
Mar 26 at 20:59
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
Mar 26 at 20:59
@Davo Context may override rules where the meaning is obvious to the reader, bujt I would say that items 2 & 3 are ambiguous, whereas the rest are fairly obvious.
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 21:02
@Davo Context may override rules where the meaning is obvious to the reader, bujt I would say that items 2 & 3 are ambiguous, whereas the rest are fairly obvious.
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 21:02
1
1
The "usual rules" are designed for prototype situations, where there is one noun phrase that is referentially identical to another NP in the same sentence (or in the same discourse). The second NP becomes a pronoun in speech, and is to be interpreted as such by the addressee. There are lots of variations on this. But if there are several possible antecedents for pronouns, there is no rule for which one the addressee should choose. The speaker would normally avoid such sentences, unless they could make clear the referent by stressing it or glancing or pointing at it.
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 22:44
The "usual rules" are designed for prototype situations, where there is one noun phrase that is referentially identical to another NP in the same sentence (or in the same discourse). The second NP becomes a pronoun in speech, and is to be interpreted as such by the addressee. There are lots of variations on this. But if there are several possible antecedents for pronouns, there is no rule for which one the addressee should choose. The speaker would normally avoid such sentences, unless they could make clear the referent by stressing it or glancing or pointing at it.
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 22:44
|
show 1 more comment
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491476%2fwhat-are-the-rules-for-what-they-refers-to-when-there-are-two-plural-nouns-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491476%2fwhat-are-the-rules-for-what-they-refers-to-when-there-are-two-plural-nouns-in%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
There are no rules for such interpretations. The sentences are semantically ambiguous and could have several meanings, following the usual rules for coreference. What happens, instead of having inflexible grammatical rules, is that everybody -- speaker and addressee -- makes assumptions (sometimes incorrectly) about what the other(s) know, believe, and expect about the situation and the reasons for the sentence being uttered in the first place. Plus, in person, one has the ability to point to or glance toward any participants that may be present. It's called "pragmatics".
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 20:44
1
You say that the meaning of the third sentence is clear. It wasn't clear to me, because (not being American) I didn't know what civil war was being referred to, nor who won or lost it. So, obviously no: the grammar should not rely on historical knowledge!
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 20:59
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
Mar 26 at 20:59
@Davo Context may override rules where the meaning is obvious to the reader, bujt I would say that items 2 & 3 are ambiguous, whereas the rest are fairly obvious.
– TrevorD
Mar 26 at 21:02
1
The "usual rules" are designed for prototype situations, where there is one noun phrase that is referentially identical to another NP in the same sentence (or in the same discourse). The second NP becomes a pronoun in speech, and is to be interpreted as such by the addressee. There are lots of variations on this. But if there are several possible antecedents for pronouns, there is no rule for which one the addressee should choose. The speaker would normally avoid such sentences, unless they could make clear the referent by stressing it or glancing or pointing at it.
– John Lawler
Mar 26 at 22:44