What are the rules for what “they” refers to when there are two plural nouns in a sentence?
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 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
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 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
12 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
@JohnLawler I'm not sure I even know the "usual rules for coreference". Do you have something you could point me to?
– Todd Chaffee
10 hours ago
|
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 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
asked 12 hours ago
Todd ChaffeeTodd Chaffee
1062
1062
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
12 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
@JohnLawler I'm not sure I even know the "usual rules for coreference". Do you have something you could point me to?
– Todd Chaffee
10 hours ago
|
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
12 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
@JohnLawler I'm not sure I even know the "usual rules for coreference". Do you have something you could point me to?
– Todd Chaffee
10 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
1
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
12 hours ago
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
12 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
@JohnLawler I'm not sure I even know the "usual rules for coreference". Do you have something you could point me to?
– Todd Chaffee
10 hours ago
@JohnLawler I'm not sure I even know the "usual rules for coreference". Do you have something you could point me to?
– Todd Chaffee
10 hours ago
|
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
});
}
});
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Todd Chaffee is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
12 hours ago
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
12 hours ago
1
Context will override any rigid rules about pronouns referencing the last identified party.
– Davo
12 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
@JohnLawler I'm not sure I even know the "usual rules for coreference". Do you have something you could point me to?
– Todd Chaffee
10 hours ago