Attorney Perry Mason always got his man (or woman) in classic TV episodes like The Case of the Terrified Typist and The Case of the Poisoned Pen. Today's grammar installment doesn't involve murder but considers the mayhem wrought when writers are careless with antecedents and pronouns. Today we're going to study The Case of the Ambiguous Antecedent.
 
Ante what?
An antecedent is a word, phrase or clause that has a substitute, or stand-in, elsewhere in the sentence. In simplest terms, an antecedent is a noun that has a pronoun stand-in elsewhere in the sentence. Let's look at an example:

Jane couldn't start the car because she didn't have the keys. 

In this example, Jane is the antecedent; she is the pronoun that stands in for Jane later in the sentence. It's pretty easy to see how this noun and pronoun relate to each other. Take another example, though, where the connection isn't so clear:

I took the dog for a walk and then drove to the library to pick up a book before it closed at noon. 

This example shows how ambiguity can result when it an antecedent becomes separated from its pronoun. The way this sentence is constructed, it sounds as if the book will close at noon — not the library. An easy rewrite would be: 

I took the dog for a walk and then went to pick up a book at the library before it closed at noon. 

Readers expect the noun antecedent and its pronoun stand-in to be relatively close together. With shorter sentences (like the example of the car keys), it's pretty easy to keep antecedents and the words they refer to in close proximity. With longer, more complex sentences, an antecedent and its pronoun can soon become separated, leaving the reader to wonder what the writer really meant to say. 

Antecedent first, pronoun second
Writers should also consider the order in which an antecedent and its pronoun appear within a sentence. The prefix ante in antecedent means "prior to" or "earlier than." In proper construction, the antecedent appears before its pronoun stand-in. Look at these examples.

#1: Even though she was excited about the trip, Ellen dreaded going through security.

#2: Even though Ellen was excited about the trip, she dreaded going through security.

In the first sentence, the pronoun comes before its antecedent. This can sometimes cause confusion. While I won't say you can never place the pronoun first, I will say that in most cases it is probably better to avoid the practice. 

Avoid ambiguity
Ambiguous antecedents interrupt the flow of your prose and cause confusion for the reader. Of course no one is going to believe a book is closing at noon, but this type of writing will cause your reader to stop, stumble and re-read a sentence. You don't want that. If you make the reader work too hard, they may become frustrated and find reading enjoyment elsewhere.

The next time you're putting the polish on your prose, take care to notice the placement of pronouns and their antecedents. When necessary, a quick rewrite will result in clean copy that readers can easily follow.

Do you struggle with ambiguous antecedents? Do you have examples that illustrate this problem? Please share them in the Comments. If you have a writing, grammar or language question, please share it here for consideration on this blog.

One of my faithful blog readers (thanks, Rick!) recently wrote in to ask the following:

Is "quote" a verb? Must "quotation" always be used when referring to the actual words quoted?"

The answer to that question depends on whom you ask. This is one of those thorny language issues that grammarians do not agree on. Some linguists cry foul, because they view it a solecism to use quote as a noun. Here's my take:

Historical use: quote & quotation
While the word quote has been used as a verb (Can I quote you on that?) since the 1500s, my research indicates its use as a noun (I need a pithy quote for my newspaper story.) dates as far back as the late 1880s. Even though quote has become a colloquialism synonymous with quotation, some linguists insist that quotation is the only acceptable noun form. As a moderate descriptivist, I'm all for using quote as a noun. I believe that language evolves and, in most cases, we should not impede that evolution. 

What about rules?
I am not advocating that we throw out grammar and writing rules with reckless abandon (and don't even get me started on those "rules" that aren't really rules at all.) I am not saying that "anything goes" when it comes to language. In fact, I am a staunch supporter of adhering to the rules — the "real" rules. Some wordsmiths have suggested that we do away with the use of whom. I would argue that just because many of us don't know when to use whom instead of who is no reason to abandon a perfectly good word; we simply need to learn the difference between the two. (That's a post for another day.) 

Not all black & white
The more I study language and grammar, the more I realize there are many gray areas in the world of words. We may desire the comfort of rules to always tell us we've written (or spoken) something correctly, but the truth is that not everyone agrees on what's right and what's wrong. (Who would have thought grammar could be so much like politics and religion?) 

What to do?
So, dear reader, if you want to use quote as a noun, I say go for it. Just be advised that prescriptivists out there may correct you (and judge you). Of course, now you have a ready answer to refute their pedantic protestations. (Yes, I love alliteration.) And while you're at it, you might even want to split a few infinitives, start a sentence with a conjunction or end one with a preposition. Just please don't dangle any modifiers; that is a solecism up with which I will not put. 

What are your thoughts on using quote as a noun? Lively debate is welcome; incivility is not. Share your thoughts in the Comments below. If you have a writing, grammar or language question, please share it here for consideration on this blog.