In today’s news, the scores of nearly 500,000 PSAT tests will go up a point or two because the Educational Testing Service says that this sentence has a grammatical error in it, viz., that the “her” is used incorrectly. Can anybody please tell me why?
“Toni Morrison’s genius enables her to create novels that arise from and express the injustices African Americans have endured.”
? I thought I was a super-duper grammar geek, but I see no error here. Can you link to the story?
Daniel
ditto. It must be some subject/object thing, but I’ll be damned if I get it.
From the New York Times:
I cannot find the implied rule anywhere. A pronoun must agree with its antecedent in person and number, but certainly not in case. Specifically, I’ve never seen a rule suggesting that a noun in the possessive case may not later be referred to by a pronoun in the objective case.
Can anyone elaborate on this?
And shouldn’t this be in general questions?
Daniel
Okay, from NYT’s AP Online section:
Uh, sorry, nope. Although there is debate amongst grammar-geeks whether to consider possessive nouns as nouns or adjectives, the general consensus leans toward considering them as nouns. After all, “possessive” is considered a case of nouns along the lines of “nominative” and “objective.”
Nevertheless, since some people teach that possessive nouns are actually adjectives, I can see how this question should be thrown out: there’s not a black-and-white answer to the question, so it’s unsuitable for multiple choice.
Still and all, the fact that considering “Toni Morrison’s” to be an adjective means that you can’t refer to “Toni Morrison’s” with a pronoun is actually a strong argument in favor of considering possessive nouns to be nouns. To do otherwise is to adhere to a foolish rule that needlessly restricts language.
Daniel
Assuming it is incorrect, how would you correct just that part?
The answer would be A (as in hers). There are answers for each part of the sentence (i.e., A woud be “hers,” B might be “enables,” etc).
Huh? So “Toni Morrison’s genius enables hers to create novels that arise from and express the injustices African Americans have endured.” would be correct? I’m lost.
Zoggie: huh?
SmackFu: Stipulating that it’s incorrect, you’d need to do one of two things:
Switching to “hers” wouldn’t help with this (specious, IMO) complaint: since the claimed problem is that “Toni Morrison’s” isn’t a noun but is rather an adjective, there wouldn’t be any pronoun at all that would be acceptable to refer to “Toni Morrison’s.”
Daniel
Thanks, Daniel, for providing the link.
I’d say the “her” is not a possessive, but an (indirect?) object pronoun.
I think it’s probably the subject of the infinitive phrase.
It is: Flawed PSAT grammar question
The pronoun her, whose case is objective and not possessive, is the direct object of the verb enables. It is also the infinitive phrase’s subject.
You’re correct – but that’s not what’s at issue. The issue is whether the pronoun has a proper antecedent; the journalism teacher is claiming that “Toni Morrison’s,” as an adjective, cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun, any more than “briny” could be.
Daniel
Something is seriously wrong when the language becomes so complicated that well-educated, articulate native speakers can’t understand the rules any more.
:mad:
I don’t think so. I think the entire infinitive phrase is the direct object.
Depends on whether you’re talking to a prescriptive grammarian or a descriptive grammarian. The prescriptive ones are the annoying ones ;).
Prescriptive grammarians believe that a good set of rules is necessary for proper flow of language. They tend to frown on changes to the rules of language, believing that they just muddle things up. They’re the ones who talk about “right” and “wrong” in regards to language.
Descriptive grammarians believe that folks have an instinctive understanding on language, and that a grammarian’s job is to observe the natural use of language and formulate rules that describe that usage. There’s no such thing as a “right” way or a “wrong” way to use the language; there are simply ways that conform to a greater or lesser degree with the standard uses of language.
Me, I’m a descriptivist all the way. I figure that the language never gets so complicated that the average speaker can’t understand it: the language’s existence depends on the average speaker.
On the other hand, you can use language without understanding the underlying patterns and “rules”, in the same way that you can use your body without understanding anatomy. You don’t have to understand subject-verb agreement in order to use it. Somebody can say, “I don’t know what a verb is,” correctly using two verbs in the process.
Arguing over the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin nature of possessive nouns is all in good fun for grammar geeks, but it’s wholly unnecessary for the native speaker of the language even to understand what’s being argued.
Daniel
The infinitive phrase is not a noun phrase; it is an adverb phrase, modifying the verb enables and describing the manner in which Ms. Morrison’s genius enables her. See “Infinitive Phrases,” in Donald E. Hardy, Fundamentals of English Grammar: Description and Use, ch. 4:
Sorry, but “to enable” is a transitive verb, requiring a direct object. The example you gave was intransitive.
Wanna try again.
The point being that “her to create. . .” is the entire infinitive phrase with “her” as the subject, not “her” as a direct object of “enables” and “to create” as an adverbial infinitive phrase.