Paula LaRoque, longtime Dallas Morning News writing coach, said getting pronouns right would solve most common grammar problems (The Book on Writing, p. 203). She called pronouns errors “a major source of verbal pollution” (On Words: Insights Into How Our Words Work—And Don’t, p. 183). I agree. Incorrect pronoun use—especially pronoun-antecedent disagreements—muddles messages and reflects fuzzy thinking. Writers whose pronouns don’t agree with antecedents clearly don’t understand what they are saying.

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Paragraph 3.20) says: “Pronouns replace nouns. Each pronoun should refer clearly to its antecedent and should agree with the antecedent in number and gender.”

The Chicago Manual of Style (Paragraph 5.26) echoes the APA description and adds that pronouns are often used in one of two ways: (1) as a substitute for an expressed noun or pronoun in a sentence to avoid needless repetition or (2) as a stand-in for an understood noun from earlier in the text.

These definitions assume that writers understand two concepts: (1) antecedent and (2) agreement in number (singular or plural) and gender (masculine, feminine or neuter).

Antecedent

An antecedent is an earlier noun or pronoun in the same sentence to which the pronoun refers. If the reference is unambiguous, the antecedent might be a noun in the previous sentence. This clear connection is especially important in broadcast writing. Listeners and viewers can’t go back to check the reference. If misunderstanding is possible, repeat the noun.

The general rule (certain exceptions do exist) is that the antecedent is the first noun of the same number and gender before the pronoun:

Writers should use pronouns precisely. They must communicate clearly.

According to the general rule, the antecedent for “they” in this example is “pronouns.” That word is the closest plural noun to the adjective. “Pronouns” could be the subject of the second sentence: Pronouns must communicate clearly. But the two sentences might be ambiguous to some readers. They might think “writers” is a more logical antecedent. Avoid such confusion. Make sure that the intended antecedent is always unmistakably clear. Don’t make readers guess at what you mean.

Agreement

Agreement relates to gender and number. All nouns have one of three genders (masculine, feminine or neuter) and one of two numbers (singular or plural). In English, unlike many other Indo-European languages, gender reflects the sex of noun referring to humans. Nouns referring to males are masculine. Nouns referring to females are feminine. Nouns referring to things or animals are neuter. In other languages, nouns are assigned genders. Adjectives and word endings reflect those assigned genders. For example, in German (a parent language of English) the words for newspaper and island are feminine (die Zeitung, die Insel). The words for mirror, train and secretary are masculine (der Spiegel, der Zug, der Sekretaer).

American writers have problems with antecedent agreement in at least four situations: (1) nouns with unclear gender, (2) collective nouns, (3) adjectives implying nouns and (4) references to concepts.

• Unclear gender: Singular nouns, such as reporter, writer, musician or executive, can refer to a man or a woman. Until the 1970s writers used a singular masculine pronoun for such nouns when the sex of the actor was ambiguous. (Each writer corrected his manuscript. He made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.) The masculine pronoun represented both sexes. The Women’s Movement of the 1960s and 1970s changed that thinking. Writers began using non-sexist language. (Each writer corrected his or her manuscript. He or she made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.) Because that “he or she” construction was awkward, speakers began saying “they” and “their” when the sex of the actors wasn’t specific. (Each writer corrected their manuscript. They made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.) Those plural pronouns didn’t agree in number with a singular antecedent. Such usage should be avoided. Sentences with such noun-pronoun disagreement should be revised. (All writers corrected their manuscripts. Writers made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.)

• Collective nouns: A related problem to unclear gender is the use of “they” for singular collective nouns that are neuter. Examples include committee, audience, faculty and staff. All these nouns take “it.” Committee members or faculty members would take “they.”

• Adjectives implying nouns: Sometimes writers mistake possessive words for nouns: John’s background qualified him for the assignment. “Him” is supposed to refer to John, but the sentence doesn’t include a noun for John. “John’s” is in the possessive case and is acting as an adjective for “background.” Therefore, “him” has no antecedent.

• Concepts: Sometimes writers try to use “this” or “that” as pronouns to refer to everything in the preceding sentence or paragraph. (Average social network and Twitter use in our sample is younger and more educated than the typical social network and Twitter use in the U.S. This is important in considering how Internet variables correlate with civic participation.) Exactly what is the antecedent for “this”? William Strunk writes in The Elements of Style (p. 61), “The pronoun this, referring to the complete sense of the preceding sentence or clause, can’t always carry the load and so may produce an imprecise sentence.” The same thinking applies to “that” used in the same way. A simple fix is to transform the pronouns into adjectives: “That difference is important.”

Note: This post focuses on one pronoun topic: noun-pronoun agreement. Writers need to know other things about pronoun use as well. Furthermore, I have limited the discussion to basic rules of thumb in a few situations. Exceptions do exist, but let’s sharpen the thinking about these basics first.

Copyright 2015, Douglas F. Cannon

Writers face two common challenges: (1) What to say and (2) how to say it. The first challenge relates to knowledge. The second relates to skill.

Not knowing what to say may indicate that the writer (1) doesn’t have enough information about the topic or (2) doesn’t understand the topic well enough to explain it. Research may address the lack of information. But simply collecting more details may not improve understanding. If fact, too much information may lead to “the paralysis of analysis.” The writer isn’t sure how to evaluate with all the facts. Nevertheless, the writer’s mission is to synthesize a collection of facts into a simple explanation of a topic. That process requires critical thinking—based on the reason for writing—about what’s important and relevant to intended readers. Remember: Good writing is good thinking with ink on it.

Not knowing how to package messages for intended readers may reflect (1) a fuzzy understanding of purpose or (2) lack of technical expertise. Writers should always be clear about why they are writing. Is the purpose to inform, influence (persuade) or entertain intended readers? Once that answer is clear, writers need the technical skills to package messages in ways that will engage and communicate to intended readers. Will the vocabulary attract reader attention, precisely convey information and be understood? Or will the presentation bore or confuse readers? Are sentences short and easy to follow or long and convoluted? Does the syntax and word use present the message without ambiguity? If not, writers may need to work with good editors or consult—and follow—grammar references (usage guides, stylebooks or writing handbooks). Remember: Good writing is accurate, brief and clear.

When writers can easily explain what they want to say and have a clear idea of how to say it, they can avoid writer’s block and have a better chance of communicating effectively. They will not present torturous texts that reflect muddled thinking.

Copyright 2015, Douglas F. Cannon