What is a relative pronoun's referent when it follows a prepositional phrase?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For example:
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors whose ranks include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
relative-clauses prepositional-phrases relative-pronouns
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For example:
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors whose ranks include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
relative-clauses prepositional-phrases relative-pronouns
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
1
In both sentences, it's ambiguous -- the relative can refer to either prior noun phrase. This is what is known in the trade as an "attachment ambiguity" -- it tends to happen at the end of a sentence, when there are a lot of qualifications, one after another.
– John Lawler
Dec 5 at 23:34
1
However, the ambiguity is rather resolved in the first case by the choice of relative who which refers only to people (or, at least, sentient beings). In the second case, whose is not restricted to people, so it might attach to either.
– Colin Fine
Dec 5 at 23:46
Interesting! Thanks @JohnLawler
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:47
Ahh good point! @ColinFine
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:48
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
For example:
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors whose ranks include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
relative-clauses prepositional-phrases relative-pronouns
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
For example:
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
Stella Adler trained several generations of actors whose ranks include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. Does who in this example refer to actors or generations?
relative-clauses prepositional-phrases relative-pronouns
relative-clauses prepositional-phrases relative-pronouns
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
asked Dec 5 at 23:19
johnnyodonnell
113
113
1
In both sentences, it's ambiguous -- the relative can refer to either prior noun phrase. This is what is known in the trade as an "attachment ambiguity" -- it tends to happen at the end of a sentence, when there are a lot of qualifications, one after another.
– John Lawler
Dec 5 at 23:34
1
However, the ambiguity is rather resolved in the first case by the choice of relative who which refers only to people (or, at least, sentient beings). In the second case, whose is not restricted to people, so it might attach to either.
– Colin Fine
Dec 5 at 23:46
Interesting! Thanks @JohnLawler
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:47
Ahh good point! @ColinFine
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:48
add a comment |
1
In both sentences, it's ambiguous -- the relative can refer to either prior noun phrase. This is what is known in the trade as an "attachment ambiguity" -- it tends to happen at the end of a sentence, when there are a lot of qualifications, one after another.
– John Lawler
Dec 5 at 23:34
1
However, the ambiguity is rather resolved in the first case by the choice of relative who which refers only to people (or, at least, sentient beings). In the second case, whose is not restricted to people, so it might attach to either.
– Colin Fine
Dec 5 at 23:46
Interesting! Thanks @JohnLawler
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:47
Ahh good point! @ColinFine
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:48
1
1
In both sentences, it's ambiguous -- the relative can refer to either prior noun phrase. This is what is known in the trade as an "attachment ambiguity" -- it tends to happen at the end of a sentence, when there are a lot of qualifications, one after another.
– John Lawler
Dec 5 at 23:34
In both sentences, it's ambiguous -- the relative can refer to either prior noun phrase. This is what is known in the trade as an "attachment ambiguity" -- it tends to happen at the end of a sentence, when there are a lot of qualifications, one after another.
– John Lawler
Dec 5 at 23:34
1
1
However, the ambiguity is rather resolved in the first case by the choice of relative who which refers only to people (or, at least, sentient beings). In the second case, whose is not restricted to people, so it might attach to either.
– Colin Fine
Dec 5 at 23:46
However, the ambiguity is rather resolved in the first case by the choice of relative who which refers only to people (or, at least, sentient beings). In the second case, whose is not restricted to people, so it might attach to either.
– Colin Fine
Dec 5 at 23:46
Interesting! Thanks @JohnLawler
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:47
Interesting! Thanks @JohnLawler
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:47
Ahh good point! @ColinFine
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:48
Ahh good point! @ColinFine
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:48
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
If I understand the question correctly, the question is which word is the head of the NP which "who" refers to.
In this case it's easy to resolve any ambiguity. You can train actors but you can't train a generation. The only way to understand the first sentence entails treating "several generations of" as a quantifier. As such, "generations" can't be that head. This implies that that head must be "actors".
Compare:
Stella Adler trained a large number of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.
In this variant, the head of the NP referred to be "who" can't be "number".
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
This is an interesting take on analyzing the sentence. I haven't read much about quantifiers yet. Are there any sources that you can share so that I can up on them? I'm not 100% convinced yet that "generations" is not the head of the sentence.
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 6 at 22:50
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
If I understand the question correctly, the question is which word is the head of the NP which "who" refers to.
In this case it's easy to resolve any ambiguity. You can train actors but you can't train a generation. The only way to understand the first sentence entails treating "several generations of" as a quantifier. As such, "generations" can't be that head. This implies that that head must be "actors".
Compare:
Stella Adler trained a large number of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.
In this variant, the head of the NP referred to be "who" can't be "number".
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
This is an interesting take on analyzing the sentence. I haven't read much about quantifiers yet. Are there any sources that you can share so that I can up on them? I'm not 100% convinced yet that "generations" is not the head of the sentence.
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 6 at 22:50
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If I understand the question correctly, the question is which word is the head of the NP which "who" refers to.
In this case it's easy to resolve any ambiguity. You can train actors but you can't train a generation. The only way to understand the first sentence entails treating "several generations of" as a quantifier. As such, "generations" can't be that head. This implies that that head must be "actors".
Compare:
Stella Adler trained a large number of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.
In this variant, the head of the NP referred to be "who" can't be "number".
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
This is an interesting take on analyzing the sentence. I haven't read much about quantifiers yet. Are there any sources that you can share so that I can up on them? I'm not 100% convinced yet that "generations" is not the head of the sentence.
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 6 at 22:50
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
If I understand the question correctly, the question is which word is the head of the NP which "who" refers to.
In this case it's easy to resolve any ambiguity. You can train actors but you can't train a generation. The only way to understand the first sentence entails treating "several generations of" as a quantifier. As such, "generations" can't be that head. This implies that that head must be "actors".
Compare:
Stella Adler trained a large number of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.
In this variant, the head of the NP referred to be "who" can't be "number".
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
If I understand the question correctly, the question is which word is the head of the NP which "who" refers to.
In this case it's easy to resolve any ambiguity. You can train actors but you can't train a generation. The only way to understand the first sentence entails treating "several generations of" as a quantifier. As such, "generations" can't be that head. This implies that that head must be "actors".
Compare:
Stella Adler trained a large number of actors who include Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.
In this variant, the head of the NP referred to be "who" can't be "number".
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
answered Dec 6 at 7:34
Rosie F
52825
52825
This is an interesting take on analyzing the sentence. I haven't read much about quantifiers yet. Are there any sources that you can share so that I can up on them? I'm not 100% convinced yet that "generations" is not the head of the sentence.
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 6 at 22:50
add a comment |
This is an interesting take on analyzing the sentence. I haven't read much about quantifiers yet. Are there any sources that you can share so that I can up on them? I'm not 100% convinced yet that "generations" is not the head of the sentence.
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 6 at 22:50
This is an interesting take on analyzing the sentence. I haven't read much about quantifiers yet. Are there any sources that you can share so that I can up on them? I'm not 100% convinced yet that "generations" is not the head of the sentence.
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 6 at 22:50
This is an interesting take on analyzing the sentence. I haven't read much about quantifiers yet. Are there any sources that you can share so that I can up on them? I'm not 100% convinced yet that "generations" is not the head of the sentence.
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 6 at 22:50
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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%2f475782%2fwhat-is-a-relative-pronouns-referent-when-it-follows-a-prepositional-phrase%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
1
In both sentences, it's ambiguous -- the relative can refer to either prior noun phrase. This is what is known in the trade as an "attachment ambiguity" -- it tends to happen at the end of a sentence, when there are a lot of qualifications, one after another.
– John Lawler
Dec 5 at 23:34
1
However, the ambiguity is rather resolved in the first case by the choice of relative who which refers only to people (or, at least, sentient beings). In the second case, whose is not restricted to people, so it might attach to either.
– Colin Fine
Dec 5 at 23:46
Interesting! Thanks @JohnLawler
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:47
Ahh good point! @ColinFine
– johnnyodonnell
Dec 5 at 23:48