Relative pronouns
The examples just discussed show that to prevent misunderstanding, personal pronouns ("they," "their," etc.) must stand close to their antecedents. The same principle applies with even greater force to relative pronouns ("which," "that," "who," etc.).
Readers encountering a relative pronoun assume not just that it will be somewhere near the element it refers to, but that it will come immediately after that element. The following examples show the expected arrangement of words:
- Jiang has instructed legal departments to severely punish *law-breakers* *who* have been involved in making and dealing in illegal alcoholic drinks.
- The main peak of this range, *Mount Qogir*, *which* stands outside the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to the northwest, is second in elevation only to Qomolangma.
This unconscious expectation on the reader's part — that the relative pronoun will refer to the immediately preceding noun — is very strong. So strong that if any other noun intervenes between the true antecedent and the relative pronoun, the pronoun will — again — affix itself to that one, whether the connection is logical or not. As may be seen from the following three examples, the result can completely subvert the writer's meaning.
1) First, a simple example taken from a native source (a U.S. newspaper)
- Wanted: Man to take care of *cow* *that* does not smoke or drink.
The intended antecedent of "that" is the "man" whose services are being sought in the advertisement. Unfortunately, the pronoun attaches itself to the intervening noun, thus describing the blameless habits of the cow.
To connect the pronoun "that" to the right antecedent, one would only have to move the relative clause — which is merely a misplaced modifier — next to the noun it logically modifies:
- Wanted: Man that (or, better: who) does not smoke or drink to take care of cow.
2) Now, a more complex example taken from Chinglish:
- In October of the same year [1976] , the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee took decisive measures to shatter *the Gang of Four*, in *which* he [Hua Guofeng], Ye jianying, Li Xiannian, and others played an important role.
In this sentence the translator is trying to use "which" not to represent a single word but to sum up a whole preceding idea. Like the similar use of "this" mentioned on page 209 above, the practice can be useful, and it is generally considered acceptable.
But such a construction works only when the antecedent is unmistakable. It may be grammatically defensible, but if it suggests that a specific word (as opposed to a whole clause) is the antecedent of the relative pronoun, it will mislead the reader nonetheless.
It must therefore be used with great care. Barzun [pp. 77 – 78] warns that when "which" and "this" are used to refer "to antecedent ideas — sentences or statements taken as a whole — only the closest attention will prevent ambiguity or blunders."
In the example under consideration, the "which" is intended to refer to the entire preceding clause: "the Political Bureau . . . took decisive measures etc." But after the manner of relative pronouns, it fastens upon the nearest preceding noun instead. the "Gang of Four." Consequently, the only possible interpretation of the sentence is that Hua Guofeng and the other leaders played an important role in the Gang of Four. There is no "ambiguity" here, just an outright "blunder" of major proportions.
Unlike the sentence about the virtuous cow, this one cannot be fixed simply by moving the relative clause to another position. To break the unintended link between the pronoun "which" and the false antecedent, "the Gang of Four," we have to provide the pronoun with an appropriate and *nearby* antecedent:
- In October of the same year, the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee took decisive measures to break up the Gang of Four, an operation in which he, Ye Jianying, Li Xiannian, and others played an important role.
In this revision the idea to which the pronoun was meant to refer —"the Political Bureau . . . took decisive measures etc." — has been summed up in a single word, "operation." And it is now that word, positioned directly before the "which" (the spot formerly occupied by "the Gang of Four"), that stands in the place where readers expect to find the antecedent.
3) Lastly, another example from Chinglish. Here again, the relative pronoun, intended to refer to an entire preceding statement, rejects that antecedent in favor of a closer word, with a result that sabotages the meaning.
- To enforce the people's democratic dictatorship, we must launch an unremitting struggle against *bureaucracy*, *which* is of great importance.
The "which" is meant to represent "we must launch an unremitting struggle etc." But it is attracted instead to the immediately preceding noun "bureaucracy." Thus, the sentence appears to be saying that bureaucracy is very important — the opposite of what the translator intended to convey. No doubt readers who are misled will quickly realize their mistake, but why should they be subjected to even momentary confusion?
As before, to rewrite the sentence so that it says without the slightest ambiguity what it is supposed to mean, we must break the link between the "which" and the false antecedent. In the "Gang of Four" example above, this was accomplished by supplying a proper antecedent and placing it close at hand.
That can be done here too, if we consider that what is important is not "to launch" the struggle but the "struggle" itself — a slightly different interpretation that means virtually the same thing:
- To enforce the people's democratic dictatorship, we must launch an unremitting struggle against bureaucracy, a struggle which is of great importance.
Another solution would be to discard the "which" and start over with a different construction. Here is one possibility:
- To enforce the people's democratic dictatorship, we must launch an unremitting struggle against bureaucracy. It is very important to conduct such a struggle.
The last two examples confirm Professor Barzun's warning about the risks of using "which" to refer to an entire preceding idea. Whenever you come across such a construction in a text you are revising, you should ask yourself if the pronoun clearly refers to the idea in question.
If you find that the antecedent is vague, or that it is not immediately obvious, the possible solutions are the two demonstrated above. You can either (1) sum up the idea in a word or phrase that can serve as a specific and unmistakable antecedent for the "which," or (2) change the relative clause to another construction.引自 VIII. Pronouns and Antecedents
表示其中内容是对原文的摘抄