Ambiguous Pronouns: Just Who Are “They”?
by Ken Bresler
The Vocabula Review, September 2014
A wave of ambiguous pronouns appeared in The New York Times recently. Just who exactly did “his,” “them,” and “they” refer to?
“Mr. Bucklew was convicted of the 1996 killing of a man in front of his children.” We can be pretty sure that Bucklew did not commit murder in front of his own children. But don’t make us guess even for a moment. Bucklew committed murder in front of his victim’s children. (That’s from May 21, 2014, “Supreme Court Halts Missouri Execution and Sends Case Back to Appeals Court.”)
An article about President Obama contained this excerpt: “By training and equipping regional allies, he is increasingly turning the war with terrorists over to them….” He’s turning the war over to allies, not to terrorists. But the closest noun to “them” is “terrorists.” (That’s from May 28, 2014, “Rebutting Critics, Obama Seeks Higher Bar for Military Action.”)
One article started this way: “Before 6 on Sunday morning, just hours before they killed two police officers and a civilian in a display of antigovernment violence, Jerad and Amanda Miller left their two beloved cats with Kelley Fielder, the next-door neighbor with whom they had been staying.” Who had been staying with the next-door neighbor? The killers or the cats? Both make sense. (June 9, 2014, “If Antigovernment Obsession Preceded Las Vegas Shootings.”)
How about this one, written by the Associated Press and published in The Times? “Boko Haram extremists attacked a military camp in the neighboring local government area of Damboa last week and killed at least 51 soldiers. Survivors said they arrived in armored personnel carriers mounted with antiaircraft guns and were armed with rocket launchers and submachine guns much heavier than the soldiers’ AK-47 assault rifles….” Who was it who arrived in armored personnel carriers? Extremists, soldiers, or survivors? The word “survivors” is closest to “they,” but that doesn’t make sense; the survivors were the observers, not the combatants. By the end of the sentence, we know that extremists arrived in personnel carriers, because “they” had weaponry that was heavier than the soldiers’ weaponry. But don’t make us assume and don’t make us wait until we read 26 words to figure it out. (June 29, 2014, “Gunmen Fire on Nigerian Churchgoers.”)
My point is not to denigrate The New York Times or journalists. Notice that I didn’t name names. Yes, I know that these passages were written under deadline. I also know that they were written by experienced writers whose job is to write, and approved by professional editors. Each passage passed review by at least one professional editor before it was published. My point is that we should all be alert to ambiguous pronouns (“they,” “their,” “him,” “her,” and so on). Many of us write under deadline and most of us write without the benefit of professional editors. If a wave of ambiguous pronouns can hit The Times, with all its advantages, we’re all at risk.
What to do? Stay alert. If you’re discussing two men or two women or two groups of people, and you use a pronoun or possessive pronoun, make sure that you’ve explained exactly whom you’re referring to. One way to avoid ambiguity is to rearrange the sentence to put the pronoun closer to the noun it refers to. This phrase, “By training and equipping regional allies, he is increasingly turning the war with terrorists over to them,” could have been this: “He is increasingly turning over the war with terrorists to regional allies, by training and equipping them.”
However, the easiest solution is typically to repeat the subject and delete the pronoun. This phrase, “By training and equipping regional allies, he is increasingly turning the war with terrorists over to them….” could have been this: “By training and equipping regional allies, he is increasingly turning the war with terrorists over to these allies….” Better to be repetitious than ambiguous.