Do you have a clear idea of what an antecedent in English grammar is?

Recall now that an antecedent is the noun, noun phrase, or noun clause that a pronoun refers to in a sentence. It’s normally found in a sentence before a pronoun, but it can sometimes also come after that pronoun. In any case, the grammar rule is that any pronoun that refers to this antecedent must agree with it in person (whether first, second, or third person), case (whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive), and number (whether singular or plural). For example, the noun “Roberto” is the antecedent of the pronoun “he” in this sentence: “Roberto finally found the book he had been looking for.”

An antecedent need not be a noun; it can also be a noun phrase, as in this sentence: “The basic computer course that Ana wants to take is currently offered by the school, but it costs twice her budget for it.” Here, the antecedent is the entire noun phrase “the basic computer course that Ana wants to take,” and the pronoun “it” refers to that antecedent.

And an antecedent can also be a noun clause, as in this sentence: “What transpired during his long meeting with his boss disturbed Armando, and it gave him bad dreams for several nights.” Here, the noun clause “what transpired during his long meeting with his boss” is the antecedent of “it” in that sentence. In the noun clause, the noun “Armando” is the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which modifies the nouns “long meeting” and “boss.”

When the antecedent is in plural form or is a compound—meaning two or more nouns—the pronoun that refers to that antecedent must also be in plural form, as in this sentence: “His manager and his wife are demanding quality time from Steve, and they both won’t accept compromises.” Here, “his manager and his wife” is a compound antecedent, so the pronoun referring to it is the plural-form “they.” Note that the noun “Steve” is itself the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which is used twice in the noun phrase.

Now test your understanding of antecedents by answering the test question below in a practice test for the SAT Reasoning Test, the standardized college admissions test in the United States. The item was sent to me recently by a member of Jose Carillo’s English Forum, who asked for an explanation of the correct answer and the grammar behind that answer.

“__________ the orchestra for six concerts, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was scheduled.”

(A) After conducting
(B) After his conducting
(C) While conducting
(D) Although he had conducted
(E) After he had conducted

Which answer is correct?

Here’s my analysis of the answer choices: 

It couldn’t be B because the pronoun “his” in the subordinate phrase “after his conducting the orchestra for six concerts” doesn’t have a proper antecedent noun or pronoun that, logically, should denote a musical conductor. “Beethoven’s” couldn’t be that antecedent because it’s in the possessive case, and neither could it be “Ninth Symphony,” being an inanimate object.

Neither could A and C be correct because both don’t have an antecedent noun doing the action; for the same reason as in B above, “Beethoven’s” and “Ninth Symphony” couldn’t be that antecedent noun. D couldn’t be correct either, for its subordinating conjunction, “although,” makes the statement illogical.

The only answer that’s both grammatically and logically correct is E. With E as subordinate phrase to the main clause, the nominative pronoun “he” is properly supplied as doer of the action of conducting the orchestra, and the past participle “had conducted” is the correct tense for the repeated action in the indefinite past. With E, the sentence works properly because both the main clause and the subordinate phrase are properly constructed, then logically linked by the subordinating conjunction “after.” (June 19, 2010) 

-------------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 19, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved

Click here to discuss/comment

A few days ago, a reader who described her job as drafting letters and taking the minutes of meetings sent me e-mail about an all-too-familiar English usage predicament: “May I request you to write a column on the usage of ‘regard’, ‘regards’, and ‘regarding’? Is it correct to use ‘as regards to the…’ or ‘with regards to the…’? You see, every time I use ‘with regard to…’, my superior always adds ‘s’ to it and I can’t explain to him why the word ‘regard’ in that usage shouldn’t have an ‘s’.”

Here’s my open reply to that reader:

Many years ago, I encountered a similar predicament about the “with regards to…” idiom. One of my superiors in the company where I used to work had the imperious habit of using “with regards to…”—with “s” always affixed to the word “regard”—every time he wrote a memo: “With regards to your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” The usage sounded so stiff to me, and I thought that “regarding,” “concerning,” or “about” would have done a more natural-sounding job: “Regarding your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” “Concerning your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” “About your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…”

Indeed, when I checked, I found out that “with regards to…” (along with its other dubious variant, “in regards to”) is actually nonstandard usage—what one language authority, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, called a “shibboleth,” or a use of language regarded as distinctive of a particular group. In other words, it isn’t generally accepted usage; the standard usage is “with regard to…”: “With regard to your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” As in your case, however, I knew my place in the scheme of things and made no attempt to correct my superior. (After all, you shouldn’t lose your job for having English grammar that’s better than that of your boss.)

So I imagine that until today, that boss of mine still blissfully foists “with regards to…” on superiors and subordinates alike in his memos wherever he’s working now. You see, people who acquire such questionable usage often need the hammer-and-anvil of experience—perhaps a strong-minded superior who knows his or her English usage better —to finally correct themselves.*

Other than “regarding,” of course, two other “regard” idioms are considered standard usage: “as regards…” and “in regard to…”: “As regards your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” “In regard to your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” As an advocate for plain and simple English, however, I would advise against their use. Even if many lawyers, bureaucrats, and corporate types find them useful for giving an officious edge to their memos, I think that our memos would sound much more pleasant and engaging—and get better results—if they used just plain “regarding,” “concerning,” or “about” instead: “Regarding your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” “Concerning your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” “About your request for transfer, please furnish us with…”

Now, if “with regards to…” and “in regards to” are indeed substandard usage, why is it that people fall into the often-intractable habit of using them? I think it’s because there are actually three similar-sounding “regards” idioms that are standard usage: “give my regards,” “extend my regards,” and “with my regards.” These idioms, however, are not in the same semantic league as “with regards to…” and “in regards to.” Instead, they are expressions of good wishes, the stuff of conventional closings for letters and for other situations that require parting words, as in these expressions: “Give my regards to your wife and children.” “Please extend my regards to the staff.”

And I’ll now use the third such “regards” expression to close this open letter of mine:

With my best regards,
Joe Carillo
(June 11, 2007)

-------------------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 11, 2007 © 2007 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

*I wish to note for the record here that that former boss of mine passed away in 2009. Whether or not he had eventually realized that “with regards to” is nonstandard English and subsequently avoided its usage, may his soul have eternal rest.

Click here to discuss/comment