10

Lindsey told Jessica that she had cancer.

Who had cancer? Is there any rule in English to claim it definitely?

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
nikkou
  • 251
  • 1
  • 7
  • 25
    No - that statement is ambiguous. The only way to clarify it is with more context. – Matt E. Эллен Mar 25 '12 at 11:12
  • 2
    An admittedly less than elegant solution is to disambiguate by repeating the noun (in brackets): Lindsey told Jessica that she (Lindsey) had cancer or Lindsey told Jessica that she (Jessica) had cancer. – Shoe Mar 25 '12 at 16:20
  • 3
    If Lindsey was a man, the ambiguity would be gone. – J.R. Mar 25 '12 at 18:59
  • 4
    "She" could be anyone. Jessica, Lindsey, or any other person of the female gender. – Bread May 26 '18 at 11:26
  • Sorry, J.R. and if Lindsey was a man, the ambiguity would be reduced, not gone. – Robbie Goodwin May 26 '18 at 21:55
  • 1
    You could always reframe the statement as "Lindsey had cancer, she told Jessica." or "Jessica had cancer, Lindsey told her," as the case might warrant. Either formulation is better (in my opinion) than bringing "the former" or "the latter" into the picture. – Sven Yargs May 26 '18 at 22:18
  • 3
    The question's been answered by the first comment. There is no such rule in English. There are putative rules which contradict one another, as always when authoritative ignorance is allowed, but no grammatical rule can disambiguate coreference when there are several possibilities. That requires either more context, more presupposition, a different structure, or blind guessing. Language is often ambiguous, and that's a blessing because we can never specify everything in advance. – John Lawler May 27 '18 at 17:29
  • In the absense of knowledge that Lindsey was a doctor or medical professional , we must assume that Lindsey was not such a professional. So, using the most common meaning being the default assumption we would assume that normal human cannot inform or know what another does not know about themselves and thus assume they are sharing what they can normally know and need to share: something about themselves. I would say it is not particularly vague - maybe just vague enough to clarify by restating it outloud, and waiting to be corrected, but not vague enough to correct. – Tom22 May 29 '18 at 01:45
  • 1
    @Abhishek What are the "recent changes"? It doesn't look like the question has been edited since the day it was originally asked. – 1006a Jun 02 '18 at 04:46
  • @Tom22 That might be reasonable for this particular example (though I know a lot of doctors, and might first guess the other way around), but it doesn't really solve the underlying issue. For example, there's no similar contextual default for "Mary told Elizabeth that she had won the contract" (or the similarly ambiguous "John told James that his wife had arrived"). – 1006a Jun 02 '18 at 04:55
  • 1
    @1006a 100% agree that the structure itself is ambiguous without hints, however, there usually ARE hints ... it is a very rare sentence that stands alone. ( captions are one example of standing alone. Also, if it were the lead sentence it would be quite confusing). BUT you are right, I didn't read the question that well - I did not give -it- the benefit of the doubt to mean the general case; the OP was asking generally. – Tom22 Jun 02 '18 at 05:47
  • Another way to clarify this statement is to replace "she" with the person who's having the cancer. "Lindsey told Jessica that Lindsey had cancer" meaning that Lindsey had cancer and "Lindsey told Jessica that Jessica had cancer" meaning that Jessica had cancer. However, "Lindsey told Jessica that she had cancer" would be ambiguous because "she" could be either Lindsey or Jessica, or any other person of the female gender. People may rewrite it as either "Lindsey told Jessica that Lindsey had cancer" or "Lindsey told Jessica that Jessica had cancer". – user298438 Jun 10 '18 at 01:30
  • The other way to clarify is by adding Aaron and Nick, male gender persons. Nick says "Lindsey told Jessica that she had cancer." and Aaron asks what person had cancer. Nick may say either Lindsey or Jessica. Then Aaron might say "ok". – user298438 Jun 10 '18 at 02:25

6 Answers6

13

This sentence is syntactically correct but semantically ambiguous. One may rewrite it as

Lindsey told Jessica that the former had cancer

to mean that Lindsey had cancer or

Lindsey told Jessica that the latter had cancer

to mean that Jessica had cancer.

  • 1
    So there's no rule to determine which noun the pronoun refers? For example, in Russian there's a rule that a pronoun should refer to the last noun in front of it. – nikkou Mar 25 '12 at 11:49
  • 6
    @FronSTAN: there is no such rule in Russian. All native speakers of Russian in our chat right now find the Russian equivalent of the sentence in question just as ambiguous. – RegDwigнt Mar 25 '12 at 12:11
  • @RegDwight Ѭſ道: Yeah, of course it can be ambigous in live speech but the rule exists according to standarts of Russian language. From Wikipedia: «Предложения «Мы отдали бананы обезьянам, потому что они были голодные» и «Мы отдали бананы обезьянам, потому что они были перезрелыми» похожи по синтаксической структуре. В одном из них местоимение они относится к обезьянам, а в другом — к бананам. ... По нормам русского языка второе предложение некорректно, потому что в нем местоимение ссылается не на последнее подходящее слово, однако в живой речи такое предложение очень даже может встретиться.» – nikkou Mar 25 '12 at 12:20
  • Wikipedia – nikkou Mar 25 '12 at 12:27
  • 12
    I think Will's answer is good (+1), but the wording of his suggested rewrites is not something you would write in, say, a fictional story. It is too formal. You could write something like -- Lindsey told Jessica, "I have cancer." Or -- Lindsey told Jessica, "You have cancer." – JLG Mar 25 '12 at 15:01
  • 2
    @JLG - although in a story, unless it's set in a hospital and Lindsay was the doctor it's likely that first – mgb Mar 25 '12 at 15:36
  • @mgb, yep. Or a family member or friend breaking the news to poor Jessica. – JLG Mar 25 '12 at 18:30
  • 3
    I'm sure that Russian grammarians are just as good as English-speaking ones at making up rules about their language and supposing that because they've made them up they must be true. And I'm sure that Russians are just as good as English speakers at talking their language the way it is, not the way that some grammarian has imagined it should be. – Colin Fine Mar 27 '12 at 00:36
  • I am not going to vote this down, but I would express a misgiving that I think many less educated adults and 4th graders and under would be more confused by using "former" and "latter" than the slightly vague original – Tom22 May 29 '18 at 02:00
  • In conversation no one uses former and latter. Just saying. I would downvote but there are so many upvotes that it makes no difference. In conversation, one says"X told Y that she, X, had cancer. X told Y that W has cancer. X told her patient that she had cancer. etc. etc. There are all sorts of strategies one can use. – Lambie Jun 09 '18 at 14:59
  • There is still ambiguity here. "former" could mean a former interchange or a former intersection, and it would also mean "former had...". – user298438 Jun 10 '18 at 14:47
4

The best way to clarify the statement is to use direct speech instead of indirect speech.

"I have cancer" said Lindsey to Jessica

if Lindsey had cancer, or

"You have cancer" said Lindsey to Jessica

if Jessica had cancer.

Laurel
  • 66,382
Abhishek Choudhary
  • 65
4

It's ambiguous in writing, but not necessarily in pronunciation. See my answer to this previous question: When "who" is an antecedent .... William Cantrall pointed out the pitch agreement in English between antecedent and pronoun that can disambiguate such sentences.

In the example "Lindsey told Jessica that she had cancer", prolong the "she" and say both "Lindsey" and "she" with rising pitch, but use falling pitch for "Jessica" -- now "she" refers to "Lindsey". On the other hand, say both "Lindsey" and "she" with falling pitch, but pronounce "Jessica" with rising pitch -- now "she" refers to "Lindsey".

Greg Lee
  • 17,406
  • Yes, emphasis can do it and but repetition also works: that she Lindsey has cancer, for that meaning. But your solution is for speech only. – Lambie Jun 09 '18 at 17:55
2

Lindsey told Jessica that she had cancer.

As others have said, this original is ambiguous.

While I do think the most logical assumption is that the first cannot know something the second does not know about themselves, and that in the unusual case that they do, the context would have let us know they were a medical professional, even many people do not assume the most common by default.

Another good answer used "former and latter" . This is definitely a proper approach, however, I believe those words can baffle too many people and can also sound a bit formal. I'm not sure a 4th grader would understand "former" and "latter" ... as simple as they should be, people get flustered with them like adding fractions is tough for others.

I do not think the following are better, however I do think they are helpful possibilities.

Lindsey has cancer and told Jessica.

or Lindsey has cancer and told Jessica the sad news.

Lindsey learned that Jessica had cancer and told her.

or Lindsey learned that Jessica had cancer and broke that news to her.

These use two verbs that both related to the first named person.

Again, this is a tricky question and many situations with more parties get even harder. The more approaches the better.

Community
  • 1
Tom22
  • 5,776
  • @user298438 Hey .. can you read this note ? I tried to compromise on the edit.. you really don't like the extra words ? – Tom22 Jun 10 '18 at 00:19
  • 2
    @user I see you're not only bothering me but other people's answers too. I should note that whether someone's answer is messy because you think your answer is better, then that's an illusion I'm afraid. Tom doesn't have to make an edit nor does he have to ("should") approve anything // conform to your unending will. If you're gonna offer constructive criticism please (note I say please and not should), specify which part was messy rather than picking at holes. – aesking Jun 10 '18 at 15:52
  • 2
    @user298438 I did clean it up again, and it could have used that. It's fine to propose changes or to point those out. The thing was that you repeatedly changed my sample sentences which were core parts of my answer and style orientated. I changed them back and you reverted them, then I added both my longer and shorter samples and you eliminated my longer ones. It got silly that you were changing what I had just changed without a comment first. – Tom22 Jun 10 '18 at 18:25
0

This statement is ambiguous. The only way is to clarify it with more context.

Replace "she" with the person who had cancer.

Lindsey told Jessica that Lindsey had cancer.

to mean that Lindsey had cancer, and

Lindsey told Jessica that Jessica had cancer.

to mean that Jessica had cancer.

If we just say:

Lindsey told Jessica that she had cancer.

"She" could be either Lindsey or Jessica. This is an ambiguity.

Another ambiguity is that "she" could be anyone in the female gender. Lindsey, Jessica or any other person of the female gender.

If Lindsey is a man, the ambiguity would be reduced. If both are men, this sentence doesn't make sense in English.

If Jessica is a man, the ambiguity would be reduced too. (Jessica should be a woman, but if you pretend Jessica as a men, the ambiguity would be reduced too.)

user298438
  • 75
0

Lindsey told Jessica that she had cancer.

The first comment (that I can see) to this question is what expresses the answer best:

No - that statement is ambiguous. The only way to clarify it is with more context

There is no grammatical key that will unlock the her in the given, isolated sentence. It could be Lindsey, it could be Jessica, it could be a third she that has cancer.

Arm the good guys in America
  • 521
  • 1
    This is not a discussion forum; repeating answers is not acceptable. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 03 '18 at 22:27
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth Which answer did I repeat? – Arm the good guys in America Jun 04 '18 at 18:32
  • 1
    'This sentence is ... semantically ambiguous.' User 2683; March. And note that Matt E. Эллен puts 'No - that statement is ambiguous. The only way to clarify it is with more context.' in a comment as far back as 2012; this is hardly a question suitable for a site aimed at English linguists, and an 'answer' merely invites further such questions. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 04 '18 at 21:54
  • 2
    If you don't like the question, downvote it and move on. If you don't like an answer, downvote it and move on. Your objections make you sound like a grumpy old man wanting to control everybody else's actions. You'll never be successful at that. Also, the answer by User2683 does not include the third possibility that she can mean a person other than Lindsey and Jessica. Why don't you actually contribute to this site by writing an answer instead of going around trying to police others? @EdwinAshworth – Arm the good guys in America Jun 05 '18 at 03:05
  • 1
    People complain when others don't explain why they are downvoting. And I'd agree that it's usually more helpful to give a reason. Here, there's a strong element of piggy-backing, and the question is too basic for a site aimed at linguists anyway. Keeping the site tidy and on-topic adds to credibility. / You do realise that ELU is intended to be self-policing? Do you do your fair share? I wish none were necessary. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 05 '18 at 09:41