What is going on in this sentence?
I was helping my brother study for the SAT, and we came across this sentence:
While it was different from all the other classes he had taken, Eric was unhappy with his psychology class.
The answer was that there are no errors in that sentence. But my brother thinks that the noun following the comma should be consistent with the "it" in the first clause. I have come across sentences of this form in the works of well-known writers, but I do not know how to explain to him why this is correct.
It's always a mistake to think of grammar as involving commas and words following them. Grammar is clauses and phrases and predicates; there are no commas in language, only in writing.
In this case, there are two clauses:
- ((Eric's) psychology class) was different from the other classes (that) (Eric) had taken
- (Eric) was unhappy with ((Eric's) psychology class)
The pieces in parentheses are either deletable markers (like relative that) or noun phrases that can be replaced by pronouns (like he, his, and it) in the appropriate circumstances.
The problem is what the appropriate circumstances are for pronominalization, and that's what this question tests.
Pronouns always refer to someone or something that's obvious in context. When the context consists of only one sentence, the word denoting the person or thing (called the "antecedent") must be in the same sentence as the pronoun in order to be obvious.
But not just anywhere in that sentence. As the word antecedent (Latin for 'going before') suggests, normally the antecedent is spoken before the pronoun.
- He likes Eric's psychology class
is a perfectly good sentence, provided he doesn't refer to Eric; otherwise it's garbage. Switch them and it's fine. But this sentence has two clauses: sentence 2 is the main clause, and sentence 1 is a subordinate clause; this makes a difference for pronoun usage.
If the antecedent is in the main clause, and the pronoun is in a clause subordinate to the main clause, then a pronoun can come before its antecedent. For example, consider some simpler sentences:
- Before Marilyn became president I knew her.
- I knew Marilyn before she became president.
- Before she became president I knew Marilyn.
- *I knew her before Marilyn became president.
The first three are fine; in the first two, the antecedent (Marilyn) comes before the pronoun (her or she). In the third, the antecedent is in the main clause but the pronoun is in a subordinate clause, so even though the pronoun precedes its antecedent, it's OK. That's the same structure as the SAT sentence, and that's why the answer says there is no mistake.
But the fourth one is ungrammatical (that's what the asterisk indicates), because the pronoun is in the main clause and it precedes its antecedent, which is in a subordinate clause. So the SAT question tests whether you know the rule that distinguishes the third OK case from the fourth ungrammatical case.
Perhaps your brother would understand it better if he tried this little test - switch the two subjects in the sentence and you can see that it still makes sense:
While his psychology class was different from all the other classes he had taken, Eric was unhappy with it.
If I understand the rule your brother is imagining, it's incorrect. The rule for pronouns in the English language is that the listener/reader must use common sense to figure out what the pronouns refers to and the speaker/writer must ensure it's unambiguous. Most of the time, we do this so easily, we don't even notice.
There is no grammatical rule to mechanically tell you what noun a pronoun refers to. There is no way to use a pronoun to refer to a noun in way that is wrong grammatically.
For example:
When Mary saw the beautiful blue bicycle in the store window, she knew she had to have it.
There is no question the "it" is the bicycle, not the window. Why? Because we know that people want bicycles, not windows.
There was a beautiful blue bicycle proudly displayed in the store window. When Mary looked through the window, she knew she had to have it.
Again, "it" must be the bicycle. Not the window.
It's not the grammar that tells you this, it's the logic and common sense. Grammar is always ambiguous about what noun a pronoun refers to.
The supervisors told the workers that they would receive a bonus.
Who would receive the bonus -- the supervisors or the workers? You can't tell and grammar doesn't help you. But if the previous sentences talk about a bonus and make it clear would would receive it, then this is fine.
You can even do this:
Although Jack was quite wealthy, he didn't put any of it to good use.
Any of what? Clearly it must mean his wealth, even though there's no mentioned noun for it to refer to.
Grammar doesn't provide the rules for this, logic does. It can only be wrong if it's confusing or ambiguous.
However, SF. pointed out a problem with the example sentence. When we hear the word "Eric", we haven't yet heard the words "psychology class", so we can't tell correctly what the "it" refers to.
Because "Eric" is in the place the referent would usually go, we try to make "Eric" be the "it", which fails because Eric is something we would not expect to be compared to classes Eric has taken. This causes confusion in the listener/reader that can only be resolved at the end of the sentence.
This type of confusing construction, while grammatically and logically valid, should be avoided.
The sentence is grammatical and, when spoken, the intonation and context will help make the meaning clear. In writing, however, there is a risk that its structure will distract the reader in spite of being grammatical. After a fairly long introductory subordinate clause (While . . . taken), the reader expects an early indication of what it refers to, but is not given it until the end of the sentence.