[讨论]OG90题

OG 90题

90.   Since 1986, when the Department of Labor began to allow investment officers’ fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began paying their investment advisers a small basic fee, with a contract promising higher fees if the managers perform well.

(A) investment officers’ fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began

(B) investment officers’ fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

(C) that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations have begun

(D) fees of investment officers to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations have begun（D）

(E) that investment officers’ fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

Choices A, B, and E incorrectly use the past tense began rather than the present perfect; furthermore, in each of these options, they has no referent, since officers is a possessive modifier of fees.

请问：

关于代词“THEY”的指代功能，五个选项中以officers' fees作逻辑主语的THEY都有指代错误；但其他两个选项的主语中心词也是fees，只不过换了一种所属结构，变成fees of officers，为什么后面的THEY就没有指代混淆的问题（我觉得THEY更应该理解为指代FEES，五个选项都应该是）？

当句中出现几个非中心词的名词时，如何准确判断代词何时指代正确、何时有指代不清的问题（中心词的名词主语我基本能判断）？

不吝赐教！

A'B 和  B of A结构是有区别的

前者A除了从属的修饰(所有格)之外没有任何地位,而且在所有格形式下真正的名词A实际上已经带上了' 从而可看作改变了其性质

而后者中A是依旧有被修饰被指代的资格,并且在判断指代或修饰上是否有歧义时

应该首先从逻辑上排除多种解释,能排除的不应该算作有歧义,就如上句的D,应该不会有人从逻辑上误认为是fees在manage吧,毕竟判断一句话是否有效表达,还是该一读者能否有效准确理解上看

而在其他选项中没有复数可以指代了,读者就会不管逻辑是否通顺的去想是不是fees在manage, 再假设没有复数名词的话,代词就成了无指代

个人意见

听起来很有道理啊，佩服！

BTW，关于“在判断指代或修饰上是否有歧义时应该首先从逻辑上排除多种解释,能排除的不应该算作有歧义”，我觉得自己刚开始接触SC时，最新鲜的就是发现OG认为的指代混乱问题，就如你所说的很多代词我会自然而然的排除其他的可能，但OG偏认为那些也是能够产生误解的。

“就如上句的D,应该不会有人从逻辑上误认为是fees在manage吧"  既然D可以这样用常识判断，其他选项也应该不会误认吧。

我想最主要的可能还是你说的第一个理由。呵呵，又胡搅蛮缠了一顿，抱歉。

是我没有表达完整

在我看来,判断句子应该是这样一个顺序:语法到逻辑再到语法

也就是说,从语法上先判断D有两个可以被代,再用逻辑看,fees不会被误认,所以不算有歧义

而其他选项,在走第一步时,就从语法上把offices的被指代可能给排除了,发现只有fees有可能

再走第二步,逻辑上看产生了错误解释,因此整句话是有问题的

不知道这样说可以吗?

OG 90题

90.   Since 1986, when the Department of Labor began to allow investment officers’ fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began paying their investment advisers a small basic fee, with a contract promising higher fees if the managers perform well.

(A) investment officers’ fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began

(B) investment officers’ fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

(C) that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations have begun

(D) fees of investment officers to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations have begun（D）

(E) that investment officers’ fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

在同一个句子里，前一个they指代officers, 后一个their指代corporation, 应该算代词指代有歧义吧？

officers'  fees ....... they  ,根据就近指代grammer 上指代fees，但逻辑上指代officers所以产生歧义

fees of officers ...... they, 就没有问题了。

我感觉代词指代的就近问题主要还是基于阅读的考虑吧，如果你是读者你在看到代词时也会对他的antecedent产生疑问的吧

（比如一个交色很多的场景武当，少林，华山什么都有，作者老是说他们怎么样，怎么样，你怎么知道作者写了什么呢，）

所以有两点就很自然了，

1，代词指代要统一，比如他们用了一招降龙十八掌， 他们的暗器还是很厉害的，逻辑上我们怎么能知道前面那个是丐帮的，后面那个是唐门的呢？

2。就近原则，如果我在前面说了一堆高手，最后说他是武林盟主，当然应该是最后一个了，否则是哪一个呢？

3。和主语一致原则

可是当2点和3点冲突怎么办呢，还是需要nn指点亚，ets很多题也是怪怪的

新提一个问题。

就是我发现未划线部分也有个their，而这个their指代corporations,这样一来就跟划线部分的they指代officers，全句指代不一致了。

good question

是不是因为前面是一个when引导的从句，而在从句中they并不是充当从句的主语（若是从句的主语是代词，此代词必须优先指代主句中的主语），而仅仅是对performance of the funds的限定修饰，即 performance of the funds (that) they manage

故不需要对主句中的主语(corporations)指代(they)一致

open to discussion!