关于代词指代的问题，请各位大侠看过来。

amber0919

恩。in that侧重解释不同处或特别之处.

mymengming

以下是引用amber0919在2006-5-13 13:42:00的发言：

恩。in that侧重解释不同处或特别之处.

又学到一个，3x

shasha_jin

(C) that the defendants should know the identities (this answer can not be right for it used should. in that clause after require, the verb should be 圆形表虚拟语气。)

amywangwei

对于代词指代的问题，还是很 尤其是看了前面的NN们的解释，更加地

我同意gemj说的SC里面逻辑最大！但我和xianwharton有相同的疑问，对于gemj的解释还是不明白

就拿227一个题OG的解释来说，就觉得很矛盾

227. Judicial rules in many states require that the identi-ties of all prosecution witnesses are made known to defendants so they can attempt to rebut the testi-mony, but the Constitution explicitly requires only that the defendant have the opportunity to confront an accuser in court.
(A) that the identities of all prosecution witnesses are made known to defendants so they can attempt to rebut
(B) that the identities of all prosecution witnesses be made known to defendants so that they can attempt to rebut
(C) that the defendants should know the identities of all prosecution witnesses so they can attempt a rebuttal of
(D) the identities of all prosecution witnesses should be made known to defendants so they can attempt rebutting
(E) making known to defendants the identities of all prosecution witnesses so that they can attempt to rebut

In English the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or requirement that a certain course of action be taken. Such phrasing takes the form to wish [or] require that x be y, not that x should be y or that x is y. Choice B, therefore, is best. In place of the subjunctive, A uses the indicative are and E uses an awkward gerund, making, while C and D contain the unnecessary should. A and C also omit that after so, and D omits that after require. The phrase attempt to rebut is more idiomatic than the phrases that replace it in C and D. Choices C and E awkwardly place the plural noun witnesses between the plural pronoun they and its referent, defendants.
红色标出的解释就是说they有指代witnesses而不是defendants的嫌疑，但显然从逻辑上看they是死也不可能指代witnesses的，那是不是说明指代不能只看逻辑，也要看语法（这里貌似用的是就近指代？？？）

但是，正确答案似乎又否定了这一点，还是表明逻辑最大，因为B里的they逻辑上是指defendants，而语法上是指identities（优先指代主句主语），但显然这里OG遵从的是逻辑指代为准的原则！

最怪的如下：

12. Formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.
(A) Formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.
(B) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses.
(C) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, new small businesses are not subject to the same applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity as established big businesses.
(D) Because new small businesses are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to them in the same way as to established big businesses.
(E) New small businesses are not subject to the applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity in the same way as established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.

OG的解释：Finally, the referent of they is not immediately clear in E. 要问的是they怎么就指代不明了？逻辑上肯定指小企业，语法上作为从句主语显然应该指主句主语小企业，难道这里又成了就近原则？

到底这个代词指代是怎么回事，刚刚建立起来的逻辑最大概念好像又要被颠覆了，唯一的感觉就是：反正怎么着都是OG有理

严重期待NN站出来出来解释解释！！！

amywangwei

过了一天多了还没人理，我顶

请NN快快现身说法！！！

xie999999999

楼上谢谢你把这个帖子顶上来让我看了这么个陈年好贴！

我觉得第12题主要是有as这个连词在里面，所以they 就不“immediately clear”了。容易误认为是established big businesses

227里面的C指代上确实没问题，就是逻辑上指代defendants，但ETS还是有点嫌they离他太远了，不是致命的毛病，所以说是awkwardly ， 就是说这个句子说的比较笨。相比之下B就避免了地理位置上离所指代词远的“问题”。

有趣的是，你看下OG11第102的解释，选项A也是仅仅因为离着远OG就判它错了，虽然我认为选项A确实有修饰歧义的毛病。

指代应按逻辑指代，优先指代前句主语的原则还是成立的。

还有两个几个相关的心得，放在这儿，望批判：

1，一个句子里面有好几个代词，如they，但这些代词都指代一致

2，但类似their 和they就不一定非得一致 （remember the "their wine..., they do' question in OG11)

望大家讨论。

amywangwei

以下是引用xie999999999在2007-5-13 0:50:00的发言：

我觉得第12题主要是有as这个连词在里面，所以they 就不“immediately clear”了。容易误认为是established big businesses

为什么有as就会误认为是大企业呢？望xie999999999再给解释解释（还有as应该不是连词吧？请不要笑我问这种白痴问题，我是真不懂的说）

227我又仔细看了看OG的解释，我想如gg所说，OG确实只是说这种表达awkward，没说指代不清之类的话，而这个题把witnesses插到defendants和they之间跟B比起来，当然是不好的，是awkward的。

关于OG11-102，OG对A的解释是修饰成分位置不好，但我觉得them的纸带上是没有歧义的（整句话就一个复数名词）。我想说修饰成分位置不好主要是因为A中介词短语和-ing分词分句都用来修饰BP，都插在主语和谓语之间，又没有连接词连接，就这么孤零零的放着，感觉不是很奇怪吗？个人见解，请指教

xie999999999

楼上，第12题选项E里面，as一般做比较的时候都是用做连词的，as后面要加clause；（E因为没加所以错了）；所以they就很容易看成是指代上个clause的主词big business了；所以OG说指代不immediately clear；

关于OG11-102，可能我没说明白，我提它的og解释的意思是说，看OG还是得各项比较得到最优，选项有incorrect之分也有not effective之分；not effective并不一定表示错哦，只是相对不优罢了。而且进一步，not effictive是要看环境的，没准在这个句子里面不选，在那个句子里面就出现在正确选项中。这也正是为什么指代问题我们总结不出所谓原则的原因，你就可以理解为什么有的句子选指代前句主语，有的却指代就近的名词了，因为语言多变，要想清楚的表达还得要具体问题具体分析。也是不少人读OG的误区。

OG11－102我不是说them指代不清，我是说中间那个现在分词短语修饰歧义（可向前做定语，也可向后做状语）。

就是个人体会啦，希望能多少有些帮助吧。欢迎探讨。

xueer

晕死了，讲啥呢

笨笨可可

不好意思，老帖子顶了出来。。

其实到底按照逻辑意思指代还是有限指代主语，我总觉得有一个疑问。。

有可能5个选项中2个都可能对，但是一个更加优先，所以就选优先的。？