<its> interests

[Ostap]

In response, business leaders are hedging their bets and trying to make inroads with Democrats. The challenge facing them is that the Democratic Party remains even less friendly to its interests than the GOP, despite all the latter’s shortcomings.

The Washington Post

Hello, teachers. What's "its" a reference to? "Business leaders", logically?

 

[jutfrank]

It refers to the interests of 'big business'.

 

[Ostap]

It refers to the interests of 'big business'.

But it's confusing since there's no reference for "its" in the quote, not even in the two paragraphs before. If they'd used "their" -- that would be correct and clear, right?

 

[jutfrank]

The whole piece is about big business. That's the subject of the article.

Yes, they could have used their instead but that would refer to the business leaders rather than to big business.

 

[Ostap]

The whole piece is about big business. That's the subject of the article.

Yes, but it's still speculation, however obvious that reference may seem. From grammatical perspective, it's simply incorrect, isn't it?

Yes, they could have used their instead but that would refer to the business leaders rather than to big business.

But aren't the same? "Business leaders" personify "big business".

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, but it's still speculation, however obvious that reference may seem. From a grammatical perspective, it's simply incorrect, isn't it?

But aren't they the same? "Business leaders" personify "big business".

They're not the same. "Business leaders" is countable. "Big business" is uncountable.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, but it's still speculation, however obvious that reference may seem.

I don't follow. What exactly is speculation?

From grammatical perspective, it's simply incorrect, isn't it?

Grammatical perspective? What does grammar have to do with this? This is about textual reference. The reference of the word its relates to the subject that the text is about, i.e., big business. It doesn't matter that the reference is to something mentioned much earlier in a text. That has nothing to do with grammar.

But aren't the same? "Business leaders" personify "big business".

To all extents and purposes they're practically the same, but not exactly—the meaning is different. You may identify a whole as no more than the sum its parts but that doesn't mean that a whole and the collection of its parts are quite the same thing. A crowd of twenty people is one thing, and twenty people in a crowd are twenty things.

 

[Ostap]

I don't follow. What exactly is speculation?

That "its" refers to "big business".

Grammatical perspective? What does grammar have to do with this? This is about textual reference. The reference of the word its relates to the subject that the text is about, i.e., big business. It doesn't matter that the reference is to something mentioned much earlier in a text. That has nothing to do with grammar.

A pronoun, possessive or personal, must have an antecedent -- a word earlier in the text for it to refer. That's the general rule, isn't it? Sorry but why should one even care about the subject? I imagine if the text was about, for example, God, and you came across capitalized pronouns like "He" with no clear antecedents -- that would be another matter.

 

[jutfrank]

That "its" refers to "big business".

It isn't speculation, it's interpretation.

A pronoun, possessive or personal, must have an antecedent -- a word earlier in the text for it to refer. That's the general rule, isn't it?

The rule is really that the person listening to or reading the text must be able to interpret the reference, that's all. Also, the idea of what counts as the text is hard to define in specific terms. If I say to you "Close the door", I expect you to know which door I mean. There doesn't have to be linguistic co-text for you to understand this—you know which door I mean from the situational context. You can still imagine that this situational context counts as the text but at a higher, non-linguistic level. As Jacques Derrida famously said, "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte."

Sorry but why should one even care about the subject?

Because the subject is the thing you're talking about. It's the grounding of the reference. If I point at your hat and enquire "Is it new?", the word it refers to the thing (the subject) that I'm asking about.

You seem to be trying to appeal to grammar rules here, which isn't going to work because this is about meaning (pragmatics), not grammar. We use reference words to say what we mean, and we expect others to interpret correctly what references we make. If they don't, we've failed.

 

[Ostap]

I beg to differ. Personal interaction (pointing at a hat, asking to close a door, etc) is a different thing. There's gestures, face expressions, intonation, many things. But a piece of text written for the reader has its rules and logic. I do believe grammar matters here.
Grammatically, the antecedent should be "the Democratic Party", but that wouldn't make sense logically. So the antecedent then should be the nearest one that fits the context. It's "business leaders". In this same sentence, "them" refers to it too. Even the previous paragraph uses "businesses" in plural.
Let alone the whole second part of the article starts with:

There are many factors driving Republicans and business leaders apart. Here are three.

And the OP sentence is part of the third factor. So it's all the more logical that it should be "their" (business leaders).

 

[jutfrank]

I beg to differ. Personal interaction (pointing at a hat, asking to close a door, etc) is a different thing.

Different how?

There's gestures, face expressions, intonation, many things. But a piece of text written for the reader has its rules and logic.

Which rules and logic is that?

I do believe grammar matters here.

This is not about grammar, but about meaning (reference).

Grammatically, the antecedent should be "the Democratic Party", but that wouldn't make sense logically.

How have you come to this conclusion? Which grammar rules are you thinking of? The rule that a pronoun refers to its nearest antecedent?

So the antecedent then should be the nearest one that fits the context.

It doesn't really matter a great deal about proximity (although it does play a part). The important thing is really that the interpreter has the correct subject in mind to ground the reference. In this case, the subject 'big business' is so large in the reader's mind that the reference is clear. The title of the article itself presents us very clearly with what we're talking about.

It's "business leaders". In this same sentence, "them" refers to it too. Even the previous paragraph uses "businesses" in plural.
Let alone the whole second part of the article starts with:

There are many factors driving Republicans and business leaders apart. Here are three.

And the OP sentence is part of the third factor. So it's all the more logical that it should be "their" (business leaders).

Right, I see now your line of thinking. Well, you can argue quite well that their would be a better word choice than its, but you won't succeed in arguing that its is wrong, which you seem to be trying to do. Remember—a writer knows what he means, and in this case he means its because he's thinking about big business as a single, faceless entity.

 

[Ostap]

Different how?

Which rules and logic is that?

In real life I may tell someone: "Please, give me that." No other words. And they will understand me and give me whatever that is. But if I were to write a story about that, I'd have to make it clear for the reader what "that" is: "I pointed to a glass, and asked him to give me it."

How have you come to this conclusion? Which grammar rules are you thinking of? The rule that a pronoun refers to its nearest antecedent?

For example, I like the way it's laid out here. Some passages:

Often, but not always, the pronoun and antecedent appear in the same sentence. Sometimes are in different sentences. Either way, the idea is the same: If the antecedent of the pronoun is too far away, the reader or listener may become confused.

(...)​

The rule here is simple: Be sure that your sentence has a clear, understandable pronoun-antecedent pair. If you can interpret the sentence in more than one way, rewrite it, using one or more sentences until your meaning is clear:

It doesn't really matter a great deal about proximity (although it does play a part). The important thing is really that the interpreter has the correct subject in mind to ground the reference. In this case, the subject 'big business' is so large in the reader's mind that the reference is clear. The title of the article itself presents us very clearly with what we're talking about.

In this case, if the reference is the subject, it means it's so far away from the relevant pronoun that the connection gets lost.

Remember—a writer knows what he means, and in this case he means its because he's thinking about big business as a single, faceless entity.

Why can't it just be a bad/lazy/sloppy writing? A writer may know whatever they mean, but they also should clearly convey their ideas to the reader so they didn't have to guess.

 

[SoothingDave]

You're barking up the wrong tree. There's absolutely no difficulty understanding the antecedent.

The article is about the Chamber of Commerce ("big business") and its relation to the two main parties. The sentence in question already mentions the Democrats and the Republicans. There is no other entity involved in the discussion. It can only refer to the interests of "big business."

 

[Ostap]

You're barking up the wrong tree. There's absolutely no difficulty understanding the antecedent.

The article is about the Chamber of Commerce ("big business") and its relation to the two main parties. The sentence in question already mentions the Democrats and the Republicans. There is no other entity involved in the discussion. It can only refer to the interests of "big business."

Let's take the previous sentence:

Finally, many businesses are adopting the aesthetics of the left’s cultural agenda, derided as “wokeism” by its critics. These businesses are trying to gain market share and to attract and retain customers and employees by revising their approaches to race, sex, climate change and other divisive topics. The effort is costing them support among Republicans.

Now let's rewrite it as the following:

Finally, many businesses are adopting the aesthetics of the left’s cultural agenda, derided as “wokeism” by its critics. These businesses are trying to gain market share and to attract and retain customers and employees by revising its approaches to race, sex, climate change and other divisive topics. The effort is costing it support among Republicans.

Would that be acceptable too?

 

[Tarheel]

@Ostap The original is fine. Make no changes.

 

[Ostap]

@Ostap The original is fine. Make no changes.

Is the rewritng above looks fine too?

 

[5jj]

Several native speakers. British and North American, have said that the original is OK. That should settle the matter. I am locking this thread now.